Never saw this thread before but back in 10 I stayed away from the basement, had my own **** going on. I trust the science that’s provable. Scientifically. Otherwise it isn’t science, right?
I no longer read any of these journals. I no longer believe in science. @B-Bob I did reference the 2015 NEJM Pembro paper today, if that counts. It’s a wonder drug. But so much science is noise. Or a lot is unreproducible. Or worst of all, the bits that are completely fabricated. edit: print journals went out of fashion in the 2010s and now everything is digital. My last delivered printed journal was from March 2020.
irreproducible. But yes, especially psychology and medical studies, unfortunately. Plus a lot of genetics research, also unfortunately.
I don't think it's a new decline, rather new awareness. The article begins with the FDA when orgs like the USDA or SEC are under regulatory capture by industries they were designed the oversee. Who tf believes in the Food Pyramid(s) anymore? Expert scientific certainty carries a unique role in advertising history. In the 20s, pork belly wasn't popular. The pork industry hired Edward Bernaise,OG Mad Men, where he got 4500 doctors to agree that more energy in breakfast was good for you. He then plastered it in bacon ads that stuck into our cultural mainstream. That BS worked in things like cigarretes, margarine, butter, artificial sweeteners, All Natural Sugar, etc. Bernaise should be studied everywhere. The art and science of advertising remains the best and most insidious American export for the past 100 years. It's enough to make Google a 2T company while losing hand over fist in workable products outside their core ad services. It's just that as awareness grew from books->local newspapers->specialized periodicals->TV->internet->social media feeds, the circle of trust grew narrower from Crone-like Granny->Pastor->Gen Practicitioner->Specialist->Surgeon General->good looking TV talking head->Webmd->blog posts from a nobel laureate->tiktok part-time health AND wellness guru/finfluencer. Anyhow, I expected more from that article such as rampant science fraud or the cottage industry of limited PHDs and prioritizing quantity of science papers over quality and veracity. Instead he whines about Covid hysteria and Climate Change because he was ostraciszed for His Views...despite holding a PhD... from... from a damn. good. university. I mean what a blow to an old white man's ego to have his identity impugned over that when he had Very Fine Ideas!! Yeah let's forget that we've debated climate change for over a generation with "empathy and reassurance" from humble experts yet everytime an R admin comes along, any international treaty or policy signal for curbing emissions is derailed, guttered or sandbagged. To add insult to injury, a Con inspired con called Carbon Credits became a Liberal albatross only to be exposed as unreliable, unaccountable, rife with fraud, Elon's best friend, and a Goldman Sachs wet dream. Or the fact that for a novel and highly infectious virus, "thinking with cooler heads" comes at the expense of ICUs across urban areas overloading with patients whose feverish heads are anything but cool. The state is allowed to panic and allowed consequences later, especially when we're rife with Boomers and fatties that upped the death toll to 1 million. Ironically we had more deadly violence and fears of a dictatorship on J6 than from governments forced to reopen the country from "Orwellian lockdowns" in fears of voter wrath. I was hard on the government post-vaccine for abusing the State of Emergency mentality, but their covid detractors also used similar disproportionate comparisons to deliver their message. One thing I noticed from frustrated Boomer males is that they aren't allowed to cry, but the smarter ones can throw a well constructed hissy fit. /rant
I am not sure from what you've written here in response that you've understood Zaruk's main argument(s)
The scientists were never wrong. It's the interpretation of what they are saying is wrong. Part of that blame is on the media, and part of it is in people not listening to the caveats and language scientists speak with.
look, I've had my run-ins with "arrogant" scientists . . . I can tell you the problem is real. I had a colleague who dressed down a subordinate in a lab setting and screamed "don't you know who I am, I am in Time magazine!" And that's a true story. I think there's a god complex possibility for all academics, not just scientists. Scientists just tend to believe they trade in "truth" Capital T, and that can make them more self-righteous than most. That erodes the credibility of all scientists once the veneer of dispassionate objectivity is gone.
There are arrogant, bad apples in every field. Thus, generalization isn't helpful. And so, let me generalize : The best scientists (and in general, professionals in most other fields) are folks who aren't 100% sure and always remain open. Politicians don't count.
I agree completely. But that's precisely the intellectual humility that Zaruk argues is largely going away these days.
plus, I suspect there is a difference between academic scientists (who may on the whole be more intellectually humble) than regulatory scientists, whom Zaruk has more familiarity with. And perhaps the EU context makes that problem particularly frustrating for him.
Oh no doubt that individual scientists are narcasistic a-holes. But when it comes to presenting results - in papers - they have to present them in an even factual way or they won't pass peer review. If it's not peer reviewed, it's not science. And any paper that goes through that process will be tempered in a way so it's not the absolutely truth, as it's not. One piece of research is never defining in science. Even if it passes 5 sigma certainty, it still has to be repeatable and hold up to scrutiny. Scientists love to undress the arrogance of other scientists. My point is around that more than individual personalities.
He lost me when he injected himself into his argument and didn't provide real solutions other than for scientists/experts to be humble and empathic. I doubt anyone objectively liked Richard Dawkins when he put atheism on his mantle to champion science with his own brand of dogmatism. It was just the most expedient way to deliver a message to the most people, just like what this guy has done in the article by bringing COVID and climate change into a far more endemic topic. While I'm not discounting his main argument, I am discounting his blind disregard for context in the examples he uses to support his argument. His whole trip down memory lane for signing the Barrington document is totally sour grapes. He expected "collegial disagreement" among peers, but publicizing the document put him in fair grounds for politicization... and public demonization/saintification. I don't think the blind disregard for context is solely on him but probably a symptom among experts. My big problem with how climate change is framed is that we're entrenched debating over CO2's effects when other issues like plastic pollution or ocean acidification is less in dispute. We've taken an all or nothing approach, likely from the success of banning the production of CFCs, and haven't reaped much results from it. That falls in line with how trust in experts erode. Yay, for him.
