In what regard are you referring? Do I believe in evidence-based medicine? Yes. Do I believe in evil spirits? No. Do my beliefs rise to the level of arrogance demonstrated in the OP's statement, "don't agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders."? No.
You are not obligated to answer the question that was asked, but I think it would be fun to watch you try. Even better: it is also fun to watch you not try!
Humans are endlessly fascinating....so much potential, but an insistence on folly....what is the driving force behind this paradox? 🤔
Humans have been described as "An ape which cooks it's food and tells stories." To that I would add "and has unprecedented pattern seeking capabilities." It's a survival strategy and mechanism deep in our psyche, honed over millenia. Our visual cortex maps patterns, but is exquisitely sensitive to any disruption of that pattern. It why camouflage works, but the slightest motion and the camouflaged object is instantly visible. The downside is pareidolia, seeing patterns in random events and apophenia, attaching meaning and meaningful connections between unrelated events. Lacking better explanations, we create stories based on these perceived patterns and attribute them to higher powers, then defend our stories with all means at our disposal when presented new data. Galileo's final words on leaving his audience with the Pope, after having to deny the earth circles the sun, "Yet it still moves." Folly and paradox, indeed.
Are you answering my "Are you without flaw in this regard?" question above in an implicit manner so as to avoid the uncomfortable action of explicitly acknowledging you are not flawless?
If not:
a) What are you doing?
b) Are you willing to answer that question explicitly, Yes or No?
You ask rhetorical questions then move the goalposts when you do not like the answers. I answered your original question in my original response in three simple and explicit declaratives. Now you ask me "explicitly acknowledging that you are not flawless." I am a human, and so by definition not flawless. I am however confident I am somewhat less flawed than others, and I am sure there are others less flawed than me. Your feeble attempts to trap me with inanity and irrelevancy do not further conversation, they are tedious and distracting.
Are you without flaw in this regard?
In what regard are you referring? Do I believe in evidence-based medicine? Yes. Do I believe in evil spirits? No. Do my beliefs rise to the level of arrogance demonstrated in the OP's statement, "don't agree with the CDC protocols and Remdesivir or anything that puts my patients in danger. Not here to follow orders."? No.
You are not obligated to answer the question that was asked, but I think it would be fun to watch you try. Even better: it is also fun to watch you not try!
Humans are endlessly fascinating....so much potential, but an insistence on folly....what is the driving force behind this paradox? 🤔
Humans have been described as "An ape which cooks it's food and tells stories." To that I would add "and has unprecedented pattern seeking capabilities." It's a survival strategy and mechanism deep in our psyche, honed over millenia. Our visual cortex maps patterns, but is exquisitely sensitive to any disruption of that pattern. It why camouflage works, but the slightest motion and the camouflaged object is instantly visible. The downside is pareidolia, seeing patterns in random events and apophenia, attaching meaning and meaningful connections between unrelated events. Lacking better explanations, we create stories based on these perceived patterns and attribute them to higher powers, then defend our stories with all means at our disposal when presented new data. Galileo's final words on leaving his audience with the Pope, after having to deny the earth circles the sun, "Yet it still moves." Folly and paradox, indeed.
Are you answering my "Are you without flaw in this regard?" question above in an implicit manner so as to avoid the uncomfortable action of explicitly acknowledging you are not flawless?
If not:
a) What are you doing?
b) Are you willing to answer that question explicitly, Yes or No?
You ask rhetorical questions then move the goalposts when you do not like the answers. I answered your original question in my original response in three simple and explicit declaratives. Now you ask me "explicitly acknowledging that you are not flawless." I am a human, and so by definition not flawless. I am however confident I am somewhat less flawed than others, and I am sure there are others less flawed than me. Your feeble attempts to trap me with inanity and irrelevancy do not further conversation, they are tedious and distracting.
> I am a human, and so by definition not flawless.
Are these two claims flawless?:
> You ask rhetorical questions then move the goalposts when you do not like the answers.
> I answered your original question in my original response in three simple and explicit declaratives.