you know better than to appeal to authority. i've seen your posts. that is not even a lesser known logical fallacy. commercial and medical claims require the satisfaction of authority, not private testimonials. also, quackwatch is hardly a reliable source. it is apparent they don't own a mirror. in fact, if i find they are against it, then i know there is a high probability of it having enough merit to suggest investigation. i've never seen claims for colloidal gold substantiated. colliodal silver i have done my own experiments with, over a period of years and i will say, without making claims, that i personally, would trust my life to it before any doctor that i've ever met. you must understand how it is made, if you are to avoid toxicity or argyria. i didn't find anything in this post about rendering snakes. you must have misread. i didn't read anything about the use of mercury either. appeal to personal incredulity does not become someone carrying the moniker of logic. one of the great things about the scientific method is that it can be used by anyone with an understanding of it, and not just authority. priests talk to god. scientists converse with the natural world. repeatability and reproducibility are the standard, not approval, unless for sale or regulated medical use in diagnosis or treatment. looking further on in the comments, i see that appeal to authority, ad homonym attacks, and appeal to novelty are as hobbies for you. what experiments have you, personally, done to test the claims you are making? did you perhaps misspell illogic when you picked your name? do not speak to me of onus. the act of calling something quackery or pseudoscience is in itself a claim. for the person, with logic on their side, it is best to state facts and then to remain silent, so the fools can discredit themselves and those in possession of superior data will still be on the side of right. using authoritative sources, without an understanding of the science behind the studies is appeal to authority. this is basic first year logic. ganging up on people and calling them names is not science. science is a method. demonstrate your own data, and let fakers discredit themselves. consensus does not science make. you are discrediting yourself. be wary of this. the blockchain is more or less permanent. you may regret some of these claims. any student of logic can look at this page and discern for themself whether the logic here is sound. it is not. the fear you exhibit in your vehemence, is apparent. what is it, of which you are so afraid?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from: