First of all I'll say that I'm well aware of these ongoing interchanges because I have received several emails of concern from some readers in the last couple of days. I have followed and examined to a 'significant' extent the posts [past and present] that may have led to these current posts, so I may be informed well enough for comment.
Incidentally, it's the first time I see this handle "Speedy", as far as I remember.
Regarding these current events, I haven't posted anything to this day because I'm still very busy. Despite this, I will have to begin with a quick post anyway.
Please bear with me and excuse any error in it; I may review the entire post sometime in the future.
Immediately, from the post above,
Honestly, I haven't completely followed this entire string of posts that has lead to this dispute,
My first comment on this is that in order to provide substantial thoughts about these matters -I think-, perhaps it'd be a good idea for you and for anyone interested to follow 'the entire string of posts' completely prior to making firm comments on the issue. A first thought.
but I will say that no one will know anyone's qualifications or credentials because this is an anonymous forum program.
That may be an inaccurate argument; a false statement, even. If "people don't know others' qualifications", I submit that the quality of an 'anonymous forum program' for this forum may have nothing to do with it.
Who's to say that anyone knows anything,
That's a question Philosophers may like, I believe.
they could simply be typing from a book or medical journal...
Sure. But then again, "they" could know what they're talking about too. In my opinion, it may be of greater importance not what you type or where you type it from but instead what you know and understand fully, regardless of the source and the method. The 'trick' here may lie in "what you know".
It may be "easy" to type from journals [and not THAT easy either, according to my experience detecting students trying to do so]. However, to make any sense off third party information while typing it demands more than 'simple' typing skills from the pretender, if he or she will succeed with the deception. This simple 'axiom' allows any prepared mind to detect most impostors very quickly. This is one of the very basic skills demanded from the humblest of Professors [in my opinion of course]: The early detection of possible deceivers.
According to a simple and short definition of the word "Impostor" [one that I happen to like, by the way], it seems evident quite rapidly that many people with that quality surround us through the internet; in fact, there may be "a few" of those coming right here to 'cz forums'. They may THINK they go by undetected, but that couldn't be farther from the truth: Sharp minds often know better.
Here's the simple definition I mentioned above:
Impostor - a person who practices deception under an assumed character, identity, or name. ( from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impostor
nice, isn't it?
In addition, as you said, most uneducated readers will have no clue and buy into what is said simply because they don't know better.
That is often true, I believe, and in my opinion there is a great danger implied in that simple truth.
True, people should be responsible and careful about info they provide, but I don't believe that anyone would intentionally provide bad info.
Evidence seems to suggest [very strongly, I must say] that this belief you express regarding "people's intentions" may hold little truth, if any at all.
We are all learning here on curezone,
Some more than others, I'd add, and in the case of many, all sorts of information, both useful and useless.
I myself have provided info that was either wrong or off track,
If you provided information that resulted 'wrong or off track' without knowing any better about it yourself, you may have acted irresponsibly particularly for exposing other people "that don't know any better" to it, IF you didn't care to state firmly beyond any doubt where your limitations lie in that regard.
It should seem clear that since "we're all learning here", any of us could belong to that group of people you mentioned which simply "don't know any better". That also includes both Shroom and you, of course. If neither Shroom nor you know any better, you should know no better than any of the rest of us. That would put you on a level of "knowledge" at least similar to 'the average', and on a similar 'position' for subjective opinions [It should not put you in any position or level of 'authority' to state around "knowledge" firmly and irresponsibly]. In consequence, if you understand all this but despite that you still continue to give others information of unweighed merit as if it were facts, then you'd be acting deceptively. That'd make you a deceiver, a teller of lies.
If that provision later leads to injury or Death, then you could be held responsible for criminal behavior; in other words, you could be held legally "accountable" for such foolishness. Lawyers happen to love this stuff.
but at the time it was what I believed was correct.
This belief may not hold up very good in court, I think, at least perhaps not on your behalf.
'Belief'. There goes that word again. From what I understand, anyone and everyone is or should be entitled to an opinion, of course, and to express their beliefs. The problems come, as it seems evident, when those opinions are treated as truths without any 'weight' to back them up. This issue has been commented many times already, I believe. Wars have been fought and are still occurring because of it. There's a very "popular" one happening right now, in fact, as a firm and disgusting evidence of this.
Based on a couple of your posts that I've browsed quickly, I've been forced to learn that you appear to be looking for answers regarding health through "science". In this light, I suggest humbly that you study the possible criminal consequences that dog each and every attempt to fake "knowledge", to diagnose and/or to suggest treatments without the proper background. I say this not because you're doing it yourself necessarily, but because you're coming forward for Shroom, who seems to be pushing precisely this very thing.
