article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

https://iai.tv/articles/nancy-cartwrigh ... _auid=2020

Physics can't deal with reality's complexity
A dappled world needs a dappled science

Nancy Cartwright | Professor of philosophy at Durham University, and Distinguished Professor at the University of California, San Diego. She is the author of, most recently, A Philosopher Looks at Science (CUP, 2022).


The huge success of physics has led many to claim she is the queen of all sciences. According to this view, everything that takes place in the world could be explained, at least in principle, by the ultimate version of physics. But in truth, physics only reigns over small, easily modelled, subsections of reality. If we look at how science actually works when dealing with real-life, complex problems, we’ll see that physics plays only a small part, alongside a motley assembly of other natural and social sciences, engineering, and other disciplines, working together. The world is beautifully dappled, and requires a dappled science to explain it, argues Nancy Cartwright.


Physics, they say, is queen of the sciences. But not like Queen Victoria, who controlled only about a quarter of the world’s land area. Rather it is supposed to be as extensive as the Biblical text represents the domain of Caesar Augustus:

And there went out from Caesar Augustus a decree that all the world should be taxed.

This image requires of course a physics far from what we have ever had or can envisage having for the foreseeable future. One that is internally consistent and coherent and whose successes at treating the world do not depend on choosing among or piecing together models and theories from different sub-disciplines in physics, but one whose models flow transparently and deductively from this one, unified, consistent theory.

If physics is to have total dominion, she must not only help out with chemical bonding, signal transmission in neurons, the flow of petrol in a carburettor, and the like. She must be able in principle to entirely take over the disciplines that usually study these things, to explain and predict the rise in teenage pregnancies, the current level of inflation, the Protestant Reformation, and the fate of migrants crossing the channel. Plus, she must be able to get me off the hook for shouting at my daughter: after all, I was just obeying the laws of physics.

The idea of physics as queen of all that happens has powerful implications about just what the world we live in must be like. It must be a world made up entirely of the basic entities of physics—fundamental particles, curved space-time and the like — entities that have only the mathematical features that physics equations describe, features that often have no names of their own other than the names of the mathematical objects that are supposed to represent them, like the “quantum state vector” and the “metric tensor” of general relativity. The world has to be that way since these are the kinds of features that physics can rule.

But this is a strange world, nothing like the one we live and move about in. It is a world devoid of all the colour, texture and emotion, all the unending variation and richness of the world we see when we open our eyes and that we have to negotiate our way through to live our daily lives.

Physics as queen is a tall order, and the world she would rule is altogether unlike the one we experience. Why then believe this physics is possible, even if we only mean ‘possible in principle’? Equally puzzling to me, why should we embrace it as appealing? I know that this image of the ultimate science as unified, harmonised, consistent, simple, mathematical, elegant is found beautiful, compelling, even gripping by many. For me it is repugnant. It denies the ultimate usefulness of all our other hard-working sources of knowledge and it turns physics itself into a giant vending machine: you put in the initial state of your universe and out at the bottom pops all that ever happens. This belittles the skill, the detailed precise knowledge, the judgment and fine-grained hard work it takes, both from physics and from the myriad of other disciplines it cooperates with, to create the magnificent phenomena that make us so impressed with physics itself, like the laser, superconductors, and highly controlled experiments like Gravity Probe B, which put four totally homogeneous gyroscopes into space to test the general theory of relativity.

We can of course create ‘small worlds’ – like the ones inside the casing of an ordinary battery or the marvellously controlled experiments that we use to test our physics theories and to create stable, repeatable phenomena. These are worlds where what can happen is so restricted that the only factors that can affect the outcomes we are looking for are ones we know how to represent in our physics theories, and we know how to calculate what happens when these factors all work together. We can even discover small worlds that occur naturally, like the planetary system. But that goes little way to establishing that the big wide world we live in is in reality a small world where the only causes that affect what happens are ones physics can represent. And it goes no way to establishing that all the outcomes that occur, from the coherent radiation emitted from a helium-neon laser to my foolishly shouting at my daughter, can in reality be recast as quantities represented in physics equations.

