Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
LastLast
  1. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Yes, exactly. When I get into an airplane, I don't need to "do my research" to understand and trust the engineering in the plane. I don't need to have gone through flight training to trust the pilot is probably certified and not going to kill us. I trust that the air traffic controllers will also not cause our plane to crash into another.
    And opponents trust their politicians/doctors/friends to tell what is best for them. Exact same thing.

    What kinda world do you live in where literally nobody can apparently be trusted and you need to do everything yourself?
    You don't need to; it's enough to acknowledge that it is conviction supported more by belief rather then verifiable facts (unless you can check those facts personally).

    And as such, might be false - or true in limited circumstances (that might be lost in transit from guidance source to you) rather then universally. Not something to be assumed by default, but also not to be seen as inconceivable possibility.

    You're pretending that because someone thinks that another person/group is credible that they are credible. That's not the case and is some nihilistic bullshit.
    Where do i pretend that? I'm just saying that "appeal to majority" doesn't work when clearly majority can be wrong, one way or another.

    No matter if they "trust science" or quacks (and it's not like everyone from general public can differentiate between them either).

    Link it, because I'm curious about what timeframe you're talking about here.
    Here is discussion of guidance update from june.

    The WHO had previously recommended against the wearing of medical masks by the general public given the global PPE shortage. It had been reluctant to advocate for wider usage of non-medical masks by healthy people given the lack of data available at the time.

    Also worth checking review of March guidance. (Finally, WHO concludes that “Cloth masks are not recommended under any circumstance.” This warning is perhaps based on the results of a trial comparing cloth masks with medical masks for healthcare staff in high risk hospital settings in Vietnam, which cautioned against recommending them for healthcare workers.)

    Is it this from January, when we still knew little about the virus, stating that masks alone weren't sufficient to provide protection and that other measures like handwashing etc.
    Handwashing does basically nothing for Covid; as far as i'm aware there has been no examples of transmissions through this vector.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-03-30 at 07:46 PM.

  2. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    And opponents trust their politicians/doctors/friends to tell what is best for them. Exact same thing.
    Yeah, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of, "Just because some lunatic believes Alex Jones telling him the water turn the frogs and him gay, that's equally as valid as the opinion of an expert in the field with decades of work".

    Because it's not, and any attempt to frame those arguments as remotely equivalent is dishonest as fuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    You don't need to; it's enough to acknowledge that it is conviction supported more by belief rather then verifiable facts (unless you can check those facts personally).
    Again, not true. I don't need to be able to personally verify, for example, that the Polio vaccine factually works. It's not a belief. It's not faith. You seem to be mistaking "faith" for "fact", and despite both words starting with "fa" they are not synonyms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Where do i pretend that? I'm just saying that "appeal to majority" doesn't work when clearly majority can be wrong, one way or another.
    Not at all. Because they're also not a majority.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    No matter if they "trust science" or quacks (and it's not like everyone from general public can differentiate between them either).
    Anyone with functional brain cells can tell the difference between, say an infectious disease specialist with a half a century of experience carefully framing his words and using scientific language...to a lady who claims demon sperm causes serility.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Here is discussion of guidance update from june.

    The WHO had previously recommended against the wearing of medical masks by the general public given the global PPE shortage. It had been reluctant to advocate for wider usage of non-medical masks by healthy people given the lack of data available at the time.
    ...yes? I mean, since January 2020 they were recommending mask wearing as part of a comprehensive strategy. There was a brief period in the spring when PPE was painfully short and the general consensus was that given the insanely high risk of medical professionals treating covid patients, that prioritizing PPE for them over average folks was the wisest course of action.

