A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929 • Hacker News Board

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#141

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 1:46 AM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #84

TheFreim wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Anything to avoid vaccination, but ivermectin and other risky drugs were no problem. This sort of language makes problems worse and even further decreases trust. Casting a wide net and calling ivermectin a "risy drug" when a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug. When someone who is skeptical about vaccines reads these sorts of blatant falsehoods why in the world wo…

> a quick search engine query will show it is used safely in humans as an antiparasite drug That just means it's safer than being infested with untreated parasites. It doesn't mean someone without worms should take it for funsies. Your same Google search will reveal ivermectin carries (as with almost any intervention) potential serious side effects. Doctors prescribing medication balance those risks with the potentia…

> Doctors prescribing medication balance those risks with the potential benefits

except for the thousands of doctors who overprescribed opioids due to either ineptitude or their own benefit, or perhaps lack of alternatives

yeah, the Sacklers are primarily at fault, but I think people forget that they weren't handing out these pills themselves on street corners, but that __doctors__ were handing them out, triggering the biggest health crisis in America

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#142

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 1:53 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #118

aphantastic wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is vaccinated and all of his children are as well. What specifically of his statements do you consider “anti-vax”?

Not sure if you're "playing dumb" (sometimes people do that on chat boards). Kennedy isn't just "pro-choice on vaccines", he's repeatedly amplified nonscientific views about vaccine safety. For example, as recently as 2023, "Autism comes from vaccines". Then he pivots to a more useful comment, that vaccines are exempt from the normal requirements on drugs to go through full clinical trials. If you want to claim "auti…

> he's repeatedly amplified nonscientific views about vaccine safety. For example, as recently as 2023, "Autism comes from vaccines".

I've heard this said in the NYT and elsewhere, but have yet to read any actual quotes of his __in context__.

> RFK Jr is doing is sowing doubt in established science.

the first rule of science is that it is never "established". This is especially true in health sciences, where thing that we were pretty sure were one way turn out not to be that way, or are much more nuanced than we thought. So challenging established thought is what scientists should be doing.

Now if RFK is a public health official then that is probably counter-productive and not really the place to be doing that. But he hasn't been a public health official to my knowledge so far.

I don't know that much about RFK but one thing I do like about him is that he's speaking out against the unhealthy processed food industry, which I don't hear hardly anyone else doing. (Lots of people say "eat healthy" but there's not that many people saying "these large multinationals are feeding you garbage for profit".

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#143

Post by insane_dreamer » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 1:56 AM UTC

supplied_demand wrote: post #54

niceice wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of is the abuse of the label anti-vaxxer. It's being misapplied to people who aren't against vaccine technology. RFK, who is vaccinated along with his children: "I’ve been fighting 40 years to get mercury out of fish. Nobody calls me anti-fish."

Can you explain what you mean by "people who aren't against vaccine technology?" I'm not sure I follow given that RFK has explicitly said he is against vaccines and that no vaccines are safe and effective. [0] ===In July, Kennedy said in a podcast interview that “There’s no vaccine that is safe and effective” and told FOX News that he still believes in the long-ago debunked idea that vaccines can cause autism. In a 2…

Actually he explicitly said that he was not against vaccines.

So I guess you can take your pick.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#144

Post by ElevenLathe » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:12 AM UTC

llamaimperative wrote: post #133

ElevenLathe wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lansing, Michigan

Yeah, that checks out. It's exactly the type of over-intellectualized rationale someone in a Democratic stronghold would come up with. The left wing didn't aimlessly move left away from labor. Biden was dramatically more pro-labor ("New Dealy") than Obama. The right wing lost their fucking minds because we elected a black man. Trump himself is a one-man microcosm of this: loosely Dem-aligned until... Obama. Spend som…

Biden was more "new dealy" and won. Harris had nothing of the sort to sell and lost. I'm not saying Obama's skin color isn't a factor in our politics since 2008 but it's not the Rosetta Stone.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#145