Instead of supposing that physics must be queen of all we survey, I recommend we construct our image of what an ultimate science might be like on the basis of what current science is like when it is most successful, from putting people on the moon to devising and carrying out a plan for the complete evacuation of the Royal Marsden Hospital (which took just 28 minutes when called into play by a gigantic fire, 2 January 2008). Physics does not act as queen in these cases. Rather, she does her bit as part of a motley assembly of scientific – and this means natural, biomedical and social science -- and engineering disciplines along with practical knowledge, all working together. This is the way science works in actual practice when it works so surprisingly well and there is little evidence indeed that practice will be any different in the future. This, I urge, should be our model for what science at its very best will look like.

If that is what science at its best can be like, what kind of world does that leave us with? It looks like we are left with a world just like the one we actually live in: a world that contains within its boundaries countless small worlds where precise order and stability obtain, but a world that is itself big, wide and gloriously differentiated, where much that happens beyond the confines of the small worlds within it happens haphazardly -- a result of the interaction of causes studied across the scientific disciplines, from fundamental particle physics to neuroscience to social psychology. This is a world in which irritability, generosity and social exclusion can affect what happens just as gravity and electromagnetic repulsion can.

But can other kinds of causes really play a role, given that we know that gravity, electromagnetic repulsion and metric tensors are already at work in our world? Yes. To assume the contrary is to miss how these physics causes play out in the real-world settings that make physics so impressive. Either these settings are small worlds which exclude all other kinds of causes, settings that are nothing like the bulk of the larger world in which they are embedded, or they are ones where other causes are genuinely allowed to exert their influence as well. Even in these large-world cases, however, we can sometimes succeed in precise prediction and control. But we do not do this by deduction from the laws of physics. Rather we do it by artful modelling: combining vast arrays of different kinds of knowledge, case-by-case, to construct complicated models and designs that can predict what happens in real, large-world settings, like the launch and flight of Artemis 1.

Once the queen is dethroned, the world we end up with is a plush, vibrant world, the one that Gerard Manley Hopkins so admired:

Glory be to God for dappled things—

For skies of couple-colour as a brindled cow;

For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;


This is a world in which we can unabashedly admire the dappled beauty around us without feeling we are deceiving ourselves about what is really real. It is also a world in which I have to take responsibility for shouting at my daughter, one where, as theologian Peter Fishes notes, we can genuinely ‘do justice to the signs of agency which are woven into our experience of the world around us’.

Nancy Cartwright
17th October 2022
Last edited by henry quirk on Sat Apr 08, 2023 3:29 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Physics can't deal with reality's complexity
A dappled world needs a dappled science



How very 'scientific'. Any peer-reviewed papers to support this claim? I'm beginning to think that so-called 'philopophers' are really just a bloody nuisance.
Impenitent
Posts: 4305
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Impenitent »

a, an, the

-Imp
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by promethean75 »

I see what u did there, Imp. Bloody brilliant.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by iambiguous »

Next up: the physics of gun control.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by iambiguous »

WHY DEISM IS WRONG
BY ÐAVID A. OSORIO

'I’ve seen Atheists go after theism and even after agnosticism, but so far, I haven’t seen deism being criticized from an Atheist point of view.

'In a way, I get it: they’re kind of fence-sitters who share most of our viewpoints on important issues and they could make great allies in defending secularism. There’s only this thing, they believe in the energy of the cosmos – an intelligent and conscious energy that gives life to all living things.

'But the thing is, they’re are wrong and here’s why:

'For all we know, in order to have either intelligence or any kind of consciousness about the world surrounding us, we need a physical body, attached to a brain enabled to decode the impulses the senses send. Without a brain, no-one could know how a flower smells, or what a steak tastes like.

'In order for you to have a creative god, that may have created the Universe and just watches everything from the distance, you need a brain. Taking into account how big and unfathomable the Universe is, we should be talking about a super-sized brain, with a super-sized physical body, producing super-sized residues, and having super-sized veins and arteries pumping blood into and oxygenating said brain. And it should age!

'There’s no evidence whatsoever of such a brain, or body, or remains of it. And the absence of evidence, when it should logically be there, is evidence of the absence.

'Deism is an irrational idea and, as any other irrational belief, it has done harm: remember the self-defeating the “Universe conspires in your favor” meme? Well, there – how many people were conned by believing this?'
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

https://lneilsmith.org/

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Age »

iambiguous wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:44 pm WHY DEISM IS WRONG
BY ÐAVID A. OSORIO

'I’ve seen Atheists go after theism and even after agnosticism, but so far, I haven’t seen deism being criticized from an Atheist point of view.