    There's no confusion or anything else. They've been consistent and never downplayed the importance of masks, only the exclusive use of masks as a protective measures while acknowledging that the data on it wasn't yet sufficient to conclude that because...it wasn't. They were still just learning about the virus along with the rest of us. They never initially said it should be for medical workers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Handwashing does basically nothing for Covid; as far as i'm aware there has been no examples of transmissions through this vector.
    Yeah, this is a lie. It's effective - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/

    And while the data continues to suggest the risk of transmission that way is low - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/

    Like...is washing your hands that bad? Is protecting yourself from other surface-transfered germs and viruses that could weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to severe covid reactions if you catch it from the air...bad?

    These are bad faith arguments and we're veering off-topic, but it's amusing how this kinda unintentionally gets at some of the themes of phony arguments. Most rest on, "Here's some simple, low-effort, common sense advice. But it might not be the silver bullet, they're always wrong about everything and we can't trust 'em!"

  3. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Yeah, I'm not going to go down the rabbit hole of, "Just because some lunatic believes Alex Jones telling him the water turn the frogs and him gay, that's equally as valid as the opinion of an expert in the field with decades of work".
    There is no "equally" - why would you trust Alex Jones if he isn't part of "your tribe"? No, such trust is inherently unequal.

    You almost always double-check "outsiders" (like you just did with WHO guidance question - even though everyone should be broadly aware how it changed with time), and you only check "your own" if they somehow seem to contradict your pre-existing beliefs (and if you had none then you often just trust them to be right by default - even when they aren't experts).

    It is also not impossible to see two experts with "decades of work" holding opposite opinions - especially when for article in newspaper those opinions are stripped from nuance and inherent assumptions those decades of work create.

    Because it's not, and any attempt to frame those arguments as remotely equivalent is dishonest as fuck.
    Stop framing it like that then.

    Again, not true. I don't need to be able to personally verify, for example, that the Polio vaccine factually works. It's not a belief. It's not faith. You seem to be mistaking "faith" for "fact", and despite both words starting with "fa" they are not synonyms.
    Don't need for what exactly?

    To decide wherever you should be vaccinated with it personally? "Since it worked before it'll probably work now too" can be seen as generally conservative position.

    Or as part of "vaccines work in general through well-known mechanism, therefore this vaccine must also work"? Which can fail with some new vaccines for some subpopulations like we're seeing with AZ version in Europe; sometimes there can be manufacturing/sourcing problems too for specific batches.

    Not at all. Because they're also not a majority.
    Are you implying that majority is always right? Otherwise i'm not sure why you're replying to "majority can be wrong" with this.

    Anyone with functional brain cells can tell the difference between, say an infectious disease specialist with a half a century of experience carefully framing his words and using scientific language...to a lady who claims demon sperm causes serility.
    That isn't how it often works in practice - quacks use "scientific language" too. "Uses scientific language -> right" is quite faulty heuristic.

    Specialization also can lead "infectious disease specialist" not necessarily meaning "personal virus protection equipment specialist" despite being used as such (he could just used best protection all those years).


    ...yes? I mean, since January 2020 they were recommending mask wearing as part of a comprehensive strategy. There was a brief period in the spring when PPE was painfully short and the general consensus was that given the insanely high risk of medical professionals treating covid patients, that prioritizing PPE for them over average folks was the wisest course of action.

    There's no confusion or anything else. They've been consistent and never downplayed the importance of masks, only the exclusive use of masks as a protective measures while acknowledging that the data on it wasn't yet sufficient to conclude that because...it wasn't. They were still just learning about the virus along with the rest of us. They never initially said it should be for medical workers.
    Never downplayed importance of proper medical masks in medical settings. Form-fit, air-tight (with air only going through filters), properly worn.

    Which isn't how masks are used by general population (and where Repub/Dem schism goes). Cloth masks were questioned from angles like "holes too big, virus particles might still get through as supported by studies", as well as sometimes from (probably unwarranted) "false sense of security" angle (better then nothing, but not significantly so).


    Yeah, this is a lie. It's effective - https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/co...d-of-covid-19/
    You're using article from a year ago that talks not about "wherever you can easily get infected through hands" (which was my "does nothing" was implying - spread of it) but "wherever virus on your hand would get destroyed if you washed them" (which it certainly would).

    Understanding of this infection vector, just like with face masks, also changed over time
    https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00251-4.

    Still, even in June 2020 WHO said "Despite consistent evidence as to SARS-CoV-2 contamination of surfaces and the survival of the virus on certain surfaces, there are no specific reports which have directly demonstrated fomite transmission." ; and as far as i'm aware, no such reports had surfaced to this day.

    Like...is washing your hands that bad? Is protecting yourself from other surface-transfered germs and viruses that could weaken your immune system and make you more susceptible to severe covid reactions if you catch it from the air...bad?
    Where did i say "guarding against it is bad"? It is simply unsupported by existing evidence as significant concern compared to aerosol droplets - more of a theoretical possibility.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-03-30 at 09:31 PM.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Or as part of "vaccines work in general through well-known mechanism, therefore this vaccine must also work"? Which can fail with some new vaccines for some subpopulations like we're seeing with AZ version in Europe; sometimes there can be manufacturing/sourcing problems too for specific batches.
    Oh, look. You're doing your "doubt the factually based and well-established position" because of "very minor quibble/exception" schtick.

    *Yawn*
    "We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
    -Louis Brandeis

  5. #85
    https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2021/03/...-equality-ban/

    Want some non-bait-and-switch identity politics too?

    Missouri Republicans refuse to let Democrats remove the states ban on gay marriage. A ban that doesn't actually exist and is unenforcable as marriage equality is federally protected.

    Republicans, who have often never seen a regulation they didn't want to remove, seem adamant in keeping this pointless language in. Why? Culture wars. Identity politics. Play up to the bigots.

  6. #86
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,977
    "Poeple who believe masks are bad and people who believe masks are good are just the same for trusting in their authority figures!"

    The flu season just didn't happen this year, we practically wiped out the flu this year because masks and social distancing made it almost impossible for the flu to spread.

    Also, anyone who thinks that masks have tiny tracking chips in each of them, and that George Soros has put mind control chips in every Covid vaccine, is not mentally well, and neither their opinion nor their trusted sources should be considered valid.

    The difference between believing scientists and believing absolute nut jobs, is that one is tribalism and one is not. One who has gone to school and understands the scientific process and how rigorous it is at weeding out bullshit will know that science is very self regulating. Education makes us understand that the conclusions scientists come to is not just some blind faith claim, but something they eventually arrived at after thousands of hours of research and testing. There is no such self regulation for the shit Alex Jones vomits up.

    One is blind faith tribalism, the other is a deep understanding of a self regulating system. Anyone who thinks that the two are remotely similar in how "blind faith" works is a fucking idiot and should not be taken seriously.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  7. #87
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,524
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Missouri Republicans refuse to let Democrats remove the states ban on gay marriage. A ban that doesn't actually exist and is unenforcable as marriage equality is federally protected.
    I wouldn't be remotely surprised if they were still trying to enforce that law.

    They kept at it for at least a decade after Lawrence v. Texas.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  8. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Naw. You're denying the existence of objective reality, wholesale, here.
    Objective reality (more likely) exists. What people have inside their heads and what they share with each other isn't objective reality itself though but fairly limited model approximation of it.

    With updates to that model most of the time arriving through social links rather then through direct experimentation with objective reality - with a lot of biases distorting initial "real" image along the way.

    This is just obviously untrue. Only one of those sides has any merit to it, any evidence or reason behind its position. The "masks are harmful" folks are just belligerent jackwads who either don't care who gets hurt by their actions, or actively reject basic reality because they are so blindly, unthinkingly partisan and have chosen to make "wearing a mask during a pandemic" into a political issue.

    Here's a tip; that this is basically only present in the USA is a clear indication that it's an individual failure of each of those anti-maskers, not some determinably valid position.
    They believe they and those around them will get hurt by such actions, and act accordingly - until proven wrong through channel they trust. It is certainly not US-centric issue - many other countries either don't give anti-maskers such an option (through fines and police action enforcing mask use) or don't give them ability to voice their concerns in major media outlets.

    As such i see it as systemic rather then individual fault.

    It is hardly their fault that unlike someone from university they aren't part of scientific community and don't have understanding why and when trust in scientific findings is warranted - or, more commonly, trust in media reporting on them, given that they never engage with source papers.

    Epidemiological dynamics are far from "basic reality" given that many people didn't encounter epidemics that mandated constant mask use through their whole lives.

    It has fuck-all to do with "tribalism"; you just want to pretend, falsely, that both sides have validity and it's just a matter of opinion. That's not the case.
    Both sides engage in similar behavior that has no bearing on validity of evidence supporting it.

    I don't even disagree that masks side has better evidence behind them.

    But "Our side has facts/validity!" is pointless when battle isn't about facts (as in scientific dispute) but about enforcing certain course of actions (which is, inescapably, politics).

    Whining "why those idiots don't follow evidence?!" is seen as "why evidence-based technocracy haven't already won as it should?!".

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gestopft View Post
    Oh, look. You're doing your "doubt the factually based and well-established position" because of "very minor quibble/exception" schtick.
    I think it is important to understand limits of factual and well-established positions, and which parameters should be controlled for them to stay true.
    Last edited by Shalcker; 2021-03-31 at 06:14 AM.

  9. #89
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,977
    Yes Shlacker, all of us here understand that conspiracy nuts genuinely believe their authoritarian figures. You're acting like this is some big revelation or relevant in any way. Otherwise you're just making the same dumb "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE TO SOMEONE'S POINT OF VIEW" argument that conservatives who are losing an argument on this forum like to make. Nobody is disputing that they genuinely believe in them.

    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting. And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Last edited by Cthulhu 2020; 2021-03-31 at 09:45 AM.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  10. #90
    The Lightbringer GreenGoldSharpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    3,382
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    Yes Shlacker, all of us here understand that conspiracy nuts genuinely believe their authoritarian figures. You're acting like this is some big revelation or relevant in any way. Otherwise you're just making the same dumb "EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE TO SOMEONE'S POINT OF VIEW" argument that conservatives who are losing an argument on this forum like to make. Nobody is disputing that they genuinely believe in them.

    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting. And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Dude, this brand of conservatism is entirely based on not listening to those expert dorks and doing their own research online as a viable strategy for understanding the world. These people are fucking idiots, but they hold a lot of sway.

  11. #91
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,843
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Both sides engage in similar behavior that has no bearing on validity of evidence supporting it.
    At this point, pretty much any "both sides" argument can be summarily dismissed as deliberate disinformation. You're trying to equate two disparate things, and act as if the truth is somehow equidistant from both, and that's simply just something you are making up based on nothing.

    But "Our side has facts/validity!" is pointless when battle isn't about facts (as in scientific dispute) but about enforcing certain course of actions (which is, inescapably, politics).

    Whining "why those idiots don't follow evidence?!" is seen as "why evidence-based technocracy haven't already won as it should?!".
    Yes, we understand that conspiracy theory nutcases who reject basic human decency and any functional grasp of scientific understanding will never be convinced by more science.

    Because they're willful idiots. They choose to remain stupid, because they prefer being stupid.

    That's an individual failure on every single one of their parts, at an individual level. And there is no reason to consider their cockamamie nonsense until/unless they can justify it rationally. Until then, like you, they're just making up wild nonsense that isn't an argument, and thus does not warrant any consideration whatsoever.

    This isn't about "technocracy", it's about reason and logic and facts.

    That a lot of people choose to be idiots together does not mean their idiocy needs to be given political capital.

  12. #92
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    At this point, pretty much any "both sides" argument can be summarily dismissed as deliberate disinformation. You're trying to equate two disparate things, and act as if the truth is somehow equidistant from both, and that's simply just something you are making up based on nothing.
    I never said anything close to "truth is equidistant from both" - in fact i made my preference clear, stop talking with voices in your head.

    Your basically saying that "both sides talk" and other fairly fundamental human commonalities like tribalism should be dismissed as bothsideism.

    Yes, we understand that conspiracy theory nutcases who reject basic human decency and any functional grasp of scientific understanding will never be convinced by more science.

    Because they're willful idiots. They choose to remain stupid, because they prefer being stupid.
    As far as i see you simply fail at teaching them.

    You're eager to accept systemic racism and yet educational failure should be seen as strictly individual choice rather then systemic? Even when it covers almost half the country? Give me a break.

    That's an individual failure on every single one of their parts, at an individual level. And there is no reason to consider their cockamamie nonsense until/unless they can justify it rationally. Until then, like you, they're just making up wild nonsense that isn't an argument, and thus does not warrant any consideration whatsoever.

    This isn't about "technocracy", it's about reason and logic and facts.
    Facts, logic, and reason are tools. Tools used by humans to reach their goals. They have no inherent value outside of that.

    If there is no agreement about goals saying "but our tools are better!" isn't helping anything.

    That a lot of people choose to be idiots together does not mean their idiocy needs to be given political capital.
    They already have political capital, and given QAnon getting elected into Congress it only seems to get worse with time.

  13. #93
    Stood in the Fire Karreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    414
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  14. #94
    Quote Originally Posted by Cthulhu 2020 View Post
    The fact is that science is rigorously self-regulating. Alex Jones and Marjorie Taylor Greene are not. That's the difference between blind faith tribalism and genuine understanding. They faithfully believe conspiracy nutters because they just do. They want to believe in whatever anti-liberal schtick is out there. The rest of us listen to scientists because we know how science works.
    Scientists in relevant areas can have approximation of "genuine understanding" - general public cannot. "Listen to scientists" often devolves to scientism - heuristic just like "listen to politicians you elected", not "genuine understanding".

    There is also "scientists looked through their specific dataset and made judgement on things relevant to their area of expertise" vs "politicians looked at broad impact of various suggestions and risk assessments for their constituency and made judgement based on that" - in ideal situation politicians is the one most capable of making "proper" judgement call, not scientist.

    Obviously modern politicians often suck at those - putting higher weight on economy then human lives and then losing at both, downplaying (or overplaying) risks and so on; that doesn't necessarily mean any random scientist (or politician following that scientist unequestionably) would do much better in their position just because he knows scientific method and trusts science.

    There's a reason there's a big education gap in voting.
    What exactly do you see as a reason?

    And the conservatives who are educated are far less likely to be in science heavy fields. "Education has a liberal bias."
    Is that because science suddenly changed from favoring conservative points?

    Or because conservative politics shifted away from science as a tool given easier alternatives?

  15. #95
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Karreck View Post
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    You are being too generous... Jung’s persona and the concept of identity politics, is an interesting mix to discuss... but, this is just defending a position, that should be indefensible... so, it sounds like primitive philosophy...

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    There is also "scientists looked through their specific dataset and made judgement on things relevant to their area of expertise" vs "politicians looked at broad impact of various suggestions and risk assessments for their constituency and made judgement based on that" - in ideal situation politicians is the one most capable of making "proper" judgement call, not scientist.
    No... you don’t have to trust politicians, because the key to their understanding, is transparency. The reason you need to trust scientist, because your life is not long enough to understand it all. Every scientist cannot discover everything on their own, then form new discoveries based on that. It’s simply unreasonable... people don’t even treat their cars with such demands.

    Scientist is also not going to give you the same answer, not necessarily because they are politically different, but because fields of study are different. If you ask a physicist if a falling tree makes a sound when falling, they will give you a resounding yes, with details focusing on sound waves existing regardless of the observer. If you ask a neuroscientist, they will likely answer no, because what you know as sound, is defined by the brain’s interpretation.

