The major problem with science is that the great majority of us have not been trained, and do not understand it. Even if you had science classes in High School, unless you majored in a science discipline in college, you probably did not actually learn science. Oh yes, you learned some Biology or Chemistry facts, and you might have done some labs, but those labs had predetermined outcomes. They were the equivalent of baking a cake in your kitchen from scratch. The actual process of science goes much deeper, and, due to time constraints, is barely touched on.
First off, anyone who makes the claim that "The Science is settled" has no understanding of science. Science is never settled. Oh there can be more and more data and evidence supporting a specific theory, but the whole thing can be overthrown by a single experiment to the contrary.
The vast majority of science papers are wrong, when first published, but it takes many peer scientists reviewing and doing their own research and experiments writing other papers to demonstrate the problems with the first paper. It's not that the first paper was intentionally flawed, it was accurate based on the confines of the experiment.
Now the fact that most people were not trained in the sciences extends to politicians and news reporters. Reporters report on a new finding based on the press release they were given. They do not necessarily understand it, they just read the report as given. Very few elected officials have been trained in the sciences, and they make the legislation.
If we look at the recent discussion regarding the Voldemort virus there were many examples of some of these issues. People resorting to first findings, and ignoring everything that came afterwords crying fraud, or outright lying. Example, the origin of the virus. There were rumors that it began in the Wuhan virus lab and was either accidentally or intentionally leaked. There was no actual evidence at that time, but that did not stop the rumors. There was also the case that markets were selling wild animals, including bats, as food and that this was the source of the virus. Both valid hypotheses, but require more evidence. Since virtually all human viruses began as animal viruses, and even there originated in bats, the Occam's razor choice was to logically point in that direction. Looking further the virus was found in bats being sold in the markets. There was no evidence, at that time, that the virus originated in the labs. Recently there has come to light some evidence that they may have been working on this virus in the lab, but due to issues with Chinese secrecy, it is difficult to find true solid evidence to this case. But if this eventually comes to be proven true, it does not discount the previous information, only adds to it.
Same regarding vaccines vs. natural immunity. We know that vaccines work. Many of the diseases that those of us over 60 dealt with are virtually gone. Small pox has even been wiped off the planet thanks to vaccines. We also know that, for some diseases, infection also gives immunity. Those of us that survived measles, mumps and chicken pox have immunity to those diseases, but chicken pox comes back with a vengeance in our senior years as Shingles. Children today, who have been vaccinated and did not face chicken pox will likely not get shingles when they get older, but for us older people we can now get vaccinated against shingles. In the early days of Voldemort, the infection and death rate were extremely high. Yes, there were portions of the population that were more likely to be hospitalized, or die, but these numbers were still overwhelming. We could have waited out for natural immunity to wipe out the "weak", but at what costs. Getting a vaccine was the quickest way to reduce the virulence of the virus. Today, life has returned to mostly normal, more or less. The death and hospitalization rates are greatly reduced from where they were, and this is due to a combination of vaccine and natural immunity. We don't know yet, and will not know for some time, the long term effects of either. But science will continue to track, and new data will change the opinions of scientists.
Anecdote are not evidence. There have been no actual studies showing that Ivermectin, or snorting Hydrogen Peroxide stops or prevents the virus. There are anecdotal stories, but that is not real evidence. Without a controlled study, these claims are not science, and not based on science.
Most people hold onto old ideas, or something they might have been taught years ago and do not change those ideas as the science progresses. Best examples are with climate change. Those who wish to ignore evidence hold onto old ideas like the history of heating and cooling of the planet, or the stories in the 1970's that we were heading into an ice age. They choose to ignore the current discoveries, and the reams of data now being generated through observation. This was not available 50 years ago. If you are not willing to change your opinion, based on new evidence, you do not understand how science works.
The recent discovery by Japan that found Uracil on an asteroid will alter much about what we know about the formation of life on our planet. Same with recent discoveries of fully formed galaxies shortly after the thought of date of the origin of the universe will all be paradigm shifting as they sift out over the next few years. Neither of these make the old knowledge false, it is just new data, that will require a new paradigm.
