Talking science

[ruthiesea]

Exactly. Yet athletes all over are dropping dead for whatever reason. There are no proper studies or stats that list what people actually died from. The blame it on...whatever they write in their report. Who really knows? So we would not call the stats science or representative of reality.

Who are these athletes? Do you have any names? Do you have a reliable source for this information?

 

[Ophiolite]

Thank you, I think? Or were you being sarcastic and considering me to be a part of the problem. I cannot tell from what you wrote.

Definitely not sarcastic. You asked an important question and made some relevant points. I don't see you as part of the problem, but that doesn't mean you are part of the solution. In contrast, while I would like to be part of solution, my sometimes evident and expressed disgust with the ludicrous and ignorant parroting of the anti-science brigade may do more harm than good and make me part of the problem.

I think we are in agreement about covid being real and about the science relating to that and the necessity of considered measures to cope with that.

I completely agree.

You have studiously avoided discussing the ways in which scientists themselves have contributed to the communication gap with "deluded extremists." The ways in which science has been politicized, monetized, overextended its scope, failed to communicate its actual findings in a way that people understand and held too much certainty over speculative theories for example.

I have not addressed these points for a couple of reasons:

• First and foremost, I do not feel competent to do so for some of those points.
• For some of the other points I do not necessarily concede that they are issues.

In regard to the second item, I challenge the notion that scientists have "held too much certainty over speculative theories"*. I think the popular media have done this and then some, but to blame science for that failing is egregious.

Standing in no-mans-land you never know where the bullets are coming from but it might still be the honest mans' position

Not sure what you mean. Which of us is standing in no-man's land?

*If you are thinking of string-theory, I put that down as amusing aberration of mathematicians who have nothing better to do with their time. Its gee-whiz character likely attracts the attention of adolescent boys who are tiring of War of Empires (or whatever) who, as they mature can develop a proper interest in science - so, on balance, not a bad thing.

 

[Ophiolite]

So you can't talk science when it comes to the instance of medical science some have mentioned? Your rhetoric is noted

If you wish to open a thread to discuss the medical science behind Covid further do so and send me a pm. I shall particpate. I shall ignore further comments from you here if they do not address the OP.

 

[mindlight]

Definitely not sarcastic. You asked an important question and made some relevant points. I don't see you as part of the problem, but that doesn't mean you are part of the solution. In contrast, while I would like to be part of solution, my sometimes evident and expressed disgust with the ludicrous and ignorant parroting of the anti-science brigade may do more harm than good and make me part of the problem.
I completely agree.

I have not addressed these points for a couple of reasons:

• First and foremost, I do not feel competent to do so for some of those points.
• For some of the other points I do not necessarily concede that they are issues.

In regard to the second item, I challenge the notion that scientists have "held too much certainty over speculative theories"*. I think the popular media have done this and then some, but to blame science for that failing is egregious.
Not sure what you mean. Which of us is standing in no-man's land?

*If you are thinking of string-theory, I put that down as amusing aberration of mathematicians who have nothing better to do with their time. Its gee-whiz character likely attracts the attention of adolescent boys who are tiring of War of Empires (or whatever) who, as they mature can develop a proper interest in science - so, on balance, not a bad thing.

Glad we seem to be on the same page regarding this thread.

Abiogenesis is my favorite example of speculative science that cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method. The widespread acceptance of the theory by scientists has discredited mainstream science, as taught in schools and universities. Life emerged on this planet and from that people speculate, without any supporting evidence, that it must also have simply emerged by chemical evolution elsewhere. All that we have discovered out there is magnificent desolation and yet too many scientists cling to the notion of an unguided spontaneous emergence of life. But this was explored in another thread at another time.

 

[toocoolblue]

At a time when mainstream science is increasingly rejected by people on the fringes of society, how can science promote facts and evidence, relating to matters of pressing concern, like covid19?

How can we distinguish between credible scientists and noncredible scientists when scientists are employed on both sides of partisan and politicized debates on vaccination for example?

Are the best methods to support the credibility of scientific theories, like for example that vaccination saves lives, nonscientific ones like:

1) This scientist is just annoyed that Big Pharma did not give him the big money he wanted for his research.

2) These scientists' articles were peer-reviewed by marginalized scientists.

3) This scientist is paid for by the person whose opinion his "facts" support.

4) This scientist got vaccinated and then joined the anti-vaxxer movement.

Is science now merely one tool in the hand of honest or dishonest people who behave as they do for entirely nonscientific reasons?

It's funny you say, "How can science promote facts and evidence, relating to matters of pressing concern, like covid19?" and then infer that 'people on the fringe of society' are the problem.

Let's look at your so-called 'science' about Covid.

First Biden says the vaccine is unsafe and fake. Because Trump is President.

July 28, 2020 - Joe Biden suggests the coronavirus vaccine won't be "real" and may not be "safe."
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1288610192712704005
Biden Raises Fears Trump Will Rush Unsafe Vaccine For Political Gain
Team Biden Lies About Vaccines Under Trump
Biden Says Americans Can’t Trust Trump on Vaccine (Published 2020)
Biden, Seizing on Worries of a Rushed Vaccine, Warns Trump Can’t Be Trusted (Published 2020)
Campaign Press Release - FACT: Kamala Harris's Anti-Vaccine Rhetoric is Anti-Science and Dangerous for Public Health | The American Presidency Project

Harris on taking a COVID vaccine: If Trump tells us to take it, I won't
Harris on taking a COVID vaccine: If Trump tells us to take it, I won't

But after Biden and Harris lie their way into office....Hocus Pocus...the vaccine is a miracle working, wonder drug that everyone must take.
President Biden Announced a Sweeping New Vaccine Mandate—But What Is a Mandate, and What Happens if You Don't Comply?

Why heck...if you distrust the vaccine, you don't know 'science' and are a anti-vaxer, conspiracy theorist nut who lives on the fringes of society. Of course, the person who says this, never said a word about trusting the 'science' when Trump was President.

The guy never said a word when Biden or Harris were trying to murder people by getting them NOT to take the Covid vaccines. It didn't bother the guy one bit that Biden and Harris were lying to the American people and without a shred of evidence or scientific knowledge.

But now the same guy demands you take the vaccine because the 'science' that wasn't real when Trump was President, magically became real when Biden became President.

Gee...and you wonder why people won't listen to you about what you call 'science'.

 

[SelfSim]

It's funny you say, "How can science promote facts and evidence, relating to matters of pressing concern, like covid19?" and then infer that 'people on the fringe of society' are the problem.

Let's look at your so-called 'science' about Covid.

First Biden says the vaccine is unsafe and fake. Because Trump is President.

July 28, 2020 - Joe Biden suggests the coronavirus vaccine won't be "real" and may not be "safe."
https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1288610192712704005
Biden Raises Fears Trump Will Rush Unsafe Vaccine For Political Gain
Team Biden Lies About Vaccines Under Trump
Biden Says Americans Can’t Trust Trump on Vaccine (Published 2020)
Biden, Seizing on Worries of a Rushed Vaccine, Warns Trump Can’t Be Trusted (Published 2020)
Campaign Press Release - FACT: Kamala Harris's Anti-Vaccine Rhetoric is Anti-Science and Dangerous for Public Health | The American Presidency Project

Harris on taking a COVID vaccine: If Trump tells us to take it, I won't
Harris on taking a COVID vaccine: If Trump tells us to take it, I won't

But after Biden and Harris lie their way into office....Hocus Pocus...the vaccine is a miracle working, wonder drug that everyone must take.
President Biden Announced a Sweeping New Vaccine Mandate—But What Is a Mandate, and What Happens if You Don't Comply?

Why heck...if you distrust the vaccine, you don't know 'science' and are a anti-vaxer, conspiracy theorist nut who lives on the fringes of society. Of course, the person who says this, never said a word about trusting the 'science' when Trump was President.

The guy never said a word when Biden or Harris were trying to murder people by getting them NOT to take the Covid vaccines. It didn't bother the guy one bit that Biden and Harris were lying to the American people and without a shred of evidence or scientific knowledge.

But now the same guy demands you take the vaccine because the 'science' that wasn't real when Trump was President, magically became real when Biden became President.

Gee...and you wonder why people won't listen to you about what you call 'science'.

Was that post about science .. or politics?

 

[toocoolblue]

Was that post about science .. or politics?

What's the difference? Especially when it comes to politicians and partisan hacks trying to exploit people dying for their own gain.

The OP asks a question based on many false premises. In essence, he wants to know how to force people to agree with him.

My answer simply points out that the reason you can't force people to believe in your 'science' is because your political leader already discredited it for his own political advantage.

Was Joe Biden lying about vaccines then or is Joe Biden lying about vaccines now?

If liberals had destroyed Joe Biden for spreading deadly conspiracy theories about 'science' in July of 2020 then this wouldn't be happening.

What the OP is really asking is, "How can we force people to believe the boy who cried wolf"?

And I'm just saying it's impossible.

 

[ruthiesea]

First Biden says the vaccine is unsafe and fake. Because Trump is President.trust

I cannot find any indication that Biden said that the vaccine was unsafe or fake. He said that he didn’t trust Trump but he did trust the science and that he wanted to be sure that the science said that it was safe. It did.

 

[Ophiolite]

Abiogenesis is my favorite example of speculative science that cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method. The widespread acceptance of the theory by scientists has discredited mainstream science, as taught in schools and universities. Life emerged on this planet and from that people speculate, without any supporting evidence, that it must also have simply emerged by chemical evolution elsewhere. All that we have discovered out there is magnificent desolation and yet too many scientists cling to the notion of an unguided spontaneous emergence of life. But this was explored in another thread at another time.

On this point we are in probably total disagreement.

• Abiogenesis is not a theory. It does not have the characteristics of a theory. I know of no work in a mainstream scientific publication that asserts that it is a theory. Any dismissal of the hypotheses of abiogenesis that includes identification of the theory of abiogenesis is flawed in that regard.
• The speculation associated with the hypotheses that have been put forward in regard to abiogenesis, is wholly consistent with the speculation associated with, and necessary for, the scientific groundwork out of which any theory may grow.
  
• Anecdotally, rather than discrediting mainstream science, those aspects of abiogenesis touched upon in my university courses strengthened my understanding of and appreciation for the scienctific method. If, I may get personal, I have the impression your distaste for abiogenesis arises from your religious beliefs rather than your objective, scientific evaluation.
  
• I can readily agree that there is no evidence for the theory of abiogenesis, because there is no such theory. There is, however, abundant evidence for facets of most of the hypotheses of abiogenesis that have been subject to investigation thus far. We would expect no more from any robust scientific investigation.
• Three explanations for life stand out - it has always existed; it arose from non-life through natural means; it arose from non-life through supernatural means. Our understanding of the origin of the universe make the first unlikely. The last is ruled out since science is currently pursued via methodological naturalism. That leaves abiogenesis as the appropriate field of investigation for science.
• Your claim that "people speculate, without any supporting evidence, that it (life) must also have simply emerged by chemical evolution elsewhere." This is a strawman. Some scientists suggest this is the most likely case. Others claim that life on Earth is unique. While yet others say we have insufficient evidence to opt for either. (I am embedded in the latter category.)
  
• You make another flawed claim: "yet too many scientists cling to the notion of an unguided spontaneous emergence of life." (en passant, How many is too many?) An increasing number of scientists are demonstrating steps in the process by which life arose through the guidance of the laws of nature. Spontaneous? Yes, if you accept that some spontaneous processes take millions of years.

 

[AV1611VET]

How can we distinguish between credible scientists and noncredible scientists when scientists are employed on both sides of partisan and politicized debates on vaccination for example?

It's called "opinion shopping."

 

[SelfSim]

What's the difference? Especially when it comes to politicians and partisan hacks trying to exploit people dying for their own gain.

Simple. The scientific method exposes opinions. The political process glorifies them.
Politics exploits those who can't see the difference.

 

[SelfSim]

It's called "opinion shopping."

.. (he says) .. thus willingly submitting to exploitation.

 

[Estrid]

Glad we seem to be on the same page regarding this thread.

Abiogenesis is my favorite example of speculative science that cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method. The widespread acceptance of the theory by scientists has discredited mainstream science, as taught in schools and universities. Life emerged on this planet and from that people speculate, without any supporting evidence, that it must also have simply emerged by chemical evolution elsewhere. All that we have discovered out there is magnificent desolation and yet too many scientists cling to the notion of an unguided spontaneous emergence of life. But this was explored in another thread at another time.

Has not been, not "cannot be".
There is no " theory of abiogenesis"

There plenty else wrong in your post but perhaps you can correct
those first.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is no " theory of abiogenesis".

It's still wrong; and here's why:

In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter,

SOURCE

Don't get me wrong though.

As a "natural process," abiogenesis is tailored to fit into Earth's history.

But the history itself is wrong.

Put another way:

Only on paper.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

First Biden says the vaccine is unsafe and fake. Because Trump is President.

July 28, 2020 - Joe Biden suggests the coronavirus vaccine won't be "real" and may not be "safe."

I didn't hear anything in what Biden said in those links that corresponds to those claims. It's a clear misrepresentation.

 

[Rachel20]

“When someone says, “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it. If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such”, you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?” It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown”. And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at…The experts who are leading you may be wrong…I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific. As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science.” - Richard Feynman

 

[AV1611VET]

Science doesn’t teach anything;

Yes, Jesus loves me.
The Bible tells me so.

 

[Rachel20]

Yes, Jesus loves me.
The Bible tells me so.

Science isn't a living entity that can tell us what it means by it's facts & evidences. Fallable humans interpret them. I believe this is what Feynman meant.

 

[Ophiolite]

I would never countenance disagreeing with Feynman in regard to the technical aspects of science. That would require a combination of excessive arogance and stupidity that is beyond my capacity, but when it comes to social commentary Ill give it a go.

When someone says, “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it.

Equivocation. Science is used in such phrases as the equivalent of "The product of the scientific method, via the experiences of observation, hypothesis construction, experiment and testing provide insight into such and such". It is just more convenient to say "science teaches us such and such".

If they say to you, “Science has shown such and such”, you might ask, “How does science show it? How did the scientists find out? How? What? Where?” It should not be “science has shown” but “this experiment, this effect, has shown”.

Which is a pedantic and redundant observation. Feynman's decision to ignore one of the meanings of science appears to be a rhetorical device to manipulate his argument.

And you have as much right as anyone else, upon hearing about the experiments–but be patient and listen to all the evidence–to judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at…The experts who are leading you may be wrong…

Of course the experts may be wrong. Of course you have the right to "judge whether a sensible conclusion has been arrived at". The differences is that while you and the experts both have the right to make that judgement, the experts also have the expertise to do so. (The clue is in the name expert.)

I think we live in an unscientific age in which almost all the buffeting of communications and television-words, books, and so on-are unscientific.

Very true, but these media have very little to do with the rigorous practice of the scientific method by experts.

As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science

I think I smell more equivocation.

Richard Feynman

Appeal to authority.