    Unlike politics, there is no disagreement, even though both answers seem contradictory. There is no army of neuroscientist storming physics classes and demanding their righteous truth be recognized as one and only...



    Comparing science to politics, means you don’t understand either. There is no instance in science, injecting disinfectant will have a positive or even neutral outcome. Unlike politics, where something that stupid is an effective way to rile up support.

    Edit: Politics depends on subjectiveness of perception, where science attempts to define perception. It’s two opposites...
    Last edited by Felya; 2021-03-31 at 06:50 PM.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Karreck View Post
    Somebody is minoring in Philosophy and wants to put that to use on a message board.
    I'm getting more of Communications dept vibe.

    Or look, ELEC 301 Proper use to Propaganda at Lumumba University

    /s

  17. #97
    Stood in the Fire Karreck's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Beneath you. Devouring.
    Posts
    414
    Quote Originally Posted by Milchshake View Post
    I'm getting more of Communications dept vibe.

    Or look, ELEC 301 Proper use to Propaganda at Lumumba University

    /s
    As a Comm Major, I am hurt and offended.

    But it wouldn't surprise me either.
    Princesses can kill knights to rescue dragons.

  18. #98
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    No... you don’t have to trust politicians, because the key to their understanding, is transparency. The reason you need to trust scientist, because your life is not long enough to understand it all.
    The key to trust in science is transparency too - so that data and assumptions can be checked by peers.

    And then replicability of results.

    Every scientist cannot discover everything on their own, then form new discoveries based on that. It’s simply unreasonable... people don’t even treat their cars with such demands.
    You still repeat plenty of experiments in school/university too rather then "trust previous data".

    Because, among other things, it helps to see what problems you might encounter when you try to get theoretically expected results in reality.

    Unlike politics, there is no disagreement, even though both answers seem contradictory.
    Scientists most definitely disagree on many things, both within and across different disciplines.

    Sometimes even unreasonably so - it's weird to contrast them to politicians in this regard.

  19. #99
    The Undying Cthulhu 2020's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Rigging your election
    Posts
    33,977
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    The key to trust in science is transparency too - so that data and assumptions can be checked by peers.

    And then replicability of results.

    You still repeat plenty of experiments in school/university too rather then "trust previous data".

    Because, among other things, it helps to see what problems you might encounter when you try to get theoretically expected results in reality.

    Scientists most definitely disagree on many things, both within and across different disciplines.

    Sometimes even unreasonably so - it's weird to contrast them to politicians in this regard.
    Planck's Principle applies to soft sciences that are mostly theory. Hard sciences rarely ever change. Epidemiology is one of those areas that does not change. Ergo, listening to scientists in a field of hard science, especially as someone who has two majors in hard sciences, is not tribalism. But thanks for conceding the point that blindly swallowing politician lingo and listening to scientists are incredibly different things.
    "Nazis are like cats. If they like you, it's probably because you're feeding them." -John Oliver
    Quote Originally Posted by Knadra View Post
    I don't care if he committed tax fraud. Scoring political victories and crushing the aspirations of your political opponents is more important than adhering to moral principles.
    Knadra finally just admitting Trumpkins care more about political victories than morals.

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Some trans athletes have broken school records, which some conservatives hold up as PROOF of something.

    Meanwhile in reality, they make up a tiny fraction of the overall winners at girls sporting events in school and are routinely beat by cisgendered girls - https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...-sports-teams/

    You haven't seen evidence of it because the sinister plan for a bunch of boys/men to go all Juwanna Mann in girls/women's sports is a literal strawman.
    I cannot recommend enough this video discussing the topic you bring up here. It demolishes all the arguments against trans inclusion so very well:



    But if you don't have the time for that longer video and prefer a little comedy in your politics, there's always Buckley's take on the matter:

    Shut your goddamn mouth, Gene!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •