Are scientists always trustworthy? Should we believe everything they say?

[leopold]

well gee happeh why don't you have snakelords money?

answer?
you can not prove the symptoms you described are caused by masturbation.
it's as simple as that.

 

[Facial]

There is no way anyone can prove this. It is not physically possible because what we see is subjective. I claim I am trained by expereince to see Happeh Theory symptoms. It is my position it is common sense that someone that never heard of Happeh Theory does not have my expertise. I think it makes perfect sense that you cannot see what I do. Just as a farmer can pick out healthy animals from unhealthy animals. He is a farmer. That is his job. His speciality. You and I cannot pick out health from unhealthy animals because we are not farmers. I personally would not call a farmer crazy or delusional for saying he can tell a sick cow from a healthy cow.

You delusional fool. It's not your theory, either.

What about those links? I'm talking about the first three that shows your valiant attempt at becoming scientific. They mention absolutely nothing about masturbation. This is why we cannot accept it as evidence for your claims.

For a better scope of your mental limitations, see my exercise on "how to make conclusions" on the 2nd page.

 

[Facial]

well gee happeh why don't you have snakelords money?

answer?
you can not prove the symptoms you described are caused by masturbation.
it's as simple as that.

There are other things Happeh doesn't answer. For example, his supposed willingness to give us his address, talking to himself on other forums, etc. LOL.

 

[Huwy]

Ironic, for happeh to be saying someone should go in the old age home when he has lied about his own age, saying he was "old"

 

[Communist Hamster]

draws the line

Oh, the irony.

 

[leopold]

i said that? hmmm, it must have been awhile.

 

[river-wind]

Listen Mr Wonderful. You just said it yourself.

"But the great strength of science lies in its requirement for repeatability of experiment and its requirement for peer review"


You come to my house and bring 10 people with you. Bring 100 or 500. I will take each and every one of them and show thru repeatable and verifiable science that I am correct.

And this sums up why you have been running afoul of posters across the web, Happeh. You are mis-defining "requirement for repeatability of experiment". You take it to mean that if you can repeat your own interpretations over and over then your experiment has been repeated.

In scientific terms, repeatability specifically requires that the experiment be repeatable by researchers OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE. This helps prevent fraud and limits the effect of bias on the conclusions. The repeated calls for evidence you have encountered are because you are not providing a framework with which other people can run your experiments to see if they find similar evidence.
As such, they are asking for the next best thing – the evidence you used to connect the “symptoms” you have shown to the cause. then they could at least see if your conclusion appear logical given your evidence.

“
Originally Posted by Ophiolite
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that if they do masturbate this is responsible for their unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features.
”

I think I agree with this. My method is to find people that agree that they see what I do. If they do not, there is no point in explanation. I never found anyone here that agreed they see something odd in the pictures. I would be wasting my time to provide an explanation.

And this is not science. This is selective cult building. If you are indeed developing a scientific theory, then it must be both repeatable [by others that you do not get to choose], and your theory must be falsifiable. By selecting to "find people that agree" already with your conclusions, you are violating the scientific method.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

The explanation requires that you toss out your western medical view of the body and accept an alternative view of the body than can reasonably be described as resembling something from a movie or a cartoon. Most people cannot do that.

Tossing out my western medical view of the body is fine. I have seen evidence enough to know that there are gaping holes in western science. The holes, however, are much smaller than the areas that are accurately understood, so dumping it completely because it is not omniscient is foolhardy.
The idea that any biological system is similar to a cartoon is likewise silly because it employs a circular design. Cartoons of people are simplified renderings of biological systems. By their very nature, they are SIMPLIFIED, and thus do not contain all the detail involved in true biological life.

I CAN throw out my western understanding of the body, but you have not given me any valid reason to do so. Cartoons work in analogies, not in scientific definitions.

 

[Happeh]

And this sums up why you have been running afoul of posters across the web, Happeh. You are mis-defining "requirement for repeatability of experiment". You take it to mean that if you can repeat your own interpretations over and over then your experiment has been repeated.

