1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

SCIENCE!: Who's Science do you trust?

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by Rocket River, Mar 10, 2010.

?

Who's Science do you beleive?

  1. The Concensus of the Scientific Community

    40 vote(s)
    60.6%
  2. Science that seems reasonable and logical to me.

    16 vote(s)
    24.2%
  3. Whatever science supports my preconceived notions

    10 vote(s)
    15.2%
  1. ThatBoyNick

    ThatBoyNick Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    31,333
    Likes Received:
    49,173


    Are these points a new decline or just known phenomenon as long as science has been a thing?
     
  2. Xerobull

    Xerobull ...and I'm all out of bubblegum
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    36,966
    Likes Received:
    35,882
    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?
     
  3. Jugdish

    Jugdish Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,081
    Likes Received:
    9,590
    It's all tHeOrIeS!
     
    Ubiquitin likes this.
  4. Xerobull

    Xerobull ...and I'm all out of bubblegum
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Messages:
    36,966
    Likes Received:
    35,882
    As long as Pepsi beats Coke in double-blind taste tests, it’s gold, Jerry, gold!
     
    ROCKSS likes this.
  5. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    this guy gets it.gif
     
  6. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    19,567
    Likes Received:
    14,570
    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.
     
    #86 Ubiquitin, Aug 13, 2024
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2024
    Rocket River and Invisible Fan like this.
  7. B-Bob

    B-Bob "94-year-old self-described dreamer"
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2002
    Messages:
    35,985
    Likes Received:
    36,840
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    irreproducible.
    But yes, especially psychology and medical studies, unfortunately. Plus a lot of genetics research, also unfortunately.
     
    ROCKSS and Ubiquitin like this.
  8. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    19,567
    Likes Received:
    14,570
    Ok reviewer 2.
     
    B-Bob likes this.
  9. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    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
     
    #89 Invisible Fan, Aug 13, 2024
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2024
  10. Ubiquitin

    Ubiquitin Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2001
    Messages:
    19,567
    Likes Received:
    14,570
  11. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    I am not sure from what you've written here in response that you've understood Zaruk's main argument(s)
     
  12. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,190
    Likes Received:
    20,340
    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.
     
  13. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    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.
     
  14. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,120
    Likes Received:
    23,404
    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.
     
    ROCKSS likes this.
  15. Amiga

    Amiga Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Messages:
    25,120
    Likes Received:
    23,404
    Have you heard of the study that says going outside is good for you? Science!
     
    B-Bob likes this.
  16. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    I agree completely. But that's precisely the intellectual humility that Zaruk argues is largely going away these days.
     
  17. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    81,504
    Likes Received:
    121,914
    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.
     
  18. Sweet Lou 4 2

    Sweet Lou 4 2 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2007
    Messages:
    39,190
    Likes Received:
    20,340
    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.
     
  19. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    45,954
    Likes Received:
    28,048
    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.
     

Share This Page