because his last name is Loop and he named his son Mobius.
because his last name is Loop and he named his son Mobius.
Truth to be told, someone called "Mobius Loop" would have made me suspicous too. Far to close to "George Kaplan", "Eve Kendall" and the other witnesses in "Dark Side of the Moon"...
Reminds me of the couple in the UK who, in the 80s, named their son Valentine, their surname was Card.
Who does that to a child?
Who does that to a child?
The usual came out – mercury, aluminium, general poisons which either lead to an agonising slow death over 70-80 years...
So I did a little bit of research on this scientist (I forget her name) and discovered she was a geologist. So my opening punch was to comment that I did not take medical advice from geologists, thank you very much.
Yes, I find the same thought emanating from me concerning the engineers who come a spew out BS concerning any of the popular CT's.So I did a little bit of research on this scientist (I forget her name) and discovered she was a geologist. So my opening punch was to comment that I did not take medical advice from geologists, thank you very much.
One behalf of geologists the world over I apologise for this nutter in our ranks.
From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.Yes, I find the same thought emanating from me concerning the engineers who come a spew out BS concerning any of the popular CT's.So I did a little bit of research on this scientist (I forget her name) and discovered she was a geologist. So my opening punch was to comment that I did not take medical advice from geologists, thank you very much.d
One behalf of geologists the world over I apologise for this nutter in our ranks.
From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.
From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.I think you're right, and as an engineer (electrical) I find this extremely distressing. We're not scientists but our entire profession rests on scientific discoveries. I can't understand how any engineer would reject the scientific method.
I have been guilty of circular reasoning but I can't get away from it. <snipped for brevity>I don't see any circular reasoning on your part.
From my experience, there seems to be a disproportionate amount of engineers that buy into woo of one sort or another. I'm sure it's a very very tiny minority, but a vocal one.
They may have graduated as an engineer, but many I believe do not work in and engineering job requiring systems analysis to solve problems and/or optimize that system.
I guess it is bordering on circular reasoning then.Okay, if you've committed a fallacy, it would be the genetic fallacy (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic) I'd think. :)
Automatically dismissing them as dishonest or poor engineers based on nothing more than their reported opinion without discussing it with them is sort of judging them.
They don't agree with the reported facts therefore they are wrong. Of course this is if they exist in the first place as in the 2400 engineers and architects who signed Gages petition.
A bit like we do agree with the evidence as presented(set aside our own evaluation of the evidence) therefore we are shills, sheep or blind according to the CT's.
When debating/arguing I have to be very careful to avoid anything that can't be proven otherwise I could be accused of believing rather than knowing.
That's why I stick to the physics. I have no idea whether, for example the big bad US government, Freemasons, Zionists etc. orchestrated the 9/11 attacks. I doubt it very much but I have nothing to argue with. I can't really disprove it for certain. With the physics I can show numbers and demonstrate the reality of the events.