In scientific terms, repeatability specifically requires that the experiment be repeatable by researchers OTHER THAN THE ORIGINAL ONE.

Please. Be calm and rational. A farmer can tell a sick animal from a healthy animal. This is from years of experience. You cannot go to the farm and pick out healthy from sick animals. It is not because it is impossible to pick healthy and sick animals. It is because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE!

A scientist can repeat an experiment that requires mixing chemicals. A scientist cannot repeat an experiment that requires skill or experience unless the scientist has that skill or experience.

This helps prevent fraud and limits the effect of bias on the conclusions. The repeated calls for evidence you have encountered are because you are not providing a framework with which other people can run your experiments to see if they find similar evidence.
As such, they are asking for the next best thing – the evidence you used to connect the “symptoms” you have shown to the cause. then they could at least see if your conclusion appear logical given your evidence.

I tried to do this. I was played for a fool and given the run around by James R for 2 weeks. I plainly posted multiple times that corroborating ideas can be found in both Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine.

James R ignored those post and continued to insist that I had posted nothing. For a new person like yourself just walking into the thread, you do not know that James has been playing games with me. That he lies about what I have and have not provided.

And this is not science. This is selective cult building.

Why? It is my position that you are using psychological poisoning techniques to take something good and make it seem bad.

If you are indeed developing a scientific theory, then it must be both repeatable [by others that you do not get to choose], and your theory must be falsifiable. By selecting to "find people that agree" already with your conclusions, you are violating the scientific method.

I don't mean to be rude, but violating the scientific method means nothing to me if it leads to false or incorrect results. I know what I know and I am 100% right. If science says I am wrong, science needs to get it's act together and catch up with me.

The idea that any biological system is similar to a cartoon is likewise silly because it employs a circular design. Cartoons of people are simplified renderings of biological systems. By their very nature, they are SIMPLIFIED, and thus do not contain all the detail involved in true biological life.

That is a silly statement. You do not even know what the details of what I am going to say are. I use the word cartoon and you take it and run off to some conclusion that is not accurate.

I CAN throw out my western understanding of the body, but you have not given me any valid reason to do so. Cartoons work in analogies, not in scientific definitions.

So does that mean you know it all, you know I am wrong, without even asking me about the cartoon? You are not even going to ask me about an explanation or anything because you have reached a decision from the paucity of information provided?

I think you make hasty judgements without being thorough. Thank you for participating and not being a rude person.

 

[leopold]

James R ignored those post and continued to insist that I had posted nothing. For a new person like yourself just walking into the thread, you do not know that James has been playing games with me. That he lies about what I have and have not provided.

you said yourself that there IS NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support your claims

when we asked you why there was no evidence to support your claims you said that you are the originator of this theory

when you say that you can look at a picture of someone and tell that they masturbate you are either lying or you are deluded
its as simple as that.

i suggest to river wind that they read the posts by huwy

all of us have posted dissenting evidence against happeh
but huwy has done a remarkable job of exposing happeh as the fraud he is.

 

[Dinosaur]

Happeh: I have had my arrogant moments, mostly when I was a teenager. The following intrigues me.

I know what I know and I am 100% right. If science says I am wrong, science needs to get it's act together and catch up with me.

 

[Facial]

paucity

Hmmm... you might actually be 29 years old! Now how wrong is that?

 

[Ophiolite]

Please. Be calm and rational..

**** off.

A farmer can tell a sick animal from a healthy animal. This is from years of experience. You cannot go to the farm and pick out healthy from sick animals. It is not because it is impossible to pick healthy and sick animals. It is because YOU DO NOT HAVE THE EXPERIENCE!

A farmer can explain to me in a couple of minutes how he picks out sick animals. If he has had basic training in vetrinary matters he can outline the mechanism that produces these visible symptoms.
You have failed utterly to do either.

I reject Happeh theory on the following grounds:
a) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause blindness in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
b) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause crippling in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
c) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause death in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
d) Annotated photographs have been submitted that purport to demonstrate unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features associated with excessive masturbation:
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that these unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features are associated in any way with masturbation.
No evidence has been presented to counter the self evident view that these are natural poses in specific circumstances, or contrived poses for the benefit of the camera.
No evidence has been presented that these individuals actually masturbate.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that if they do masturbate this is responsible for their unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features.
No evidence has been presented to substantiate the mechanism by which masturbation is meant to effect these changes.
No evidence has been presented for the Happeh fibres that are said to inhabit our bodies.

 

[Facial]

Happeh's claiming that he can "tell" these symptoms apart from contrived poses, from his "experience."

Happeh's ideas are completely fabricated.

 

[Facial]

I don't mean to be rude, but violating the scientific method means nothing to me if it leads to false or incorrect results.

Is this the reason why you cannot tell right from wrong? Perhaps not so much as the social reasons, yes?

 

[Ophiolite]

No it is not. It is based on a lifetime of experience and insight into the functions and construction of the human body.

Please detail what courses or qualifications you have in the following disciplines.
Anatomy
Physiology
Pharmacology
Osteopathy

I stated there is no evidence that masturbation causes blindness in all or a substantial number of instances. Your response:

http://www.happeh.com/HappehTheory/MasturbationScientificStudies/ViagraUsage.htm

1. I am unaware that Viagra is generally taken as an aid to masturbation. This link is irrelevant. It is not evidence.
2. Even if Viagra use was evidence of masturbation (which it is not) your link provides evidence for my position. "Viagra and two other popular impotence drugs may cause sudden blindness in one eye in rare cases, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned." Rare cases, Happeh, not all or a substantial number.


I challenged you on your failure to present evidence linking masturbation to 'crippling'. You cite your ability, based on experience, to identify crippled individuals.
1) The photographs you select to demonstrate this are of people who are not crippled. No one, other than yourself, believes these examples to show crippled people.
2) You then acknowledge the only thing you can offer to substantiate your claim are two papers declaring the testicles and brain are effected by sexual activity. [Cretin.] I do not know of anyone, with any sort of education, who would deny that sex will effect the testicles and the brain. The first is rather self evident, the second is well established by much research. Neither of the research papers in anyway supports your claim that masturbation will cause crippling.

All I can say is, "What caused the heart attack"? Happeh Theory tells me excessive sex or masturbation played a part.

Yes. That is all you can say. But you cannot produce any evidence to support it.

There is no point in continuing. I state you have no evidence. You respond with
a) references that do not constitute evidence.
b) repeat that you have the experience and we should believe you

Well, guess what Happeh: I don't believe you. I think you are a misguided fool. I think you may well have serious mental problems and would urge you to seek professional help. I may continue to respond to your anti-semitic posts in other threads, but I have wasted enough time on your pathetic delusion here.

 

[Communist Hamster]

Happeh, you say that masturbation causes these things, but can you explain it biologically?

 

[Happeh]

**** off.

Ahhh. The voice of reason.

A farmer can explain to me in a couple of minutes how he picks out sick animals.

Sure he can. Will you accept it? Will you be able to learn it? Can you see it? Why are you so certain it will take you a few minutes if it took the farmer 15 years? Arrogant?

If he has had basic training in vetrinary matters he can outline the mechanism that produces these visible symptoms.
You have failed utterly to do either.

Is this really true? I answered a bunch of your questions days ago. Then you pulled your usual disappearing act. Maybe you missed the explanation?

I reject Happeh theory on the following grounds:
a) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause blindness in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
b) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause crippling in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
c) No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that masturbation will cause death in all, or even a substantial number of instances.
d) Annotated photographs have been submitted that purport to demonstrate unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features associated with excessive masturbation:
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that these unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features are associated in any way with masturbation.
No evidence has been presented to counter the self evident view that these are natural poses in specific circumstances, or contrived poses for the benefit of the camera.
No evidence has been presented that these individuals actually masturbate.
No evidence has been presented to demonstrate that if they do masturbate this is responsible for their unusual postures and asymmetric bodily features.
No evidence has been presented to substantiate the mechanism by which masturbation is meant to effect these changes.
No evidence has been presented for the Happeh fibres that are said to inhabit our bodies.