...if "science is never settled," then just maybe a supernatural force actually did turn on a bedside lamp in a hotel room in Eston, SK. Maybe all will [eventually] be explained by new data/a new paradigm?? 
I'm no scientist, but I think that the absence of a controlled study doesn't necessarily invalidate anecdotal as being unworthy/untrue. To my thinking it's possible for something to be true/fact before it's validated by "science."
Edit: Is it possible that some guys like me, who like the expression, "Never say never," know a teensy-weensy bit more about science and how it works than you want to give us credit for?
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 10:22:58
Can we talk about deja vu...
...and recurring topics?
I learned "Applied Physics" at SMVTI and we regularly referred to a big book of logarithms for solving problems.
Science is as much knowing how to use reference material as inner knowledge,imo.
---"anyone who makes the claim that "The Science is settled" has no understanding of science.--"
And I would add the phrase "trust the science" to that. Science is antithetical with "trust."
quote:
Originally posted by BuddurCan we talk about deja vu...
...and recurring topics?
Again?
"We know that vaccines work."
Four years ago I would have agreed with this. But when the definition of the word is changed for economic and political reasons and NOT scientific reasons, you lose me. Especially when I see friends and family who are supposedly vaccinated continue to get the illness they were supposedly vaccinated from. And those of us who declined it are doing just fine.
quote:
Originally posted by Owen...if "science is never settled," then just maybe a supernatural force actually did turn on a bedside lamp in a hotel room in Eston, SK. Maybe all will [eventually] be explained by new data/a new paradigm??
I'm no scientist, but I think that the absence of a controlled study doesn't necessarily invalidate anecdotal as being unworthy/untrue. To my thinking it's possible for something to be true/fact before it's validated by "science."
Edit: Is it possible that some guys like me, who like the expression, "Never say never," know a teensy-weensy bit more about science and how it works than you want to give us credit for?
There are things unknown, but not unknowable. There could be a paradigm shift to explain electrical anomalies, but since there are so many known causes, Occam's razor dictates we look there first. Barring any actual evidence to the contrary that is where science would, at least begin to lead. When Alfred Wegener first hypothesized about Continental Drift, the great majority of scientists thought it was nonsense because there was no force strong enough to move continents. Then, in the middle of the 20th century the discover of the mid ocean ridge in the Atlantic showed that indeed, volcanic activity did cause the motion of continents. It is know knows as tectonic plate activity, but the paradigm shift happened with a new discovery that supported the old idea. More research strengthened this idea. If someone finds a similar supernatural cause of hotel lamps flickering, it would create another paradigm shift.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence. It can be a starting point for an investigation, but without proper testing it is nothing more than a story. This is how science works. If, say, 20 people all claimed that taking mega-doses of vitamin X cured their cancer, it is worth investigating. But, if after a double blind study, it is found that vitamin X was no better, or worse than a placebo then it doesn't. On the other hand, if say 30 % of the active group find cancer cured, and only 5% of the control group cure cancer, it points to a high probability.
quote:
Originally posted by banjo bill-e---"anyone who makes the claim that "The Science is settled" has no understanding of science.--"
And I would add the phrase "trust the science" to that. Science is antithetical with "trust."
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Hornet"We know that vaccines work."
Four years ago I would have agreed with this. But when the definition of the word is changed for economic and political reasons and NOT scientific reasons, you lose me. Especially when I see friends and family who are supposedly vaccinated continue to get the illness they were supposedly vaccinated from. And those of us who declined it are doing just fine.
The actual definition remains about the same as it always was. What people believed it was differs from the definition. Annual flu vaccines do not, and never did, give 100% immunity from getting the flu. Polio vaccines, though extremely effective, do not give 100% immunity. We got lucky with smallpox in that there was a massive global effort to vaccinate everyone and so the virus did not have a chance to mutate. We could have done the same with Polio, but we did not address it with the same fervor, especially in 3rd world countries. It is making a comeback because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children. The only difference in the definition of a vaccine is in the manner in which they are produced. Where we used to use weakened, or dead versions of the virus, today we can genetically engineer vaccines and produce them much faster and cheaper. The job the vaccine does is still the same.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vaccines
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
https://www.britannica.com/science/vaccine
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vaccine
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
Well, I know of two [relatively sane?] individuals who found the exact same supernatural [at least at this point] circumstance.