'In a way, I get it: they’re kind of fence-sitters who share most of our viewpoints on important issues and they could make great allies in defending secularism. There’s only this thing, they believe in the energy of the cosmos – an intelligent and conscious energy that gives life to all living things.

'But the thing is, they’re are wrong and here’s why:

'For all we know, in order to have either intelligence or any kind of consciousness about the world surrounding us, we need a physical body, attached to a brain enabled to decode the impulses the senses send. Without a brain, no-one could know how a flower smells, or what a steak tastes like.

'In order for you to have a creative god, that may have created the Universe and just watches everything from the distance, you need a brain. Taking into account how big and unfathomable the Universe is,
What can be clearly seen here, back in the days when this was being written, is just how strongly held onto was the view and belief that the Universe was unfathomable.

It was these types of views that were being BELIEVED to be true, which was what was holding these people back, in those 'olden' days, from progressing and moving forward with Correct knowledge and in understanding. They were literally being conned by 'thier" OWN 'selves' through and by such distortedly False and Wrong BELIEFS.
iambiguous wrote: Mon Oct 24, 2022 7:44 pm we should be talking about a super-sized brain, with a super-sized physical body, producing super-sized residues, and having super-sized veins and arteries pumping blood into and oxygenating said brain. And it should age!

'There’s no evidence whatsoever of such a brain, or body, or remains of it. And the absence of evidence, when it should logically be there, is evidence of the absence.

'Deism is an irrational idea and, as any other irrational belief, it has done harm: remember the self-defeating the “Universe conspires in your favor” meme? Well, there – how many people were conned by believing this?'
And how many people WERE being CONNED by BELIEFS, back in the 'olden' days, can be CLEARLY SEEN from their OWN writings.

They very rarely noticed within "themselves" of the criticisms that they would see in, and make of, "others", as evidenced and proved once again, just here.
Walker
Posts: 14246
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

Amid an energy crisis, Germany turns to the world's dirtiest fossil fuel
https://www.npr.org/2022/09/27/11244484 ... rgy-crisis

Commentary:
Fire up the nuclear plants, too, but this time don’t hire Homer Simpson, like they did in Chernobyl.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Age »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am https://lneilsmith.org/

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.org

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy,
Obviously False.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 amis to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician—or political philosophy—is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians—even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership—hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician—or political philosophy—can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash—for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything—without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude—toward your ownership and use of weapons—conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?
Why the "other" does not trust you might be for the very reason that you are just NOT trustworthy. And, this in no way automatically means that the "other" is not trustworthy, as well
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?
That all depends.

And, what does one, supposedly, 'need' to defend their life from, EXACTLY? Besides, of course, mostly just 'you', human beings?
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend—the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights—do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil—like "Constitutionalist"—when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?
Talk about providing a great example of TWISTING and DISTORTING things. This one sounds like they are at breaking point in trying to find absolutely ANY thing more in its attempt in 'trying to' "justify" what it can NOT, that is; it's BELIEFS here.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician—or political philosophy—is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun—but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others?
How, EXACTLY, does this one envision would would be 'suffering' here?
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 amDidn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school—or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway—Prussian, maybe—and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?
LOL

Who was the one who made up what so-called " america" was supposed to be ALL about?
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.
The real "weirdos" are the ones who 'try to' "justify" that they have some sort of right to own a weapon/s, which was created to kill human beings.

And the real dangerous "weirdos" are the ones with those weapons, which they still 'try to' "justify" having and owning.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him?
Done it already, and already answered this question.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women?
Nothing.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 amIf "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create?
If there were NOT so many guns on the streets, then those streets probably would NOT be so mean and as seedy.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?
That would all depend upon how trustworthy that one really is, which would depend upon their previous claims and/or promises
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons?
Where does this so-called 'right' come from EXACTLY?
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?
Nothing.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am Makes voting simpler, doesn't it?
If you say and believe so.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Oct 31, 2022 2:29 am You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?
Who REALLY cares?
Will Bouwman
Posts: 533
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2022 2:17 pm