One thing is to "play" with a scope at home after work or school, and another very different to pursue the Sciences with discipline and particularly with Respect.
I taught in college for quite a while [I hardly ever mention this stuff - don't really like to]. I held and upheld a respectable position, and I did so with respect. Respect for my peers, respect for my teachers, respect for my students, and above all [respecting myself in the field first of all], Respect for the Science I was trying to convey. The evidence for this is latent.
I suppose consequently that such a teaching position should set me a little above the average folks that come here "not knowing any better". I also suppose that the above qualifies me, if I'm not lying about the whole thing, to provide informed and educated opinions on several subjects of knowledge for anyone to examine. Well, please listen to this educated opinion:
As a teacher, it seems obvious for me that neither Shroom nor you [by association] show any respect or discipline towards the acquisition of knowledge. I have a fair idea where you're headed with your future both as students and as diseased individuals [one of my old teachers liked to use the term 'poor apples' in this regard]. That proposition may be a Truth. I dare to suggest this based on the enormous amount of relevant information that exists in the field of Pedagogy, of which I also happen to hold a degree. One just needs to examine many of Shroom's weak posts for evidence of it.
To play with Microscopy for Human Health and to advice 'the lesser informed' about it without discipline and seemingly with obvious academic shortcomings is not just disrespectful; it's irresponsible and most importantly potentially very dangerous, particularly if the whole thing is used for the study, "diagnoses" and/or treatment of Human Disease.
This is not a role-play Forum. We're dealing with Real people and REAL problems here. It's no secret that I like Shroom's enthusiasm and drive when trying to understand these things -I've said so before-, but the lack of respect he continues to display for science is inexcusable, in my opinion, which is why I'm forced to answer back now.
Neither of you should imagine -it seems-, the amount of work, logic, techniques and deep-thinking that went into process to accomplish these humble Micrographic results in question and from which these posts result. All that process is a process backed entirely by proven knowledge, and on many occasions by 'a sense' of academy. To disrespect this in any way could be an insult to intelligence itself and to the efforts of the rhrplus.com team whomever they are, I think.
Even worse, it'd be a blemish on Men from the past, BETTER Men, men that painstakingly and unconditionally willed to dedicate their entire lives to the relentless purpose of understanding these processes more for all of us to apply and to enjoy for generations to come. On many occasions those men payed 'the ultimate price' for their work through horrible infested deaths, in fact infested by the very subjects of their study.
They were better Men, better prepared, entirely humble, unassuming and very respectful of those that came before them and of others at work in the most humble of practices. They knew what they were up against, and they knew too well that this is no laughing matter or a subject that just anyone with a scope can delve into. With utter disregard for all of this, both of you seem to feel -for some reason- apt enough academically speaking to push forward into the field with a hint of expertise [Once more, I'm putting you into the equation as a 'loose variable' by mere association].
I have respected Shroom even when I firmly believe he's quite likely full of technical nonsense, from reading some of his posts. I could have tried to put his "work" on biology where it belongs at any time; what I did instead was to warn him politely of his approaches several times while trying to assist him with objectivity. This can be seen from posts.
Shroom has been trying to display a knowledge that I can see clearly he does not seem to possess or to handle at the most superficial level, unless he's playing the fool for some "obscure" parasitic-like purpose. Maybe a bunch of poor souls on these forums can be impressed by it, maybe you are too, but some of us can not and will not be fooled. Surely Truth can not be tainted either.
It seems apparent from Shroom's posts that he's stating unwarranted opinions increasingly 'out in the open' in matters of Health, without making it perfectly clear that they are just opinions from someone without 'authority', neither granted nor acquired, and obviously as it appears neither displayed. To the casual reader, as it has happened already, those opinions sound as advice from an authority. That is called deception here and anywhere else, no matter how anyone puts it. These comments bear no emotion or intention to "hurt". They are what I call an "educated opinion" that I'm willing to test anytime.
I have mentioned all of this to Shroom before on many occasions. He will not listen, according to his posts that continue to propose "incredible" and changing answers for many conditions of illness, despite the fact that his own illness seems to continue forward unchallenged, according to his own admissions [Incidentally, some of those 'answers' have appeared to me as typed straight off some journal but with bad grammar. Sometimes they seem like thoughts off a teenager's minds or from someone 'in trouble'. This should be verifiable by examining virtually any post he's made. No emotion here, just data].
The danger implied in all of this is that just as you seem to be listening to those claims, "where there's one, there may be more". Even now, a possible "answer" pointing to 'E. coli' (!?) as a culprit was suggested by him to a real person with a real problem, such suggestion made of course without any basis that I for one as a student of these affairs could examine critically, objectively and unforgivingly for the benefit of the sufferer. I doubt that any Real expert could or would, either. I'd like to listen to an expert's opinion on this.
