101–110 of 127 posts
I’ve been pro science all my life but heavy censorship on coronavirus made me change my mind, perhaps blame is on the censorers a bit, no? If it is truly science, why censor the ideas of others?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The answers to this are so numerous and the logic so obvious that we as citizens may be to close to even see them. Pretty much every bit of advice in the health sciences has been changing over multiple generations (lead and xrays are two easy examples from over 50 years ago)
But if you have witnessed that, wouldn't it be prudent to remain doubtful about any new advice coming from the field? After all, the probability of it being thrown out in the future seems to be almost 100%?
Anything else is religion — wanting to have a single unchanging answer forever. That’s the appeal of religion, and in the short term it might make you feel better, but in the long term it cannot adapt and eventually is out of sync with reality.
Science always wins because it can change.
Recently, Macron said that the AstraZeneca vaccine was almost ineffective for people older then 65[1]. Politicians on both the left and the right sometimes find their political interests at odds with mainstream scientific research. That doesn't mean they're on some kind of crusade against science. I also find the obsession with anti-vaxxers strange, when the FDA and many european medical authorities refuse to allow t…
AZ has not yet asked the FDA to allow the AZ vaccine. They are still in the clinical trial stage in the US.
The FDA emergency use authorization procedure includes FDA scientists plus a panel of outside scientists reviewing all of the submitted trial data and doing their own analysis rather than just relying on the submitted analysis. This is why it takes 2 to 3 weeks between the submission of an application and the approval of the authorization.
AZ had enough anomalies in their European trials that they weren't sure they would pass the FDA's more stringent review and so are conducting more trials in the US to get cleaner data.
About 3 weeks ago AZ said it expected to have results in a few weeks and would apply then.
The antivax movement is ridiculous and hopefully the necessity of covid vaccinations will destroy it as should have happened years ago. Similarly, the evidence for climate change is pretty much undeniable now and I can only assume that those pretending it doesn't exist are not honest actors. But the lockdown scepticism I can kind of understand as it is more of a political issue - the cost/benefit of lockdown and depe…
> Similarly, the evidence for climate change is pretty much undeniable now and I can only assume that those pretending it doesn't exist are not honest actors. That's exactly my position, except the opposite. Anyone who claims that "the world is ending, give us money" is anything but a scam, shamelessly copied from the Catholic Church, is not an honest actor.
Do you know what a feedback loop is? Heat rises, permafrost melts, methane is released causing heat to rise more, more permafrost/ice is melted causing higher temps.
Do you know what happens if we lose bees and other polinators, and how close we are to losing them because of pesticides?
There's plenty of people pushing climate change and not demanding a cent. Those pushing the hardest AGAINST climate change are the ones demanding we "look the other way" because of their corporate greed - re: Oil / Plastics industries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The mask thing was a Noble Lie to prevent PPE shortages: https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/yes-experts-will-lie-to-yo... I agree that that erodes trust, but it was for "a reason".
I’ve found it very hard to find the original news sources saying not to wear masks, despite remembering how prevalent that messaging was.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/04/dont-panic-the-compr...
I’ve been pro science all my life but heavy censorship on coronavirus made me change my mind, perhaps blame is on the censorers a bit, no? If it is truly science, why censor the ideas of others?
You can't be 'pro' objective truths; science is not a faith you can believe in or not. That's the problem here. It's the defenders of science that are also in the wrong, because why do you feel like you have to defend things like that?
Mr. CEO: Oh really? I never knew, I'll stop drilling immediately!
Mr. CEO to assistant: Fire these people and bury this study.
^ This scenario is why we need to "defend" science, because money/power doesn't align with the narrative.
Sometimes science recommends fixes that are just too costly for society to accept as "is this the only way" ... the only way to ensure less mass casualties? Yes, max profits? No. ...
Lockdowns were the same because $$ > lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's real science, you would expect advice to change as more data comes in, so perhaps you should find a better example.
Can you share an example of real science where advice changed as more data come in?
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do they consider it science? I haven't seen racial justice movements incorporating that. And if they do, that's evidence of an orientation toward science that the right actively opposes—i.e. an effort to dress up views with a scientific gloss. You're talking about misusing science, or relying on junk science. Those are problems, of course, but they're not the opposition to the scientific project as a whole that this…
> You're talking about misusing science, or relying on junk science. I don't think critical race theory and similar stuff is science. They're not misusing it, they're pretending somebody's ramblings are scientific, funding it at universities and then presenting it as "the science is in". > they're not the opposition to the scientific project as a whole that this article focuses on If you only pick those parts that yo…
Eh, the political left is just as guilty of abusing "science" for its own agenda. If you look at what peer reviewed articles in medical journals say about COVID, and then you look at the "pro-science" left-leaning-media coverage - you'll see two entirely different things. The political left picks and chooses the findings it likes to fit the narrative, and exaggerates them for effect. In the United States, if you live…
Mask "mandates" in the US were largely unenforced, and therefore ignored by enough people to cause uncontrolled spread. Expecting a mask mandate to work without enforcing adoption is like expecting a "no smoking" section on an airplane to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Similarly, the evidence for climate change is pretty much undeniable now and I can only assume that those pretending it doesn't exist are not honest actors. That's exactly my position, except the opposite. Anyone who claims that "the world is ending, give us money" is anything but a scam, shamelessly copied from the Catholic Church, is not an honest actor.
So do you have a rational explanation for all the permafrost sinkholes opening in Siberia? Or the ice shelfs melting? Or half of antartica disappearing? Or Australia, and Western United States constantly on fire? Do you know what a feedback loop is? Heat rises, permafrost melts, methane is released causing heat to rise more, more permafrost/ice is melted causing higher temps. Do you know what happens if we lose bees…
I rest my case.