Believing in experts

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 08:54 PM)Leon Wrote: i put my trust in the Word. not man made science with an agenda. science is wrong way more than its right but folks wanna say gotta trust the science. no thanks. ill trust what i know is true. not what a bunch of govt lab coats tell me is true

Christian scientists don't go to medical doctors or hospitals when they get sick.

I don't think you are a Christian scientist.

But I'm wondering what you would do if you or a family member had appendicitis.

Would you trust a "lab coat" to help you with that? 

Also you seem to trust science to some degree as you are using a computer and the internet.

Scientists had to get something right in order for us to have this advanced technology, right? 

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 09:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: My problem is “best science at the time.”  That doesn’t make it good science. It doesn’t mean it went through any of the rigors. It sounds more like a hypothesis. Best science should have already been proven. Honey has been used to treat wounds for a long time. 1000 years ago it was used. That was the best science at the time because it had been repeated over and over and found to be useful. It was actual science albeit not in the way we think of it today. Bleeding someone did not work, but in today’s age someone would call it the best science of the day because the current experts thought it worked.

A lot of things we did during Covid seemed like guesswork. Perhaps surprisingly I found the vaccines to be the least problematic, and got them. I got them mainly because I wanted us to get back to normal, but I wasn’t at all concerned about getting them.

Mike, what if we deploy a different, more limited definition of "science"? 

I.e., what if we call "science" only the kind of thing that appeared in 16th-17th century Europe, and began to displace faith, common sense, and tradition/custom as the basis of reliable knowledge with an experimental method based on empirical testing and critical collation of results so that new research could build upon old and established? The kind of thing that eventually gave us moon rockets, electric lighting, a cure for polio, and a network of telecommunications allowing us to face time with friends in South America or Japan?

If we do that then, say, bloodletting just looks like a pre-scientific practice swept away by science, something that was never "science," however "expert" its practitioners may have been viewed. And applying honey to wounds, even if effective, would not be "science" in the above-defined sense, but more like folk knowledge.

From 1965-69, doctors could only cure about 5% of children who developed acute lymphatic leukemia. Before that they could cure none.

Between 1970 to 1975, that number jumped to 15%. 1975-80, that number jumped to 85%.  

To the layperson, it's likely that a lot of this process would appear "guesswork." It involved dead ends, failures, and outright mistakes--all compiled in a way that future researchers could learn from them, while children died. If one totes up all the errors, one could say, with Leon, that in this process there were more wrong treatments than right. It's just that now, after that long and careful process, what they've got is mostly right. 

If someone in your family developed leukemia now, you'd want to go with "the best science" at this time, right? 

But how might this process play out in a pandemic from a new disease about which little is known? I'd want "experts" with knowledge of past pandemics driving pandemic policy. They would begin by worrying about what they don't know--e.g. how and how rapidly is the disease communicated?  They might want to mandate masks and social distancing, just to be sure. They might rush vaccines into development faster than normal to save lives. 

If it turned out the masks were not effective, that would not make the experts "liars" from a research perspective. If the vaccine were only 50% effective and had some serious drawbacks for .01% of the population, that would not mean that the vaccine "doesn't make a difference" or imposes undue risk if it saves exponentially more lives than it risks.  

It would be very sad if unscrupulous politicians played on a segment of the public's ignorance of scientific process to undermine confidence in science institutions and expertise, in the aftermath framing cautious policy as "lies" and government control. "They changed the distancing policy again so they don't know what they are doing! They're just guessing and forcing their guesses on us!" 

[Belsnickel]

I consider myself a social scientist because I do policy analysis and assessments which involves political science, sociology, psychology, economics, etc. It is an interdisciplinary field primarily in the realm of social sciences and poli sci specifically. Anyway, my rule of thumb is consensus. What is the majority of the literature saying? And when I say literature, I am talking about peer reviewed, replicable (preferably replicated), research. One article does not convince me. I will look for meta-analyses on a subject. If there isn't one, I will look at several articles on the topic. I will look at the statistical results in the article. Do they draw the same conclusions I would have? There are times where articles will draw conclusions that I would say "eh, the statistical power of that is low, I wouldn't say that for sure." I look at their methods to see if there is anything amiss in how they did their research. Can they actually draw causal conclusions? If the majority of research in the field says the same or similar things then that is what I will go with until there is something that disproves their research.

