Liberals: Which 'science' are we supposed to believe?
By: Daniel Allott (TheHill)
Science is not a servant of the public. Science serves whoever owns and controls the science.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Liberals are constantly demanding that we "believe the science." I'm all for that. But the problem is "the science" changes, often quickly. Worse yet, what some want to call science is increasingly politics masquerading as science. And nothing has demonstrated that better than the coronavirus.
Consider House Speaker Nancy PelosiNancy PelosiLiberals: Which 'science' are we supposed to believe?Pompeo blasts China: 'Callous attempts to exploit George Floyd's tragic death'NRCC turns up heat on vulnerable Democrats over Omar's call to abolish policeMORE (D-Calif.). In an April press conference discussing the coronavirus pandemic she said, "If you don't believe in science and you don't believe in governance, that is their [Republicans'] approach."
Sen. Bernie SandersBernie SandersBiden wins Guam presidential primaryLiberals: Which 'science' are we supposed to believe?Biden formally clinches Democratic presidential nominationMORE (I-Vt.) said last March that the Trump White House "has shown the world that it does not believe in science."
And let's not overlook Democratic presidential nominee Joe BidenJoe BidenBiden's right, we need policing reform now - the House should quickly take up his call to actionOhio is suddenly a 2020 battlegroundBiden wins Guam presidential primaryMORE. On May 19 he tweeted, "We need a president who believes in science."
These "believe the science" scolds are little more than thinly vailed efforts to attack conservatives who ask reasonable questions. They also convey a sanctimonious intellectual superiority over anyone who challenges the left.
But demands that we believe the science raise the question: Which science are we supposed to believe?
Earlier this year the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) rejected the notion that the public should be wearing face masks. CDC Director Robert Redfield told a House committee, "There is no role for these masks in the community." And U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams tweeted, "STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching coronavirus."
I watched several of the experts explaining last January and February why wearing anything but an N95 mask wouldn't protect the wearer — or others. And several TV pundits went so far as to mock people who did wear masks.
But by early April, the CDC had flipped. "CDC is additionally advising the use of simple cloth face coverings to slow the spread of the virus."
So in February you were silly if you wore a mask, and by April you were a fool not to. As Biden said of President Trump the day after Memorial Day, he's "an absolute fool" for not wearing a mask.
Here's the question: Was it science (1) when the CDC rejected mask wearing; or (2) when the CDC strongly recommended everyone wear a mask; or (3) does the CDC flip-flop demonstrate that the science may change when more information becomes available?
Warning to liberals: If you choose the third option you undercut all of your politically motivated "believe the science" rants.
Oh, and now the health experts at the World Health Organization (WHO) say heathy people should only wear masks if they are taking care of someone with COVID-19 or coughing or sneezing or under a few other circumstances.
So while Trump's recent in-person meetings with businesses apparently did not meet Biden's "science," he did meet the WHO's science.
Will someone please tell me which "science" I am supposed to believe?
There's more. In March and April, we saw lots of scientific studies discussing how long the coronavirus could survive on various objects. That led to massive wipe-downs, fumigations and sterilizations of everything.
But the CDC recently updated its guidance, informing us that "the virus is spread mainly from person-to-person." While it can happen, the CDC does not think the virus spreads easily through contact with things.
And the political nature of "believe the science" appeared again in the recent protest marches and even riots over the tragic death of George Floyd.
For the past few months the left has warned us against reopening the economy too soon. The science, we were told, said it would lead to a spike in coronavirus infections and death.
But those same people have been largely silent as thousands of people flooded the streets to protest the Floyd death. Most protesters were not wearing masks. Most were not socially distancing. Many were singing, chanting and even screaming — all of which the science now says are the primary ways the coronavirus is spread.
The George Floyd demonstrations are both understandable and a constitutional right — unless they devolve into riots and destruction. But not only are the believe-the-science scolds not criticizing the protest marches, they are supporting them.
Science changes over time as we learn more, which is why one has to be careful in proclaiming that an issue is "settled science."
It's the blatantly political nature of "believe the science" that has so many people questioning and even doubting the claims. Because when liberals admonish people to "believe the science," what they are usually saying is "shut up and do as you're told."
Merrill Matthews is a resident scholar with the Institute for Policy Innovation in Dallas, Texas.
Today's politicians are using science to obtain power and control over society just as politicians of the past used religion. Invoking science as authority to assert control over society isn't really any different than invoking God.
Politicians are transforming science into a religion.
One of the chief attributes of true scientific research is sometimes rigorous debate and disagreement regarding different interpretations of the same evidence and facts.
While the notion of a very old Earth and the evolution of life thereon is pretty well accepted by overwhelming evidence across many scientific disciplines, after over a hundred years of intense investigation, there is no real agreement on exactly how the Grand Canyon got so long and wide and deep in only about 6 million years...
But when it comes to being skeptical of something that is predicted by models that might happen years from now (or not) one is called out as a heretic; or even worse, a denier, for not accepting like sheep the words of the holy writ as given down by the political gods.
Yet some people, if it is politically beneficial or expedient, will accept without question or quibble, anything that some supposed experts come up with, like mindless dimwitted sheep.
That is why I for one have questioned every dooms day scary scenario that has been force fed to us by the pernicious media and the left about some aspects of the pandemic.
It seems like the some of so called experts have been inexcusably wrong...or is their misinformation now self correcting?
At any rate, millions of lives have been affected by lost jobs and incomes, and all that comes as a result of that. And the lockdowns continue in many places while the pandemic subsides.
Still pumping gas? What do most politicians know about science? Science is science. Science is a process and not a political statement.
Only far right wingers with fossil fuel industry money in their pockets still deny the reality of anthropogenic global warming.
Didn't you get the memo?
Heard of Japanese soldiers who were discovered years after WWII on remote islands who still thought the war was going on.
Science deniers are much like those soldiers.
Way out of the reality loop.
P.S.
whoever has enough brains to study the sciences and understand the principles of physics and chemistry should be listened to unless they have been bought and paid for by corporate entities.
Some politicians might be hostile toward science too.
Indeed. Unfortunately, some people do not find emotional/personal comfort with science. So they reject or twist it to suit their own narrative.
That's putting it mildly. The problem escalates when they convince others to deny science.
So shut up and do as you are told by folk WHO are much smarter than the current president.
No, that is not what one should do. One should consider the scientific explanation (and delve to whatever level of detail one wishes) and then determine if one accepts, rejects or is undecided about the findings. The closest one gets to 'belief' is the notion of trusting the scientific method. But that is based upon centuries of demonstrably excellent results; not mere belief.
This illustrates the flawed thinking. Science (collectively) knew very little on coronavirus at its onset. In the early stages, recommendations were based on the best information available (and borrowing from information on other viruses and pandemics). The lack of quality information directly affected the quality of the recommendations. Rather than simply 'believe' that a recommendation based on known science is 100% perfect, one should investigate the findings underlying the recommendation (to whatever level of detail one requires). And if one chooses to not investigate then one should at least recognize that early findings will be of low quality. 'This is what we know thus far' is much more accurate than 'this is what we know with certainty'.
As time progresses, science continues to learn more of this virus (and variants). We should expect, based on the scientific method, that recommendations will improve over time.
Scientific findings are often imperfect, but the scientific method is self-correcting over time.
The details are in constant flux and are often contradictory. Science consists of competing explanations for the details; science is never settled. One set of observations can lead to a number of different (and sometimes contradictory) conclusions.
The simple act of acceptance requires belief on one's own understanding of the science. Since science has become the province of experts, often accepting the science requires believing one expert opinion while rejecting other expert opinions. Believing the science requires having faith in the scientist.
That's true, science knew very little about SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19. But politicians were responding to the pandemic based upon the science as authority for imposing specific measures on society.
At the beginning of the outbreak the scientific recommendations were contradictory. Early on, some recommendations made by scientific experts (WHO) were that travel bans and social distancing wasn't necessary while other scientific experts (NIAID, CDC) were recommending stringent travel bans and general isolation. The response couldn't accommodate both scientific recommendations; it was necessary accept one and act upon that acceptance.
The pandemic has required an immediate response. But science has not provided immediate answers and recommendations. Achieving scientific consensus is a long process that cannot provide immediate guidance.
The question becomes which expert scientific opinion should we believe?
Time is a luxury during crisis. There isn't time available to allow the scientific method to refine the science.
Politicians are encouraging people to believe in science as justification for their response to crisis. But that isn't any different than encouraging people to trust in God to justify a response. In either case, accepting a scientific justification or a religious justification will require belief that science or God provides the appropriate guidance.
Politicians are transforming science into a religion; politicians are relying on a belief in science just as politicians have relied on a trust in God to justify accepting political response to a crisis. In politics, science and God have become interchangeable.
Which is why science continues to explore a particular subject and use the scientific method to continuously revise itself. It continiusly "zeros in" on the actual truth.
If one has to go by belief, then one doesn't truly understand science.
It requires one to weight the evidence presented. The scientist discovers the evidence and formulate a hypothesis or theory.
The problem is, politicians and the general public become stuck on initial measures or recommendations. They don't seem to understand that science may find new information as time goes on. And when science does discover something new and changes its recommendations, then people ignorantly think science is wrong and cannot be trusted or accepted. But science revising itself as new information is obtained is not a weakness of science. It's a strength.
As more information became forthcoming, then recommendations were revised to reflect the new information.
Blame the politicians for the lack of an appropriate response.
How can it when initial information was limited to begin with? Recommendations can be provided based on what information was available at the time and what was already known about pandemics. It doesn't help if politicians downplay the severity or recommendations of science though.
The one most closely associated with the situation, such as virologists and epidemiologists.
There is little alternative. No one ever said science was some "miracle worker" that can come up with instant answers to problems.
The big difference is evidence.
That's a fault with politicians, and those ignorant enough to go along with such tripe. Politicians try to politicize science for their own benefit. Science doesn't claim to be a religion. Science will say go be the evidence to where it leads, not to where one wants it to go.
