Sara and Jack Gorman, Deniers Denying Deniers |515|

#3
Just listened to this interview. Excellent job of being respectful. These people were so dogmatic without evidence and couldn't handle your evidence. 97% What? They also bordered on, if not endorsed, censorship, ethically or legally. They were not even aware of it on YouTube. Lincoln yes, Kennedy no? What? I give them credit for being polite but ignorant, misdirecting the real issues, and "not scientific" at all. Thanks for the "book review".
 
Last edited:
#5
This was a great moment where the flame flickered on for the guest: "You can't say, 'masks don't work' on YouTube?"

Unfortunately I think it flickered back out right after that.

Kudos to Alex for drawing this pair out of their bubble so they could have their worldview tweaked a little and for maintaining a firm but civil debate with them. At least Jack seemed authentic, slightly open, and not totally ideologically possessed. A nice guy, but I am afraid he doesn't have what it takes to break out of his ideological chains. He is too nice, too well established in his community, not contrarian enough, and too safe to take the risk of completely rewiring his worldview. He is fully domesticated and wouldn't make it if he were released back into the wild world of predation.

Masks: Pre-COVID hospitals did beta test using masks as a method of goading people into flu vaccine compliance, so it isn't totally new.

Scientific truth, or any truth can really only be evaluated by its repeatable usefulness.

You can't lie in rocket science or you have an RUD, but in medical science or climate science with small effect sizes and massive amounts of grant money floating around it is much easier to lie with statistics. Medical science for things like joint replacement is great because as with rocket science the usefulness of the "scientific truth" is immediately obvious and if there's any lying going on you can't hide it. Also in medical science, people are manipulated into illogical positions and policies by appealing to their empathy and appeals to authority rather than the data.

"The math those guys [climate scientists] use is so complicated that you really do have to rely on the experts." Once again... small effect sizes teased out with statistics only the "experts" can understand, the usefulness of the data cannot be judged due to the long time scales and all sorts of confounding factors, and massive amounts of grant money floating around... this is a recipe for Creme brulee-rruption.

The guest is religious so surely he can understand people have a need to see a priest go behind a veil and retrieve divine information that is too lofty for mere mortals to comprehend and that Jack is doing the exact same thing appealing to the "experts". The lab coats are the new priest smocks and the expensive equipment or the complex math is just the new veil and these people want way more than a tithe from you.
 
#6
The lab coats are the new priest smocks and the expensive equipment or the complex math is just the new veil and these people want way more than a tithe from you.
Dunno man. Sometimes it really is difficult to understand and can only really be interpreted by those suitably qualified.

I'm not implying that Alex isn't smart or anything btw. And I get where you are coming from. But I suppose what is worse.....the possibly 'corrupt' science that can only be interpreted by the scientists, or the legions of idiots who believe anything any source says, if said with enough authority and no matter how preposterous it sounds?

I felt both sides held well though on the interview though.
 
#7
Alex, Bravo!!!
This episode is Top Tier!

I wish you could have seen the confusion on my face when you explained up front how many of your listeners dislike the confrontational episodes.
I had no idea.

This is what I love about Skeptiko.

And Bravo to Sara and Jack for standing their ground and obviously doing their best to apply an open mind to each argument.

I hope we get a "Round 2 - Sara and Jack return for debate" on:
1 - Has mask effectiveness been scientifically demonstrated
2 - How dependable (or refutable) is evidence for climate change being majority-manmade
 
#8
Alex, Bravo!!!
This episode is Top Tier!

I wish you could have seen the confusion on my face when you explained up front how many of your listeners dislike the confrontational episodes.
I had no idea.

This is what I love about Skeptiko.

And Bravo to Sara and Jack for standing their ground and obviously doing their best to apply an open mind to each argument.

I hope we get a "Round 2 - Sara and Jack return for debate" on:
1 - Has mask effectiveness been scientifically demonstrated
2 - How dependable (or refutable) is evidence for climate change being majority-manmade
Confrontation is fine. I think the moments can get awkward because many or most of the guests aren’t as comfortable with it as Alex is.
 
