Your Set of Beliefs and Coronavirus - Page 4


Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 123456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 130

Thread: Your Set of Beliefs and Coronavirus

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Terry D View Post
    It is stupid to discuss 'the media' as if it is one entity with a single purpose. There are thousands of media outlets, each with their own set of objectives, standards, and biases. Even coagulating a few -- or many -- outlets into a group and calling them "the mainstream media" is too simplistic.
    Same is true of scientists. They might get together at conferences but the major talking points are where they disagree. Even major organisations like the IPCC and the WHO do very little to no research themselves - they rely on the various independent teams operating around the world. The idea of them getting together to set some global political agenda is laughable - you wouldn't even get them to agree on a venue.

    The relationship between scientists and the media is also fractious with scientists believing the media will twist their words for big headlines. Every time you see a Facebook causes cancer! headline, you know there's a scientist crying somewhere. In this case it was one psychologist's conjecture (it was not original research) based on a small but reasonable evidence base around social isolation - he mentioned cancer a couple of times and didn't mention Facebook once. And yet scientists say Facebook causes cancer...

  2. #32
    Member sleepindawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by epimetheus View Post
    Same is true of scientists. They might get together at conferences but the major talking points are where they disagree. Even major organisations like the IPCC and the WHO do very little to no research themselves - they rely on the various independent teams operating around the world. The idea of them getting together to set some global political agenda is laughable - you wouldn't even get them to agree on a venue.

    The relationship between scientists and the media is also fractious with scientists believing the media will twist their words for big headlines. Every time you see a Facebook causes cancer! headline, you know there's a scientist crying somewhere. In this case it was one psychologist's conjecture (it was not original research) based on a small but reasonable evidence base around social isolation - he mentioned cancer a couple of times and didn't mention Facebook once. And yet scientists say Facebook causes cancer...
    A question for your first paragraph comes to mind, that question is: What about peer review? That's where a scientist publishes the findings of his research with the intent that other scientists can check his findings and in that way, they can reach a consensus on the subject.

    As to your second paragraph. Anyone who believes such a headline will likely do 2 things.
    1) Stop cluttering the bandwidth on the internet as much by not using Facebook anymore.
    2) Buy the snake-oil that the one link seems to lead to.

    The first thing would likely benefit us all while the second would be between him and his checkbook.
    My sex drive has driven off without me. I said that.

  3. #33
    Member sleepindawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Biro View Post
    Now only you both know where you may be going with this. But if you are going down the road of including your political opposition of somebody in the present day could you please leave it out.
    Whether or not Irwin and I were thinking of the same person doesn't matter to me, my comment was intended to make him chuckle. I hope I reached that goal.
    My sex drive has driven off without me. I said that.

  4. #34
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepindawg View Post
    Whether or not Irwin and I were thinking of the same person doesn't matter to me, my comment was intended to make him chuckle. I hope I reached that goal.
    I know and understand but it kills the topic as they all come out the woodwork. Say something and you have to duck.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepindawg View Post
    A question for your first paragraph comes to mind, that question is: What about peer review? That's where a scientist publishes the findings of his research with the intent that other scientists can check his findings and in that way, they can reach a consensus on the subject.
    The goal of peer review is not to build a consensus. At best you are going to get three other scientists looking at your work - usually two reviewers and maybe the editor, depending on whether the editor is in academia and how much spare time they have (smaller journals tend to have academic editors). The goal is to ensure sufficient rigour has been taken with the study and it's presentation. It's not until it's published, or maybe presented at a conference, that the work will be exposed to the scientific community and slowly fit into, or shift, the existing paradigms.

    For instance Andrew Wakefield's study (the one that started the MMR and autism debacle) got through peer review at the Lancet. Should it have? It maybe should have found out that Wakefield was being paid by a law firm to find a link between MMR and autism, but if someone doesn't declare conflicting interests its very hard to investigate them. Regardless, post-publication it was found wanting - mostly because about a dozen independent studies failed to replicate the same results.


    Quote Originally Posted by sleepindawg View Post
    As to your second paragraph. Anyone who believes such a headline will likely do 2 things.
    1) Stop cluttering the bandwidth on the internet as much by not using Facebook anymore.
    2) Buy the snake-oil that the one link seems to lead to.
    The first thing would likely benefit us all while the second would be between him and his checkbook.
    I wish i could share your view - though it's true enough for the Facebook example. Unfortunately there are some issues, like vaccinations, which effect everybody. If a significant enough proportion of the population fail to get vaccinated we don't develop herd immunity - then immunocompromised people are put at risk. Deaths from measles has increased since Wakefield's publication.

    Sagan said said it best: We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology.

  6. #36
    Member Irwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    477
    Blog Entries
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by sleepindawg View Post
    Do you currently have anyone in mind?
    It's a purely hypothetical scenario.

    (albeit one with an orange tint)

  7. #37
    aids was caused by having sex with a monkey...this one was by eating bats....any vegan killers
    The only one who can heal you is you.




  8. #38
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    582
    Quote Originally Posted by escorial View Post
    aids was caused by having sex with a monkey...this one was by eating bats....any vegan killers
    I have seen a few tomatoes acting suspiciously and I have been known to make a killer vegetarian chilli con carni.

  9. #39
    Member dither's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    on the fence
    Posts
    3,563
    Blog Entries
    140
    If i post a comment on a "WIP", LOOK! I'm a reader that's all, and i can only tell how i feel, as a READER, giving/offering feedback. Hoping to learn and grow here. So please, tell me where i'm going wrong.

    Me? I'm just a fly on the wall.

    Look! I'm trying, okay?

    One can but dream, if only i had dared.

    "The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is an attribute of the strong" Mahatma Gandhi.
    Alas, i am weak.

    I must find a way to Eastbourne and i so wish that i could dance.

  10. #40
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethba...aiwan-n2565899

    I mean it's not hard at all to see agenda and bias within supposedly scientific organizations. This shit is easy. People who think agenda in science is laughable, or worse: that science itself would keep scientists from being corrupted by money or other institutional selective pressures, are unknowning followers of a cult like religion.
    You can never hate something so thoroughly as that which destroys what you love, and who is more guilty of this crime than the stranger who was once a lover?

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.