Prove or disprove: A Nobel Prize winner’s approach to science
In 2018, Dr. Jim Allison was awarded the Nobel Prize in medicine for discovering an effective way to attack cancer through immunology.
In his lab, Allison urges researchers to get rid of the idea that they can prove something with science. All they can do is fail to disprove.
Jim Allison is the subject of Jim Allison: Breakthrough, a documentary narrated by Woody Harrelson that brings filmmakers and scientists together to tell the story of a Nobel Prize-winning cancer discovery that changed the world. In cinemas September 27th, 2019.
Today, Jim Allison is a name to be reckoned with throughout the scientific world — a 2018 Nobel Prize winner for discovering the immune system’s role in defeating cancer — but for decades he waged a lonely struggle against the skepticism of the medical establishment and the resistance of Big Pharma. Jim Allison: Breakthrough takes us into the inspiring and dramatic world of cutting-edge medicine, and into the heart of a true American pioneer, in a film that is both emotionally compelling and deeply entertaining.
DocLands presents Jim Allison: Breakthrough (Official Trailer)www.youtube.com
***
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
jerry krause
| #
Hi PSI readers,
Read and reread: “In his lab, Allison urges researchers to get rid of the idea that they can prove something with science. All they can do is fail to disprove.”
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Humans are truth monkeys. We seek certainty, and when we don’t find it we manufacture it.
We seek simple models that are easy to understand and simple to convey to our fellow truth monkeys. We then start looking for evidence to confirm it.
Almost always us truth monkeys are so busy looking for evidence that confirms what we believe that we fail to notice our beliefs are pure nonsense.
When it comes to achieving scientific breakthroughs and genuine advances in knowledge the mistake most truth monkeys make is to be obsessed with exposing the nonsense of opposing truth monkeys when they should be focused on exposing their own nonsense.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
Reply
geran
| #
James, I see you are still frustrated about the H2O molecule. Since we are close to Christmas, ask your parents for some toy magnets. Try to learn how the magnets seem to choose how they align with each other. With help, maybe you can even learn about “polarity”. And then what “polar molecule” means.
The more you can learn about reality, the better. Then you won’t be so frustrated and have to make up things like “truth monkeys”.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
James McGinn:
You’re not thinking it through, Geran. It is good that you suggest magnets as a corollary of the H2O molecule’s dipole. But then you stopped. You failed to realize that the next step was to employ this corollary to attempt to dispute or refute your model.
Imagine two boxes. One box contains iron balls. The other box contains iron balls that have been magnetized. Now, turn both boxes on their sides. Also, turn a glass of water on its side.
Is the flow of water more similar to the magnetized balls, which come out of the box in a clump. Or is it more similar to the box that has no magnetization?
This simple experiment demonstrates that your belief that H2O molecules are simple dipoles that are analogous to magnets is nonsense.
H2O molecules are dipoles but they are not the simple dipoles that the current models pretend they are. Everybody makes the same mistake that you just made. They/we look for things that confirm what we believe and then we stop. We don’t do the experiment.
Here is a podcast I just made that describes how and why it is the public’s unquenchable thirst for simple certainty that is the underlying basis for the prevalence of pseudo science in academia:
Soon we will stop Hurricanes:
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
geran
| #
No James, as Jerry pointed out (below), YOU are the one not thinking it through.
You apparently now understand magnets, but you can’t understand that forces can have differing magnitudes.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran: No James, as Jerry pointed out (below), YOU are the one not thinking it through. You apparently now understand magnets, but you can’t understand that forces can have differing magnitudes.
James: LOL. I am not the one that failed to notice that our magnet analogy stands in stark contradiction to one of the most universal observations of H2O, it’s low viscosity.
The low viscosity of liquid H2O is one of over 70 observations that contradict what our current theory predicts. Think about that, that is over 70 observations that say, “Hey, your theory sucks.”
Believers can only see what confirms what they believe. I am not a believer. You are.
It is our mischaracterization of water and the fact that this mischaracterization has been built into all of the models that is the fly in the ointment of the natural sciences.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Are You Confused About Hydrogen Bonding In Water?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
Reply
geran
| #
James, you are imagining things. I mentioned toy magnets as a learning tool for you. You are confused about water molecules, so first you need to understand polarity. Toy magnets can help you with that.
You can’t learn if you keep imagining things that aren’t true.
Don’t listen to “The Voices”.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Geran:
If you want me to take your arguments seriously and not just dismiss you as another of many muddleheaded certainty seeking, science groupies you need to address specific points in peoples’ arguments.
I stated that you model predicts high viscosity of H2O. Do you agree? Yes? No?