#9
I feel like it was a missed opportunity to distinguish between legitimate scientific discussion and harmful misinformation. And when they brought up a "healthy discussion of the evidence", there was a clear disconnect between what a couple of scientists thought that looked like, and what Alex pictured. It would have been interesting to explore that difference.
 
#10
To write a new book about such important scientific issues and not have a basic understanding of the science behind them is very disingenuous to say the least. They either have short-term memory loss problems or are simply lying to support their ideological dogmas.

They just want to dictate to people their ideologies with no scientific evidence because that's what most people listen to in our culture. The only problem they're going to have is with people who actually use their mind, do the research and come to a logical conclusion like Alex has done.

When they are confronted by someone like Alex, they do not know what to say because the truth is shining a light on their lies so they can't bring up false evidence or unscientific claims. Not once did they refute anything Alex said with any type of science other than what they feel is the truth.

When I see scientists like this dictating to me and my children's future, I now realize who the Nazis are. They look like the father and daughter next door teaming up to write Nazi propaganda dressed up looking like typical middle class Americans. Who would have thought?
 
#11
Dunno man. Sometimes it really is difficult to understand and can only really be interpreted by those suitably qualified.
Yes, I get that, but part of my point was that the proof of the truth is in the use and so when the usefulness is very small because the effect size is very small and has to be teased out with statistics then it is much easier to pull the wool over. With the COVID vaccine absolute risk is reduced from about .001 to .0005 (or something like that). Or with climate science we are trying to take the average temperature of the entire earth and get it right within fractions of a degree. With all the averaging and corrections that have to be made there is ample opportunity to lie with statistics.

I am an engineer and I use software that does some crazy calculations that I don't want to dig into and so I don't question it and my customers don't question me because I'm the expert. But if it didn't work, we would know by now because the equipment we make would fail.

So I guess what I'm saying is that we need to push back against the "science denial" B.S. by making a distinction between science that is directly tied to an easily assessable use and science that is either of no use or has ambiguous degree of use because it has extremely small effect sizes that are only perceptible with statistics.
 
#12
Yes, I get that, but part of my point was that the proof of the truth is in the use and so when the usefulness is very small because the effect size is very small and has to be teased out with statistics then it is much easier to pull the wool over. With the COVID vaccine absolute risk is reduced from about .001 to .0005 (or something like that). Or with climate science we are trying to take the average temperature of the entire earth and get it right within fractions of a degree. With all the averaging and corrections that have to be made there is ample opportunity to lie with statistics.

I am an engineer and I use software that does some crazy calculations that I don't want to dig into and so I don't question it and my customers don't question me because I'm the expert. But if it didn't work, we would know by now because the equipment we make would fail.

So I guess what I'm saying is that we need to push back against the "science denial" B.S. by making a distinction between science that is directly tied to an easily assessable use and science that is either of no use or has ambiguous degree of use because it has extremely small effect sizes that are only perceptible with statistics.
Yes. The problem is that too much of what is called "undeniable science" is, beyond the misnomer, not truly tested. As you say, if, in engineering, the equipment or software doesn't work or the bridge collapses, then we have proof that that "science" was wrong. With the scientists that want to be de facto law makers (like Fauci) there is not only no clear proof of anything, but there is no accountability when things don't work out in the long run.

Actually, it's worse than that. The Fauci's and social scientists working for the government and interest groups are often demonstrably wrong, yet those pointing out the obvious errors are shouted down. For example, there is no reason for anyone to take these new fangled vaccines because everyone (including the CDC) admits that vaccinated people still contract the virus and still pass it to others. The entire social responsibility argument breaks down right there and it becomes a matter of personal choice. The vaccines are not permanent. They wear off. Even the manufacturers are now saying that everyone needs a third "booster" and maybe more. Not everyone is at risk from covid. That is established "science" that even the CDC admits. Healthy children and young adults (to say age 55) are at less risk than they are from the flu. No one disputes that. Yet, those demographics are still being ordered to mask up and get vaccinated.

This is not science. It is mania, but so called well credentialed scientists are succumbing to it. I have found that many - maybe the majority - of common understandings are also manias; just some weird consensus myth that developed by design or accident, yet endures. Anyone not willing to recognize the immense heap of myths that we live by is not a scientist, full stop.

Rather they are politicians by another name and manipulating your perception of reality is their game. That said, the conspiracy theorists are just the flip side of that phenomenon. They are also politicians manipulating your reality; just they are the misfits of that genre.
 
#13
Yes. The problem is that too much of what is called "undeniable science" is, beyond the misnomer, not truly tested. As you say, if, in engineering, the equipment or software doesn't work or the bridge collapses, then we have proof that that "science" was wrong. With the scientists that want to be de facto law makers (like Fauci) there is not only no clear proof of anything, but there is no accountability when things don't work out in the long run.
Yep... Fauci obviously needs to be investigated.

What we have is people who are experts at state craft finding ways to create ambiguity and in that ambiguity they drive a wedge fractionating people into groups. Gender, vaccines, elections, etc... we are in the last phases of an engineered destruction of the U.S. and Western society and as with any demolition you have to break things up.

there is no reason for anyone to take these new fangled vaccines because everyone (including the CDC) admits that vaccinated people still contract the virus and still pass it to others.
There might be a bit of real cheese in the moustrap... The vaccines probably do help a little for a little while, but clearly they are leaky and lack durability and cannot provide herd immunity which is the basis for vaccine mandates and passports, so it all falls apart right there.

The entire social responsibility argument breaks down right there and it becomes a matter of personal choice.
Agreed.

The vaccines are not permanent. They wear off. Even the manufacturers are now saying that everyone needs a third "booster" and maybe more.
Yes, natural immunity is only good for 180 days to a year, and natural immunity has to be better than the vaccine. I haven't been vaxxed and I think I've likely had COVID at least twice and maybe 3 times although I didn't get tested to be sure.

I have to tout again my prediction from 4/16/2020:
With a typical Corona Virus infection a person produces anti-bodies that offer some immunity for about a year. But immunity wears off after that. So Bill Gates picked a great virus for his plan... he can profit from 7 billion vaccines... per year... or maybe multiple times per year... every year.
And compliance with vaccination requirements will not merely be a one-time thing... you'll have to come in regularly to stay up to date on your Corona shots and get your ID chip updated.
 
#14
Yep... Fauci obviously needs to be investigated.
Only for the benefit of confirming exactly who are pulling his, and Gates strings.

I think it's a perfect example to listen to Alex Jones masterfully curse and berate everyone except the banks. Like a concert ballerino dancing a wander though a Garden of Eden set, visiting every flower in the garden except for the tree that bears the forbidden fruit. But while he never intentionally engages the tree, he passes it so closely and with such suave that one must assume it's a target being circled. As if it's actually the ONLY flower he's truly attending.
 
Last edited:
#15
Only for the benefit of confirming exactly who are pulling his, and Gates strings.

I think it's a perfect example to listen to Alex Jones masterfully curse and berate everyone except the banks. Like a concert ballerino dancing a wander though a Garden of Eden set, visiting every flower in the garden except for the tree that bears the forbidden fruit. But while he never intentionally engages the tree, he passes it so closely and with such suave that one must assume it's a target being circled. As if it's actually the ONLY flower he's truly attending.
Poetic but he’s talked plenty about the big banks and banking system.
 
#16
I found Sara and Jack pompous and more than a little condescending.

To paraphrase "We are smart people and we know what's right. We wouldn't want the 'little people' to read something and then and go off and do anything we don't agree with....even though we don't have any supporting data on hand at the moment"

They didn't know that YouTube will kick you off for criticizing masks, never heard of Climategate, no data handy on climate change or masks. What a bubble they live. Their research seems to have only taken them as far as the BBC, CNN and the Guardian.

When it comes to his belief on the age of the Earth perhaps the good Dr Jack should investigate "cognitive dissonance", or has he not got that data in front of him either?

These are not scientists they are scientism pundits with qualifications in some unrelated subject.

Well done on keeping your cool Alex.
 
