Believing in experts

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 06:12 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you can't find those posts than you aren't looking very hard.

Now, pally I don't interact with much at all, same for the other one.

wow. thanks for proving my point. you say i aint looking, then admit you dont challenge 2 of them at all. lol 

but you have no problem challenging me all the time. wonder why that is. weird right

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2023, 06:17 PM)Leon Wrote: wow. thanks for proving my point. you say i aint looking, then admit you dont challenge 2 of them at all. lol 

but you have no problem challenging me all the time. wonder why that is. weird right

Do you just ignore every part of a statement that would provide context disproving your point? It's definitely a form of confirmation bias at work.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 04:31 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not sure why you were rude to him, but I will give you what you want:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/if-you-say-science-is-right-youre-wrong/
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/20-of-the-greatest-blunders-in-science-in-the-last-20-years
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/5-times-that-science-got-it-wrong
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/science-top-10-erroneous-results-mistakes
I didn't read them, but I posted per your request because I'm a nice guy.

Just a quick note, as your first article points out, science is not "absolutist." 
Scientific theories are always provisional. When evidence changes they change.
They make mistakes, but in a way they can learn from them. 
Understanding how mistakes are "captured" for progress is part of science literacy.

Science is not like, say, fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Bible, which does not count 
the 10 commandments as "hypotheses" or consensus at the moment. 

You just proved that scientists DO make mistakes. 


But no one has argued that scientists don't make mistakes. 

People here only argue that scientists are more likely to be right about, say, how to manage 
a virus-based pandemic, than people who know nothing about viruses.

Just as a real mechanic is more likely to be right about that clunking sound in your 
car's engine than someone who knows nothing about cars--even if mechanics are not always right.

If there is a pandemic and we want some coordinated defense against it, then most Americans want us
to turn to scientists for policy advice--even if (per your links) Thalidomide was a disaster and the Challenger blew up. 

The question now is why so many Fox viewers, who regularly take their cars to mechanics when
the transmission freezes, suddenly balk at trusting people with great expertise about countering 
pandemics.

I can see why you might worry about corporate profiteering; it exists, and for them any pandemic is an opportunity. 
But that's where "leftist" critique comes in--so who'd want to spread distrust of "leftists" and science during a pandemic? 

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 04:05 PM)Leon Wrote: a quick google look and you will find all kinds of things science was wrong about but you know that dont you

Sure, as in my Leukemia example. 

Treatments in the 60s were "wrong" and children died.

But doctors learned from their errors,

and as they did, more and more children survived.

Errors allow science to advance. No one is arguing that science is never wrong.

The political question here is on what do we base policy if we want to, say,

protect the nation from a pandemic? Who do we turn to for advice?

If not people who actually study viruses and pandemics, because "they can be wrong too,"

then who? Who is wrong about pandemics less often than scientists? 

Please answer the bolded.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 05:42 PM)michaelsean Wrote: In my opinion honey would be good science. Effective and repeatable. It may not have arisen through what we now know as the scientific method, but it was proven time and again. That was the best science.

Failed science isn’t bad science, it’s a process. It is part of the journey.  In your leukemia example I do want the best science available because it is provable and repeatable. I don’t have an issue with the term “best science available “ when it actually is. Educated guesses aren’t science, and aren’t the best science available because it’s not science. Tell us this is an educated guess based on past experience. Or call it experimental as they do with clinical trials. The best science available is whatever is provable and repeatable. Anything beyond that may be part of the scientific process, but no more. A lot of people should probably take down their pretentious “I believe in science” yard signs.

Sounds like you are saying "no" to my definition of science, 

the one you would be learning if you studied science in any modern university in the world.

In the case of pandemics, it seems that "educated guesses" would be unavoidable,

but they would not be separate from what you call the "best science available."

If the pandemic is deadly, they might be unable to wait very long, before rising deaths outweigh the risks.

You'd agree on that wouldn't you? 