I might not be the world's foremost authority*, but I do know a bit of how science/stats/probability works, or is supposed to work ... IF I didn't, I'd offer that incessant deja-vuing "detracts from" rather than "adds to."
* =
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 11:52:45
Owen, I know you took offense with my discussion of this in the past, and I don't wish to stir that up. But you point out a major piece of my argument. You, and several others witnessed an event that you cannot explain. That may or may not be evidence of a supernatural cause, or it could be evidence of a natural cause. Without investigation, it is exactly that, a Schrodinger's Cat of electrical anomalies. Until the box is opened, it is both natural and supernatural. My personal leaning is there is a natural cause, yours leans the other way. Neither is right, and neither is wrong until it is thoroughly tested. And even then, another test may prove the opposite.
One should not confuse distrusting science with distrusting politicians. The latter is something we should all be doing.
If "neither is right, and neither is wrong," then what was the basis for the b-i-g serving of ridicule/belittle? ...not to mention the many refills.
Edit: I just looked out my window and see/saw no three-legged elephants doing the watusi on my driveway. Is a controlled/peer-reviewed study needed in order that this anecdote be proven/disproven?
P.S. Was our man Albert saying that your interpretation of the science was primitive/childlike in relation to my interpretation of the reality?
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 12:30:54
quote:
Originally posted by DC5quote:
Originally posted by Mad Hornet"We know that vaccines work."
Four years ago I would have agreed with this. But when the definition of the word is changed for economic and political reasons and NOT scientific reasons, you lose me. Especially when I see friends and family who are supposedly vaccinated continue to get the illness they were supposedly vaccinated from. And those of us who declined it are doing just fine.The actual definition remains about the same as it always was. What people believed it was differs from the definition. Annual flu vaccines do not, and never did, give 100% immunity from getting the flu. Polio vaccines, though extremely effective, do not give 100% immunity. We got lucky with smallpox in that there was a massive global effort to vaccinate everyone and so the virus did not have a chance to mutate. We could have done the same with Polio, but we did not address it with the same fervor, especially in 3rd world countries. It is making a comeback because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children. The only difference in the definition of a vaccine is in the manner in which they are produced. Where we used to use weakened, or dead versions of the virus, today we can genetically engineer vaccines and produce them much faster and cheaper. The job the vaccine does is still the same.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vaccines
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
https://www.britannica.com/science/vaccine
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vaccine
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
My understanding of the change is that it went from "preventing infection" to "reducing the severity of the illness after you catch it" (which they don't seem to actually do). Laymens terms but I think a very significant distinction. But now injections that can be labeled "vaccines" are more accepted by the public and thus pharmaceutical sales skyrocket! And everybody who helped make this happen gets paid.
I will say I've had all the mumps, measels, rubella, polio, TB even typhoid vaccines and I've never had any of those diseases. Nor am I aware of anyone who has. I think that's how it's supposed to work.
Bingo!!, Anthony.
The comparison of the effectiveness of vaccines for other viruses is nothing more than "ya, what about-ism?"
In these threads it was pointed out to me how easy* it was to find the actual lab / peer-reviewed studies.... and indeed a link was provided. The result that was up for discussion (?) was akin to "The vaccine prevents infection or reduces the severity in 92[96?]% of the subjects." I was roundly pilloried for being so stoopid in noticing/questioning the "reduce severity" part when the only part that mattered was right there in plain black and white: "It prevents infection in 92[96?]%."
* = apparently I was/am also stoopid in not finding/interpreting scientific papers and statistical methodologies particularly easy. C'est la vie, I suppose.