I care less about who is saying something than I do about what is behind their statement. Now, people who are well respected in their fields receive a degree of deference. Sure. Makes sense. But they can say stupid shit just as much as the first-year grad student can. The problem is that most people aren't literate in these things. They don't understand what to look for in a methods section that can give away bad design. They don't know what p-hacking looks like or even what statistical power is. This is why experts, and "experts," are relied on so heavily. People aren't able to understand this information or they are too lazy to really dig into it.

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 08:54 AM)Dill Wrote: Christian scientists don't go to medical doctors or hospitals when they get sick.

I don't think you are a Christian scientist.

But I'm wondering what you would do if you or a family member had appendicitis.

Would you trust a "lab coat" to help you with that? 

Also you seem to trust science to some degree as you are using a computer and the internet.

Scientists had to get something right in order for us to have this advanced technology, right? 

yes science gets stuff right in some cases. but they also get a hole lotta stuff wrong. you said medicine. yes there are good things they can do. but also how many die cause of bad drugs. misdiagnosed. and plenty of other things. you cant just say its science so its right. it might be in some cases and it might not be in many others. folks act like saying its science automatic means its correct. history proves that aint even close to true

[HarleyDog]

(07-03-2023, 03:14 PM)Leon Wrote: yes science gets stuff right in some cases. but they also get a hole lotta stuff wrong. you said medicine. yes there are good things they can do. but also how many die cause of bad drugs. misdiagnosed. and plenty of other things. you cant just say its science so its right. it might be in some cases and it might not be in many others. folks act like saying its science automatic means its correct. history proves that aint even close to true

Your correct. I hope and pray the covid vaccines do not have long-term effects. So many people got them. But what was worse is how many people were forced to get them. "The Science" didn't know shit about the short or long-term effects of getting the shot because it's impossible to know, but they said it was safe because why? MONEY! I seriously thought about it a few times because the V.A. was pushing it so strongly and because of my heart attack, but I opted out. "Trust the Science" may very well be the worst bullshit slogan in world history.

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 03:26 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Your correct. I hope and pray the covid vaccines do not have long-term effects. So many people got them. But what was worse is how many people were forced to get them. "The Science" didn't know shit about the short or long-term effects of getting the shot because it's impossible to know, but they said it was safe because why? MONEY! I seriously thought about it a few times because the V.A. was pushing it so strongly and because of my heart attack, but I opted out. "Trust the Science" may very well be the worst bullshit slogan in world history.

good points. im very worried about everyone who got the jabs including me. they made me get the furst one cause of all my health problems and cause my wife has cancer. but i chose not to get anymore myself cause of all the worrying info that was coming out. my wife had to get more cause of surgery an chemo but now im very worried about what they might be doing to her. we just dont know how these shots may affect us down the road. its scary to think about.

you nailed it saying trust the science is the worst slogan in history. how many times has science been awfully wrong 

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 01:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I consider myself a social scientist because I do policy analysis and assessments which involves political science, sociology, psychology, economics, etc. It is an interdisciplinary field primarily in the realm of social sciences and poli sci specifically. Anyway, my rule of thumb is consensus. What is the majority of the literature saying? And when I say literature, I am talking about peer reviewed, replicable (preferably replicated), research. One article does not convince me. I will look for meta-analyses on a subject. If there isn't one, I will look at several articles on the topic. I will look at the statistical results in the article. Do they draw the same conclusions I would have? There are times where articles will draw conclusions that I would say "eh, the statistical power of that is low, I wouldn't say that for sure." I look at their methods to see if there is anything amiss in how they did their research. Can they actually draw causal conclusions? If the majority of research in the field says the same or similar things then that is what I will go with until there is something that disproves their research.

I care less about who is saying something than I do about what is behind their statement. Now, people who are well respected in their fields receive a degree of deference. Sure. Makes sense. But they can say stupid shit just as much as the first-year grad student can. The problem is that most people aren't literate in these things. They don't understand what to look for in a methods section that can give away bad design. They don't know what p-hacking looks like or even what statistical power is. This is why experts, and "experts," are relied on so heavily. People aren't able to understand this information or they are too lazy to really dig into it.

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. 

[Belsnickel]

(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. 

Thank you for providing an example of what it means to be unable to read and comprehend something.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 03:26 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Your correct. I hope and pray the covid vaccines do not have long-term effects. So many people got them. But what was worse is how many people were forced to get them. "The Science" didn't know shit about the short or long-term effects of getting the shot because it's impossible to know, but they said it was safe because why? MONEY! I seriously thought about it a few times because the V.A. was pushing it so strongly and because of my heart attack, but I opted out. "Trust the Science" may very well be the worst bullshit slogan in world history.

"Forced to get them"? Do you mean military? Just wondering.

Also, in your view did the COVID vaccine save lives? 

How are you determining cost/benefits here?

Would the death toll have been the same regardless of the vaccine? 

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 03:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Thank you for providing an example of what it means to be unable to read and comprehend something.

you said this right

Anyway, my rule of thumb is consensus. What is the majority of the literature saying? 


you know consesus has been wrong many time right. you know the majority has been very wrong before right. but hey keep on using that as your rule. no way to go wrong with that rule right? 

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 03:35 PM)Leon Wrote: good points. im very worried about everyone who got the jabs including me. they made me get the furst one cause of all my health problems and cause my wife has cancer. but i chose not to get anymore myself cause of all the worrying info that was coming out. my wife had to get more cause of surgery an chemo but now im very worried about what they might be doing to her. we just dont know how these shots may affect us down the road. its scary to think about.

you nailed it saying trust the science is the worst slogan in history. how many times has science been awfully wrong 

Where was all that "worrying info" coming from? Can you remember at least some of those sources? 

As I mentioned in a post above, over 85% of children are now cured of ALL childhood leukemia. 
That's MILLIONS world wide now. Before science ALL would have died.

And science has all but eradicated small pox, polio and measles.

Oh wait, measles is coming back now because parents are refusing to vaccinate their children. 

That record has got me wondering, seriously, how many times has science "been awfully wrong"? 

Your wife, at least, is trusting science now with surgery and chemo, right?  

Do you trust the chemo (science) but not the shots ("trust science is the worst slogan in history"). 

[GMDino]

(07-03-2023, 03:42 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Thank you for providing an example of what it means to be unable to read and comprehend something.

Welp, now you're gonna be accused of making fun of someone who doesn't believe is fancy book learning.

[Belsnickel]

(07-03-2023, 03:51 PM)Leon Wrote: you said this right

Anyway, my rule of thumb is consensus. What is the majority of the literature saying? 


you know consesus has been wrong many time right. you know the majority has been very wrong before right. but hey keep on using that as your rule. no way to go wrong with that rule right? 

I did. Of course, there is more context to it than that. It does require a little more comprehension and critical thinking to parse it out though.

(07-03-2023, 03:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: Welp, now you're gonna be accused of making fun of someone who doesn't believe is fancy book learning.

Oh well. Maybe I will have another member of my fan club that likes to go around putting a thumbs down on all my posts. I like knowing I touched a nerve like that; tells me I might have made them recognize a truth about themselves.

[Dill]

(07-03-2023, 03:51 PM)Leon Wrote: you said this right

Anyway, my rule of thumb is consensus. What is the majority of the literature saying? 

you know consesus has been wrong many time right. you know the majority has been very wrong before right. but hey keep on using that as your rule. no way to go wrong with that rule right? 

I wonder if you may be confusing political consensus with scientific.

Democracy is based upon majority rule. Sure it can be wrong, especially when people are uniformed about policy matters.

Scientific consensus is rather different. For scientists it is a reflection of cumulative research at any given moment. 
It may change as more becomes known, but it is not drawn from a pool of uninformed. Rather the opposite.