Yes, science is constantly revising itself. That's what I said.
But the need to make an immediate decision would require accepting one scientific conclusion from among contradictory conclusions at a specific point in time. The need for an Immediate decision cannot wait for science to revise itself.
Science consists of the efforts of many scientists who often formulate their own hypotheses and theories. When confronted with an unknown, science does not provide a single hypothesis, theory, or conclusion.
Which only means that science could not provide guidance for the appropriate response. Insufficient time was available to achieve any sort of scientific consensus.
Politicians had to use their own judgement to make decisions because a scientific consensus wasn't available. Making decisions based upon incomplete and unsettled science displays a lack of judgement.
That's correct. Science cannot be used as justification for decisions before the science has refined itself into a consensus understanding of whatever conditions require a decision.
That's what I said.
Decisions can be made on what's currently known or available, then revised when new information comes alone. There's no other alternative.
The "consensus" was the recommendations given based on what was known at the time. What else do you expect?
Politicians are not scientists and they make decisions sometimes without the benefit of science or available information. Doing so is irresponsible and can lead to misleading information or erroneous decisions.
Decisions can be based on what information is available and revised accordingly, as opposed to making things up as they go along.
Good. Then that doesn't discredit or diminish the actual science.
Having faith in a scientist is exactly what I just noted as the wrong way to operate. That is not science. Science, unlike religion, is NOT based on authority; it is based on evidence, reason and critical thinking per the scientific method.
The question is what findings make the most sense.
That is correct. And that is precisely why officials had to make decisions based on sketchy science. A practical mind would recognize that when little is known of a virus that has reached a worldwide pandemic level, one must act mostly on judgment and common sense. As the scientific findings come forward, one refines accordingly.
True. But at least having "faith" in a science is much more justified, as a scientist can provide evidence and possibly tangible results.
And has the highest degree of confidence and/or certainty based on the evidence.
But I wonder how many people are actually mentally practical? Or rational?
What does Dr. Anthony Fauci tell us about the role of scientists in responding to the pandemic? The reality is that Dr. Fauci is an administrative bureaucrat in charge of a Federal agency. Dr. Fauci is in a position of political authority. Dr. Fauci's credentials are used to convince the public to believe Dr. Fauci and accept Dr. Fauci's recommendations that government can impose on the public.
Is Dr. Anthony Fauci a good example or a bad example of the role of science in formulating government policy and requirements? What is the role of other experts that do not have the political authority of Dr. Fauci?
Is Dr. Fauci's role more similar to that of a politician, scientist, or priest?
Public officials are directly accountable to the public. If the scientists know the science is sketchy then why should scientists expect to guide government policy and response? Public officials relying on scientific guidance that scientists know to be sketchy means the scientists giving the advice should also be accountable to the public.
Sketchy science being used in an advisory capacity would, of necessity, be subjected to political oversight.
Correct. Note that you are talking about an individual and politics; you are not talking about science itself (emphasizing the point I made in the quote).
He is an expert in infectious diseases who has provided to politicians his expert opinions on a unique and largely unknown virus. His role is to provide information based on his particular expertise. Same as an attorney opining on a fraud cases or a geological engineer opining on virgin land or an oncologist opining on a rare cancer.
Those who make executive decisions, if responsible, will naturally reach out to experts for counsel. What problem do you have with this practice? Do you expect these experts to have perfect foresight in dynamic situations with little initial information? Would you ignore them if they do not have all the answers?
All or nothing?? Your position is bizarre. If I were making a decision on a worldwide pandemic I would absolutely seek counsel from experts on infectious diseases, economists, law enforcement, etc. to help determine a sensible course of action. I would not ignore an expert simply because we are in a situation where we have little initial information to work with.
Not sure why you included this since nobody has suggested otherwise (that I have noticed).
The 'believe science' litmus test is an all or nothing proposition. The idea is to prioritize science in decision making. But the science is sketchy and the consequences of decisions extend well beyond the limits of science.
As we both have concluded, science is too slow and uncertain to become the preeminent advisor during times of crisis. Response to crisis requires advice from many experts across a range of knowledge beyond the limits of science. The advice of experts from other fields than science may be more appropriate and may play a larger role than science in decision making. Not following the advice of scientific experts doesn't necessarily mean that science has been ignored.
I included that statement because I wanted to make the point. A preeminent role in political decision making carries with it political oversight. The 'believe science' litmus test is politicizing science.
So believing science is a liberal conspiracy.
Got it.
Nerm, my opening point was that 'believe science' is wrong. I thoroughly addressed that and yet you now return to this nonsense. One does not 'believe' science or scientists; one accepts, rejects or remains undecided on scientific findings based on the evidence and reason.
That twists my point. I have emphasized that we make use of science, even in situations of low information, but naturally recognize that knowledge is likely to change significantly as new evidence emerges.
I have not suggested that.
Your 'believe science' notion is wrong. I am not going to repeat my explanation of this starting @2 and continuing in the thread.
Do you still deny anthropogenic global warming?
Scientists need not rely upon belief. But most people are not scientists and the scientific research is locked behind paywalls. The public does not enjoy the same privileges as scientists.
The public is expected to accept, reject, or remain undecided based upon a paucity of information. The public is required to trust that what little information has been provided has been accepted by a consensus of scientists. The public does not have the privilege of directly scrutinizing the science. The public must accept or reject the science based upon what they have been selectively told by the experts. While scientists need not rely upon belief; the public can only has trust, belief, and faith as the basis for acceptance or rejection.
The latest iteration for informing the public has been the use of psychological propaganda and marketing techniques to influence public acceptance of whatever the scientific community wants the public to accept. Pictures of ambulances, crowded ICU wards, and graves isn't science but are being used to psychologically influence public acceptance of science. When a scientist appears before the public and declares "we need to do this or people will die" that scientist isn't presenting the science. The scientist is presenting a psychological ultimatum to arouse fear and the public can only believe the scientist or not believe the scientist. That's not science.
Or the 'believe science' notion is really about believing propaganda that uses science to influence public opinion. The question becomes are the scientific experts presenting science or are they presenting propaganda?
When did pictures of mass graves become science? When did people crying over not being allowed to say goodbye to someone dying in an ICU ward become science? When did doctors and nurses telling of their fears on social media become science?
'Need not'? Science does not rely on belief, it is based on evidence and reason.
It is not a privilege to think critically; everyone can do so. And with the availability of information today, most people can dig well past the point of their competence. Everyone with a computer and an internet connection can research the virus, research pandemics, research geometric progression models for an infectious disease, etc. and then consider the recommendations offered by experts and draw a sensible conclusion.
And for those who remain unconvinced that the experts are correct, given this is demonstrably a worldwide pandemic, maybe one might consider erring on the side of caution? Is that asking too much Nerm?
What do pictures of starving polar bears have to do with science? Are pictures of burnt communities following a wildfire science? Are images of homes and businesses destroyed by tornadoes, floods, or hurricanes science?
Those images and videos are not presenting scientific information. Psychological propaganda and marketing techniques are using science to instill fear and influence public opinion. The public is expected to believe the propaganda which really doesn't have anything to do with accepting or rejecting science.
The science of AGW has produced a variety of hypothesis and theories, some of which are contradictory. The scientific consensus is that AGW is happening but the extent of the consensus does not extend much beyond that. And the propaganda being employed to influence public opinion is not science.
The political litmus test of accepting AGW isn't science; that political litmus test is an abuse of science.
Do infected people who are asymptomatic spread the virus or not? If those who are asymptomatic do not spread the virus then what is the value of an extensive testing program for infection? Wouldn't monitoring for symptoms be of more value? Why should the public be tested for infection if they are not exhibiting symptoms?
Is intubation at first signs of respiratory distress an appropriate treatment? Do we need a hundred thousand ventilators or not?
What is the value of respirators? Does the public need N95 masks? Are cloth masks providing adequate protection? Is coughing into the elbow adequate? How do we properly dispose of used masks? How do we properly maintain masks? Does removing a mask pose a threat of infection or not?
Does the virus spread widely through contact with surfaces? Do we need to deploy people to disinfect surfaces in public spaces? Do we need to provide public dispensers of hand sanitizer in the same manner as public water fountains are provided?
The science has been providing contradictory answers to those questions. So, which science is the public supposed to accept and which science is the public supposed to reject?
Sure has !
In society, where do you find the single definitive answer for complex questions? (You do not.) So why do you expect that dealing with an emergency worldwide pandemic for a virus that we do not even have a vaccine will magically be consistent and complete?
It is amazing to me that people have such expectations. My answer to this is what I wrote in my earlier post:
The expectation to accept science has become a political litmus test. The question is which science is the public supposed to accept? The science has not been consistent because the science is not complete. Science is still at the stage of generating a variety of hypotheses, theories, and conclusions that are sometimes contradictory. The science has not progressed sufficiently to provide adequate guidance to the public.
The public has immediate need to respond to the pandemic. The expectation is that the public be guided by the science. Which science? The science has been sketchy and contradictory. Science has created more confusion than guidance due to inconsistencies resulting from incomplete science. While the public may be required to huddle in their hovels until the science becomes more consistent, shutting everything down is causing damage that may become irreparable. Short term safety waiting for science to get its act together may result in long term insecurity.
The pandemic has highlighted that science does not serve the public. Science serves those who own and control the science.
In that case, I suggest taking massive doses of Hydroxychloroquine.
Full blown conspiracy theory. See, you are not speaking of specific areas where powerful agents have pushed their agenda using science (or a purposeful distortion of science) as justification. You keep speaking of science itself — unqualified.
I have tried to reason with you but you are just doubling down this nonsense so I am leaving you with your delusion.
Now, that said, if you cannot fathom how to make effective use of modern knowledge based on science to best navigate these new coronavirus waters, then what source of knowledge would you use? If you are tossing out science itself, are you planning to navigate these waters with philosophy, astrology, religion, politics, psychics, coin tosses?
So use what the infectious disease experts say, combined with logic and sound reasoning. For example, when we first knew of this viral agent, go out and ask the CDC, "What do you do when there exists a virus that you know nothing about and want to protect yourself until you can learn more?"
Look at what has already happened. Hmmmmmm, China was going along and then they shut down everything, made everyone stay inside, built hospitals, everyone is wearing a mask... But they say it is not transferable person to person? Riiiight. That is why they shut down. Oops, Iran has it now, and now Italy. Geeze, look at that, they are running out of space in the ICUs..... But look at Korea. Let us see what they did. Now put all that together.
I think that most of the science and the scientists have remained on message for most of this pandemic. It is the politicians and the pundits who have been all over the place.
Unless we as a society can see beyond our own individual needs to the needs of others. But that will never happen because we are slave to our own creation.
The political litmus test is to 'believe the science'. You've stated that science is not a matter of belief. So, a politician justifying some action because they 'believe the science' has presented a bogus justification. Politicians should not be politically rewarded because they 'believe the science'. Politicians must be lying since science is not a matter of belief.
The CDC guidelines to wear masks, wash hands, sanitize surfaces, and social distance are the result of over one hundred years practical experience dealing with outbreaks of infectious disease.
Science may explain why and how those actions proved to be effective in the past and their relevance for application in this situation. But the guidelines are actually justified by history and practical experience.
Practical experience provides guidance in times of crisis. Practical experience is anecdotal information obtained from practical application in the past. The role of science is to validate that practical experience. There weren't clinical trials of face masks, hygiene practices, sanitizers, or behavior factors. The only role science played in developing the CDC guidelines was validation of historical practical results.
Responding to crisis depends upon experience and judgement. Relying upon science that is inconsistent because the science is not complete to provide guidance displays a lack of judgement.
The authority of a scientific expert isn't derived from their ability to perform science; the authority of their expert opinion depends upon their experience and judgement. The science, itself, plays a minor role in providing guidance.
Science without experience and judgement has little value in responding to a crisis.
But answering that question draws from past practical experience. There isn't time to perform experiments and clinical trials; science cannot respond quickly enough to develop answers for the present crisis.
Practical experience justifies recommendations and actions. The role of science is to validate that practical experience.
Scientists are concerned primarily with issues that can be addressed by science. Politicians are concerned with issues that extend beyond what can be addressed by science.
Politicians are expected to use the Swiss army knife to respond to a crisis. Scientists are a cork screw on the Swiss army knife. Science is only one tool among many.
The difference is belief by authority versus belief by formal evidence and reason. Consider this:
1 = bad
2 = good
Has anyone suggested otherwise?
But that does not describe reality. Politicians are invoking science in the same manner that politicians invoke God. The politicians are invoking an authority to justify their actions.
The situation is that politicians are acting simply because an authority claims truth. Whether that authority is God or science really doesn't alter what is happening. Politicians justify their actions according to the guidance of truth.
However, the truth of science is as changeable as the weather. The science is inconsistent because the science is incomplete. The public is expected to accept actions taken by political leadership and those actions have been justified by an authority claiming truth. Which truth is the public supposed to accept as justification for political action?
When the truth constantly changes why should the public accept that authority as justification for action? When an authority claiming truth declares that an action taken yesterday was wrong but the same action taken today is right then why should be public accept that authority?
You have claimed that science is an authority that provides truth. And you have contrasted the authority of science with the authority of God by claiming science represents truth while God represents something other than truth.
But which scientific truth is the public supposed to accept? Last week's truth? Or should the public wait for next week's truth? Should the public accept this expert's truth or the other expert's truth? Which truth is actually true?
You bet your sweet bippy it does. We have vast amounts of practical experience with viruses that occurred prior to the this one.
Nonsense. Science does not occur in a vacuum. We have a vast knowledge base that can be drawn upon. That knowledge base is as much part and parcel of science as the experiments and scientific studies occurring now. And that vast knowledge base tells us that when dealing with an infectious disease, keep it off yourself! i.e, wear protective gear so that you don't inhale it or have it come in contact with your body, especially mucous membranes. When you are not sure how it works, cover up! Don't be touching it! That is protocol for working with infectious agents.
Yes. And that above is what practical experience and science have taught us. Another thing that practical experience and science has taught us is this: Stay Away from me! This turned out to be especially important with this virus, but isolation and contact tracing are the tools to use to stop the spread, as long as it has not gotten a toe hold. In the case of this virus, it got ahead of us and "Stay away from me" turned into "Everyone stay away from Everyone" because we ain't sure who's got it or not. That is why everybody went to pause.
Wear a mask. The idea behind public wearing of masks is to protect those around you. Your mask inhibits the spread of infection if you are infected. It does little to protect you from others unless you have a high grade dual membrane mask such as those used by medical professionals who must be in close proximity to patients all day.
Maintain social distance. The virus will not travel 6 feet to another person under normal conditions (especially if you are wearing a mask). Sneezing, yelling, coughing, etc. will propel the virus well beyond 6 feet but 6 feet gives a solid buffer under normal conditions. This is why it is recommended to sneeze and cough into the inner side of one's elbow.
CDC estimates about 35% of asymptomatic (but infected) people can infect others.
The virus might be transmitted by touching an infected surface and then touching one's eyes, nose, mouth, etc. There was a high concern early on but the infection seems to be transmitted far more by means other than touching surfaces. When outside it makes sense to presume one's hands are infected. Another note, UV rays kill the virus so the current season is helping further reduce the threat of transmission by touching surfaces.
Not considered to be a significant threat at the moment.
It depends greatly on the individual but it can manifest between 2 and 14 days. Three days after the fever breaks one is considered non-infectious. 10 days after symptoms first appear one is generally not infectious. The long term effects of having COVID-19 are not clear since we have not had enough time to study long term effects.
Does any of this surprise you?
While studies will probably be forthcoming on long term effects of Covid, I have heard reports of lingering effects, such as continued fatigue, respiratory difficulty, and even kidney damage. What's unknown is the rate of lasting effects on infected individuals and the degrees of severity these effects can have. It's reasonable to assume people with comorbidities will be more likely to suffer after effects and possibly to a greater degree of severity.
A big concern is the scarring of lung tissue. That almost certainly shortens one's life.
Absolutely. Then there's the secondary effects of damaged lung tissue, such as increased cardiac stress, reduced or impaired levels of activity, the development of chronic respiratory problems (i.e. pneumonia or greater susceptibility to it), ect..
Yes. The CDC did not issue guidelines based upon the science of the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the COVID-19 disease. The CDC guidelines are based upon practical experience that had already been validated. That's why there wasn't a need for clinical trials to issue the guidelines.
But that changes the political narrative from 'believe science' to 'believe practical experience'. That's a different authority claiming to provide truth.
Actually science does occur in a vacuum. Science doesn't address what we know. Science addresses what we don't know.
Science operates by filling the vacuum of the unknown. The process involves generating a wide range of hypotheses, theories, and conclusions by a number of scientists using a limited set of observations. The science is refined by collecting more observations and by refuting hypotheses, theories, and conclusions until a consensus is achieved.
In general, practical knowledge is obtained more quickly than scientific knowledge is obtained because refining science using the scientific method to achieve consensus is a slow process. Practical knowledge is typically achieved through go/no go application; an application is tried and either works or doesn't. What works is retained, what doesn't work is rejected. Practical knowledge can be refined more quickly because there isn't a need to understand the details of why an application works, the results speak for themselves. A consensus can be achieved more quickly because the results show what works and what doesn't work without a need to understand why anything works or doesn't work.
As the CDC guidelines indicate, in time of crisis we need to know what is effective in responding to the crisis. We don't really need to know why anything is effective; we only need to know it's effective. The role of science in the immediate response to a crisis is actually minimal. Science may or may not have validated practical experience by describing why practical applications work. But the only knowledge that is really needed for immediate response is to know the practical application will work.
I really believe you are conflating several issues.
Science is a broad term The applications of science are many, as are the misapplications. At science's most basic level we have an observation, a hypothesis and testing of that hypothesis by further observation. Wash, rinse, repeat.Just think of all of the alb experiments carried out by students in a 45 minute class. They are doing science. they don't have to wait to see the results. The results are right in front of there eyes and written down in their notebooks. That is science. That is practical application of science.
While some science is immediately apparent, other types of science can take longer, like geology or astrophysics. These sciences are built up on repeated observations of phenomenon that may take ages to occur. But starting at the most basic level and building on what has already been shown to work, shown to adequately explain the observations a method has been built. I had a geology professor once who would take us out in the field to an outcropping of rock and say, "Tell me the story of what went on here." That is science. That is practical application of science.
It is the same in the medical field: Some science is quick, some science takes years. When this outbreak started, Chinese officials released the genome of the virus. Because of science practically applied, other scientists all over the world were able to take that genome and recreate it so that they could study it. They have been able to isolate and study the virus as it mutates and they can tell where it is from, how many mutations it has been through, how many separate variations there are of the virus, We Can track and time the spread of the virus. That happens quickly and we know so much more about the virus than we did just a few months ago. That is science. That is practical application of science.
Now, you and TiG have been having a discussion at what I would call cross purposes. You have been maintaining that scientists have a belief in science and authorities, while TiG has been saying that scientists don't have beliefs, don't have authorities, they have observations and data and the scientific method. Well, you are both right... and you are both wrong. TiG is wrong in his contention that there are no authorities in science. There are a great many authorities. There is, however, no one single authority, or as I see TiG using the term, no one has the ability to pronounce absolute correctness so we don't need to look into it anymore. In my example of basic science, we see that when one is learning science (or anything else for that matter) it is necessary to yield to the teacher, even if your first act is to question the correctness of the teacher's authority. We have to start somewhere, and that somewhere should be with someone who has dealt with the scientific method.
There are of course experts in science, but my point is that it does not matter how expert or well-known one is in science; all that matters is what one can evidence and predict. Thus calling someone an 'authority' in science contradicts the very nature of the scientific method. No scientist can simply declare a scientific finding or fact on his or her authority; they must demonstrate it ... convincingly ... and their findings must stand up to the scrutiny of the community.
In contrast, religion is based on authority.
Oh, I agree with that statement. But then again, I thi nk that you may be holding too stringently to a definition of authority. There are several.
Yes, I am using usage 1a
[deleted]
Manipulating and politicizing science is what politicians and talking heads do.
When one uses science, one also has to use one's brain.
That's true. At the most basic level, that is how a scientist performs science using the scientific method. But the authority of science isn't derived from the scientific method. Scientific authority is achieved through replication, validation, and confidence in hypotheses, theories, and conclusions obtained through consensus.
In some respects science works like guessing the number of jelly beans in a jar. Increasing the number of guesses will increase the chance that one guess is close to the actual number. But validating which guess is most accurate requires knowing how many jelly beans are in the jar. Without the knowledge of the actual number of jelly beans in the jar it becomes impossible to determine which individual guess is most accurate and the range of guesses will be too broad to allow confidence in any one guess. Past experience has also shown that averaging the guesses provides a result closer to the actual number. Even if the average cannot be validated by knowing the actual number of jelly beans in the jar, past experience has shown that the average, representing a consensus, provides more confidence in the result. The scientific authority is derived from from the consensus rather than from the individual guesses.
A single scientist formulating a hypothesis, theory, or conclusion has little authority. Scientific authority is obtained through testing hypotheses, theories, and conclusions to arrive at consensus.
Often in medicine a doctor will choose a course of treatment for an unknown disease based on experience and judgement. A doctor that utilizes a treatment and observes rapid recovery in 80 pct of their patients without deleterious side effects will continue using that treatment. The doctor doesn't know with confidence why a treatment works or even if the treatment is actually responsible for what is observed because the disease, itself, is unknown.
The doctor is being guided by experience, judgement, and concern with achieving a desirable outcome. The doctor isn't motivated to perform science or 'believe science', the doctor is motivated to treat patients and achieve a desired outcome. Treatments that result in a desired outcome will be continued, treatments that do not result in a desired outcome will be rejected. The doctor is relying upon a go/no go methodology. Science may provide guidance for the doctor but the doctor is not going to wait for that guidance because their motivation is immediate care for patients.
Doctors pay attention to anecdotal information and assess that information using their experience and judgement. And doctors dealing with a crisis do not have the luxury of waiting for scientific consensus. And a scientist's hypothesis, theory, or conclusion without the authority of consensus isn't any more valid than the doctor's.
No, I have not been maintaining that scientists have a belief in science. What I have been maintaining is that non-scientists are invoking the authority of science in the same manner that non-scientist invoke the authority of God. Politicians, public figures, and even teachers are invoking science as an authority for truth. That isn't any different than invoking God as an authority for truth. Non-scientists and the public are using the truth of science in the same manner as the truth of religion.
But which scientific truth is actually true?
The scientific consensus is constantly changing. Scientific truth doesn't endure. So, non-scientists and the public relying upon science as the authority for truth are naturally confused over which truth they are to believe. Today's scientific truth can quickly become yesterday's untruth.
Absolutely, it's different. Non-scientists are capable of gathering information for themselves. Science is falsifiable. The authority of God is not. Belief in God precludes questioning his authority. Science encourages and even demands questions.
Belief in God doesn't preclude asking questions about God. But those questions are intended to better understand God as an authority for truth.
Is a falsifiable authority for truth providing truth that is actually true? How can a falsifiable authority for truth provide guidance? How does anyone know, with confidence, that today's truth is actually true when the authority for truth is falsifiable?
There are those who do not believe that God is an authority for truth. There are also those who do not believe that science is an authority for truth.
The fact that anyone would assume that God is an authority for truth without even knowing that there is a God rather illustrates my point. Nothing about God can be disproved, and is assumed to be true without evidence.
Science is the opposite. Science requires evidence.
I think you're seeing in the term "falsifiable" a negative connotation. You should explore the concept in regards to science further.
The province of science is the unknown. If the answer to a question was known, there wouldn't be a need for the scientific method. Reading information in an encyclopedia is not science. The practice of science is to formulate hypotheses, theories, and conclusions concerning the unknown.
The Ten Commandments can be tested, so are falsifiable. The Ten Commandments can be refuted through observation and testing. Many of the truths in the Bible can be tested, so are falsifiable. However, the Bible presents truths in the context of its time; not in the manner that truths are presented today. The Bible presents truths using stories, analogies, parables, and literary devices. A literary device isn't falsifiable but the truth conveyed by the literary device can be tested and is falsifiable. God may not be falsifiable but God's authority for truth is falsifiable because the truths in the Bible can be tested.
Science doesn't prove. Science determines if a truth can be refuted through observation and testing. A hypothesis, theory, or conclusion that cannot be tested isn't falsifiable and isn't within the purview of science. Science eliminates the possible until what remains, no matter how improbable, must be truth. Science answers questions by eliminating possible answers.
To a degree. But it builds on what we know. This is why elsewhere on this page, someone said "science doesn't occur in a vacuum." In regards to the coronavirus, we know that if you don't contact the virus, either by direct contact with an infected person, contact with respiratory droplets, or contact with contaminated surfaces, you won't become infected with the virus. That was the reason for the social distancing recommendation. We didn't know exactly how contagious it was, but we knew that viruses don't infect people who don't contact them. Scientific knowledge.
Oh, good grief, Nerm. The Ten Commandments are not theories nor statements of "fact". They're directives. You are aware that there is a difference between the phrases "Thou shalt not kill" and "There's a tiny invisible teapot orbiting the sun between Mars and Jupiter", yes? You really need to try to understand what "falsifiable" means, and to what it applies.
Why write stuff like this? To what end?
The 10 commandments are rules; not facts or 'truths'. They are not true or false, they are commands ostensibly by the grandest possible sentient entity that all human beings must follow ... or else.:
How does one falsify 'thou shalt not covet'? What does it mean for 'thou shalt not covet' to be false (or true)? What is the test that finds 'thou shalt not covet' to be false?
Many of the claims made in the Bible are falsifiable. Most are not. One can, for example, falsify the claim that Noah built an ark (as described), loaded two/seven of each 'kind' on it, cared for all these life forms for about a year while floating on a worldwide flood and landed safely whereupon the life forms served as progenitors for all species of life that has evolved for the past several thousand years.
One cannot, however, falsify the claim that Jesus replicated fish and bread, walked on water, rose from the dead, etc. Or, really, any claims of miraculous acts by God or an hypostasis or angel of same.
That would be another sweeping generalization.
When one uses science
The operative word is "uses"
You do realize that experiment replication, validation, ect., is all part of the scientific method, right?
But science takes into account the volume of the jar, the volume of a jelly bean, the estimated volume of empty space, and tries to derive at a reasonably accurate as possible answer, with a margin of error. It's not so much a pure guess as it is a calculated estimation.
This is true.
Science establishes a degree of validity and confidence in an answer based on repeated tests, observations, and the available evidence.
Doctors use evidence based practices and guidelines. That is what determines a particular course of treatment. Their experience might give them insight into the efficacy of the treatment or development of side effects.
See previous statement. Doctors must practice according to established medical guidelines and hospital protocols. Most doctors will probably not risk their career, licensure, reputation, or a malpractice suit caring for someone if it requires them to act outside protocols.
Yes. But even more importantly, they rely on diagnostic tools or methods and their own medical expertise when objectively assessing a patient.
Which is a problem, as politicians probably do not know much or understand science. Or worse, they twist science for their own agenda. It doesn't help that the general public is probably equally ignorant of science.
The one backed by objective, empirical evidence.
That's the beauty of science. It doesn't establish or maintain a "truth" and stick with that without deviation. Science continues to obtain information to improve on itself and establish a "truth" with greater validity and confidence based on the evidence.
Go by evidence, not belief. Science can say one thing. Then later change it and say science has new, updated information and here's what we now know and what should be done at this time. Science doesn't always remain static.
What makes god an "authority" on truth or anything?
Why assume god is an automatic (and presumably infallible) authority on anything?
All the more reason to follow the evidence rather than one's own beliefs or feelings.
By all means, demonstrate this please.
Science can look at the unknown. But it also builds on what is known.
You do not see this as a problem when determining the validity of a "truth?" Especially when some of the stories presented are outright false or discredited.
Science establishes a degree of certainty based on the evidence gathered utilizing the scientific method.
The qualitative purpose of the CDC guidelines are to control spread of infection and protect oneself from infection. The CDC guidelines consist of prescribed practices and admonitions to achieve the qualitative purpose of the guidelines. The CDC guidelines are rules, not facts. However, the rules can be tested for effectiveness in achieving the qualitative purpose of the guidelines. Are masks effective in controlling spread of the infectious pathogen? Are masks effective protection against becoming infected by an infectious pathogen? The CDC rules can be tested and are falsifiable.
The qualitative purpose of the Ten Commandments are to allow a group of people to live together peacefully. The Ten Commandments consist of prescribed practices and admonitions to achieve the qualitative purpose of the Ten Commandments. The Ten Commandments are rules, not facts. However, the rules can be tested for effectiveness in achieving the qualitative purpose of the guidelines. Does coveting possessions achieve the qualitative purpose of the Ten Commandments or should coveting possessions be admonished? The Ten Commandment rules can be tested and are falsifiable.
Literary devices are not falsifiable even though they seem to present facts. Literary devices are used to convey truths in an entertaining manner that are easier to remember. The story of Noah contains several truths. A relevant truth for today is that the actions of people can result in the destruction of the natural world. And God will not save people from the consequences of their actions. That is a truth that can be tested and is falsifiable.