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Will Bouwman »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Oct 23, 2022 10:07 pmPhysics can't deal with reality's complexity
A dappled world needs a dappled science
Physics by itself is a dappled science, because there isn't always much to be gained by dealing with reality's complexity. There is a reason for a variable like heat. You don't have to know about the kinetic energy of every atom in the kettle to know if your water is boiling, for example.
If one question distinguishes a science, it is 'What happens if I do X?' If you can find patterns in the results, you're doing science. If those patterns enable you to make useful predictions, you're do more science; it doesn't really matter what you are looking at.
Here's an article for ya:
https://philosophynow.org/issues/133/Ph ... _Millennia
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by henry quirk »

short & sweet...

https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/cov ... -bombshell

COVID death total: this is MY BOMBSHELL REPORT on the fraud

Jon Rappoport
Oct 31

Follow the big bouncing pink beach ball. Just a few bounces. That’s all.

Let’s start with the World Health Organization report on the total number of global COVID deaths, as of late October this year:

Globally, as of 5:43pm CEST, 28 October 2022, there have been 626,337,158 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,566,610 deaths, reported to WHO.

OK? Let’s round that number off to 6.6 million deaths.

Now let’s go to a report on worldwide NON-COVID pneumonia deaths, from Our World in Data:

2.5 million people died from pneumonia in 2019.

The first number, the total of COVID deaths, from the World Health Organization, takes in a period of two years plus about 10 months. To be generous, I’ll cut that down to two years and eight months. Two and two-thirds years.

So — if you take the pneumonia death number for ONE year, and multiply it by two and two-thirds years, what do you get?

I get 6.66 million. 6.66 million NON-COVID pneumonia deaths.

Almost exactly the total number of official COVID deaths.

Boom.

https://covid19.who.int/

https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

henry quirk wrote: Wed Nov 02, 2022 2:34 am short & sweet...

https://jonrappoport.substack.com/p/cov ... -bombshell

COVID death total: this is MY BOMBSHELL REPORT on the fraud

Jon Rappoport
Oct 31

Follow the big bouncing pink beach ball. Just a few bounces. That’s all.

Let’s start with the World Health Organization report on the total number of global COVID deaths, as of late October this year:

Globally, as of 5:43pm CEST, 28 October 2022, there have been 626,337,158 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,566,610 deaths, reported to WHO.

OK? Let’s round that number off to 6.6 million deaths.

Now let’s go to a report on worldwide NON-COVID pneumonia deaths, from Our World in Data:

2.5 million people died from pneumonia in 2019.

The first number, the total of COVID deaths, from the World Health Organization, takes in a period of two years plus about 10 months. To be generous, I’ll cut that down to two years and eight months. Two and two-thirds years.

So — if you take the pneumonia death number for ONE year, and multiply it by two and two-thirds years, what do you get?

I get 6.66 million. 6.66 million NON-COVID pneumonia deaths.

Almost exactly the total number of official COVID deaths.

Boom.

https://covid19.who.int/

https://ourworldindata.org/pneumonia
Are you saying it's the devil's work? :shock:
Walker
Posts: 14246
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

The Left Were the Mad Scientists, We Were Their Lab Rats
- Victor Davis Hanson

https://amgreatness.com/2022/11/02/the- ... -lab-rats/

(a recapitulation)
Walker
Posts: 14246
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: article of the day (post 'em when you find 'em)

Post by Walker »

First-time EV owner shares ‘cautionary tale’ after it took 15 hours to drive 178 miles
https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ ... a86395a8ad

Commentary: After printing so much cash there’s a market for folks with more money than brains. If because of this one would think that such folks are ripe to fall for any distraction that comes down the pike, one would be correct. After all, 81 million voted for Brandon, many of whom cannot now bear to be reminded of their idiocy, and if the authorities are to be believed, news that we all now live in Bizarro World is just propaganda. This is implied with the less than convincing reasoning of, prove that looming disaster isn’t just all talk. Prove that Brandon is not Bizarro World’s Manchurian Candidate.

"We're gonna be shutting these (coal) plants down all across America, and having wind and solar."
- Biden’s ideological answer to increasing energy needs.

https://www.usasupreme.com/video-biden- ... r-the-usa/
Post Reply