Post by dekhn » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 2:30 AM UTC

insane_dreamer wrote: post #142

dekhn wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure if you're "playing dumb" (sometimes people do that on chat boards). Kennedy isn't just "pro-choice on vaccines", he's repeatedly amplified nonscientific views about vaccine safety. For example, as recently as 2023, "Autism comes from vaccines". Then he pivots to a more useful comment, that vaccines are exempt from the normal requirements on drugs to go through full clinical trials. If you want to claim "auti…

> he's repeatedly amplified nonscientific views about vaccine safety. For example, as recently as 2023, "Autism comes from vaccines". I've heard this said in the NYT and elsewhere, but have yet to read any actual quotes of his __in context__. > RFK Jr is doing is sowing doubt in established science. the first rule of science is that it is never "established". This is especially true in health sciences, where thing th…

He said it on Fox. You can go view the video here: https://www.foxnews.com/video/6330950198112

When you say that science is never "Established", that's horse pockey. Established means we have a high level of confidence (not absolute). Yes, things get updated, for example we now don't go around saying that "stress causes ulcers". And when it comes to vaccines, multiple high quality studies have failed to find a relationship between vaccines and autism, while the original work has been discredited (shown to be false) and retracted. Yet the news cycle about that caused large numbers of people in the US to not get their kids vaccinated for many different things (and also blame the vaccines for their children's autism). (to be realistic, vaccines do have side effects and there is an entire program detected to detecting those problems).

As for whether he's been a public health official: no, but he has worked on environmental and public health problems before (I don't recall if this is before or after he ate so much fish he got mercury poisoning).

I don't think many people are complaining about him speaking against processed food, but again, the policy he promotes should be thoughtful, not knee-jerk.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#146

Post by stevenAthompson » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 4:32 AM UTC

foxglacier wrote: post #140

stevenAthompson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can appreciate your perspective, but I also think the populist notion that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge" (to paraphrase Asimov) has already done even greater damage to our society. It must be stopped, and that can't happen if we're pretending that all people being worthy of respect also implies that all opinions are.

He's right though. People have cultural knowledge which can lead to better outcomes than "correct" reasoning even when those cultural beliefs are factually wrong. The scientific approach has blind spots where it hasn't reached, especially regarding sociology which is something long-lived cultures excel at but modern science falls flat. "intelligent" understanding has blind spots where things are too complicated to st…

We're really far off topic here, but I'll bite because I'm bored.

Firstly though, we need to agree on what "good" and "bad" mean, in a moral sense. To me "good" is anything that helps humanity thrive, and bad is when something does the opposite. If you have a different definition, this conversation will be a waste of both our time.

> He's right though.

He is not only wrong, he is dangerously wrong. Reason is mans only natural defense. We were born without tooth and claw or even fur thick enough to survive a winter. We must use our minds to survive in this world, or perish as a species. To reject that isn't just a rejection of our nature, it is a form of suicide for our species.

Are you aware that the vast majority of the humans on this planet would not exist today without science? For example, the Haber-Bosch process allows for something like 90% of the worlds food to be grown. Much of the remaining 10% couldn't exist without genetic manipulation, or at the very least selective breeding. To reject science would be to accept a world where at least 90% of us starved and the remaining 10% led short, violent lives filled mostly with unending misery and toil. I'm deeply opposed to that and consider it "bad."

> The scientific approach has blind spots

Yes, that's how science works. We form hypotheses and test them. If those theories turn out to match the evidence we keep them, if they don't we abandon them. That's the truly great thing about science, science can be wrong, but it can never STAY wrong when done properly.

> Religion, euthanasia, etc...

All of those questions depend on culturally defined norms and taboos that may change from person to person or region to region. As long as a persons cultural, spiritual, or philosophical thinking is still "good" (based on my earlier definition) it can coexist with reason, and it's irrelevant. Science does not demand that you put no other god before it, that's religion.