Did you bother looking a few pages back to see the answer to your questions?

 

[leopold]

Did you bother looking a few pages back to see the answer to your questions?

i have been following along since day one happeh
and you have yet to provide any verifiable links between the symptoms you describe and masturbation

 

[Happeh]

Please detail what courses or qualifications you have in the following disciplines.
Anatomy
Physiology
Pharmacology
Osteopathy

Why?

I stated there is no evidence that masturbation causes blindness in all or a substantial number of instances. Your response:
1. I am unaware that Viagra is generally taken as an aid to masturbation. This link is irrelevant. It is not evidence.

I am done arguing with people. I will not fight with you about this. The drug Viagra is taken so a person can perform sex. Taking the drug is linked to blindness. A reasonable person would admit the possiblity that the blindness is linked to the sex. An unreasonable person will respond as you have.

2. Even if Viagra use was evidence of masturbation (which it is not) your link provides evidence for my position. "Viagra and two other popular impotence drugs may cause sudden blindness in one eye in rare cases, the US Food and Drug Administration has warned." Rare cases, Happeh, not all or a substantial number.

What do you consider blindness? The FDA is talking total blindness in one eye. Does it seem reasonable an eye goes from 100% good to 100% blind? It doesn't to me. My position is that the blindness I speak of is a percentage blindness. The eye might be 50% blind only. These people will not show up in this study we are discussing. The people can still be called blind. If you want to call them partially sighted or some other term indicating impaired vision, I am ok with that.

I challenged you on your failure to present evidence linking masturbation to 'crippling'. You cite your ability, based on experience, to identify crippled individuals.
1) The photographs you select to demonstrate this are of people who are not crippled. No one, other than yourself, believes these examples to show crippled people.

That might be true. I think I could find people that would agree with my analysis. They would be too polite to say negative things about people the way I do.

2) You then acknowledge the only thing you can offer to substantiate your claim are two papers declaring the testicles and brain are effected by sexual activity. [Cretin.] I do not know of anyone, with any sort of education, who would deny that sex will effect the testicles and the brain. The first is rather self evident, the second is well established by much research. Neither of the research papers in anyway supports your claim that masturbation will cause crippling.
Yes. That is all you can say. But you cannot produce any evidence to support it.

I admitted this. I cannot give you your scientific studies because no one has done them. What I call evidence, you do not agree is evidence. I do not know how to resolve this. You refuse to think or to cooperate and learn. None of it means I am wrong. It means no one has done the studies, and we disagree on what constitues evidence and you refuse to learn.

There is no point in continuing. I state you have no evidence. You respond with
a) references that do not constitute evidence.
b) repeat that you have the experience and we should believe you

I am glad you came out and said that. I had not realized how heavily the negativity here had weighed on me. I have not been myself for weeks. I find myself thinking like a machine or a robot all the time. I have had to throw away a weeks work on my next book because it is contaminated with the droid think that is the norm here. Instead of writing it for real people with open minds, people who can think on their own to fill in the gaps, I found myself filling it with details so that some nit picking scientist would not start to cry.

I have wasted enough time on your pathetic delusion here.

Keep telling yourself that. One of these days you will find out I am right. You will see me on TV or see one of my books at your bookstore, or an article about me in the news.

You can all be certain, because I swear it to you, that when I am famous, I will be certain to describe in detail the frauds posing as scientists at sciforums.

 

[Happeh]

Happeh, you say that masturbation causes these things, but can you explain it biologically?

I think so. I think I said somewhere that Chinese medicine says that the kidneys are associated with sexual activity. Or maybe that was in my book. I forget.

If you guys would stop beating me and ask questions, I could just give you the answers. Specific questions that you need an answer for. Not a "give me evidence" question. Not some piece of paper or person you can inspect and judge to see if it or they meet your standards. Something you have thought about and that you are confused about.

Maybe I should show you how to ask a question? A real question. One that makes sense in the context of this discussion and goes straight to the heart of many of the questions being asked.

What is sex?

If you say a penis and a vagina, I think you are being shallow. Which is why we have so much trouble discussing my theory. Shallow thinking.