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 13:20:40
quote:
Originally posted by OwenIf "neither is right, and neither is wrong," then what was the basis for the b-i-g serving of ridicule/belittle? ...not to mention the many refills.
Edit: I just looked out my window and see/saw no three-legged elephants doing the watusi on my driveway. Is a controlled/peer-reviewed study needed in order that this anecdote be proven/disproven?
P.S. Was our man Albert saying that your interpretation of the science was primitive/childlike in relation to my interpretation of the reality?
Owen, you are one of my favorite people on the hangout. I never intentionally belittled or ridiculed you, and if you interpreted any of my remarks that way I sincerely apologize. Neither is right or wrong until either is proven, by my position is that because there are several natural reasons for the anomoly you witnessed, I would chose one of thost before I chose a supernatural explanation. Same position I have with the pyramids in Egypt, or the many UFO (now UAP) sitings. I do not believe these are from alien planets because they would have to have defied all the laws of known science. That doesn't mean that they are not from other planets, it just greatly reduces the likelyhood.
If you saw 3 legged elephants doing the watusi, that would be a claim to investigate, or at least take a video of. Not seeing something is not a claim that can be tested. One cannot prove a non existance. It could be that those elephants are doing the watusi in your neighbors yard.
Extraodinary claims require extraodinary evidence.
Drat!! I was hoping to pull, "It could be that those elephants are doing the watusi in your neighbors yard." out of my sleeve.
I expect that a claim of elephants NOT watusi-ing would be exceedingly commonplace, so there would be no need for extraordinary evidence. If I am in one place, does it not "prove" that I'm not simultaneously in a different place? ... or am I confusing proof as applied in math / science?
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 13:57:46
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Hornetquote:
Originally posted by DC5quote:
Originally posted by Mad Hornet"We know that vaccines work."
Four years ago I would have agreed with this. But when the definition of the word is changed for economic and political reasons and NOT scientific reasons, you lose me. Especially when I see friends and family who are supposedly vaccinated continue to get the illness they were supposedly vaccinated from. And those of us who declined it are doing just fine.The actual definition remains about the same as it always was. What people believed it was differs from the definition. Annual flu vaccines do not, and never did, give 100% immunity from getting the flu. Polio vaccines, though extremely effective, do not give 100% immunity. We got lucky with smallpox in that there was a massive global effort to vaccinate everyone and so the virus did not have a chance to mutate. We could have done the same with Polio, but we did not address it with the same fervor, especially in 3rd world countries. It is making a comeback because some parents refuse to vaccinate their children. The only difference in the definition of a vaccine is in the manner in which they are produced. Where we used to use weakened, or dead versions of the virus, today we can genetically engineer vaccines and produce them much faster and cheaper. The job the vaccine does is still the same.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vaccines
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vaccine
https://www.britannica.com/science/vaccine
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vaccine
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vaccine
My understanding of the change is that it went from "preventing infection" to "reducing the severity of the illness after you catch it" (which they don't seem to actually do). Laymens terms but I think a very significant distinction. But now injections that can be labeled "vaccines" are more accepted by the public and thus pharmaceutical sales skyrocket! And everybody who helped make this happen gets paid.
I will say I've had all the mumps, measels, rubella, polio, TB even typhoid vaccines and I've never had any of those diseases. Nor am I aware of anyone who has. I think that's how it's supposed to work.
No vaccine ever made was guaranteed 100% to prevent. Not ever in the history of vaccines. Vaccines trigger the body's response to fight off the disease, nothing more, nothing less. Some are more effective than others, and in the case of communical diseases, like measles, if enough of the populaion is immunised, the virus cannot get a foothold and cannot spread. When I was a kid there were no vaccines against mumps, measles, or rubella. The only vaccines I remember getting were small pox and polio. When a kid in the neighborhood came down with one of the 3 "childhood diseases" our parents all sent is over to play with them so we would get infected too. The diseases were far less dangerous to children than adults, and contracting the disease once gave you lifetime immunity. Today we see outbreaks of measles in colleges because kids were not vaccinated, or were not exposed to the viruses when young. We're seeing outbreaks of polio for the same reason. Reducing rate of infection and/or severity of disease is a worthy outcome, and the science shows this is what happens with flu and Voldemort vaccines. The only vaccine that wiped out a disease completely was small pox, and that was a combination of luck and a full court press.
quote:
Originally posted by OwenDrat!! I was hoping to pull, "It could be that those elephants are doing the watusi in your neighbors yard." out of my sleeve.