I also stated that–in stark contrast to what your model predicts–low viscosity is what is actually observed in liquid water. Do you agree? Yes? No?
Accordingly, I concluded that these are mutually contradictory and, thereby, your model is refuted. Do you agree? Yes? No? Why?
James McGinn / Genius
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions: 1) Convection. This is the superstition that evaporation makes air buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory); 2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift; 3) Latent heat. This is the superstition that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which are purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
geran
| #
James, you are STILL imagining things. I mentioned toy magnets as a learning tool for you. I wanted to see if you could learn about “polarity”. You are confused about water molecules, so first you need to understand polarity. Toy magnets can help you with that.
You can’t learn if you keep imagining things that aren’t true.
Don’t listen to “The Voices”.
James McGinn
| #
Dear Geran,
Answer my questions you evasive piece of shit.
Kind Regards
James McGinn / Genius
geran
| #
For the third time, James, you keep imagining things. I never proposed a “model”. I proposed a simple way for you to learn about polarity. Everything else is your out-of-control imagination.
Quit listening to “The Voices”.
James McGinn
| #
Dear Geran,
Answer my questions you evasive piece of shit.
James McGinn / Genius
jerry krause
| #
Hi James and Herb (above),
James wrote: “Imagine two boxes. One box contains iron balls. The other box contains iron balls that have been magnetized. Now, turn both boxes on their sides. Also, turn a glass of water on its side.” And then asked: “Is the flow of water more similar to the magnetized balls, which come out of the box in a clump. Or is it more similar to the box that has no magnetization?”
Has either one of you actually done the experiment that James asked Geran to imagine?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
No Jerry I have never done it as an experiment because I have observed it in my experiences. Spilled water flows out to form a uniform thick layer (used as a level) and you use a mop to clean it up. In a machine shop steel chips scatter all over the floor and you use a magnetic sweep to clean them up. When magnetics spill and are in proximity together they attract each other and form clumps (iron filings with their induced magnetism showing magnetic flux lines) and the problem isn’t in collecting them together, it is separating them.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I have a question for you. How do you expect to model a ‘gas’ or a ‘liquid’ by using a solid?
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
Everything, atoms, liquids, gases, and solids ae mostly empty space just like the solars system and galaxies. All these “units” are formed by the two forces of energy and mater. Their structure and properties are determined by the balance between these two forces. Energy tries to combine units to form a larger unit while mater (electrical force) tries to keep the unit’s individuality. In a solid the energy force is stronger holding the atoms together closely. In a liquid the two forces are equal where they form a unit but the individual units have motion of their own. In a gas (or solar system) the mater force is stronger keeping the individual units separate but. the attractive force still causes them to associate forming a larger loose unit.
A solid, gas, or liquid have the same forces at work so the distiinction between them is just a mater of balance between the forces.
Have a good day, Herb
geran
| #
Herb, do you realize you always spell “matter” incorrectly?
It’s like your understanding of how a thermometer works. You always get it wrong too.
At least you’re consistent….
James McGinn
| #
Geran,
Are you aware that you come off as a dull-witted, condenscending prick?
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory.
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
geran
| #
If you really believed that, “genius”, then why are you stalking me?
The truth is you’re mad because your pseudoscience is busted. It’s clear that you have no clue what you are talking about. You just go in circles, hoping you can somehow impress others.
You’re not fooling anyone but yourself, “genius”.
Herb Rose
| #
Geran,
Do you understand that the reason people dismiss you as an idiot is because you only care about how they say something and have no comprehension of what they are saying. Spelling doesn’t mater.
geran
| #
Now Herb, if you were really content with your ignorance, you would not feel the need to lash out with your immature insults.
I suspect you are handicapped by an inability to learn, like a couple of others here.
But, at least you’re hilarious. More please.
James McGinn
| #
James: Geran, are you aware that you come off as a dull-witted, condenscending prick?
Geran: If you really believed that, “genius”, then why are you stalking me?
James: Why are you trolling everybody?
Geran: The truth is you’re mad because your pseudoscience is busted.
James: Feel free to make a argument to that effect. Go ahead, you convoluted moron, take a shot.
Geran: It’s clear that you have no clue what you are talking about. You just go in circles, hoping you can somehow impress others. You’re not fooling anyone but yourself, “genius”.
James: You’re an amateur. Your thinking is obscure and convoluted. You don’t have an argument. You don’t even have a point. All you have is raw opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p125466
I discovered the empirical shortcomings of meteorology after I discovered them in climatology. My reasoning was very simple. Knowing that the origins of climatology are in meteorology, I reasoned that if AGW is as bad as it appears then meteorology must also have skeletons in its closet. So I did something that nobody has done before, I looked at the convection model of storm theory with scrutiny. I found numerous fatal flaws and I found that meteorologists have long ago established a tradition of ignoring these fatal flaws.