In my mind, either he has some undisclosed knowledge [that is not only NOT commonly available and opposed to many Truths apparently established], or there's something wrong with 'his picture'. In fact, using this very internet as a tool, a very quick examination of "the possibility to detect E. coli from a micrograph alone" almost immediately reveals or seems to reveal a vast amount of evidence suggesting exactly the opposite. Anyone can repeat this verification; I did it and so can you, I think.
To sum it all up and in addition to the coments I offer above on the dangers of expressing thoughts as Truths, once more I'm repeating the same thing for your benefit: this may be a foolish thing to do. If you're a grown adult, you may wish to listen.
Furthermore, information that has been scientifically proven to be valid and correct can sometimes be disproved later
The term "scientifically proven" seems fashionable. Many don't seem to understand what it means.
As far as I understand the term, "Scientific Proof" demands the firm establishment of constants or variables understood entirely, not 'random' variables or variables with an undetermined behavior. However, if such variables need to be stated and included anyway, I think that their nature should be clearly defined initially.
When information is Scientifically proven Valid and Correct, it is or it should be found without fault repeatedly, in a way that it could not or it should not be disproved in any way possible 'as long as all conditions relevant to the event remain equal'. That's my humble opinion.
When information "scientifically proven" fails -according to the prior proposition-, it couldn't or shouldn't have been valid nor correct to begin with. It should have remained a fallacy right from the start. Often it is found that what fails in such cases is not Truth nor Science, if that Science is based entirely on undisputable facts. If the science has 'faults' in it [a poor foundation of knowledge], then it's bound to falter sooner or later anyway.
In my opinion, the failures in such cases often occur after a poor application of the solid principles necessary for the accumulation of knowledge, something bound to lead eventually to methods applied poorly, to the formulation and "validation" of incomplete or faulty arguments, and eventually to delusions and lies. I call this stuff 'Bad Science'. There is great evidence that seems to lend a strong support to it.
I suggest that you examine and study the meanings of "Scientific Truths" a bit closer before choosing to make [loose] assertions in that regard. I've heard that it's rarely wise for a student to go around stating "facts" without a proper foundation. Usually, I've observed, that's how 'Dogma' starts to form and to grow. Arrogance often follows.
as we learn and grow in our research and come to new conclusions.
That comment sounds pretentious as it's presented, despite my continuous attempts to rearrange it and to understand it differently.
pretentious - characterized by assumption of dignity or importance. Also, "Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified". (from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious
, same source as above )
That comment above seems to do just this. It seems to suggest dignity or importance, particularly when it seems to be unjustified and unworthy of merit, at least to the eyes of a teacher.
Based on experience, I have learned that the more a student wishes/tends to "associate" him or herself prematurely with potential future 'peers', the more he is lacking in some regard, and therefore the more he or she seek and crave 'recognition'. Often this is one of their primary drives; sometimes the only one. Experience shows me that this characteristic may lead to mediocrity.
Many students enter the pursuit of professions under the false assumption that everyone is equally capable of such pursuit. People are different; at least to me they seem to be in many aspects. There are many talents and abilities. Speaking of the pursuit of the Sciences, for example, not everyone is capable [for a number of reasons] to handle large amounts of data intelligently and in a logically unforgiving manner. Not everyone is capable of working the sciences, I think, as just not everyone can be an artist.
Shroom is a good person and an asset to curezone so I want to stick up for him and ask you to please leave it alone.
I'd like to understand what this "please leave it alone" request suggests. If it implies sacrificing Truth for "peace" in the Forums, I think that may be an unwise request. For some, maybe even a deadly one, if this issue is left unchallenged and unexamined carefully, at least from my point of view.
Personally, I'm forced to 'stick up' for Truth and for Truth alone. In one form or the other, there is a serious 'Life or Death' quest for Health going on in this M.D. Forum, one too serious for me to just "leave alone". This quest has nothing to do with taking sides, in my opinion and in the opinion of others, as I can see. Maybe it has to do greatly with the simple and impersonal fact that given the proper time and conditions, each and every afflicted person that visits these forums should die sooner or later -likely as a result of those afflictions-, unless the Truth behind their problems is sought, found and later used smartly to resolve the situation.
The "stick up for" comment of yours could suggest a personal reaction to these posts. As a student, you should learn now better than too late afterwards, that this is about Science. It has little or nothing to do with Friendship or with the subjective quality of "goodness" in people. Often, I've observed, a lot of people seem to display the best of intentions; yet despite this many of them bring along great harm and suffering. Many students with "good intentions" end up being hideous professional creatures in the future. I hold any teacher accountable for results like these, if they became aware of this and still did nothing to challenge or to oppose -if not to stop- such tendencies before they materialized.