#17
I found Sara and Jack pompous and more than a little condescending.

To paraphrase "We are smart people and we know what's right. We wouldn't want the 'little people' to read something and then and go off and do anything we don't agree with....even though we don't have any supporting data on hand at the moment"

They didn't know that YouTube will kick you off for criticizing masks, never heard of Climategate, no data handy on climate change or masks. What a bubble they live. Their research seems to have only taken them as far as the BBC, CNN and the Guardian.

When it comes to his belief on the age of the Earth perhaps the good Dr Jack should investigate "cognitive dissonance", or has he not got that data in front of him either?

These are not scientists they are scientism pundits with qualifications in some unrelated subject.

Well done on keeping your cool Alex.
There was something this women said , to the effect 'we wouldn't want people to be mislead, that'd be a terrible thing' , in respect to climate change.
What that sounds like is the Sheppard leading the lambs. If I were to focus on that statement, ' we know better let us decide whats best'. Extrapolation goes long out from there.

The data issue specifically, ' I don't have the data in front of me' (twice repeated?)...or I can't venture a opinion because im not looking at the spread sheat. Clearly a easy out...or I am not interested in discussing the issue . ..or what? Why not talk about it?
..your listeners are are too stupid to get it?..not sure, maybe - 'Alex your gonna fry me up up in a hot pan for breakfast and that's not gonna happen' .. not sure.

They clearly believe that they do not have beliefs. There way is not a belief system. So the question is, in this reality does this exist, mental/psychological systems which do not involve beliefs?

If climate change is a hoax how do we explain the photos of ice shield receding...
 
#18
There was something this women said , to the effect 'we wouldn't want people to be mislead, that'd be a terrible thing' , in respect to climate change.
What that sounds like is the Sheppard leading the lambs.
I think it’s something different that you’ve noticed. And your response helped me
nail it down..

You know how now a days, it’s just common knowledge that our phones are being monitored (text and voice) by AI?? For instance, I refrain from even joking with my friends using any words that could trigger some invisible FBI flag to go off. So we all self sensor.

I believe the guests are part of an invisible club in which all member refrain from ever being recorded (voice or text) going against the dogma.
 
#19
The exchange over climate change was very interesting because it showed two very different approaches towards figuring out what's true and what's false. Both sides agreed that healthy, rigorous scientific debate was good. Sara and Jack Gorman described it as getting together a bunch of scientists who worked in the field, including those who disagreed with some of the conclusions, and watching them hash it out. Alex described it as a debate between himself and Sara and Jack, none of who work in the field or have a detailed understanding of the science, debunking each other's sources.

I think we can agree that oft-times those two different processes come to two very different conclusions. On the topics discussed on this forum, anyways. What I would love to see from Alex and his guests, is a rigorous discussion about how to choose between those two very different processes.

It gets back to the debate with the Flat Earther who showed up here. How do you know that when Alex's approach is is applied to Climate Change, that he is right, but when you apply it to Flat Eartherism, you are wrong? When does vigorous debate among experts in the field lead to the correct conclusions about a globular earth, but mistaken conclusions about Climate Change?
 
#20
I think it’s something different that you’ve noticed. And your response helped me
nail it down..

You know how now a days, it’s just common knowledge that our phones are being monitored (text and voice) by AI?? For instance, I refrain from even joking with my friends using any words that could trigger some invisible FBI flag to go off. So we all self sensor.

I believe the guests are part of an invisible club in which all member refrain from ever being recorded (voice or text) going against the dogma.
There's a lot of truth to what you say. Everything is on the record these days. No one wants a statement to come back at them in some social media shaming storm; not when one's livelihood depends on "woke" fascists' approval.

That is how far this country has degenerated. People like you worry about the CIA messing with citizens. I laugh at that. It is your fellow citizens, enabled by social media and related tech, that have become the freedom crushing force of fascism - snobby do-gooders and their quest for control and power via witch hunts. You have already met the enemy. As I said, it's very banal, yet deadly. No massively intricate secret government agency conspiracy necessary - no more than the Salem witch hunts needed a CIA ( = not at all).
 
Top