My point is that you/we cannot defeat a conversational science based on empiricism because conversational sciences are based on allegories that appeal to the base sensations of the public. The only way to defeat a conversational science is to reveal it as such to the public. And the best way to reveal it to the public is to start with meteorology since this is the spring from which it sprang (or is it sprung?). The conversational tradition is the problem and its roots are in meteorology, not climatology.
geran
| #
James: “All matter heats all matter constantly.”
James, I don’t know if you can get any stupider, but it’s fun watching you try.
More please.
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
You wrote to Geran: “This simple experiment demonstrates that your belief that H2O molecules are simple dipoles that are analogous to magnets is nonsense.” Your proposed experiment is nonsense because it seems you do not account for the great, great difference between the mass of an iron ball and the mass of a water molecule.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
The difference between water and magnets is that the magnetic force is additive while the force between the water molecules is not. When you combine regents the forces combine to create a ,larger magnetic force. When water molecules combine the individual molecules retain their individual attractive force.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
The difference between water and magnets is that the magnetic force is additive while the force between the water molecules is not.
James:
No. But you are on the right track. I don’t know what you mean about magnets being additive, but I do know that magnets aren’t intrinsically subtractive as a consequence of bonding. In other words, magnets don’t neutralize each other’s polarity when connected. H2O moleclules, on the otherhand, are intrinsically subtractive as a consequence of bonding. In other words, they literally neutralize each other’s polarity when they make bonds with each other. Specifically, each hydrogen bond between water molecules (and they can have up to four with four neighboring H2O molecules) neutralize 25% of each other’s polarity. And this is why the most highly interconnected form of H2O, liquid water, has such incredibly low viscosity. (Another way to state this is that with H2O molecules there is an inverse relationship between interconnectedness and strength of connectedness.)
Understanding the mechanism of this starts with understanding the quantum mechanics of tetrahedral asymmetry as the source of the polar force and how connectedness restores tetrahedral symmetry. Specifically, neighboring H2O molecules complete (molify) up to 25% of each others asymmetry thereby neutralizing an equivalent percentage of each others polarity.
Undoubtedly many will be confused by this explanation. Don’t fret. I am currently working on a video that will make it crystal clear. (I’m expecting to finish it sometime in January or February.)
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
The sheath of a tornado is a form of surface tension. It is a plasma of spinning, churning H2O molecules. It has structural strength and a surface—common characteristics of plasmas. But the origin of this strength doesn’t involve the forces associated with ionic bonds, as is the case with most plasmas. Instead this is a kind of plasma that involves the forces associated with hydrogen bonds. I thought of it as surface tension that is expressed in three dimensions—surface tension on steroids!
conjectured that hydrogen bonds must be distinctive from covalent or ionic bonds in that with hydrogen bonds the force that creates the bond must be deactivated by the bond itself. And so, whereas with a covalent bond or an ionic bond the force that brings them together remains, with hydrogen bonds the force that brings them together is deactivated–neutralized. Accordingly, the fewer bonds that an H2O molecule shares with other H2O molecules the stronger are these bonds. Conversely, the greater were the number of bonds an H2O molecule shared with other H2O molecules the weaker were these bonds—all the way down to having zero strength when fully bonded.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
There are two forces that form the universe. One from energy (gravity and magnetic) and one from mater (electric) Both forces decrease with distance from their source until they meet the same force from another source. The force of energy stops decreasing, reorient and combines with the force from the other source (When you put two magnets together they combine to form a single magnet or the gravity of the moon and Earth combine to form a high tide on the far side of the Earth.). When the electrical force of mater encounters another electrical force it either is attracted to it (opposite charges) and cancel each other out (actually mask each other) or repel each other (similar charges) resisting combining.
The force between water molecules are electric (from mater) rather from energy.(magnetic)
Herb
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
When you put two magnets together they combine to form a single magnet
James:
I agree.
Herb:
When the electrical force of matter encounters another electrical force it either is attracted to it (opposite charges) and cancel each other out (actually mask each other) or repel each other (similar charges) resisting combining.
The force between water molecules are electric (from mater) rather from energy.(magnetic)
James:
Part of what you are saying here doesn’t make complete sense to me, I’ll explain below. But I certainly agree about the cancelling out. As a matter of fact, the error that has been incorporated into the current paradigms of many different disciplines involves failing to recognize the polarity neutralizing influence of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. And so, the cancellation or “masking” that you describe here is very pertinent to understanding hydrogen bonding between water molecules. This is what Linus Pauling missed. I refer to this as Pauling’s omission.