I expect that a claim of elephants NOT watusi-ing would be exceedingly commonplace, so there would be no need for extraordinary proof. If I am in one place, does it not "prove" that I'm not simultaneously in a different place? ... or am I confusing proof as applied in math / science?
Well The Firesign Theater raised that question many years ago. "How can you be in two places at once when you're not anywhere at all?" If you're stoned enough that is very deep philosophy.
No vaccine ever made was guaranteed 100% to prevent. Not ever in the history of vaccines. Vaccines trigger the body's response to fight off the disease, nothing more, nothing less. Some are more effective than others, and in the case of communical diseases, like measles, if enough of the populaion is immunised, the virus cannot get a foothold and cannot spread. When I was a kid there were no vaccines against mumps, measles, or rubella. The only vaccines I remember getting were small pox and polio. When a kid in the neighborhood came down with one of the 3 "childhood diseases" our parents all sent is over to play with them so we would get infected too. The diseases were far less dangerous to children than adults, and contracting the disease once gave you lifetime immunity. Today we see outbreaks of measles in colleges because kids were not vaccinated, or were not exposed to the viruses when young. We're seeing outbreaks of polio for the same reason. Reducing rate of infection and/or severity of disease is a worthy outcome, and the science shows this is what happens with flu and Voldemort vaccines. The only vaccine that wiped out a disease completely was small pox, and that was a combination of luck and a full court press.
They may not be 100% but they seem pretty close. Like I said I don't know anyone who got any of those diseases. And we never needed "boosters" to keep it that way. (another recurring revenue scam)
But the stuff that's come out since the changing of the definition? From what I can tell the only thing it's working for is making big pharm richer.
Edited by - Mad Hornet on 03/22/2023 14:28:29
Why is it that the more that science discovers or creates the more that people seem to find reasons to object. Most scientific experiments result in a dry well. Most scientists will agree with that. Edison tried many threads of material in order to find one that would give off an incandescent light when electricity was circulated through it. Science produces labor saving devices, life saving medicine, technologies that produce jobs, and a civilization where we don't have to live like a pack of animals and die of a cut to the finger at any age. The critics will always be there to criticize. At what stage do the critics counter a scientific idea with a better idea ? Politically motivated critics may win an election in some regions but what do they do to counter a scientific discovery that has a great possibility to be on the right track ? No I'm not a scientist but I do know that I wouldn't be here at this age without the aid of medical science. The same goes for my younger son who was terminally ill at the age of 16. He recently celebrated his 42nd birthday.
Edited by - donc on 03/22/2023 15:19:31
Science is one thing..
Vaxcines..
I do not believe all that we are told about them..
Edited by - STUD figmo Al on 03/22/2023 15:19:17
If I was in real trouble I would rather try a possible cure than do nothing at all.
quote:
Originally posted by DC5The major problem with science is that the great majority of us have not been trained, and do not understand it. Even if you had science classes in High School, unless you majored in a science discipline in college, you probably did not actually learn science. Oh yes, you learned some Biology or Chemistry facts, and you might have done some labs, but those labs had predetermined outcomes. They were the equivalent of baking a cake in your kitchen from scratch. The actual process of science goes much deeper, and, due to time constraints, is barely touched on.
Not so much a problem with "science"; but I agree with there is a problem with how many learn or think about science... from school and reported in news. First is the reference to science as a noun. As if bundled together all encompassing, or some ambiguous organization, voting or making declarations. As mentioned, think of it as a process.