I object only when another system becomes "bad", and in this context that happens whenever someone decides that their ignorance should be valued more than the science that keeps us all alive. It should not, and there are very good reasons for that.

> bad uneducated unintelligent people

I never said, or implied this, or many of the other things you insinuate here. Stating it yourself, and then arguing against it is a form of logical fallacy called a "strawman argument", and it's not just irrational, it's more than a little rude.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#147

Post by liontwist » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 4:37 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #109

liontwist wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blaming poor character may be true of individuals, but when you’re referring to large groups of people you have to look at the social system. And by those standards our economic system is not working for the vast majority of people and getting worse every year.

That comment is just totally disconnected from reality. Sure, some people have it rough through no fault of their own and we should implement public policies to expand their opportunities. But the vast majority of people are doing pretty well by historical standards. The unemployment rate is 4.1%! The Consumer Confidence Index is 111! If you pay attention to the whining losers on Reddit and other social media then yo…

Not too many years back I was doing well in tech, but not extraordinary. But I was constantly facing challenges related to finances, crime, healthcare, etc. Then one day I got a better job and moved to a high cost of living area, with extremely educated high achievers. All those problems magically went away. My neighbors were nice upstanding people, I had money, my employer had better healthcare, etc.

The point is there is a massive class divide socially, also physically segregation. You can be completely unaware of what it's like to be on the wrong side of it.

The cracks in our society are growing, and the level of sophistication required to navigate our system is increasing.

My circle of friends and family is middle class and college educated. I don't know anyone under the age of 35 who owns more than a town house in a low cost area. What does your peer group look like?

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#148

Post by melagonster » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 5:38 AM UTC

>Now, imagine the uproar that might ensue from some corners today if a textbook made this sort of direct comparison between two groups, with one group happening to be white and the other black.

I read a better analogy; they compared the life table of humans with the life table of Chimpanzee or Bonobo. The change between before and after the introduction of modern medicine is obvious.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#149

Post by nradov » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 5:50 AM UTC

liontwist wrote: post #147

nradov wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment is just totally disconnected from reality. Sure, some people have it rough through no fault of their own and we should implement public policies to expand their opportunities. But the vast majority of people are doing pretty well by historical standards. The unemployment rate is 4.1%! The Consumer Confidence Index is 111! If you pay attention to the whining losers on Reddit and other social media then yo…

Not too many years back I was doing well in tech, but not extraordinary. But I was constantly facing challenges related to finances, crime, healthcare, etc. Then one day I got a better job and moved to a high cost of living area, with extremely educated high achievers. All those problems magically went away. My neighbors were nice upstanding people, I had money, my employer had better healthcare, etc. The point is th…

I have large extended family scattered all over the country, and very few of them live in high cost areas. Only two household are in the top 1%. Out of the rest, almost all are working regular jobs outside the tech industry and living regular middle class lives. Most who have been out of school for a few years own their own homes. They haven't been victims of any major crimes. I've met some of their neighbors, too, and they generally seem like nice upstanding people.

Re: A pro-science, pro-progress, techno-optimistic health textbook from 1929

#150

Post by liontwist » Thu, Dec 05, 2024, 6:05 AM UTC

nradov wrote: post #149

liontwist wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not too many years back I was doing well in tech, but not extraordinary. But I was constantly facing challenges related to finances, crime, healthcare, etc. Then one day I got a better job and moved to a high cost of living area, with extremely educated high achievers. All those problems magically went away. My neighbors were nice upstanding people, I had money, my employer had better healthcare, etc. The point is th…

I have large extended family scattered all over the country, and very few of them live in high cost areas. Only two household are in the top 1%. Out of the rest, almost all are working regular jobs outside the tech industry and living regular middle class lives. Most who have been out of school for a few years own their own homes. They haven't been victims of any major crimes. I've met some of their neighbors, too, a…

Well whatever demographic differences we have are isolating our experiences so that you see this as a Reddit phenomenon and I see it as real life. Age gap?