If there is nothing to understand, how can you understand it?
Go to the library and look in the physiology section, not philosophy.
If there is nothing to understand, how can you understand it?
Go to the library and look in the physiology section, not philosophy.
Shopping hour wrote:
If there is nothing to understand, how can you understand it?
Go to the library and look in the physiology section, not philosophy.
It's like a cartoon -- it's easy for a child to understand, but in the real world, it doesn't mean anything.
My going to the library will not solve your collective failure to provide substance.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
If there is nothing to understand, how can you understand it?
Go to the library and look in the physiology section, not philosophy.
It's like a cartoon -- it's easy for a child to understand, but in the real world, it doesn't mean anything.
My going to the library will not solve your collective failure to provide substance.
The library will show you our substance. Maybe even as a cartoon.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It's like a cartoon -- it's easy for a child to understand, but in the real world, it doesn't mean anything.
My going to the library will not solve your collective failure to provide substance.
The library will show you our substance. Maybe even as a cartoon.
This looks like yet another baseless statement without merit.
I'm afraid it will be a wild goose change, and just like you and Armstronglivs, I will not find any reference in any library that:
- substantiates Armstrongliv's expressed notions about El G's time, scarcely breathing, and power of EPO
- shows which "contradictory evidence" I have ignored
This is because my model of EPO's role in elite performance is consistent with all of the evidence.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
The library will show you our substance. Maybe even as a cartoon.
This looks like yet another baseless statement without merit.
I'm afraid it will be a wild goose change, and just like you and Armstronglivs, I will not find any reference in any library that:
- substantiates Armstrongliv's expressed notions about El G's time, scarcely breathing, and power of EPO
- shows which "contradictory evidence" I have ignored
This is because my model of EPO's role in elite performance is consistent with all of the evidence.
We must have a better library. You won't find it in the kids section. Although "See Hicham Dope and Run! " would be a pretty uh, dope title.
Not in the kids section, nor the sports section, nor the physiology section of any library.
This is why you both fail.
You haven't gone yet, have you?
You want to know if I started the wild goose chase, that attempts to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist?
I would be more motivated if either you or Armstronglivs could provide any reference that would support your personal notions, in order to narrow any global search. As neither of you can be bothered, it is also not my top priority to take over your burden.
Knowledge is not a burden. You putting in the effort to acquire it might be though.
Shopping hour wrote:
Knowledge is not a burden. You putting in the effort to acquire it might be though.
The burden here is for the one who makes statements to support their statements.
Otherwise they are just armchair opinions.
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
Knowledge is not a burden. You putting in the effort to acquire it might be though.
The burden here is for the one who makes statements to support their statements.
Otherwise they are just armchair opinions.
That's just your opinion from an armchair.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
The burden here is for the one who makes statements to support their statements.
Otherwise they are just armchair opinions.
That's just your opinion from an armchair.
It's more than just my opinion. It's accepted and required practice in academia.
Some reasons for providing support:
- it shows that you have done your research
- it makes your words more credible
- it can point others, who would like to learn more, in the right direction
From Wikipedia: "(The scientific method) involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation."
This is why I ask for data and controlled observations, and generally apply rigorous skepticism, in order to avoid becoming a victim when "cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation".
Further reading:
https://www.pcc.edu/library/research/reasons-for-citing-sources/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_methodhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armchair_theorizingYou have started researching. This is step one. Now apply it to the topic. The world is your LaZBoy.
Shopping hour wrote:
You have started researching. This is step one. Now apply it to the topic. The world is your LaZBoy.
I already apply these methods and these standards to every scientific topic.
This is how I discriminate credible sources, which I give more weight, from non-credible sources, which I give more skepticism.
This healthy skepticism is what distinguishes me from gullible lemmings.
On the topic of "breathing" and "powerful effect of EPO", the above criteria suggests that Armstronglivs, despite self claims that he has read multiple sources -- another claim still in doubt -- has not really done anything resembling traditional "research" on the topic, is not a credible source of information, and is unable to help point others in the right direction so that they could do their own further research (something you both request me to do at a libary).
On the allegation that "contrary evidence" exists, that I have ignored, you are still at step zero -- it is a hypothesis that has not been instantiated or observed or tested.
You've already said you're definitely unsure of everything. More research, less windy remarks on here. It will do you better.
rekrunner wrote:
You want to know if I started the wild goose chase, that attempts to resolve a problem that doesn't really exist?
I would be more motivated if either you or Armstronglivs could provide any reference that would support your personal notions, in order to narrow any global search. As neither of you can be bothered, it is also not my top priority to take over your burden.
You have spent 25 pages repeating your demand for a reference on a single issue. If you were dissatisfied with what was being claimed, the solution was quite simple 25 pages ago - as I said previously - which was to produce material that proves what you think I have said is wrong (even though you never actually grasped the point accurately). But you can't do that. You have never at any time either sought out or produced any information on that issue. It is beyond your capacity to do that. In part that is because you would be unable to find data that supports what you think. But it also shows without any shadow of doubt that you will only read and accept that which confirms your prior formulated views. Your mind is like a prisoner locked in a bunker. I would pity you except that I realise that this incarceration is your choice. No sane person - which is how I would describe myself - would choose to join you there.
Shopping hour wrote:
You've already said you're definitely unsure of everything. More research, less windy remarks on here. It will do you better.
That doesn't sound like it's a quote from me.
Maybe a direct citation in context would lend it credibility.
I would be quite curious to see you folks in real life.
Go on, have fun :)
rekrunner wrote:
Shopping hour wrote:
You've already said you're definitely unsure of everything. More research, less windy remarks on here. It will do you better.
That doesn't sound like it's a quote from me.
Maybe a direct citation in context would lend it credibility.
Maybe, but I don't care.
Shopping hour wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
That doesn't sound like it's a quote from me.
Maybe a direct citation in context would lend it credibility.
Maybe, but I don't care.
You cared enough to invent another lie. Makes me wonder what you care about, that you keep posting fabrications.