I think the yard signs appeared because science was politicized during the last pandemic,

not least because one side gained power by fomenting distrust of science. 

Notice how that continues in this thread.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-03-2023, 09:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Sounds like you are saying "no" to my definition of science, 

the one you would be learning if you studied science in any modern university in the world.

In the case of pandemics, it seems that "educated guesses" would be unavoidable,

but they would not be separate from what you call the "best science available."

If the pandemic is deadly, they might be unable to wait very long, before rising deaths outweigh the risks.

You'd agree on that wouldn't you? 

I think the yard signs appeared because science was politicized during the last pandemic,

not least because one side gained power by fomenting distrust of science. 

Notice how that continues in this thread.

Not sure if I’m saying no or not, maybe explain it again, but what I am saying is that if it isn’t proven and repeatable it’s not “the best science available”. The best science available is whatever level has been proven.

I didn’t say educated guesses were wrong to use. I took the vaccines. But call it what it is.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 05:18 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I disagree. And you can argue both sides of this evenly. Being forced to take the vaccine is not worth the people's expense. For those who died being forced to take the vaccine, let's just call that what it is: Murder. And please don't argue that they still had a choice because they didn't. There would be no benefits if they quit their jobs and refused and would risk their own health to save their family.

I wasn't going to argue "they had a choice," I was going to argue that three million saved outweighs three deaths.

Why am I wrong to think that three dead is a better outcome than THREE MILLION dead? How does one argue the opposite "evenly"?

Also, murder requires an INTENT to kill, doesn't it? Do think those administering vaccines wanted to kill people? 
Wouldn't it be better to just withhold the vaccine, then MORE would die?

(07-03-2023, 05:18 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Each variant is a direct cause of the previous one. People had to keep getting shots because they were shit and ineffective. Did they figure in if the vaccine was really even needed? As much as you laugh at Hydroxychloraquine and other cheap methods, those were not figured into this study. You will say it because it didn't work. I'll say it never got the chance it deserved because Trump believed in it, so lets mislead all the people and make it bad so Trump looks bad. Special Report: Doctors embrace drug touted by Trump for COVID-19, without hard evidence it works | Reuters

Do you think British, French, German and Japanese researchers were biasing their H research because "Trump believed in it"?
They weren't interested in saving lives? No one reviewing their research would notice? 

Actually, your link shows it did get a chance.  As does my link to the Lancet below.

As epidemiologists tote up the consequences of multiple studies, we see that it failed.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00085-0/fulltext

The growing consensus seems to be that the failure is a lesson in rushing to treatments based on anecdotal evidence.

H is one of those "mistakes of science" now, as in your links above,
but it occurred precisely because people were not following scientific protocols for development of effective treatment. 

It should not be used to knock science, but to make sure science, not politics and panic, are at the front of pandemic response.

Final question: An effect cannot precede a cause. So how can a current variant "cause" a previous one?

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 09:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not sure if I’m saying no or not, maybe explain it again, but what I am saying is that if it isn’t proven and repeatable it’s not “the best science available”. The best science available is whatever level has been proven.

I didn’t say educated guesses were wrong to use. I took the vaccines. But call it what it is.

We agree on the bolded. 

Maybe good to leave it at that and not risk misconstruction etc. 

[HarleyDog]

(07-03-2023, 09:59 PM)Dill Wrote:
I wasn't going to argue "they had a choice," I was going to argue that three million saved outweighs three deaths.

Why am I wrong to think that three dead is a better outcome than THREE MILLION dead? How does one argue the opposite "evenly"?

Also, murder requires an INTENT to kill, doesn't it? Do think those administering vaccines wanted to kill people? 
Wouldn't it be better to just withhold the vaccine, then MORE would die?


Do you think British, French, German and Japanese researchers were biasing their H research because "Trump believed in it"?
They weren't interested in saving lives? No one reviewing their research would notice? 

Actually, your link shows it did get a chance.  As does my link to the Lancet below.

