This weeks Quantum is here
This week we ask what is truth, Covid and masks, what really happened in Wuhan?; Omicron; the Technoi Greek Alphabet; Antibiotics; Iran; Indonesia; China; Hong Kong and Disney; Olaf Scholz; Eric Zemmour; Gulpilil; Aboriginal Identity; Children choose new Church of England bishop; Rick Fulton; Stephen Sondheim; Diversity Officers in the NHS; Maria Yudina and the Saviour of the World
A few links to articles above and video clips below….
Support Quantum here – https://patron.podbean.com/theweeflea
You quote a Spectator article that starts:” ‘Most of the trouble in life comes from misunderstanding’ as Willy Loman said in Oscar Wilde’s masterpiece ‘An Inspector Calls.’. “This sentence contains these errors: Oscar Wilde did not write An Inspector Calls. J B Priestle
y did. Willy Loman is not a character in that play, or any play by Wilde, but in Arthur Miller’s Death of a Salesman. And none of them wrote the quote – it is attributed online to someone called L M Montgomery. Frankly if the writer/editor could not get the first sentence right why is it worth reading any more on their research into mask-wearing?
If you think that a professor of statistics comments on a statistical survey is negated by his wrong citation of a play which has nothing to do with the subject he is talking about – then yes you may have a point. But it is not a logical or rational one. Why not deal with the substance of what he says, instead of nit picking…?
Anyone with a few minutes to look and think knows that the statistics over the preventative value of mask wearing are complex and open to dispute, from the perspective of those pro and anti (as they are bound to be if you think about the problems of doing a controlled trial). This writer made four easily spotted errors in one sentence opening his piece. Why should anyone then invest time in reading or indeed re-circulating the rest, even if he is one of the great army of academic statisticians? Only, sadly, those desperate to use the terrible, persistent Covid disaster as a peg on which to hang political propaganda.
Paul – as has been pointed out – he was making a point by making a joke. If you don’t read the whole article you won’t know that and you are not in a position to comment on it?
It might be worth reading
https://marksurg.wordpress.com/2020/10/06/sleepwalking-into-disaster-christians-and-pseudo-science/
Yes – it is worth reading….and I agree with it entirely. Although not sure what it has to do with this thread…
The misquote at the beginning of the Spectator article is deliberate to illustrate his point, stated at the end of the first paragraph. If you bother to read to the end of the article, he does give the correct citation in the final sentence.
It may be that you already know this, and are just being funny yourself, but I’m not sure I’m clever enough to tell!
What I want to know is why, given the amount of prayer about Covid, that a benevolent god hasn’t acted. Maybe he is not real….
You are confusing several things. Prayer is not a quantity. Who says God hasn’t acted? And why do you think you are in a position to judge?
One of the running sores of modern communication must surely occur when one is told “don’t judge”.
The person issuing this directive really means ” I do not like your opinion.”
As we all know, a legal judgement differs from a legal opinion, but perhaps not in the legislative corpus of Jewish Law as it applies to Gentiles.
Simon Wood was making a joke – I spotted this and laughed. The point of the article was, to quote, “What is truth”. It is easy to manipulate words, and statistics, to mean exactly what you want.
David, now that Mick Pope has completed his 3 essays in response to your article in Eternity, will you be commenting or responding?
https://www.eternitynews.com.au/in-depth/climate-change-divine-sovereignty-and-the-end-of-the-world/
I doubt it. The last time the heresy hunters went straight into action. I’m not sure I can be bothered with the hassle. Given that his articles didn’t answer any of the main points – and I agree with much of what he said I don’t really see the point.
What do the studies before 2020 say about masks? (Before they became politically significant or ‘useful’ for shaping a particular narrative?