Because of this I propose that the quality of being a "good person" alone does not validate anyone as worthy of any merit when it comes to achieving results useful for people, not here or anywhere else. That may hold true particularly for Science. If you stick up for him because he's a good person, that may validate your reasons for helping him, but it seems like a weak argument to oppose Rabbitears' thoughts and comments, in my opinion.
Microscopy is a Science of Logic and of Truth. Often it involves Biology. It has little or nothing to do with emotions or personal feelings. It may have little to do with 'Beliefs' on an objective level. The strongest evidence in this regard is found everyday under the lens. Microbes are or seem to behave like 'unemotional' entities.
They will do whatever they do regardless of 'Beliefs'. They will not change their behavior [or at least do not seem to change it] despite the wishes and beliefs of the observer. This argument is verifiable and its Truth repeatable. I continue to verify it all the time.
At least where it pertains to Microscopy, if Truth is not sought after with an unemotional and rigidly objective approach -History appears to show-, the outcome is often disastrous, many times deadly. As a reference I invite readers to study the History of Microscopy.
According to the limited interchanges I've had with Shroom, he may seem to mean well, true. According to Rabbitears' posts, she seems to mean well too. However, there seems to be a clear distinction between the two of them in one specific aspect, as far as I can observe: In her admitted ignorance, and based on a comparison of both Shroom's and Rabbitears' posts, I submit that she may have a far stronger Scientific foundation as a potential student of the sciences than Shroom does as a self-appointed one. If this submission is false, it should be verified very easily of course by a critical consideration of the contents in question. I'll leave that as a bit of "homework" for those interested.
[Let's play for a while. Let's suppose for a moment that the values of "scientific intentions and/or tendencies" were weighed and sides had to be chosen based on such balance. In that case and at this particular point in time, I think I'd find myself forced to "stick up" for Rabbitears instead of for Shroom, due to all the reasons already mentioned and based on nothing personal or emotional. Of course I don't think this is necessary, except perhaps as a game of children and maybe an exercise for fun and relief.]
Please don't feel offended or provoked by any of this. There is no emotion involved here, not from my side of it. This is just Science, at least for me it is. Critical, demanding, unforgiving Science, nothing more. No pretensions, no speculations, no unproven or unprovable beliefs, just Science.
You are also an asset to the curezone community and I want to stick up for you and say, lets shake hands and put this unpleasantness behind us.
I wish to "stick up" for Shroom too; also for you, for everyone out there, and ESPECIALLY for Truth. This "unpleasantness" may be an immediate necessity, in my opinion.
Years of experience with Lyme Disease and a wealth of knowledge, most of which gained from curezone, as for anything else, who would believe me!!!
You may wish to consider those "credentials" more, I think. For example and by the same rule, 'Years of experience on cheese' may not be a sufficient condition to qualify anyone adequately as knowledgeable on the milk product, just as mice may never qualify in the matter. That's a simple example by comparison, not sarcasm, that may help to illustrate how weak that argument is for a "credential" of any merit at any level.
I have little reason to doubt your "wealth of knowledge", but I must weigh critically its worth too, as I'm forced to do with most things. There is a great deal of misinformation passed around as 'knowledge', and that's precisely part of the reason for these necessary posts.
If you possess a "wealth of knowledge" but still find yourself 'forced' to ask Shroom for advice on knowledge -as I learned briefly and recently in one of your posts-, then it's possible that that "wealth of knowledge" you mention has little or nothing to do with any matter you ask about. One asks what one does not know, I think. If you know, you possess that knowledge so you don't need to ask it. If you need to ask it, you lack it. If you lack it, either you have little of it or none of it. In any of both cases, you're "poor" in it, which means you're not rich in it. If you're not rich in it, you don't have it as [a source of] wealth. If you lack such wealth, where is is this "wealth" then to begin with? Somewhere else for sure. Those seem to be simple and valid arguments, and a small exercise in 'linear' logic. I invite you to examine it.
Without a critical, objective and disciplined logic of Thought, it may be difficult to filter out Truth from lies where it pertains to Science, as I understand it. If you wish to know the worth of your "knowledge", it should be examined critically and openly, which is simply what Science demands in each case.
Because the definition of the word 'credentials' implies a basis for confidence [for trust], and also because it hints at a possible 'evidence of authority', I must suggest that those credentials of yours in fact may be "credentials" in quotation marks [questionable due to the possibly subtle implication], holding little if no merit, at least as far as I'm concerned and in objective terms. For this reason, they may NOT be 'credentials' by definition, but instead a simple description of your affliction and perhaps a desire to search for answers to explain your knowledge acquired from curezone. Even such a 'simple' detail as the improper use of the word 'credentials' could lead to deception, and that is also a possible 'symptom' of disrespect.