Science is in a deep state of denial about their failure to recognize the fact that hydrogen bonds neutralize H2O polarity. It is this error that underlies all of 70 plus “anomalies of H2O”. Academia has done a bang up job keeping the public in the dark about these anomalies. You can get a sense of how deep the denial runs by reading the most recent conversation between myself and Geran. One result of the convoluted thinking of hydrogen bonding is cognitive dissonance. It is this cognitive dissonance that is the open door to pretenders and phoneys like Geran. And there are a lot of them.
Herb:
There are two forces that form the universe. One from energy (gravity and magnetic) and one from matter (electric) Both forces decrease with distance from their source until they meet the same force from another source.
James:
The standard thinking is that there are two forces, the weak force, gravity, that works over long distances and the strong force, magnetism or electromagnetism, that works over short distances. As you indicate, both of these comply with the inverse square of distance to magnitude–as described in Coulomb’s law. I can’t make a lot of sense of what you are describing with these words: “One from energy (gravity and magnetic) and one from matter (electric)”. This doesn’t mean it is wrong. It’s just not something with which I am familiar.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p117292
One great thing about the internet is that it has a perfect memory.
The worst mistake you can make as a science theorist is to allow your own explanation to seduce you into thinking that you understand it better than you actually do. And the reason it is such a fatal error is because you will then, unavoidably, use that as an excuse to ignore evidence that contradicts with your model or ignore evidence that your model fails to explain. (And once you’ve started doing this you have lost the war.) Don’t allow yourself to be so seduced. Always endeavor to find and explicate all contradictory evidence and always explicate why your model should be excused from expaining what it appears to fail to explain. [When you hide, you lose. And there are lots of ways to hide. It’s easy. Meteorologists have been hiding for almost 200 years now.])
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
In your consideration water I believe you need to accept that water molecules disassociate into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions and this disassociation increases with increased energy of the water molecules. This means that the number of ionic bonds will increase with increasing energy and the structure if the water will change with increasing energy.
I do not accept that forces decrease as the inverse square with distance but linearly with distance.Support for this comes from Kepler’s law (C=Vplaner^2/d planet from the sun) and an experiment I did with magnets that convinced me that the correct formula for the force between two magnets is not F= M1M2/d^2 but M3=(M1 + M2)/d where d is not the distance between the center of the two magnets but the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet. Basically as two magnets approach each other their magnetic flux lines combine to form a third magnet.
Both gravity and magnetism are forces produced by energy with the difference being that magnetism is a force concentrate in one direction while gravity is a dispersing force. It is the same as the distinction from the light coming from a source and spreading into the increasing area and a laser or spot light where the light is concentrated in one direction and decreases not as the square of the distance but linearly with distance.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Herb: In your consideration water I believe you need to accept that water molecules disassociate into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions . . .
James: Why? Is there any empirical evidence of this? Does this model resolve any of the anomalies? Does it resolve any of issues with conflicting models? Is Pollack even remotely cognizant that there is a whole body of literature on the subject? Unfortunately I think the answer to all of these questions is, no.
Herb: . . . and this disassociation increases with increased energy of the water molecules. This means that the number of ionic bonds will increase with increasing energy and the structure if the water will change with increasing energy.
James: This is just raw speculation, though. Where is the supporting argument where this model is shown to be useful? Other than explaining Pollacks EZ claims, I don’t see how this explains much at all.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I consider pH as proof that water molecules split into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. Pure distilled water has a concentration of 10^-7 hydrogen ad hydroxyl ions.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: . . . you do not account for the great, great difference between the mass of an iron ball and the mass of a water molecule.
James: I don’t see how that makes any difference at all. But, for purposes of argument, let’s say you are right. Now consider the fact that I am not the one that originally proposed magnets as a correlary for H2O polarity in this thread. Geran introduced it. Yet you didn’t dispute the (wrong, in my opinion) conclusion that Geran arrived at. Why? Because Geran came to a conclusion that confirms what you want to believe.
If you read the article, Jerry, you will see that the author made the following statement: “Allison urges researchers to get rid of the idea that they can prove something with science. All they can do is fail to disprove.”
Your read that and even quoted it. But you didn’t understand it. And you never will. Believers never stop believing because believers are blind to anything that doesn’t confirm what they already believe.
James McGinn
Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
What do you mean: “If you read the article, Jerry, you will see that the author made the following statement: “Allison urges researchers to get rid of the idea that they can prove something with science. All they can do is fail to disprove.”?
I was the one who first pointed to this statement of Allison, the 2018 Nobel Prize Winner in Medicine.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: I was the one who first pointed to this statement of Allison.
