Believing in experts - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +--- Thread: Believing in experts (/Thread-Believing-in-experts) |
RE: Believing in experts - Dill - 07-03-2023 (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. Well said, though I would say lack of science/statistical* literacy has long been with us, but it is a special problem now as some politicians have learned to focus on that illiteracy to discredit science-based policy, as that is now associated more with one party than the other. They target the four corners of "deceit": government, academia, SCIENCE, and media. Who is left to "trust" then? They have some suggestions that don't involve no fancy "scientific consensus." *e.g., I consider myself statistically CAREFUL, but not statistically literate. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:23 PM)GMDino Wrote: Sounds So Familiar.... do you ever offer anything here except for being proved wrong bt steelersfan on a daily base. maybe stick to pictures. your better at that at least RE: Believing in experts - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:26 PM)Leon Wrote: do you ever offer anything here except for being proved wrong bt steelersfan on a daily base. Don't stick up for him too much...he said he's never heard of you. More to the point your rhetoric is always the same and with no support from sources short of "google it" which kinda was the point of the original post. In fact, did you rea the first post? Start there. RE: Believing in experts - HarleyDog - 07-03-2023 (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. 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. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:29 PM)GMDino Wrote: Don't stick up for him too much...he said he's never heard of you. ? RE: Believing in experts - Dill - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:12 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: 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. I was thinking more along the lines of how many lives were saved with the vaccine vs how many might have been lost without it. If a lot of lives were saved, millions maybe, that would be a "benefit" well worth the "peoples' expense," in my view. Whether and how much of a difference the vaccine made should be the prime factor in evaluating vaccine policy, shouldn't it? People at the Commonwealth Fund think the vaccine prevented 120 million infections and saved about 3.2 million lives. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/two-years-covid-vaccines-prevented-millions-deaths-hospitalizations#:~:text=on%20our%20methods.-,Findings,million%20more%20COVID%2D19%20infections. Yet you don't seem very interested in that factor. RE: Believing in experts - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:31 PM)Leon Wrote: ? I know you can at least read. Go read the first post then respond. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:37 PM)GMDino Wrote: I know you can at least read. first post of what. and what do you want me to respond to specific RE: Believing in experts - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:38 PM)Leon Wrote: first post of what. and what do you want me to respond to specific This...thread... Here I'll make it so simple anyone can do it. Click here (that's one them thar imbedded links) Then come back and respond about what you read and the sources. Then we can talk about if they were reliable or just opinions on the internets. RE: Believing in experts - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:31 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Not sure why you were rude to him, but I will give you what you want: How do you these are the links Leon is referencing? That's why I asked him to post them. Secondly, I acknowledged this in my original post. That's why I suggested he actually read it before responding. Lastly I was not rude but merely pointed out this is not the first time Leon has claimed something and they wouldn't show the source material but rather said to google it. Thanks anyway. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:48 PM)GMDino Wrote: This...thread... you didnt give any sources. just 100 % all your own opinions. just a long post about what YOU think. how is that any differnt then other folks having there opinions? the one thing you said that i agree with is how science has been wrong many times. that was my point. just cause science says it dont automatic make it so. RE: Believing in experts - GMDino - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:58 PM)Leon Wrote: you didnt give any sources. just 100 % all your own opinions. just a long post about what YOU think. how is that any differnt then other folks having there opinions? the one thing you said that i agree with is how science has been wrong many times. that was my point. just cause science says it dont automatic make it so. So you will never believe science because it has been proven wrong sometimes? Then you didn't comprehend a single thing I wrote. I'd like to say I'm surprised. Do you go to the doctor? Does your wife, who had cancer, go to a doctor? What about for your animals? Do you use a vet? Where are your seeds from? How did you irrigate your land? All of that is science Leon. All of it. And you trust it even though "science has been proven wrong" before. RE: Believing in experts - HarleyDog - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:31 PM)Dill Wrote: I was thinking more along the lines of how many lives were saved with the vaccine vs how many might have been lost without it. 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. Quote:Whether and how much of a difference the vaccine made should be the prime factor in evaluating vaccine policy, shouldn't it? But they didn't and still don't know. So no! Quote:People at the Commonwealth Fund think the vaccine prevented 120 million infections and saved about 3.2 million lives. I'm not buying this and here's why: Quote:To evaluate the impact of the vaccination program in the United States, we expanded our age-stratified, agent-based model of COVID-19 to include waning of naturally acquired or vaccine-elicited immunity, as well as booster vaccination. For the timelines of this study, the characteristics of five variants were included in the model, each with cumulative prevalence of at least 3 percent in the U.S., including Iota, Alpha, Gamma, Delta, and Omicron, in addition to the original Wuhan-I SARS-CoV-2 strain. 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 Quote:Yet you don't seem very interested in that factor. I can't tell if that last bit was a shot or not? So I won't comment. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 05:11 PM)GMDino Wrote: So you will never believe science because it has been proven wrong sometimes? Then you didn't comprehend a single thing I wrote. mary went to the doctor cause she had cancer. doctors treat cancer. notice i said treat. cause some of there stuff works some dont. some actualy makes her sicker. but yes its the best way right now and we have to rely on it and hope for the best. your pointing to things that science gets right or at least mostly right. but you also admit science has gotten lots wrong. so its not crazy to say to say science isnt the truth on everything. look at all the pills science has put out that kills people and then gets sued or recalled. i just read something not to long ago where scientists was saying how the peer review stuff has major flaws. ill see if i can find it again to show you. thats supposed to be a good tool right. but if even that has issues and problems then how can we know how serious to take it or trust it. see where im coming from. theres real reasons to be skeptical when folks say well science says its a fact or you should believe reviewed findings, RE: Believing in experts - StoneTheCrow - 07-03-2023 RE: Believing in experts - michaelsean - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 09:55 AM)Dill Wrote: Mike, what if we deploy a different, more limited definition of "science"? 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. RE: Believing in experts - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 04:20 PM)Leon Wrote: or that they have seen the truth about you. I don't pretend I am smarter than everyone else. I just know I am more knowledgeable about some things than other people. One of those things just happens to be government. (07-03-2023, 04:20 PM)Leon Wrote: 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. I find this hilarious given the amount of debunked propaganda Luvnit spouts. (07-03-2023, 04:20 PM)Leon Wrote: 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. Not an expert in everything, just when it comes to government stuff I am probably one of, if not the most knowledgeable one on here. I'm ignorant in a lot of things, but I will freely admit to it. When it comes to energy stuff, for instance, I will defer to folks like Stewy. I know enough to say that the role of POTUS in the fluctuations of the price of gasoline is much smaller than people believe it to be, but beyond that I don't know a ton about those issues. Folks like me who work on policy go to people like Stewy (or at least we should) to ask for their input on things. One thing I will point out is that if you only think those you typically agree with are the ones challenging things and those you disagree with never do, you might not be as much of a free thinker as you believe yourself to be. Especially when a lot of what you and some of them say are parroted talking points. Just sayin'. (07-03-2023, 04:20 PM)Leon Wrote: 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. I haven't been "programmed." The scientific method is rooted in asking a question and then seeking to disprove an answer. When you test things you are trying to break it. Then, you put the information out there and get others to repeat it, hoping for the same results. When that replication occurs, this strengthens the evidence for the answer. My first post in this thread was all about evaluating the evidence, thinking critically about the results, and requiring multiple sources to show the same results before I would accept something. That is as far from blindly accepting something as you can get. However, instead of recognizing that, you saw it was coming from me, pulled out some points to attack, and used them out of context to try to say that I was just following along on things. The irony in this is so thick I really don't know what to do with it. RE: Believing in experts - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023 (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. The honey example was 100% the scientific method, just not in the formal way. Some time, some hominid had to have accidentally got honey on a wound and discovered that it behaved differently than before. Then, they tried it again. They observed that there was a difference, to they hypothesized that honey had these properties. Then, they sought to replicate the results. Eventually, this knowledge was passed on. What we call the scientific method and how we deploy it in research is just a formalized way of doing what our ancestors have been doing since the beginning. We just write it down, now. RE: Believing in experts - Leon - 07-03-2023 (07-03-2023, 05:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't pretend I am smarter than everyone else. I just know I am more knowledgeable about some things than other people. One of those things just happens to be government. 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 RE: Believing in experts - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023 (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 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. Dill and I, though, have had many disagreements over the years. To be frank, I don't interact with most posters on here except for a few, unless they directly interact with me. It's because I don't typically find it worth my energy unless I am really bored and just causing trouble. |