Lockdown Part 2
11-07-2020 | 05:45 PM
#181
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
... And this is why we are where we are.
You're basically saying you don't trust scientists and think you can interpret the data in their highly specific skillset better than they can. Also, let's not forget the entire peer review process ensures experiments and studies are properly fact checked by unbiased experts in the field. This is like a flight simmer insisting the NTSB is wrong about the Maxx crash.
You're basically saying you don't trust scientists and think you can interpret the data in their highly specific skillset better than they can. Also, let's not forget the entire peer review process ensures experiments and studies are properly fact checked by unbiased experts in the field. This is like a flight simmer insisting the NTSB is wrong about the Maxx crash.
11-07-2020 | 06:56 PM
#183
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2020
Posts: 249
Likes: 48
I did not write this, but I agree:Is it ‘trust the science’ or ‘trust the scientists’? The two are not the same.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
Here are a few things that–at one point–virtually all scientists agreed on:
- The earth is the center of the universe
- The world is flat.
- The treatment for epilepsy required the ritualistic sacrifice of a goat
Science never fails. Scientists fail constantly. And that’s the idea of it all. That’s how it’s supposed to work while on the journey to find the unfailing truths of science. As such, real science demands skepticism and should be critical of conformity to an idea without comprehensive evidence. But, ‘ya know, 2020 and all…
Today, anyone questioning certain public health officials or government leaders is to be ridiculed, criticized, and even censored because they are dangerous to the environment. If you’re concerned the data tells a different story than the approved message, your dangerous ideological misgivings and disinformation could influence others to take actions that kill people. There is a system of subject matter experts that have the right plan and questioning by the citizenry, press or even other scientists cannot be accepted because any of those people are not the right scientists or intelligentsia to address the matters at hand.
The deaths don’t align with scary case narrative? “You’re wrong, just wait two weeks.” It’s been two weeks? “You’re forgetting about Long COVID.” Long COVID symptoms are just as common with the Flu or other respiratory diseases? “No it’s worse this time., here’s an emotional story of the 3 people that… You have to trust that we’re the experts and you are not.”
Any scientist not open to alternative scientific views, is not a scientist at all and the efforts to dismiss reasonable, rational, and data-driven skepticism at all cost is not science. Concerns of logic and reason are often NOT met genuine scientific insight and data but with emotional stories and anecdotal responses. It’s a plea to trust not the science, but a select group of scientists that must be above reproach even when their data is far from certain or incomplete. Compliance with their directives are all that matters and to ensure compliance in the face of remarkably incomplete scientific rationale, they use fear.
This is so devoid of any relevant context that I'm reluctant to even respond. The fact that you had to reach back to views from several centuries ago, propagated by institutions that were not bound by the scientific method as we know it today, in order to justify hyperbolic and superstitious skepticism against scientists today is at once pathetic, hilarious, and sad. The scientific method as we would know it is first recognizable in the 18th/19th centuries. Every example you cite comes from before that time, and is thus a ridiculous comparison without contextualizing the examples you cite. You did not, and I don't think you could if you tried, because this is a patently ridiculous argument.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
11-07-2020 | 07:45 PM
#184
Line Holder
Joined: Apr 2018
Posts: 700
Likes: 0
This is so devoid of any relevant context that I'm reluctant to even respond. The fact that you had to reach back to views from several centuries ago, propagated by institutions that were not bound by the scientific method as we know it today, in order to justify hyperbolic and superstitious skepticism against scientists today is at once pathetic, hilarious, and sad. The scientific method as we would know it is first recognizable in the 18th/19th centuries. Every example you cite comes from before that time, and is thus a ridiculous comparison without contextualizing the examples you cite. You did not, and I don't think you could if you tried, because this is a patently ridiculous argument.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
As rational and systematic as you have laid it out though, sadly the follow-up tribalistic response against, for far too many, is to ignore, or try to counteract with hyperbole, lies and/or non-sensical arguments that detract from reality.
Admittedly it goes both ways.
Great book by Jonathan Haidt seeks to explain this psychological phenomenon: "THE RIGHTEOUS MIND - Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion."
Last edited by All Bizniz; 11-07-2020 at 07:58 PM.
