There is a new (or new-ish) concept called transcranial magnetic stimulation, which involves large targeted magnetic impulses into the part of the brain dealing with emotional control.
This is real, and is being explored by respectable places like the Mayo Clinic. It involves large magnetic inducers, similar to MRI devices. It isn’t a scam or a hoax.
It isn’t proven yet; it’s still in the study and experimental stage. But at least it’s being investigated by real scientists, under formal controls.
Strapping toy magnets to your forehead with a velcro strap is horseshit hoaxery, doesn’t work, has no responsible documentation, and is completely different.
In the first place, please answer the question. Would you prefer that liars are called on their lies, or would you prefer to remain ignorant?
In the second place, that IS the subject at hand.
In the third place, the shit about monopole magnets is a case in point. It is a deliberate lie, TD has read the lie someplace and been fooled by it. TD has blindly repeated the lie on this forum, not realising it to be untrue.
Would you prefer to remain in ignorance of the lie?
No, TD has a grasp of physics that you lack. It is impossible for one pole of a magnet to be good for you and one pole be bad for you because of Gauss’s law. Do you understand this?
There is no lie here. No casting aspersions on whether practitioners believe in monopoles or not. Just a statement of fact based upon universal laws of physics.
Good find. Instead of “good” and “bad” alignment woo, they’re talking about general magnetic stimulation of certain specific areas of the brain. Can’t wait for the follow-up.
Huh. I’m not twisting words or making a strawman. The original post:
To me Tapioca Dextrin is being quite insightful and clever. One of the impacts of Gauss’s law is that it is impossible to distinguish between the magnetic field at the north and south poles of a magnet. This comes directly out of the integral form of the law, i.e. the net magnetic flux over any closed surface is zero. The fact that Tapioca Dextrin understood this makes him insightful. What was clever is (s)he referenced the differential version of the law (Del dot B = 0), which is only true if monopoles do not exist. Insightful and clever. (S)he saw a fundamental flaw in the magnetic therapy practitioner’s theories and pointed it out in a clever way.
How is this a strawman? How do you read the post and what did it mean to you? Why do you think TD was lying or spreading a lie?
So, you want to destroy Hitler’s reputation by claiming that he has sex with sheep. You think it is ethical do do this.
But what if it goes wrong? Suppose that he calls you on the lie, and exposes you as a fraud. He could win public sympathy as the victim of a vile and hateful lie, while at the same time damaging the reputation of his opponents.
That’s the risk you take when you lie. I’ve seen it happen many times.
Well, not just him, I’d have to destroy the reputations of anyone who might have taken his place in the leadership of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party during those early days. If I could get back to 1919, I might engage in character-assassinations of the leadership of its predecessor group, the German Worker’s Party.
So did you hear? Adolf Hitler, Anton Drexler and Dietrich Eckhart get together on weekends to fuck sheep!
Please. The entire premise of fascism is distrust of reason. I have no chance of arguing most potential supporters away from it by appealing to their sense of reason because their support isn’t based on reason in the first place, but if I use some of the same propagandist techniques that the Party employed, including “vile and hateful” lies of their own, I might be able to undermine their support. I’ll gladly remain capable of intelligent rational arguments and use them if I get the sense of a receptive audience - maybe I’d start with the rational argument and try to read the room - if I seem to be losing them, that’s when I use the sheep-fucking line, get my big laugh, then drop the microphone and leave the stage, knowing I’ve destroyed some potential Nazi-reverence. If someone tells me they wouldn’t do this, I think I’d valid reason to question their morality and think less of them as a result.
The stakes aren’t as high with astrology, of course, but I suppose one could see it as a gateway drug to worse forms of woo, so a bit of discouraging rhetoric won’t do any harm. I’m unimpressed by your concern about a potential backlash.
Isn’t one of the conditions of YOUR hypothetical that the rhetorical anti-astrology argument is successful? Under the conditions of THE HYPOTHETICAL YOU PROPOSED (and which I adapted to change the circumstances but not the premises), the user of the strawman “will instantly win the argument every time [they] use it”, so cleverness doesn’t enter into it - it’s assumed by the conditions of the question.
Well, if I told you about all the times I successfully lied, I’d undo that success. That you’re trying to make it personal is telling, I find.
Your variety of “skeptic” goes around kicking puppies all day. You justify it to yourself that it will end world hunger, but it keeps failing. Despite a long record of failure, you keep trying. You take pride in your skill and ability to kick puppies. You think it makes you clever. Failure doesn’t matter to you. You think that merely trying is a noble effort. And in the meantime you do a lot of damage to other skeptics. Since you are a puppy kicker, people will assume that all skeptics are puppy kickers.
So the final score is, you’ve hurt a lot of innocent puppies, damaged the reputation of skeptics, and failed to do a thing about world hunger.
No answer, Peter? It doesn’t really matter, I was pretty curious about where you were coming from, but I am getting the impression that you are a true believer and it was hitting a little too close to home.
This outcome is completely different from your original hypothetical, which you described as:
This is completely at odds with the three references to failure in the later statement. Success is assumed as a condition of the hypothetical - you’re now turning around and declaring that the strawman that could not fail, would inevitably fail.
Wasn’t that part of the question…?