As mentioned, many are taught in school to think it's about learning "facts", or memorizing factoids; reinforced by taking test, "right" answer (and wrong), and everything reduced to idea of true/false. Which brings problem of absolutism view. What would be better is to understand it exists within world of probabilities; degree of what is more likey or less likey; given evidence and what we know at the time.
The vast majority of science papers are wrong, when first published,
I always wonder what specifically referring to? Seems mostly follows similar erroneous absolutist misinterpretaton. Most often it wasn't that all those previous papers were "wrong".... most were actually correct; they were simply researching, testing ideas/hypothesis, experiments, discovery, and reporting on that; one cog in larger process. The point of doing the paper/research, is about what we don't know, that previous papers, knowledge, assumptions... lacked robust proof; either somewhat left questions, holes, inconclusive, aspects to fit puzzle together. There might be statements in intro about presumptions; and conclusion, but again dealing with the realm of likely; based on research/evidence; and simply shifting probability needle (or not). Often further pointing to other questions or what we don't know.
Of course, what might be interpreted from news "the latest science" says; is that it is absolutist (when paper most often doesn't conclude that); or as if one paper is "all"?
First off, anyone who makes the claim that "The Science is settled" has no understanding of science. Science is never settled.
Nothing wrong with that statement in context... often as laymen. It can reflect the probability (likely/unlikely). Can often be in response to anti-science, denial, pseudoscience, claims. Again reflecting overwhelming evidence, laws of physics, pretty well "settled" as very likely... these "could" be wrong, but unlikely. While every imaginable possibility can't be technically eliminated, they can be deemed highly unlikely. For example, to say "science is settled" when comes to flat earth, it is possible but all the evidence points to extremely unlikey, and spherical explanation and evidence is robust, fits much much better.
And I would add the phrase "trust the science" to that. Science is antithetical with "trust."
Similarly might be misinterpreted, folks refer to in context. Of course the point of science, is you don't simply have to "trust"... good science shows it's work, documented, methodology/process; provides explanation, based evidence, data, maths and other souce reference; which you can check; and has idea of repeatability, (others can do same or similar experiments). That said, most folks don't have resources, time, or understanding to be able to do all of that; so there is an aspect of trust... but you can filter thru with some basic reasonable healthy skeptisim, source checking, critical thinking and logic tools. But you have to put in the work.
What folks mean "trust the science" refers to that robustness; often as counter to claims of denialism, rejection, pseudoscince, anti-science, beleif systems; or idea to level playing field as if every possibility has equal value or weight. They simply do not; there is a noticeable difference, noteably latter lacks good evidence. Healthy skeptisim should not be confused with denial, cynacism, distrust, laziness... excuse to outright dismiss or reject what don't want to know/hear... nor equivocate as simply a "beleif" system.
Edited by - banjoak on 03/22/2023 15:56:20
I personally know 4 people that instead of doing nothing tried a "possible cure" to combat that which we shant mention. In 2 it did nothing of note, but in 2 it showed that which shant be mentioned who the boss was. Now, maybe the success rate is 2 in 4, or 2 in 4,000, or 2 in 40 million or 2 in X bazillion, I don't know. "Science" may tell us otherwise, but I do know that that particular horse dewormer can and does work against that which we shant mention. Oh! maybe it was the placebo effect.... maybe, maybe not .... maybe I'll win 6/49.
DC5, in that you and Joel [if I recall correctly] were caught up in trying to outdo each other in serving up the mocking and ridicule, "...never intentionally ..." doesn't pass even the most lack-luster scrutiny. And, though I'm not looking for any apology, so far as I know "if" isn't part of an apology.
Re: "...several natural reasons for the anomoly you witnessed, I would chose one of thost before I chose a supernatural explanation." Indeedy, and that's precisely the process I/we followed.
As an aside, and even though high school may not be particularly impressive, I found it kinda interesting that when I was standing in line to register for my B.P.E. courses a dude from the faculty of science approached me out of the blue to see if I was interested in switching faculties.... based on my physics/chem./math marks .... and how he came to see my transcript, I'll never know.
Edited by - Owen on 03/22/2023 16:20:49
