Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Who are these athletes? Do you have any names? Do you have a reliable source for this information?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.
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.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.
I completely agree.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 have not addressed these points for a couple of reasons: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.
Not sure what you mean. Which of us is standing in no-man's land?Standing in no-mans-land you never know where the bullets are coming from but it might still be the honest mans' position
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.So you can't talk science when it comes to the instance of medical science some have mentioned? Your rhetoric is noted
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:
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.
- 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.
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.
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?
Was that post about science .. or politics?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?
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.First Biden says the vaccine is unsafe and fake. Because Trump is President.trust
On this point we are in probably total disagreement.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.
It's called "opinion shopping."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?
Simple. The scientific method exposes opinions. The political process glorifies them.What's the difference? Especially when it comes to politicians and partisan hacks trying to exploit people dying for their own gain.
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.
It's still wrong; and here's why:There is no " theory of abiogenesis".
In biology, abiogenesis or the origin of life is the natural process by which life has arisen from non-living matter,
I didn't hear anything in what Biden said in those links that corresponds to those claims. It's a clear misrepresentation.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."
Yes, Jesus loves me.Science doesn’t teach anything;
Yes, Jesus loves me.
The Bible tells me so.
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".When someone says, “Science teaches such and such”, he is using the word incorrectly. Science doesn’t teach anything; experience teaches it.
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.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”.
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.)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…
Very true, but these media have very little to do with the rigorous practice of the scientific method by experts.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.
I think I smell more equivocation.As a result, there is a considerable amount of intellectual tyranny in the name of science
Appeal to authority.Richard Feynman
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?