James: Right. You read it. You even quoted it. But you didn’t apply it. Believers never do.
I put my pants on one legs at a time, like anybody else. What is different is that once my pants are on I solve long-standing scientific dilemmas.
James McGinn / Genius
Correction to The Current Model of Hydrogen Bonding in Water
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
You sir, have a severe case of Dunning Kruger effect. You are very limited in your knowledge of Chemistry but assume you know a lot so you think you have broken through and that know one has very good valid explanations for everything you brought up in your video.
Before attempting to learn you should view this so you know where you are really at (not where you think you might be…a genius).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJz66wm95-M
After you view this so you might understand what your current state of mind is here are some links that will help you.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/General_Chemistry/Book%3A_ChemPRIME_(Moore_et_al.)/10Solids%2C_Liquids_and_Solutions/10.06%3A_Viscosity
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Physical_Properties_of_Matter/States_of_Matter/Properties_of_Liquids/Unusual_Properties_of_Water
https://chemistry.stackexchange.com/questions/14361/why-doesnt-the-viscosity-of-water-change-much-with-temperature-like-it-does-for
A video that might help you
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBZfPmIcS-E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkRuDFxoKEQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHJmOH38agY
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman: . . . so you think you have broken through and that know one has very good valid explanations for everything you brought up in your video.
you should view this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJz66wm95-M
James: I think you have the right idea, Norman. Either I have concocted an elaborate self delusion (and one that is so deeply subconscious that I am not able to be conscious of it) or I have made a major breakthrough(s). There can be no in-between. Either I am a Dunning-Kruger case study or I am, well . . . you know.
I will watch this video, eventually. But I want to hold off for now. I am thinking about doing it as a reaction video. What do you think about that idea?
Also, is it possible you can help me get a better idea of what I should be looking for and why/how it disputes my theoretical thinking? Anything at all would help.
Like I said, I’m going to hold off on watching it so that my reaction will be candid for the reaction video.
Let me know what you think about this idea.
Thanks for the opportunity,
James McGinn / Genius or Dunning-Kruger Case Study
Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Dunning-Kruger is a great handle but for sheer delight I have a cognitive bias towards “Munchausen syndrome by proxy” as a great medical term. Sorry. Off topic I know.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Matt,
I think you have made a huge conceptual breakthrough:
Dunning-Kruger by Proxy!
Now I have an excuse.
I do feel dumber after watching the videos that Norman linked upthread. (Oh, wait. Shouldn’t I feel smarter?)
James McGinn / Genius (by Proxy)
Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn
Reply
Matt
| #
Hi James.
“He who pays the piper calls the tune” could relate to many people with scientific degrees calling themselves climatologists and their proclamations of cognitive bias to appease their paymasters and appease peer conformity.
“Dunning-Kruger syndrome by proxy” would be a true word spoken in jest. Nice one James.
Now to go and wrassle one of them tornadoes.
Kind regards Matt
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Nevermind about the reaction video Norman. I looked at the title. Disappointing.
Also, the net effect of your post has had exactly the opposite effect on me than you anticipated. Nothing in your post disputed any of my thinking. This makes me even more confident about its scientific validity.
James McGinn / Genius (I’m pretty sure.)
Soon We Will Stop Hurricanes
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Soon-We-Will-Stop-Hurricanes-e9g5fn
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
The different links explained viscosity. There were also videos showing water at molecular level as energy is added. The hydrogen bonds form and break all the time. As energy increases the molecules have enough energy to overcome the bonding. This is all very well established Chemistry and it does not just happen with water but all types of substances. That is why you have solid/liquid/gas phases. The hydrogen bond is not “deactivated” as you suppose. It is still always there, it is just as more energy is added the molecules of water have enough kinetic energy to overcome the bonding and exist in gaseous phase.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman:
This is all very well established Chemistry
James:
Everybody knows this, dumbass.
Norman:
The hydrogen bond is not “deactivated” as you suppose.
James:
Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=165#p122133
the plasma in this article is very different from the plasma in my model. The plasma in my model is, actually, a combination of air and nanodroplets of H2O. Or, I should say, that is how it starts out; also, in my model these H2O nanodroplets are spinning very rapidly. The spinning is a consequence of wind shear. (Did you ever wonder why tornadoes are associated with wind shear in the lower troposphere? Well, keep reading.)
The hydrogen bonds form and break all the time. As energy increases the molecules have enough energy to overcome the bonding. This is all very well established Chemistry and it does not just happen with water but all types of substances. That is why you have solid/liquid/gas phases. The hydrogen bond is not “deactivated” as you suppose. It is still always there, it is just as more energy is added the molecules of water have enough kinetic energy to overcome the bonding and exist in gaseous phase.
