Lockdown Part 2
11-10-2020, 12:32 AM
#201
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Position: retired 767(dl)
Posts: 5,723
I, at one time, thought 75 was a good place to stop. That is, until I reached 75. My GP has stated to me many times "I'm just trying to keep you alive." I say, well yes, but don't try too hard.
11-10-2020, 06:50 AM
#204
Bracing for Fallacies
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
Scientology. I mean, it’s got ‘science’ AND ‘ology’
That was awesome. And I was informed I can only post 3 images contrary to the original amount of smileys I chose.
11-10-2020, 06:53 AM
#205
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,171
Originally Posted by block30
Furloughfuntime, I can appreciate the sentiment of not panicking and the initial part of the quote had a strong I statement....but.....I think galaxy flyer is right too, the second sentence shifts towards his general take of the broad American health mentality plus the quote does end with
“ I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
That sounds less like a personal wish and a more broad view of life, and I don’t think that’s a good look given his position.
“ I think this manic desperation to endlessly extend life is misguided and potentially destructive. For many reasons, 75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop."
That sounds less like a personal wish and a more broad view of life, and I don’t think that’s a good look given his position.
11-10-2020, 12:27 PM
#207
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
And yet one of the most quoted scientific papers ever argues that “most published scientific findings are false” and can not be replicated.
While science is certainly better at understanding the world than most religion I’d argue problematic bias and political agendas that undermine the scientific method are much more pervasive than you indicate. All too often science mimics the religious dogma it is so critical of.
Peer review is significantly flawed. It is largely an undefined process based on trust, which ironically in of itself is highly unscientific. The belief that peer review is effective is a hypothesis which has yet to be tested.
How ironic.
https://www.biospace.com/article/the...one-about-it-/
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/360.full
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/986508...ience-problems
“I believe in science” is a safe space for new age fundamentalists. Science is about observation, experiments, facts and theories. Belief has nothing to do with it.
Science all too often is used to promote a badge of tribal identity (just like religion). Often, science is now used to bypass any meaningful discussion, rolling problems AND solutions to those problems into one pre-packaged socially acceptable, ideological deal.
No thanks. Proclaiming a belief in current consensus is not science.
While science is certainly better at understanding the world than most religion I’d argue problematic bias and political agendas that undermine the scientific method are much more pervasive than you indicate. All too often science mimics the religious dogma it is so critical of.
Peer review is significantly flawed. It is largely an undefined process based on trust, which ironically in of itself is highly unscientific. The belief that peer review is effective is a hypothesis which has yet to be tested.
How ironic.
https://www.biospace.com/article/the...one-about-it-/
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedici...l.pmed.0020124
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/2/360.full
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/986508...ience-problems
“I believe in science” is a safe space for new age fundamentalists. Science is about observation, experiments, facts and theories. Belief has nothing to do with it.
Science all too often is used to promote a badge of tribal identity (just like religion). Often, science is now used to bypass any meaningful discussion, rolling problems AND solutions to those problems into one pre-packaged socially acceptable, ideological deal.
No thanks. Proclaiming a belief in current consensus is not science.
I know a few people who've gone through the peer review process to get published and it's a very thorough process. The reviewers are randomized so that they can't be corrupted by business, but they have to be subject matter experts in the specific field because a scientist with a different specialization, let alone a lay person, would not be able to properly interpret the data. Then once the article is released, everyone's professional reputation is on the line. It's not the media, there's a very high standard and good reasons to not screw up.
The nature of science means that scientists are supposed to disagree with each other and run experiments to prove/disprove their theories, which is fine if it's outside 'the consensus' as long as they can support their beliefs with real data that is reviewed properly. This is why scientists who publish data outside the peer review process are largely shunned; they're short circuiting the process and using their credentials to get mass exposure with people who don't know any better. The scientists who have a consensus have it because they understand the material as well as you would if you had a graduate degree in the subject matter. Don't use the fact that scientists disagree and test alternate theories as a means to undermine the profession and what they provide.
Think about what science would be like without the peer review process. Scientists would just be technical corporate lawyers, used to spin anything whatever direction they wanted. They could be used to prove that it's ok to smoke, or that workers didn't get cancer from asbestos in their factory, or that the high cancer rate in some town wasn't from the industrial complex dumping in the river, or Roundup is perfectly safe for kids, etc, etc.
Believe it or not, scientists are just normal people, who are far more concerned with holes in their data or methods than anyone's agenda, while making less money than a regional CA. If you want to trust some talking head in the media with a liberal arts degree, whose never been in a lab, and is driving a Maserati with money they made towing somebody's political line, then that's your choice, but I think it's ill advised.
For example, if 99 financial advisors tell you that shorting Tesla right now is a bad idea and 1 tells you it's going to make you rich, would you listen to the 1 guy? They're all experts with grad degrees, who make a living obsessing on this stuff 10 hours a day and you just read a few MarketWatch articles. You can do whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one whose going to pay for it. So, as someone who admittedly hasn't attained the education or devoted the time and resources into market research, why would you bet on the 1 guy against the 99? My belief is that it's mostly just a way to push your own beliefs and not come across as someone who doesn't like the data based on emotional or moral reasons or because the media you listen to, which are master manipulators, have spun the 1 advisor's narrative and repeated it so many times that you haven't taken the time to adequately question the source data.