But it would not be especially rational to go against scientific consensus at any given moment just because it has changed or "been wrong" at some point in the past. 

It is a principle of our current civilization that science produces the most effective knowledge, from saving lives to building roads to exploring space.
That's why so many want to draw upon it for health policy.

You, on the other hand, think it is not wise to defer to a consensus of the deeply informed about health topics. 

That consensus is somehow not worthy of public trust. So instead you defer to . . . who or what exactly? 

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 03:51 PM)Dill Wrote: Where was all that "worrying info" coming from? Can you remember at least some of those sources? 

As I mentioned in a post above, over 85% of children are now cured of ALL childhood leukemia. 
That's MILLIONS world wide now. Before science ALL would have died.

And science has all but eradicated small pox, polio and measles.

Oh wait, measles is coming back now because parents are refusing to vaccinate their children. 

That record has got me wondering, seriously, how many times has science "been awfully wrong"? 

Your wife, at least, is trusting science now with surgery and chemo, right?  

Do you trust the chemo (science) but not the shots ("trust science is the worst slogan in history"). 

a quick google look and you will find all kinds of things science was wrong about but you know that dont you

[HarleyDog]

(07-03-2023, 03:45 PM)Dill Wrote: "Forced to get them"? Do you mean military? Just wondering.

Also, in your view did the COVID vaccine save lives? 

How are you determining cost/benefits here?

Would the death toll have been the same regardless of the vaccine? 

Military, nurses, government workers, and so on. Did it save lives? I don't know. But it did take several though. As for cost benefits? Your crazed and confused if you think drug companies and politicians didn't make friggen big bucks at the peoples' expense. 

[GMDino]

(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 you don't want to copy and paste something "with a link in it"?  You've done it before.

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 03:57 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I did. Of course, there is more context to it than that. It does require a little more comprehension and critical thinking to parse it out though.


Oh well. Maybe I will have another member of my fan club that likes to go around putting a thumbs down on all my posts. I like knowing I touched a nerve like that; tells me I might have made them recognize a truth about themselves.

or that they have seen the truth about you.

you and dill an ludicus and pally and gino just keep proving what i said about you all. you guys want to pretend your smarter than every one else. use a ton of words everytime which is always a red flag. and talk down to folks. but whos really smart in here.

look at folks like harley and sunsetbengals and luvnit and steelersfan. they tell it like it is and call stuff out when it needs to be called out. they dont just accept things cause left wing folks with tons of words say its so. they challengs things not just go along like sheep being told what to say. 

just look. pally and ludicus trying to always defend tarteging little children, gross. gino is always getting proved wrong. dill always trying to make history into meeting his left wing views. and you always trying to act like an expert in everything which gets really old real fast.

you guys just want to believe things and defend things cause its how you been programmed. you talk about how science has problems but then say you stlill been believe if a majority say it. you dont see the craziness in that do you. 

[Leon]

(07-03-2023, 04:15 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sure you don't want to copy and paste something "with a link in it"?  You've done it before.

why. you proved you dont understand how to use a link

[GMDino]

(07-03-2023, 04:20 PM)Leon Wrote: or that they have seen the truth about you.

you and dill an ludicus and pally and gino just keep proving what i said about you all. you guys want to pretend your smarter than every one else. use a ton of words everytime which is always a red flag. and talk down to folks. but whos really smart in here.

look at folks like harley and sunsetbengals and luvnit and steelersfan. they tell it like it is and call stuff out when it needs to be called out. they dont just accept things cause left wing folks with tons of words say its so. they challengs things not just go along like sheep being told what to say. 

just look. pally and ludicus trying to always defend tarteging little children, gross. gino is always getting proved wrong. dill always trying to make history into meeting his left wing views. and you always trying to act like an expert in everything which gets really old real fast.

you guys just want to believe things and defend things cause its how you been programmed. you talk about how science has problems but then say you stlill been believe if a majority say it. you dont see the craziness in that do you. 

Sounds So Familiar....