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
You are correct about one thing. You have your opinions that is all you have. No you are not a genius at all. In fact you are not a very bright person at all. You have a big ego but little thinking to go with it.
Read this link on water. Much more is know about water than you can imagine or perceive. You are a classic Dunning-Kruger candidate. You learn a little about water molecule and now you are a super genius expert that believes the entire world of Chemistry are “truth monkeys”.
The only reality is you are an arrogant ignoramus that spouts out simplistic dumb ideas.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html
Read through this then come back when you know what you are talking about. At this time you sound quite ignorant.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
No evidence, no argument, Not even a point.
Just simple certainty.
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
Actually lots of evidence. Look at the link and read the evidence. Consider it. There are many crackpots, like you, that think they are so much smarter than thousands of highly intelligent people and everyone is wrong but them. Sorry you are a deluded crackpot and it seems too arrogant to see how limited your thoughts are. I do not think any crackpot has ever been convinced by evidence that they are wrong about most their ideas. You are not an exception to the “crackpot” mentality. Doug Cotton also shares this mental state and nothing will change his mind.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
In the explanation of the anomalies of water they considered hydrogen bonds but did not mention the ionization of water into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. It would seem to me that these ions would have a major effect on the formation of hydrogen bonds, the structures they produce and the properties of the water.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
You got nothing, you lying POS. You are a convoluted moron who couldn’t formulate and argument or a point to save your life.
Humans are truth monkeys. We seek certainty, and when we don’t find it we manufacture it.
We seek simple models that are easy to understand and simple to convey to our fellow truth monkeys. We then start looking for evidence to confirm it.
Almost always us truth monkeys are so busy looking for evidence that confirms what we believe that we fail to notice our beliefs are pure nonsense.
When it comes to achieving scientific breakthroughs and genuine advances in knowledge the mistake most truth monkeys make is to be obsessed with exposing the nonsense of opposing truth monkeys when they should be focused on exposing their own nonsense.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=150#p119465
Humans are delusional about H2O. And this delusion results in the following: 1) humans generally believe that H2O is simple and obvious and, 2) humans believe that our understanding of H2O is comprehensive and accurate, both in science and in general. The reality is that neither of these are true. Neither of these is remotely true. H2O is extremely complex and poorly understood by science. Currently there exists over 70 anomalies of H2O. That is 70 different observations about H2O (under various conditions) that are inconsistent with or completely unpredicted by theory. However, human delusion runs so deep that the meaning of anomaly has been altered in the context of H2O to essentially serve as an excuse for why theories of H2O fail to explain what is actually observed.
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
Your arrogance and delusion are off the scale. You are a true crackpot. No sense wasting anymore time with you. Have fun trying to convince anyone of your brilliance. It seems highly unlikely anyone will be impressed with your Junior High science level of thought, maybe you should take your ideas to grade school children, some may think you are a genius.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman,
Would you agree that a theory/model that perfectly explains (resolves) these anomalies would be better that what we have currently?
Reply
Norman
| #
James McGinn
YOU: “Almost always us truth monkeys are so busy looking for evidence that confirms what we believe that we fail to notice our beliefs are pure nonsense.”
The only nonsense I see is a deluded crackpot who believes he is a genius with simple drawings of a water molecule and methane and who is too dumb to realize he has no real knowledge of science and so he has an elevated sense of superiority that is certainly not justified by anything he has written. I watched some of your videos and you seem to be quite ignorant of any science and now I see you are too dumb to reason with. You post some stupid childlike philosophy and think it is great material. “Truth monkeys” good gracious you act like a really low level intellect.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Norman:
The only nonsense I see is a deluded crackpot who believes he is a genius with simple drawings of a water molecule and methane and who is too dumb to realize he has no real knowledge of science and so he has an elevated sense of superiority that is certainly not justified by anything he has written.
James:
Hmm. Well, I see things differently. What I’m seeing is that science has a continuing dilemma getting public support. In order to quench the public’s thirst for simple certainty, many scientific disciplines have dumbed down their models, glossing over inconsistencies and anomalies.
Norman:
I watched some of your videos and you seem to be quite ignorant of any science and now I see you are too dumb to reason with.
James:
I think the reason my videos are so popular is because of the clarity of my explanations in comparison to the muddled thinking of the current paradigm.
Norman:
You post some stupid childlike philosophy and think it is great material. “Truth monkeys” good gracious you act like a really low level intellect.
James:
One trick academia employs to maintain the illusion of simple certainty is the use of analogies and similes like ‘greenhouse effect’ or ‘convection theory of storms’ or ‘H2O molecules are like a magnet.’ Humans generally find analogies irresistable.