Last edited by Duffman; 11-10-2020 at 12:46 PM.
11-10-2020, 12:48 PM
#209
:-)
Joined APC: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,339
Originally Posted by Duffman
Sounds like you're trying to justify cherry picking what 'science' you believe or cast doubt on entire professions that you personally know nothing about. What you're saying is "when someone is a terrible shot, the safest place to be is right in front of the target." Scientists are sighting in their rifle. The first few shots may be off, but you'll be standing dead in the cross hairs before you know it.
I know a few people who've gone through the peer review process to get published and it's a very thorough process. The reviewers are randomized so that they can't be corrupted by business, but they have to be subject matter experts in the specific field because a scientist with a different specialization, let alone a lay person, would not be able to properly interpret the data. Then once the article is released, everyone's professional reputation is on the line. It's not the media, there's a very high standard and good reasons to not screw up.
The nature of science means that scientists are supposed to disagree with each other and run experiments to prove/disprove their theories, which is fine if it's outside 'the consensus' as long as they can support their beliefs with real data that is reviewed properly. This is why scientists who publish data outside the peer review process are largely shunned; they're short circuiting the process and using their credentials to get mass exposure with people who don't know any better. The scientists who have a consensus have it because they understand the material as well as you would if you had a graduate degree in the subject matter. Don't use the fact that scientists disagree and test alternate theories as a means to undermine the profession and what they provide.
Think about what science would be like without the peer review process. Scientists would just be technical corporate lawyers, used to spin anything whatever direction they wanted. They could be used to prove that it's ok to smoke, or that workers didn't get cancer from asbestos in their factory, or that the high cancer rate in some town wasn't from the industrial complex dumping in the river, or Roundup is perfectly safe for kids, etc, etc.
Believe it or not, scientists are just normal people, who are far more concerned with holes in their data or methods than anyone's agenda, while making less money than a regional CA. If you want to trust some talking head in the media with a liberal arts degree, whose never been in a lab, and is driving a Maserati with money they made towing somebody's political line, then that's your choice, but I think it's ill advised.
For example, if 99 financial advisors tell you that shorting Tesla right now is a bad idea and 1 tells you it's going to make you rich, would you listen to the 1 guy? They're all experts with grad degrees, who make a living obsessing on this stuff 10 hours a day and you just read a few MarketWatch articles. You can do whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one whose going to pay for it. So, as someone who admittedly hasn't attained the education or devoted the time and resources into market research, why would you bet on the 1 guy against the 99? My belief is that it's mostly just a way to push your own beliefs and not come across as someone who doesn't like the data based on emotional or moral reasons or because the media you listen to, which are master manipulators, have spun the 1 advisor's narrative and repeated it so many times that you haven't taken the time to adequately question the source data.
I know a few people who've gone through the peer review process to get published and it's a very thorough process. The reviewers are randomized so that they can't be corrupted by business, but they have to be subject matter experts in the specific field because a scientist with a different specialization, let alone a lay person, would not be able to properly interpret the data. Then once the article is released, everyone's professional reputation is on the line. It's not the media, there's a very high standard and good reasons to not screw up.
The nature of science means that scientists are supposed to disagree with each other and run experiments to prove/disprove their theories, which is fine if it's outside 'the consensus' as long as they can support their beliefs with real data that is reviewed properly. This is why scientists who publish data outside the peer review process are largely shunned; they're short circuiting the process and using their credentials to get mass exposure with people who don't know any better. The scientists who have a consensus have it because they understand the material as well as you would if you had a graduate degree in the subject matter. Don't use the fact that scientists disagree and test alternate theories as a means to undermine the profession and what they provide.
Think about what science would be like without the peer review process. Scientists would just be technical corporate lawyers, used to spin anything whatever direction they wanted. They could be used to prove that it's ok to smoke, or that workers didn't get cancer from asbestos in their factory, or that the high cancer rate in some town wasn't from the industrial complex dumping in the river, or Roundup is perfectly safe for kids, etc, etc.
Believe it or not, scientists are just normal people, who are far more concerned with holes in their data or methods than anyone's agenda, while making less money than a regional CA. If you want to trust some talking head in the media with a liberal arts degree, whose never been in a lab, and is driving a Maserati with money they made towing somebody's political line, then that's your choice, but I think it's ill advised.
For example, if 99 financial advisors tell you that shorting Tesla right now is a bad idea and 1 tells you it's going to make you rich, would you listen to the 1 guy? They're all experts with grad degrees, who make a living obsessing on this stuff 10 hours a day and you just read a few MarketWatch articles. You can do whatever you want, but at the end of the day, you're the one whose going to pay for it. So, as someone who admittedly hasn't attained the education or devoted the time and resources into market research, why would you bet on the 1 guy against the 99? My belief is that it's mostly just a way to push your own beliefs and not come across as someone who doesn't like the data based on emotional or moral reasons or because the media you listen to, which are master manipulators, have spun the 1 advisor's narrative and repeated it so many times that you haven't taken the time to adequately question the source data.
11-10-2020, 12:49 PM
#210
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 644
Originally Posted by emersonbiguns
Is that one guy Hannity? Tucker?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