As epidemiologists tote up the consequences of multiple studies, we see that it failed.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00085-0/fulltext

The growing consensus seems to be that the failure is a lesson in rushing to treatments based on anecdotal evidence.

H is one of those "mistakes of science" now, as in your links above,
but it occurred precisely because people were not following scientific protocols for development of effective treatment. 

It should not be used to knock science, but to make sure science, not politics and panic, are at the front of pandemic response.

Final question: An effect cannot precede a cause. So how can a current variant "cause" a previous one?

3 million vs 3 are not factual numbers. Throw in the correct amount of deaths it caused.

The idea of withholding the vaccine so more would die is silly. But not as silly as forcing someone and killing them.

I’m ok with science being at the front of the pandemic. But only with freedom of choice without threats, politics or panic. More people died because of politics than anyone is willing to admit.

As for the last question, I didn’t say that. I referred to each variant was a product of the one before it.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 10:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: 3 million vs 3 are not factual numbers. Throw in the correct amount of deaths it caused.

Wondering why you cannot "throw in the correct amount of deaths" since this is your claim. What is your source? 
Have you got some Fox facts? Maybe the discredited V-Damage Project? What? 

According to the COVID 101 site, as of July 23, 2021, only three people had died of the vaccine,
while over 600,000 had died of COVID. That's where I got my original claim.
https://covid-101.org/science/how-many-people-have-died-from-the-vaccine-in-the-u-s/

My Bad. By May 31st of this year, the number has tripled to NINE deaths causally related to the J&J/Jansen vaccine.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

This site also refers to those nine, but includes a list of sources, including the CDEC, debunking DISINFORMATION about the vaccine.
https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/scicheck-no-evidence-excess-deaths-linked-to-vaccines-contrary-to-claims-online/

(07-03-2023, 10:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: The idea of withholding the vaccine so more would die is silly. But not as silly as forcing someone and killing them.

I’m ok with science being at the front of the pandemic. But only with freedom of choice without threats, politics or panic. More people died because of politics than anyone is willing to admit.

As for the last question, I didn’t say that. I referred to each variant was a product of the one before it.

So if you had to choose between 9 people dying because they were "forced" to take it,

and over three million dead. You would save the nine, whom you'd claim are "murdered"?

It sounds like you'd be ok with no response to the virus at all, even if it saved millions of lives, because someone who
volunteered to defend his country was "forced" to take a shot. You're a veteran, right? You KNOW that you give lots of
choices to protect the country and your fellow military when you join. 

I am quite willing to admit that hundreds of thousands, maybe a million, died because of "politics" 

--i.e., because a certain president ignored the threat for so long, because his minions undermined science and confidence in the vaccine,
because all that doubt created vast human petri dish of unvaccinated who could keep the virus an evolving threat.

Civilians were quite free NOT to get vaccinated. The political pressure came from those who saw an opportunity to undermine
science for political gain--a long term project on the right, which has greatly damaged our country.

(07-03-2023, 10:20 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: As for the last question, I didn’t say that. I referred to each variant was a product of the one before it.

Here I quote you directly: "Each variant is a direct cause of the previous one." 

That's what you said. Variant --> cause--> previous one. If that's not what you MEANT to say. Fine. I'll not hold you to what you didn't intend.

I turn rather to this: 

"People had to keep getting shots because they were shit and ineffective. 
Did they figure in if the vaccine was really even needed?" 

This misunderstand the science and the disease. To make the shots effective, people first had to get two, in stages, to properly boost the immune system.
That doesn't make the vaccine "ineffective" or "slhit."  

As if it could ever have been like a one time measles or small pox shot, but just wasn't good enough.

As with the flu, permanent immunity is not possible, especially because of the mass of disinformed people 
who protect their "freedom" by not getting shots keep it spreading and evolving into new forms.

Of course the vaccine was "needed." That's how the 3 million lives were saved. 
Have you been listening to Hannity, who was advising people they should only get
the shot in consultation with their doctors? 

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 05:56 PM)Leon Wrote: if your such a free thinker and aint programmed how come i never see you challenge pally or ludicus or dill on the things they say? thats weird how that never happens, like me. ive challenged folks on here on religion and trump even though i agree with them on most other stuff. why dont you do the same with the folks i mentioned. i cant find any post of yours challenging them even though they are wrong about a lot of things. you have no problem disagreeing with me on every time i say something

Um, Bels is a big 2nd Amendment supporter. I'm a gun owner too, but have disagreed with his stances on that issue, for example. 
And other consequences, like the Rittenhouse case in Wisconsin. But you are relatively new, so you've missed that. 

But he's going to agree with me on most major issues--the Russia investigation was not a "witch hunt," Trump earned his impeachments,
attempted a coup, and would be a national disaster if re-elected, science is a good thing and ought to be the basis of health policy, etc. 
So that's why you don't see him "challenge" me. Or Pally or Lucidus.

Same reason you don't challenge SSF or Luvnit--you mostly agree with them. You have much in common as  you
all feel threatened by something Fox defines as "the left." 

Also, we are not "wrong about a lot of things" just because you say so. You claim to know what's what, without being able to argue your case with adequate support on a number of issues, most of the time without demonstrating you even understand the issue at hand--while claiming to know more than others.

Bels probably has no problem disagreeing with you for the same reason I don't:
You repeat disinformation and don't demonstrate claims you make. 

When people offer you clear reasons and ground for what they believe and why, you simply dismiss it as a lot of words,
as you just did when Bels explained how he sorts articles on science issues. He was trying to show people how he arrives
at conclusions, and doing that in an open and transparent way. That way, if there were a flaw in his method, people could
point it out. That's the OPPOSITE of someone claiming, authoritarian style, to know "the WORD," so end of argument. 
 

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2023, 09:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Says the resident, it’s my field, expert. The title should have been “Youngest Griffin Son”. Second place would be “Scary Santa Claus”

Perhaps we should entice Banjaxed to be more active, then you could also learn about risk management from an actual professional, as well?

[Truck_1_0_1_]

(07-01-2023, 10:15 PM)Millhouse Wrote: In regards to Covid, next time a world pandemic hits similar to it, I think the U.S. should try it's very best to copy what the Japanese did and/or doing. Numbers don't lie, so why were the Japanese far superior than the 'West' when it comes to dealing with Covid? 

Now I'm no scientist myself, but how can anyone think that the U.S. did too much  and instead should have left it up to the personal freedom of everyone to do whatever they wanted as if Covid didn't exist?

I guess I will always fall on the side of trying to save as many lives as possible even if some "personal freedoms" are inhibited for a short while. Then again I will always have a different personal perspective on this than a vast majority of people could ever relate too (which is a good thing!).

Japan : 
Population roughly 125 million  -   total of 33 million plus cases - 392 million plus vaccines given - 74,694 total deaths thru last month

U.S. :
Population roughly 331 million  -   total of 103 million plus cases - 668 million plus vaccines given - 1,127,152 total deaths thru last month

https://covid19.who.int/region/amro/country/us
https://covid19.who.int/region/wpro/country/jp

(07-02-2023, 12:22 AM)Dill Wrote: Excellent question and example.

Possibly very few Japanese were deflected from vaccination by vax conspiracies and fear the government's protective measures were

really about long term social control, or by belief the virus was a "hoax." 

Do you know what they did?

- Wore masks a shit-ton and still do: this has been a practice of the Orient since the 1800s, so no surprise here
- Japan in particular, locked down like 2x longer than any other country and banned travel for MUCH longer than the rest of the world.

Those sound like two things a particular portion of the population were vehemently against...

(07-03-2023, 03:41 PM)Leon Wrote: you mean experts like fauci. hes been proven to be a fraud and folks like you still defend him. some folks are so brainwashed that they must believe something cause a so called expert said it. that its just sad and breaks my heart.