11-07-2020 | 09:58 PM
#185
Perennial Reserve
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,261
Likes: 259
You do realize that those advertisements are selected by an algorithm based upon what you have been looking at previously, don’t you?
if you are seeing a lot of skimpy bras, it generally means that you’ve been LOOKING at a lot of skimpy bras. So yeah, it’s no wonder you are seeing more of them...
if you are seeing a lot of skimpy bras, it generally means that you’ve been LOOKING at a lot of skimpy bras. So yeah, it’s no wonder you are seeing more of them...
11-08-2020 | 05:21 AM
#186
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 943
Likes: 68
From: NBC
And because you do, you’re by extension also a scientist?
“Listening to the science,” is a great political slogan. But actual science means you observe and hypothesize. “Science,” when used in the vernacular of our politicians and media, constantly changes, yet the policies (ie, temporary lockdowns don’t work to eradicate viruses), don’t change until it’s politically expedient to change them.
Is that the kind of science you’re talking about?
Furloughfuntime has a great post above. Too bad the science has been completely weaponized by politicians from both sides, but definitely much more so by the left.
How many CV deaths can be attributed to the way in which early patients’ symptoms were first treated? Were ventilators really the right answer? Types of steroids? Nursing home policy? Not throwing spears, just asking questions. CV treatment protocols have changed and the death rate dropped-scientific method. Point is, while the “scientific method” has proven imperative in human progress, “science,” especially when twisted into a verb by politicians and the media, is far from perfect and should never be used as a reason to justify policy.
“Listening to the science,” is a great political slogan. But actual science means you observe and hypothesize. “Science,” when used in the vernacular of our politicians and media, constantly changes, yet the policies (ie, temporary lockdowns don’t work to eradicate viruses), don’t change until it’s politically expedient to change them.
Is that the kind of science you’re talking about?
Furloughfuntime has a great post above. Too bad the science has been completely weaponized by politicians from both sides, but definitely much more so by the left.
How many CV deaths can be attributed to the way in which early patients’ symptoms were first treated? Were ventilators really the right answer? Types of steroids? Nursing home policy? Not throwing spears, just asking questions. CV treatment protocols have changed and the death rate dropped-scientific method. Point is, while the “scientific method” has proven imperative in human progress, “science,” especially when twisted into a verb by politicians and the media, is far from perfect and should never be used as a reason to justify policy.
Last edited by Speed Select; 11-08-2020 at 05:39 AM.
11-08-2020 | 08:29 AM
#187
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,884
Likes: 0
From: Left seat on a kite
You do realize that those advertisements are selected by an algorithm based upon what you have been looking at previously, don’t you?
if you are seeing a lot of skimpy bras, it generally means that you’ve been LOOKING at a lot of skimpy bras. So yeah, it’s no wonder you are seeing more of them...
if you are seeing a lot of skimpy bras, it generally means that you’ve been LOOKING at a lot of skimpy bras. So yeah, it’s no wonder you are seeing more of them...
Still like the bra ad though!
11-08-2020 | 09:21 AM
#189
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
From: Bizjet Captain
This is so devoid of any relevant context that I'm reluctant to even respond. The fact that you had to reach back to views from several centuries ago, propagated by institutions that were not bound by the scientific method as we know it today, in order to justify hyperbolic and superstitious skepticism against scientists today is at once pathetic, hilarious, and sad. The scientific method as we would know it is first recognizable in the 18th/19th centuries. Every example you cite comes from before that time, and is thus a ridiculous comparison without contextualizing the examples you cite. You did not, and I don't think you could if you tried, because this is a patently ridiculous argument.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
Comparing the peer reviewed, empirically based scientific process of the 21st to what were religious worldviews of the past is asinine. Galileo knew the heliocentric model was correct in the 17th century, but was suppressed by the religious/political(really the same thing at that point in history) in the 16th century, ie the Catholic Church. You know what does sound familiar to this? Political powers playing games to suppress inconvenient truths.
The effort to dismiss evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific study because it hurts your feelings is not valid skepticism. The refusal to confront empirical, objective evidence and choosing to instead traffic in conspiracies, misrepresent information, take facts out of context, and refuse to respond to new information does not constitute valid skepticism.
Scientists do fail, that is true. But science is based on peer-reviewed fact-checking and skepticism towards the findings of colleagues, a process that rarely plays out in public view and almost never takes the kind of political charge we see in covid. It's unfortunate that it has, and that scientifically illiterate people have become so emboldened in nonsensical views.
Always nice to read an intelligent rebuttal.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