James McGinn
I’m Neither Arrogant Nor Wrong
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Im-Neither-Arrogant-Nor-Wrong-e9iqlk
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Isn’t it obvious that if such a specific hypothesis was viable that the person that proposed it, Gerald Pollack, would provide you/us easy access to discussion and literature that supports/disputes the notion? The reality is you won’t find any discussion on Pollacks website. Moreover, if you were to attempt to initiate such you would find yourself ignored. Also, go read comments from his supporters. They are all brain-dead science groupies–convoluted pretenders–just like Norman.
It would seem to me that these hydrogen and hydroxyl ions would have a major effect on the formation of hydrogen bonds, the structures they produce and the properties of the water.
James:
Herb, I’m an expert in hydrogen bonding in water.
Considering the abject absence of substance and common sense coming from this convoluted, science groupy, Norman, one can only wonder why you present such a question to him. What kind of response could you possibly expect?
Shouldn’t such have already
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
I believe your ideas on water but I also believe the evidence of Dr.Pollack showing that hydrogen boning not only occurs between water molecules but with other charges particles. I also believe that water splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions. My reasoning suggest to me that it is these two attributes of water that combine in some way to produce the anomalies we see in water.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: I believe your ideas on water but
James: You don’t fully understand my ideas.
Herb: I also believe the evidence of Dr.Pollack showing that hydrogen boning not only occurs between water molecules but with other charges particles.
James: That isn’t Pollack’s idea, it is common knowledge.
Herb: I also believe that water splits into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions.
James: It’s speculative nonsense.
Herb: My reasoning suggest to me that it is these two attributes of water that combine in some way to produce the anomalies we see in water.
James: Is there some reason you are keeping your alleged reasoning secret?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi james,
My reasoning is that when something has anomalies those aberrations need to be explained not ignored. Evidence and theories need to be examined in order to explain the strangeness. I do not accept the creation of imaginary particle whose existence is only supported by theory not evidence.(A particle accelerator is a tool designed to prove the existence of any nonsensical creation of a physicist to preserve his delusions.) It is also not acceptable to create a magic spell (quantum physics) to support the illusion that they know what is happening.It was the strange behavior of only three stars in the sky (not statically significant) that led to the sun being at the center of the solar systems.
Water, as you point out, is unique to all other liquids, even though other compounds have hydrogen bonds, so the evidence suggests that there is more than just hydrogen bonds involved and since water is also unique in that its covalent bonds split to form ions and ionic bonds I suspect that is a combination of these two properties of water that cause these aberrations.
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
James McGinn is a low intellect. The anomalies of water are known and explained NOT IGNORED by chemists. That is what people in this field do. They observe behavior of matter and develop ideas that explain it. As for H+ and OH- ions that is what makes water acidic or basic. In neutral water the dissociation is small.
Link for you:
http://www2.ucdsb.on.ca/tiss/stretton/CHEM2/acid04.htm
I gave him a link that explains the anomalies of water. They have been thought about and the forces involved are well known.
http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/water_anomalies.html
The link lists the anomalies and gives good explanations for all of them. check it out.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Norman,
I do not believe the anomalies of water are well explained or understood. Have you seen Dr Pollack’s experiments and his Exclusion Zone water?
Herb
Reply
Norman
| #
Herb Rose
I had not heard of this before but it is interesting reading. Thanks.
https://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen5555/SourceMaterial/Pollack13.pdf
James McGinn
| #
Herb:
Have you seen Dr Pollack’s experiments and his Exclusion Zone water?
James:
Hopefully your experience with Pollack is better than mine. All the comments on his website invole glowing reviews, no criticism. This is not be accident.
Pollack is trying to get funding for greater research. He is requesting a billion dollars. He doesn’t want any negative press on his website.
Lastly, Herb, I hope you can take some time to listen to my most recent podcast. It is only 5 minutes long and it gets right to the heart of why understanding Hydrogen bonding is so important for understanding storms.
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn/episodes/Elasticity-of-Hydrogen-Bonds-Underlies-Spinning-of-Polymerized-H2O-Molecules-On-Wind-Sheer-Boundaries-Which-Underlies-Emergence-of-Vortice-Plasma-e9jup2
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I do not know how to listen to you podcast because I have never listened to a podcast.
Because the title of your 5 minute cast sounds interesting, I would listen to it.
For because of Herb comments about Dr Pollack, I went to his website and sent one email to him and one to the contact person, his student, of an article. As of this date, neither has responded.
From whom is he trying to get a billion dollar grant?
Have a good day, Jerry
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
Before I went to Pollack’s site, I had seen that ice, which is less dense than liquid water had the same crystal structure where the water molecules are precisely aligned by the intermolecular bonds of
hydrogen bonds.
