Your Set of Beliefs and Coronavirus - Page 5


Page 5 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 130

Thread: Your Set of Beliefs and Coronavirus

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewclunn View Post
    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.
    The WHO have to dance around China's sensitivity towards Taiwan same as anybody (even the US government kowtows to China on that issue). It's far from an ideal situation but what's it got to do with actual science (of which the WHO do very little to none)?

    Consider me too stupid to see this 'easy shit' - what exactly is the agenda here ?

  2. #42
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by epimetheus View Post
    The WHO have to dance around China's sensitivity towards Taiwan same as anybody (even the US government kowtows to China on that issue). It's far from an ideal situation but what's it got to do with actual science (of which the WHO do very little to none)?

    Consider me too stupid to see this 'easy shit' - what exactly is the agenda here ?
    I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info? History has examples.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Biro View Post
    I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info? History has examples.
    All scientists, most scientists or a few scientists? Is it a deliberate plot with some central control or some kind of uncoordinated group degradation, or just the odd scientist influenced by politics, religion or a company? How do they get round the requisite for evidence? I am as naive as i am stupid - could you list some of those examples.

  4. #44
    Wɾ¡ʇ¡∩9 bdcharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    In a far-distant otherworld.
    Posts
    3,609
    Blog Entries
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Biro View Post
    I think the point Andrew is making is that science and scientists have been corrupted by politics and companies to back or issue false info? History has examples.
    And the point I was making can be summed up thus: just because it says something in a partisan website doesn't make it universal. Sure, corruption in science happens in some cases. It also doesn't happen in some cases. The world is big enough for more than one way for things to play out. I have to laugh, honestly, when people cite examples of corruption or undue influence by quoting something that is itself blatantly biased. Do people genuinely think we won't notice the juddering irony? I would say it beggars belief if I didn't know precisely why it happened. But I don't mind actually. I don't care. People can say and quote what they like. I'll just be gainsaying them all the way, doing my bit, lest their nonsense threatens to become some kind of default position.


    Hidden Content Monthly Fiction Challenge


    Beauty is nothing but the beginning of terror which we are barely able to endure, and are awed,
    because it serenely disdains to annihilate us.
    - Rainer Maria Rilke, "Elegy I"

    *

    Is this fire, or is this mask?
    It's the Mantasy!
    - Anonymous

    *

    C'mon everybody, don't need this crap.
    - Wham!





  5. #45
    That's post modern clap trap. Saying "some do some don't" is soft goal post moving. There are predictable ways in which institutions are corrupted, in the same way that there are predictable ways in which human pattern recognition and neurological heuristics misfire. Using institutions as proxies for science, attacking individual cognition and pattern recognition as anecdotal evidence, conflating attacks on those institutions a anti-science, labeling anyone with an iconoclastic view of them as crackpots, and validating that assertion with strawman arguments pointing to the aforementioned dismissal of individual cognition: that's consistent and persistent. Modern "science" is not empiricism. It is corrupt institutions claiming the mantle of "science" as being theirs to promote whatever view is being pushed by the special interest groups that own them. Academics chase funding, which biases not only what they study, but novel experimentation that incentivizes cheating, and disincentivizes reproduction studies to actually verify claims. I could go on, but basically these people are more marketing specialists and a pseudo-intellectual priest class than scientists.
    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?

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by andrewclunn View Post
    Modern "science" is not empiricism.
    So there are no experiments being conducted nor data being collected around the world?

    Quote Originally Posted by andrewclunn View Post
    It is corrupt institutions claiming the mantle of "science" as being theirs to promote whatever view is being pushed by the special interest groups that own them.
    What special interest groups own them?

    And who is 'them' - the individual labs in universities, the universities themselves, various non-university R&D departments in other branches of the government (mostly military) or companies, the national level organisations (like the Royal Institution), or NGOs? Is it all of them?


    Quote Originally Posted by andrewclunn View Post
    Academics chase funding, which biases not only what they study, but novel experimentation that incentivizes cheating, and disincentivizes reproduction studies to actually verify claims. I could go on, but basically these people are more marketing specialists and a pseudo-intellectual priest class than scientists.
    Many people argue having scientists chase funding is a good thing - it means scientists have to prioritise whatever their funders think important- a mix of charity and the people via government. Stops scientists just doing whatever they fancy. Hence cancer research gets a tonne of money while something like MS gets relatively little. Probably a fair balance given how much cancer effects people. What funding model would you suggest that is free from bias?

    Are you going to answer any of my questions from before? I'm genuinely interested in this world view.

  7. #47
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by bdcharles View Post
    And the point I was making can be summed up thus: just because it says something in a partisan website doesn't make it universal. Sure, corruption in science happens in some cases. It also doesn't happen in some cases. The world is big enough for more than one way for things to play out. I have to laugh, honestly, when people cite examples of corruption or undue influence by quoting something that is itself blatantly biased. Do people genuinely think we won't notice the juddering irony? I would say it beggars belief if I didn't know precisely why it happened. But I don't mind actually. I don't care. People can say and quote what they like. I'll just be gainsaying them all the way, doing my bit, lest their nonsense threatens to become some kind of default position.
    I am not arguing and I didnt mean all scientists. But cigarettes and cancer is just one example.

  8. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    579
    Quote Originally Posted by epimetheus View Post



    Many people argue having scientists chase funding is a good thing - it means scientists have to prioritise whatever their funders think important- a mix of charity and the people via government. Stops scientists just doing whatever they fancy. Hence cancer research gets a tonne of money while something like MS gets relatively little. Probably a fair balance given how much cancer effects people.
    People get concerned regards cancer because they know it kills them and everybody knows someone who dies from it.

    MS. I have only ever personally known two people who suffered from it in my life. So if I were an example of course I would most likely give to the cancer charities.

    But now I think charities or organisations set themselves up saying that they are doing research into cures for whatever. I think that some do it to get the funding from where ever and pay themselves good money. They may claim they are close to finding cures for whatever they are researching but in fact very rarely do. But they do get well paid for messing about with petra dishes at least.

    Not a nice thing to say is it I know. But I still fail to see how torturing animals which have no relation to us regards whatever they are researching, will ever give them results.

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Biro View Post
    But cigarettes and cancer is just one example.

    It's an interesting history. We have German population level studies showing a correlation between cancer and smoking, later repeated by UK and US teams. However, correlation is not causation. Around the same time animal models in Argentina and Germany suggested a causal relationship, but it wasn't until a US study in 1953 that it was taken really seriously. It was then that tobacco companies started a campaign to refute these claims. But then there were cellular pathology studies started to track changes in human tissue exposed to tobacco, and the various carcinogens were identified, convincing even the industry scientists, who then found loads more carcinogens. It's now known that industry scientists at this point knew the truth, but would not publicly concede the point. It also took a while for doctors in general to acknowledge the link - medicine is notoriously slow to update itself. There's a really nice history here if anyone wants more details.

    So we have an example of independent scientists first finding a correlation, then building a body of evidence. Other scientists openly in pay of tobacco companies tried to refute the evidence but were regarded with a lot of suspicion by other scientists for it - only the public and some doctors really listened to them. But whether you are a fan of big companies or not, they have a right to defend themselves from these claims. In the end the evidence became sufficient that it couldn't be ignored and the discussion moved from whether it causes cancer to what should be done about it - which then becomes a political issue as we start to consider questions like whether to ban it.

    What about this would you change? That we take scientists in pay of companies with vested interests with suspicion? Well that was already happening in the scientific community then. What else would you change?

  10. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Behind You
    Posts
    579
    What would I change? Never really thought about it but for a start I would stop the ridiculous testing on animals. Then I would want the money scrutinized by a body to stop giving it to research organisations that never produce results.

    Theres a start.

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.