When he proposed his unique layers (Exclusion Zone) of water molecules at the ‘flat’ surface of liquid water. I considered the layered carbon atoms of graphite had been replaced by water molecules precisely aligned by hydrogen bonds.
James, you just wrote: “spinning of polymerized water molecules”. So I immediately considered the third natural form of pure carbon C60 and the polymerized water molecule (H2O)60 in which the water molecules, which replace the carbon atoms of C60, are precisely aligned by hydrogen bonds.
I now draw these comparisons to your attention in case you have no evidence that you have considered them. For in science the first with an acceptable creative idea gets the prize.
Of course, if my considerations are nonsense, I will take credit for that also. For even if wrong, they do
suggest that I am a creative thinker.
Have a good day, Jerry
James McGinn
| #
Jerry: I do not know how to listen to you podcast because I have never listened to a podcast.
James: Funny. I don’t know either. But I am guessing that it won’t be hard to find with a simple search. If you have a smartphone you might try doing a search of a podcast app. My podcast is available on all of the major podcast platforms. And you might try doing a search on James McGinn Solving Tornadoes Woke Meteorology.
Jerry:
Because the title of your 5 minute cast sounds interesting, I would listen to it.
James: I am glad to have you listen to it.
Jerry: For because of Herb comments about Dr Pollack, I went to his website and sent one email to him and one to the contact person, his student, of an article. As of this date, neither has responded.
James: That is similar to my experience.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
When I contacted Dr Pollack I believe I did it through his e mail at the University of Washington and he answered me. It was not a discussion like here on PSI but I was not ignored.
I listen to your podcast on Spotify and have some thoughts. I was under the impression that a plasma is more of a pure energy state rather than a combination with matter. What you are describing is more like a crystal structure where ionic bonds strongly bond molecules or atoms together in a hard structure.
I work with pH all the time and in order to get an accurate pH reading you must do a two point calibration and have a temperature probe to make corrections for the change of pH with temperature. (A pH of 7 is for pure water a STP.) Because the pH changes with temperature the disassociation of water molecules into hydrogen and hydroxyl ions would also seem to change with the energy of the water. I believe this is what Dr Pollack shows in his exclusion zone.
It is this separation of the water molecules into ions that allows it to dissolve salts and other structures with ionic bonds. The charges on a water molecule would also react to these ions so I would guess that it is a combination of both the hydrogen bonds and ionic bonds that produce the properties of water. The more energy the water absorbs the more ions are formed and the more crystal like the water becomes. That is my interpretation of the exclusion zone (4th phase of water) seen in Dr Pollack’s experiments. When light is absorbed by the water it forms crystal like structures that exclude other objects including Na+ and Cl- ions.
In your theory you explain that as the water molecules separate the bond gets stronger which is not normal for how forces behave. Dr Pollack’s explanation that as water macromolecules separate more positive ions are drawn between them increasing the attraction between them seems to offer a reasonable explanation for this observation. I accept your description of how water behaves but I believe Dr Pollack’s experiments offer an explanation for that behavior.
Herb
James McGinn
| #
Norman: James McGinn is a low intellect.
James: Science groupies never have arguments or points. All we will ever get from you, Norman, is Dunning-Kruger certainty.
Norman: I gave him a link that explains the anomalies of water.
James: The existence of any anomalies in any part of science are almost always a surprise to the multitudes of brain-dead science believers.
Norman: The anomalies of water are known and explained NOT IGNORED by chemists.
James: who do you think you are kidding, you lying POS. Until I pointed it out you had no idea about these known unknowns. (Inexcusable, many chemists are perfectly ignorant of the anomalies of H2O. [Jerry Krause, for example.])
Norman: That is what people in this field do. They observe behavior of matter and develop ideas that explain it.
James: Everybody knows this, you inane ass. For me it is no suprise at all that you are surprised upon recently learning of the existence of these known unknowns. (Academia always downplays anomalies. It’s human nature. Nobody volutarily draws attention to what they don’t understand.) Considering your dullwittedness, I would be surprised if you were not surprised.
James McGinn / Genius
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=60#p114924
For example, do you concur with the notion that moist air contains gaseous H2O? Yes? No? Do you dispute my assertion that this notion is nonsense? Yes? No? Undoubtedly we will never know because, like all science pretenders, you are determined to ride the fence, play it safe. And that is too bad. Science isn’t about looking or even being right. It’s about being specific so that if you are wrong you can realize you are wrong when you are wrong. Because realizing you are wrong when you are wrong is the hardest part of any scientific endeavor. More than anything else, science is about defeating your minds desire to take the easy path and just believe.
Reply