As the Bible illustrates, facts should not be confused with truths. We know from experience in the modern world that a fictional story can present what appears to be facts as a means of conveying a qualitative truth. Refuting the facts presented in a literary device does not diminish the truth that is conveyed.
This outlines the scientific method, does it not?
While it's certainly possible to travel down the rabbit hole of absurdities; the qualitative purpose of the scientific method is to guide the process of empirically formulating hypotheses, theories, and conclusions in a logical manner. Replication, validation, and consensus does not formulate hypotheses, theories, or conclusions. The purpose of consensus is to impart authority to hypotheses, theories, and conclusions that have been formulated using the scientific method.
The authority of science isn't derived from the scientific method. The authority of science is derived from consensus.
Those test the validity of theories and they are part of the scientific method.
Wrong! Science goes by the evidence. Just because many scientists might agree on a result doesn't make the result valid because they say so. It's the evidence supporting the result that does.
You are playing semantics games Nerm. The CDC rules are based on scientific findings; they were not formed out of thin air. The underlying scientific hypothesis is that social distancing of 6' mitigates the spread of the virus under normal breathing and talking conditions. This hypothesis can be tested and falsified.
Who says? Regardless, you are generalizing the 10 commandments into an hypothesis which posits that rules (with enforcement and consequences) lead to a more peaceful society. You are not arguing the 10 commandments now but rather the general principle of law and order.
I used commandment 10 as my example the last time (which you ignored), so let's switch and go to commandment 1:
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
Design a test for this commandment. Describe the method of falsification behind this commandment.
As you just implied, this 'truth' (hypothesis) you offer is not particular to Noah's ark. You have again generalized; in this case you created the abstract hypothesis that actions can cause the destruction of the natural world. One would not be testing the Noah's ark story but rather, again, a very abstract hypothesis. For example, this abstract hypothesis covers the current pandemic, AGW, over-population, WMD, pollution, etc. Note, that one can use your abstracting trick to argue (as it were) that any book has falsifiable 'truths'. Harry Potter series offers the hypothesis that life is not fair; that bad things happen to good people and that bad people can be successful.
The scientific concept of falsifiability applies to an hypothesis or theory which is based on evidence and where one can envision a practical method whereby the hypothesis or theory can be show to be false. Back to your original claim:
Design a test for God's authority for truth. Describe the method of falsification behind this claim. (Note also that this also requires you establish that God actually exists).
Absolutely false. The ‘authority’ (if you will) of a scientific finding is held in the evidence and reasoning. It does not matter what scientists believe, it only matters what they can demonstrate. The 'authority' (a very improper word here) lies in the direct evidence and the correctness of the explanation over time.
The role of consensus is to give credibility to the verification of the finding. Consensus establishes a confidence factor based on the vetting by many, varied individuals motivated to find fault by repeating the scientific test and engaging in falsification.
Don't accuse me of playing semantics and then repeat the point I already made using a different example. You've only repeated what I already said.
Does more than one God increase or decrease conflict within a group of people? Does more than one God unify or divide a group of people?
Commandment 1 can certainly be tested, so is falsifiable.
The story of Noah (as with many stories in the Bible) are literary devices to convey abstract truths. Plato utilized literary devices to convey abstract truths; that's the purpose of allegorical stories. Allegory is a literary device used to apply an abstract concept in a recognizable and understandable manner.
The Harry Potter series does convey truths, as you point out, and those truths can be tested. The literary devices convey facts that are not falsifiable because the facts are fictional creations used to convey abstract truths in a recognizable and understandable manner. The Harry Potter stories can be factually false while also conveying truth. Truth is more than just facts.
Which scientist? Which hypothesis? Which theory? Which conclusion? Science is not monolithic. I believe that is the point you've made by stating that science is not religion. However, asserting authority requires providing monolithic or uniform guidance.
A set of observations (the evidence) doesn't necessary lead to a monolithic result. We've seen that in the variety of hypotheses, theories, and conclusions concerning the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease. As we have seen, the findings have sometimes been contradictory, we have seen confusion over anecdotal evidence and experimental evidence, and we have seen shifting priorities in efforts to control the virus and treat the disease. And the lay public is familiar with variability in scientific findings and conclusions; the spaghetti forecasts during hurricane season is an example. The authority of the spaghetti models depends upon convergence as the time of crisis approaches.
The shutdown was accepted by the public because there is an understanding that the scientific community has not achieved a consensus. But achieving consensus has taken too long, the public is taking matters into their own hands based upon other priorities. There isn't even a scientific consensus that a vaccine can be developed or that suitable treatments will become available. Science had its moment but did not assert its authority through consensus. Consensus provides the authority to provide monolithic or uniform guidance.
That's for sure !
Even "Gov. Cuomo" is shocked, as the spike seems to be coming from those that are "Staying at Home", as Scientists told us to originally do.
Untrue. In the quote you provided I clearly illustrated that it is not the rule that is falsifiable but the underlying science:
Does more than one God increase or decrease conflict within a group of people? Does more than one God unify or divide a group of people? Commandment 1 can certainly be tested, so is falsifiable.
You are not testing the rule (commandment), you Nerm have imposed a consequence: unification of a group. You Nerm then impose an hypothesis that monotheism leads to better unification than polytheism. The result of these imposed factors produces something that is sociologically testable and falsifiable. The commandment: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is simply an edict. It is not testable. Stated differently, you are introducing new conditions not present in the commandment. The commandment, by itself, is simply a command.
Your argument essentially leads to anything being considered a falsifiable hypothesis. As I noted, one could go into any work of literature and extract statements the correlate with observations. When a book notes that the sun is shining, we can recast that into the hypothesis: 'the sun provides light which illuminates our planet'. A book noting that it was raining can be recast into the hypothesis: 'water droplets accumulating from vapor will return to the planet'.
The fact that a book contains statements that correlate from observable reality does not make the book special in any way. It certainly does not make the book (or a portion) a finding of science. So back to your comment:
You have failed to show that the 10 commandments are themselves testable and falsifiable; you must add factors to produce an hypothesis, The commandments themselves are simply rules.
Ultimately it seems to me that you are trying to equate authority of God with the correctness of a well-founded, formal scientific theory. To argue that there is such a thing as authority of God and it is as real and as credible as a well-founded, formal scientific theory. Such is an act of futility as evidenced by your arguments which impose factors in an attempt to stretch a commandment into an hypotheses or a literary expression which (unsurprisingly) correlates with normal observation (e.g. the sun is shining).
Your questions do not follow from what I wrote. I stated that there is no scientific authority. The only 'authority' (using your language) in science is the evidence supporting an explanation of phenomena.
You are arguing a claim that I have not made.
Scientific consensus give those with power (public and private sector officials) to more confidently act on their authority. Science does not claim authority and does not project authority. Science offers formal explanations of phenomena based upon formal evidence and will at times offer a confidence grade on the accuracy of the explanation. You insist on authority where none exists and none is claimed.
You are attempting to claim that a rule cannot be tested so must be accepted on faith. That argument supports the admonition to believe science.
If a rule is based upon underlying science and the underlying science can be tested then why isn't that a test of the rule, itself? The argument you are making goes down the rabbit hole of absurdities; it isn't a logical or rational argument.
Are you attempting to argue that violating a rule doesn't have consequences? Rules are established for some purpose. Conforming to the rules accomplishes the intended purpose; violating the rules defeats the intended purpose of the rule. The argument you are making is another trek down the rabbit hole of absurdities; the argument isn't logical.
Again, you are arguing the rules cannot be tested and must be accepted on faith. That argument supports the admonition to believe science.
If evidence is the authority for science then what happens when the public reviews the evidence and arrives at a conclusion contrary to expert opinion? Will the public's conclusion simply be accepted by experts without challenge? Not likely.
The consensus argument isn't attempting to convince the public to accept the evidence; the consensus argument is attempting to convince the public to accept expert conclusions.
The public can review the evidence from the pandemic and conclude the rules haven't been effective, the risk is not that large, and the consequences are acceptable. The public is accepting the evidence and arriving at a conclusion that differs from expert opinion. Are you going to tell the public to believe the evidence or to believe the science? How will you convince the public to accept expert opinion when there isn't consensus among experts?
I have argued that a rule is not falsifiable. I have made no comment regarding acceptance on faith but rather that one would look at the underlying factors and evaluate them (if any exist). A rule such as maintain 6' distance is not falsifiable. It makes no claim, it simply inhibits behavior. One must dig deeper to see what facts encouraged someone to make this rule. In this case one of the key facts is that coronavirus cannot travel airborne for 6' under normal talking and breathing conditions. That can be stated as an hypothesis (or theory) and it is indeed falsifiable.
Because it is a rule: a command, a restriction. It is not a claim of truth. Semantics. If one has a rule that was formulated based on underlying facts then testing those underlying facts yields justification for the rule. The facts are tested and, if they pass as true, the rule based on the facts is better justified. But it is still a rule, not a fact.
If one wishes to apply the 'test' verb to a rule then one is speaking of breaking the rule to see what consequences ensue. That is 'testing' in the sense of challenging the rule. If is not validating truth, it is simply breaking a rule to see what will happen. The closest one can come here is to recast a rule as a claim such a statement of consequence:
Instead of "Do not touch the electric fence" one can recast the rule to a claim: "If you touch the fence, you will be electrocuted". That now is a factual claim that can be falsified. Note, however, that it is no longer a rule.
Science does not consist of rules. Scientists do not command how things work but rather work to explain how they work. The 'laws' of science, for example, are not rules but rather declarations of phenomena that is so consistent that it is accepted as effective truth. The law of gravity, for example, is not a rule that Newton invented but rather codification of consistent observations. It is passive (observe and report) rather than active (impose what must be considered true).
The rule of social distancing is not itself science but rather a rule based on underlying scientific facts. I would never argue that one simply accept a rule such as social distancing. I would (and routinely have) argued that people look at the underlying science which supports why such a rule is in place. If the underlying science makes sense (based on facts and reasoning) then one would be more accepting to abide by the rule. The rule and the science are entirely different animals.
The word 'authority' is wrong. Evidence is the closest thing to your notion of 'authority'; you remove the quotes, I do not. That established, if anyone arrives at a conclusion that differs from the conclusions of scientists who are actively engaged in the science then I would first question if one's conclusion is well-considered. If so, then one should know why the scientists are wrong. And if one finds the scientists are wrong, then one should follow the evidence to where it leads.
Of course not.
Yes, if a scientific finding has been thoroughly vetted by professional scientists and there is a solid consensus then that is clearly an appropriate factor that the public should consider. That is not 'authority', it is confidence. As I have already explained.
Already addressed this in my first paragraph.
I would not try to convince the public of a lie. So your question is malformed.
Here you are also on an entirely different topic. That is a question governors must consider. Also, here you need to be specific. So let's pick asymptomatic infection. The data is sketchy on this and thus there is no solid consensus. So if I were a governor I would not claim that one is likely to be infected from an individual who is asymptomatic. But, given this is a pandemic, I would advise the public to err on the side of caution and assume everyone might be infected.
In effect: "we do not know with confidence that asymptomatic infection is likely, but we do know it is possible so it is best to be cautious".
I answered your questions based on today's recommendations (which are based on our current understanding of the virus). But you were making a point that you did not articulate until now:
So your point is that because experts disagree on how to translate early findings on the coronavirus into the most effective action, people who have an insufficient understanding of science will 'question science'. True, they will. Now do you think that is what they should do?
People should not simply throw up their hands with the false assumption that science itself is incompetent but rather spend some time understanding the rationale behind the current recommendations. Maybe also spend time thinking this through — when there is little information to go on, officials will try to err on the side of caution. In effect, people should try to understand what science is and how it works.
As new information arises, officials will (if honest) revise their recommendations (even if they reverse a prior recommendation). That is what I would want them to do. I would not want them to stubbornly stick to a prior recommendation if wrong. That is what politicians do; scientists, in contrast, admit when they are wrong and focus on how to be more correct.
Changes to scientific recommendations are often based not on mistakes (errors), but rather the result of having learned more about the area in question. So saying: 'we were wrong' (literally) conveys a very wrong meaning with a public that is not well versed in the scientific method (such as ours). What is more accurate is: 'we have now learned'. The basic idea is the same: the prior recommendations were either incorrect or possibly just inferior to the current recommendations. But it is not usually due to scientific error (incompetence), but rather the result of new information.
Dr. Fauci is in a political role; he should not stupidly state: 'we were wrong, but now we are right'. People would interpret that as science making errors rather then science learning more. (Hell, even with careful wording we see plenty of people claiming, ignorantly, that science does not know what it is doing.) Fauci necessarily (as with everyone in a political venue) must carefully word his comments in consideration of how his audience will interpret them.
Thanks for the advice, did you see me do that? The closest I come to that is arguing against those who claim that changes in recommendations mean that the scientists are clueless.
Now you are talking strictly politics, not science. I will not defend nor attempt to explain politics.
No. China is very much at fault for enabling a worldwide pandemic. What did I write that caused you to ask this question?
China hiding its knowledge of the spread within their nation was a political move. It had everything to do with politics.
You bring up a point which I think many overlook: science builds upon and revises itself as new information comes along. People seem to think if science isn't 100% correct at the outset, then it is flawed or cannot be trusted. That is both flawed and ignorant thinking.
They then blame science, and never consider that their understanding of science is deficient.
That's a fundamental point. Science cannot provide guidance because the science is constantly changing. And science often delivers contradictory conclusions.
Scientific consensus may provide suitable guidance but achieving consensus is a long process that cannot adapt itself for immediate response to crisis. Even a scientific consensus may not be 100 pct correct. A consensus really only indicates the science is correct enough for practical application.
Case in point.
So, you want to rush science, then complain that the science is "faulty". Seems reasonable.
The point is that science can't be rushed. Scientific consensus can be useful for guiding immediate response to a crisis. But science, itself, won't provide adequate guidance until a scientific consensus is achieved.
Believing the science before a consensus has been achieved requires having faith in the scientist.
Actually, that makes science best suited to providing guidance, as it provides increasingly accurate and up to date information to provide the best guidance possible at the moment. That's better than providing guidance based on little or nothing and then "hope for the best."
I suppose people don't like to admit they're ignorant about something.
The immediate recommendations regarding the novel coronavirus were for the most part sound - isolation, hand-washing, and avoiding touching one's face.
One reason that the population in general was advised to stop buying masks was because it diverted masks from healthcare facilities. There was, and still is, a shortage of masks available to healthcare workers who are at higher risk that the general population. I'm having trouble finding N95 masks for my office in supplies that will last more than a few weeks.
I'd like to see a link for this. It seems to contradict the latest guidelines I could find from WHO.
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/WHO-2019-nCov-IPC_Masks-2020.4-eng.pdf
And as far as the protests - there is concern among healthcare experts that the protests will cause spikes in infection rates. That concern is based on science. I'm not sure why anyone would think that experts have been silent on this point, unless they were purposely ignoring the expression of those concerns.
One works with what one has. This is one of the reasons why confidence is associated with scientific findings (in particular, medical science).
Ideally, sure, but that isn't what has been happening, as this article illustrates. Science hasn't become progressively more accurate (how would we know?). It is flip-flopping on critical issues. That's worse than useless. It's confusing, dangerous, and promotes social and political division.
Any flip flopping is due to new information improving on or discrediting old information. That's how science becomes more accurate. How changes are presented by those unfamiliar with or ignorant of science (especially by politicians) is what's confusing to some and causing any social/political division.
No, you seem to be forgetting the meaning of the words "more" and "accurate." Together, "more accurate" implies that an initial finding was anything a reasonable person might call "accurate." The reality is that the initial guidance was - apparently - dead wrong because the scientists have literally reversed themselves.
Going from "masks do nothing" to "you need to wear a mask" or from "touch nothing that isn't disinfected" to "it's pretty hard for it to spread on surfaces" is flip-flopping. A 180 degree turn. A reversal. It is not "more accurate." It's entirely different. It's literally opposite.
And people have been SHAMED over this orthodoxy. "Why don't you listen to the scientists?" they demand. "You must hate science" they insist. "You're a science denier, unlike the enlightened drones who do whatever the scientists say."
I mean this hasn't been the kind of thing offered with loads of equivocation and cautions not act to rashly or suddenly based on early findings.
No!
It has been: "If you don't follow the recommendations to the letter, and immediately, millions will die. You don't want millions to die, do you?"
No. That is not true at all. The recommendations FROM SCIENTISTS have literally changed. Significantly.
It's not that anyone - politicians or otherwise - are ignorant of the mysterious, arcane ways of science. Don't try to bamboozle us with talk like "you're too dumb to understand." People are not quite as dumb you like to think. Politicians and citizens HAVE listened to the scientists, only to have those same scientists completely change their recommendations. People have good cause to be impatient, frustrated, and skeptical.
Democrats don’t like to admit that they are ignorant about everything. Thus the ridiculous appeals to science that has ever moving goal posts to control populations they have power over.
[Deleted]
You seem to be forgetting that science is not making declarations or recommendations with absolute certainty. They go by with what evidence they have at the time. Some recommendations are sound and stay valid. Others are revised to reflect new information. Erroneous information is discarded. The process leads to continual improvement.
See previous statement.
Some people like to pretend they know more than science or don't think they have to follow scientific guidelines, when they themselves probably have nothing empirical to support their own position. So when someone does discount science, but offers nothing themselves to demonstrate why the science must be wrong or why things should be changed, or otherwise pass on misinformation, they should and deserve to be called out on it.
I don't know anyone who has said that. Sounds like hysterics. But the message is to follow recommended guidelines to better protect yourself and others. That seems quite reasonable.
Again, see first statement. I don't trust a politician to convey scientific findings with absolute accuracy. Not to get political, but just listen to the President try and talk about scientific findings and guidelines. It's clear he don't know wat he's talking about.
I'm not so sure about that anymore.
Skepticism can be good. But if science changes a recommendation, it's because new information has come forward which necessitates a change. If you design and build a boat and it sinks, are you going to design and build the same boat again? Or are you going to change the design for a better boat that won't sink? If there's a change, then it means the "old" way of doing something is probably not a good idea anymore and there's a better way. Why wouldn't someone want to incorporate a better change? Unless they're dumb!
If he'd started the first sentence with "People" or "Humans", rather than "Democrats" I think it might have been an observation worth considering. Very few people like to admit that they are ignorant on any given subject, yet most of us most certainly are at least to some degree. And I should point out that ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Ignorance is simply a lack of knowledge, stupidity is often either refusing to acquire knowledge, or acting unconscionably despite the knowledge.
The idea of science involving ever moving goal posts as greater knowledge is gained has already been discussed by several others above in this article. It is simply the nature of science and the scientific method. The suggestion that science might be used by some to control or manipulate or exert power over other people certainly seems like something of value or substance to discuss. It was certainly a concern for Oppenheimer and other scientists after the results of the Manhattan Project.
You act like science is a conspiracy theory when it comes to CO-VID 19.
Is everything a conspiracy theory?
The crisis includes responding to the pandemic AND the damage caused by the pandemic. The crisis isn't just about the science of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 disease.
Responding to the crisis requires addressing health, safety, and economic issues far beyond controlling the virus. Overly aggressive efforts to control the virus can cause irreparable damage to other parts of society. Short term safety really can cause persistent long term insecurity.
Again, you act like it's a conspiracy theory.
[[delete]]
I can't moderate this because I have already commented here. So I'll say this as a fellow member. Nerm clearly spelled out his concern/opinion and it most certainly is not akin to a conspiracy theory, and neither he nor his position is "crazy". He is at least encouraging others to think and perhaps see the situation from another perspective rather than straw-manning other people's position and calling them names. Perhaps you could try doing the same?
So many folk so ignorant about so many subjects. Since Fox they now wallow in and glorify their ignorance and stupidity. Fox gave morons a voice.
The willful ignorance is staggering.
Yes, I've noticed. What's really sad is that some people actually embrace or double down on their ignorance. Perhaps because they fond it emotionally satisfying and/or it suits their own narrative.
As is the outright stupidity and it's embracement or acceptance.
I see you are still employed by the fossil fuel industry
We've experienced five months of greatly reduced global fossil fuel consumption. We've seen empty skies and empty streets. We've seen a very large decrease in commercial use of electricity and fossil fuels. The pandemic has conclusively proven that consumption of fossil fuels is the problem. Eliminating non-essential consumption of fossil fuels must have reduced carbon emissions. What will the scientists tell us about that?
It's a conspiracy theory according to Nerm.
It's ridiculous
No it is simply an opinion that you clearly don't want to hear, so instead you offer ridicule and insults of no value to this discussion. Before you get upset with that statement, let's step through this shall we?
The first time you claimed Nerm was engaging in a conspiracy theory was in response to his comment at 2.2.2 which said:
Isn't it true that at least the results of science do change as new discoveries are made? Do not some scientific findings or discoveries end up delivering contradictory guidance? In the case of the recommended responses to Covid-19 were there not contradictory conclusions? At first the consensus was don't wear a mask, now definitely wear a mask, and then well maybe just a face covering instead of a mask. Experts and leaders were adamant about the maintenance of social distancing and other preventative measures as people concerned about their livelihood and talk of re-opening the economy emerged. But then in very short order those concerns disappeared and many of those same experts and leaders did an about face and actually encouraged large close-knit gatherings when another form of protest arose (albeit a very important and valid protest in and of itself). How is pointing such things out akin to a conspiracy theory? He went on to say,
So he is saying precisely what others said before but now suddenly it is a conspiracy theory because you apparently don't like who said it? There is nothing he said there that was terribly inaccurate. I would add, if the science is correct enough for practical application in one social or political setting, then why is it then not in another? These are all good observations and questions worth discussing, will you join us?
The second time you accused Nerm of engaging in conspiracy theory was after his post at 2.2.18, where he said,
That is actually true. Do we not have to make sure that people are able to get other needed medical care, food and other necessities given that their source of income has been devastated? What do you think things like the CARES Act and the Families First Coronavirus Response Act are all about? How long do you think people or the nation as a whole can survive without work, income, and tax revenue to cover the huge economic hole caused by the reaction thus far to the pandemic? We need to discuss that whether you like it or not. He went on to say,
Again, completely reasonable concerns. Nowhere, at least in these two comments, is he claiming some sort of conspiracy in the way things have been handled, just concern about the way they have been handled and what the long term results could likely be. These are real concerns Tessylo. For you to repeatedly characterize them as conspiracy theory seems absolutely unwarranted to me and demonstrates a refusal or inability to even consider the much bigger picture here. Come on Tessylo, why don't you join the discussion rather than just throwing rocks from the sideline?
Oh no! That is unacceptable in the current science-as-political-religion meta. You are not allowed to reject what the political priests have already told you to accept. No reason for your skepticism will be permitted. You're already a heretic.
I have not heard anyone say they had a problem with the method so long as it is being applied appropriately (science, for example, is not equipped to answer questions on morality, aesthetics, or even how best to use scientific findings). It can't do everything.
It's scientists - being human beings - who are flawed. Even well-meaning scientists are flawed. They can create hypotheses that fail to address the important issues. They can create experiments that don't actually prove what they claim they do. They can design models that are far too incomplete to make the predictions they expect people to follow.
Being human, they want to seem useful and be respected, but having "PhD" after your name doesn't make you right.
If their conclusions fit someone else's politics, then people who aren't equipped to evaluate the worth of their science will declare them to be so right that it would be catastrophic not to obediently accept their findings.
That process influences public policy and radically changes people's lives. It's how we get to the point where it becomes a crime to go to work in the morning. That's why people are so passionate about it and maybe aren't in a big hurry to just accept what "science" has to say.
People with rent, car payments, utility bills, and mouths to feed can't afford to wait around for scientists to get their recommendations right.
If we are to discuss political authorities, my comments would be different.
I know that I made no comment for which the above would apply. So why this is in a reply to me is odd. Outside of that, where do you see someone claiming that science can do everything?
Indeed. That is why I emphasized that one should focus on the evidence, reason, etc. and not take things on authority. I was arguing the very essence of the point that one should not take science on authority; that science is profoundly different from religion in this regard.
That does not change what I wrote (and it does not even follow from what I wrote). It takes time to figure out something as complex as a virus. It simply does. So during the process of discovery, analysis and experimentation we should expect scientific knowledge (and subsequent recommendations) to improve over time. Your reply does not address my point and instead reads as if I had suggested that all life should be placed on hold until science finds a cure for the coronavirus. So where do you find anything like that in what I wrote?
Sometimes, a comment is offered as useful addition to the conversation. Not everything that people say is 100% a direct response to something you said. It's not odd - thank you for judging - it's normal.
Again, not everything written is intended to pick a fight with you. Sometimes, it's simply expanding on the topic. Relax.
You might consider that maybe it does or maybe it follows from the topic generally or I wouldn't have written it. Try not to assume that everything written is an attempt at argument or that it even requires a response from you.
It actually did. I do wish you would put some effort into trying to see how it does. It seems that unless I simply commend you on a comment well-expressed, you think I'm trying to disagree with you. That is not the case.
When one replies to a comment, the assumption is that the reply applies to what was written in the comment.
If I replied to you and inserted a non-sequitur assertion, I suspect you would find that to be odd (at the very least). So when you insert a non-sequitur assertion such as:
That reads as if you are rebutting a claim by me (again, you replied to me) that science answers all questions. My comment came nowhere near the idea that science answers all questions. Indeed, my comment focused on how science sometimes has very few answers and that it has a method whereby continued work tends to converge on very good answers.
So, yeah, your reply seems odd to me.
I suggest that you find a crowd of AR-15 toting mouth breathers and go march with them.
Aww! Did I say something that threatens your politics? You want a tissue?
Ya gotta love disciplines that evolve as new information comes to light.
As opposed to those which declare truth and try to retain the narrative in spite of new information?
Never trusted truth that came with a Capital T. Just the scientist in me I guess.
I will reevaluate my scientific beliefs in about a week after seeing if we experience a spike from the protester guinea pigs. The only good thing I see from the protests is that these millennials are stepping up and volunteering to be our guinea pigs.
Memorial day weekend started on Saturday May 23rd.
14 days later Florida had a record 1317 new cases recorded, the following day 1419. the next day 1317 and yesterday 1168.
Across the nation...June 1 was a very low day with 16,073 new case continuing a downward trend
that reversed itself on June 2 with 20,074, followed by 19,969, then 21,021, then two days exceeding 24,000 each.
So yes there seems to be undeniable correlation.
yepp. there will be more cases but fewer deaths as no one with the whu flu is being sent to nursing homes anymore. (at least I hope not - that was very stupid)
"science first said millions would die and not so much
In spite of all our efforts, the USA has experienced almost 2 million cases of COVID-19 with over 110,000 deaths. Without effectively fighting back (as societies have done worldwide) you cannot see how millions of deaths could occur in a society of 338+ million people with a highly infectious virus that attacks the respiratory system? 1 million is 0.3% of the USA population.
Anybody who marches cheek to cheek during a pandemic is a fool.
So it will only take a week to reevaluate your scientific beliefs?
It took me many years to learn what little I know of the sciences.
Probably more Gen Z than millennials, at least the more animated and destructive protestors seen in the endless news coverage videos. I think the larger more peaceful protests have been much more diverse as far as age goes, and those larger groups have been packed together like sardines. The unfortunate thing is that it isn’t just them who will be the guinea pigs. Given what we know about how this virus spreads, they will spread it from there to a much larger segment of the population putting potentially many more thousands at risk.
I agree it will be interesting and potentially devastating to see what happens in the next week or so to the positive test results, hospitalization, and death numbers as a result of the huge gatherings and the obvious ignoring of social distancing and other procedures that were previously feared as economies had slowly begun to open back up. In the case of economies opening back up at least there is some hope that social distancing, masks, hand washing, temperature/symptom checking, and other preventative measures will still be responsibly exercised by businesses and their patrons. With the mass protests most of that was clearly just thrown straight out the window. That is not to diminish the importance and the value behind the message of the protests, it is simply a fact with respect to how it may have put many thousands at risk in the middle of a pandemic.
Science, as scientists response to covid demonstrates, follows politics. Public gatherings were human sacrifice, until those gatherings were politically favorable. And the people who claim to just be “following the science” are no better. We’ve seen that play out on this site, with the people who savagely attacked anyone for protesting or not social distancing become supportive of much more massive public gatherings because they support the cause. It’s not like covid went away in a week.
The public recognizes the hypocrisy. How could they not? The idea of experts just being led by data is a myth that’s hopefully been put to bed. They fall prey to bias just as easily as anyone else.
imagine if these were protests were pro-life marches ? The same scientists supporting riots would be falling over themselves to condemn similarly sized marches.
Bingo. You nailed it.
No, he didn't. He never does.
Is your posit that scientists in general —not just the dishonest scientists who are bought and paid for— vary their findings based on politics?
I'm saying epidemiologists, for example, who flipped out about protesters killing people when they were protesting over ending the lockdown within days do a 180 to justify much more massive, disorderly protests are definitely letting poltics influence their opinions.
Per the reporter who wrote the Politico article last week about their rapid flip-flop, they even admitted off the record that they didn't want to be called racists for not being sufficiently supportive of the cause.
Your language reads as though you think scientists are doing something other than trying to understand our new coronavirus reality and making recommendations based on their findings.
Your point, looking past the choice of words, however, seems to be criticism of political operatives using/misusing science as a control mechanism. It is not science and scientists (those who are honestly engaging in the process of discovery and explanation) that are the problem, it is the talking heads.
In short, I object to the attack on science and scientists simply because some of the talking heads are scientists.
The thousand plus scientists who signed a letter saying it would be a mistake to shut down mass protests are not "talking heads."
I have no idea why you believe pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of scientists somehow constitutes an attack on "Science." Perhaps I know to many scientists so I don't put them on pedestals. To believe they aren't susceptible to politicization, monetary influence and other human frailties seems my naive to me. If you can't believe your own eyes with their flip flop on public protests, I don't know what to tell you.
Do you think supporting mass gatherings of thousands of people is consistent with what "Science" has been telling us since March?
Exactly which scientists supported mass gatherings?
I guess if Trump can just make stuff up so can you.
Whoops! Wrong again!
Did you somehow manage to miss the letter signed by 1,000 scientists referenced above?
Here's an article on Politico describing some of idiots like the Johns Hopkins epidemiologist who claimed " In this moment the public health risks of not protesting to demand an end to systemic racism greatly exceed the harms of the virus."
Because this seed and you are focusing on scientists. You are not talking about law and lawyers, you are talking about science and scientists. I am responding to your use of language.
Implying that I think science is based on authority indicates that you are not reading what I have written. My opening comment in this article was @2:
Should I have written more? I did wind up paraphrasing and even repeating parts of the above in subsequent comments here.
No, why do you ask? I have made no comment suggesting that.
No, why do you ask? I have made no comment suggesting that.
Well, since the point of my comment, which you seemed to grasp, is that scientists are altering their recommendations about mass gatherings based on politics it's a relevant question. I'm glad we agree that that the 1,000 odd scientists who are publicly supporting mass gatherings in the name of George Floyd are hypocrites.
the "Scientific method" has nothing to do with scientists flip flopping on their support for mass protests during an epidemic. Science is a politicized, whether you want to admit it or not.
Any scientist who encourages mass gatherings of people in close proximity and without special precautions is inexplicably wrong.
Now, my point is that you are focusing on scientists. I would take my above statement and change it to be:
Any human being who is informed on COVID-19 who encourages mass gatherings of people in close proximity and without special precautions is inexplicably wrong.
You seem focused on scientists to the exclusion of all other human beings. Scientists can make poor judgment calls like any other human being. This has nothing to do with science or scientists in general, so why do you keep focusing on science?
People politicize science. People politicize everything. Again, by focusing on science your comments attack science. If that is not what you intend to do then generalize your comments. Why harp exclusively on scientists if not to discredit science?
Well, no one is saying "let's listen to the ditch-diggers on covid 19 policy!" I don't think it's particularly controversial to note that the message from the media and many politicians on covid has been to "listen to the experts", and used scientists as the supposed unquestionable authority to base policy on.
This mess has shown just how corrupt the motivations of these experts are, and it shouldn't be a surprise that the public health leaders who've signed off on mass gatherings in total contradiction to their postilion days before has destroyed their credibility. Who can take these scientists seriously going forward? Seems to me an epidemic is probably the most important time for public health experts to have credibility with the country at large, and they've thrown in it the toilet in favor momentary political gain.
They did indeed.
After months of pleading for social distancing, health officials support protests. Seattle Black Lives Matter warns of dangers
Public Health Experts Say the Pandemic Is Exactly Why Protests Must Continue
How's that for some double speak?
Isn't it amazing how left wingers think people are to stupid to realize this, Two weeks ago these people were crying about protest spreading the virus and extending the quarantine, people who contacted the virus should be denied health services, I know I seen that a few times on here. I myself, I say protest away. It's your right to do that.
'Scientist' refers to anyone who is a scientist. If a subset of scientists (or, in this case, 'health officials') proclaim something that appears to be inexplicably wrong then the onus is on them — not scientists in general and not science in general. These incorrect 'health officials' are not the designated spokespersons for science itself. Now let me remind you how I opened:
That opens with clear agreement with you on the point of being wrong for anyone with scientific understanding of this virus to encourage unnecessary close proximity. So why are we still disagreeing if not for you wanting to make this about scientists in general instead of just this select group of 'health officials'.
It is nuanced (if you read the article) but I disagree with their reasoning nonetheless.
It is interesting watching the visceral reactions even when there is upfront agreement on a point. Almost as if there is no genuine interest in thoughtful discussion or debate but rather just spewing venom.
Surely you jest! Just spewing venom? Noooooo! That can't be, not here! (-:
There is plenty of that going around here my friend, including one repeatedly dismissing other opinions as "conspiracy theory" without so much as a meaningful examination or rebuttal. And then even death wishing in full caps from the same one here who never seems to offer anything but invective in nearly every single comment. The venom is strong in that one my friend.... very strong. Yet such comments are voted up by some, for reasons that are apparently beyond my comprehension.
Recently (past several months) several members seem to have grown a hair trigger; ready to attack, and in similar fashions too. Being correct does not seem to be a priority, just attack; that is the aspect that piques my curiosity. I suppose one could attribute it to the stress of the pandemic, but somehow I doubt that is the issue. More likely is the possibility that this pandemic could disrupt Trump's reelection.
Yeah maybe. But my gut feel is that in some cases the stress of the pandemic has included people being left out of a job, or with kids to feed or put through college with severely diminished means, or losing a family business they worked their entire life to build, or a crushed retirement plan or other dreams. I'd say those concerns would trump any concerns about Trump being re-elected in the mind of even the most ardent Trump supporter. We don't know the circumstances and pressures other people are under so it's probably best not to speculate or assume that any changes we perceive in their demeanor are purely politically driven.
Also, often times a hair trigger, or readiness to attack, is more of a defense mechanism than it is an aggressive offensive move. Perhaps we should consider that from time to time when we engage folks, even if they appear to be unreasonable initially, or even if their opinion has some holes. My experience has been mixed but I generally find that spending more time at least trying to reason with people, and trying to better understand what they are trying to say, leads to better results. Not always, but fairly often at least.
I think a lot of what I have seen in this article is people simply talking right past each other. No attempt to understand where the other guy is coming from, or maybe consider why one might be saying what he/she is saying. You mentioned it in another comment that even in what looks like agreement there seems to be contention. Some may not be as precise in their words, or as articulate as others might be, so it might take a bit more time and effort to get a better feel for where they are coming from, and from there build a better mutual understanding. We sometimes take each other a bit too literally, and we tend to pre-judge each other based on past encounters, and then we get mired in the less important details rather than converging on and celebrating our areas of agreement. Making the effort to overcome that might feel like wasted energy at times, but I think it can build on itself incrementally and result in better relationships in the long run.
Just my observation, for what its worth, which might not be much at this point. Just rambling my way toward hitting the rack for the evening. (-: Good night TiG.
Sounds reasonable to me.
The most insane statement of the week.
While this might be true of some of the epidemiologists who appeared to flip flop on this issue, it is certainly not true of the majority of scientists. The pathogenisis and means of transmission of Covid-19 does not change due to the circumstances of the gathering of people in close proximity. The virus doesn’t care about politics, or optics, or other important/valid causes.
However, if you replace the word “scientists” with “politicians”, or “political pundits”, or even “the media” in your sentence above, then your statement is demonstrably true. With respect to the scientific concerns about the pandemic, the diametrically opposed stances based solely on the circumstances of the gathering are both illogical and unscientific on their face. IMHO
Do you think the scientists who signed the public letter or tweeted in support of the protests will face any negative consequences in the scientific community? Per the author of the Politico piece I cited above, many were worried about negative repercussions if they did say mass protests are a bad idea.
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on whether they can trace any increases in Covid-19 confirmed cases/hospitalizations/deaths back to the large protests or not. I imagine that in some areas it will be difficult to trace the causes back to the mass protests where economic re-openings are also occurring. What I think we can count on though is a battle between partisans, political pundits, and the media to assign the blame where they see fit, despite the underlying science.
As I pointed out elsewhere, at least the economic re-openings are somewhat controlled and prevention measures are being implemented depending on the type of business and size of gathering. For example, in my county salons and barber shops were re-opened this week, but under very strict procedural guidelines including appointment scheduling to spread out the crowds, waiting in one's car until called to enter, social distancing between patrons, added sanitation and hand-washing measures, temperature scans upon entry, EVERYONE wears a mask, stylists use face shields as well as masks, etc. Just got my haircut for the first time in 3 months and it was quite a production but very meticulously followed by the businesses and patrons alike. Contrast that now with mass protests with people shoulder to shoulder, many not wearing masks, and shouting and expelling all kinds of vapors on to each other. Which do you think is a surer bet as to its potential for spreading the disease? You don't have to be a scientist to exercise common sense, IMHO.
Certainly scientists and epidemiologists are human too. They are not immune to political pressure or even political leanings of their own. It is a shame though that such pressure trumps the scientific concerns. Mass gatherings of closely spaced people (especially without masks) are going to be a problem given what we know about the transmission of Covid-19. The reasons for those gatherings should not make a difference in one's scientific approach/opinion. To the extent that social pressure or politics has apparently altered some opinions in the scientific community is something that will require introspection and reflection on their part, especially if the results turn out to be devastating.
exactly
the left wanted us to believe the science that led to "mandatory testing, "mandatory tracking, and then "mandatory vaccines along with a completely destroyed economy.
luckily trump is good at the science of telling people like bill gates and the who crew to fuk off.
bill gates being told he ain't all that and to shove all of his "mandates up his ass at once.... simply priceless.
Which explains why the US is #1 in new covid-19 cases. WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1! WE'RE #1!.
right, and thank god for all those protests and riots.... just like a biological attack
we will be setting even higher unbeatable records in a few weeks time
we are done with lockdowns so we will learn to carry on anyway. with no mandatory tracking testing or vaccines.
life is a risk every day anyway = live it up
So are you advising me to load a rifle and target anti-science fascists?
do you have voices in your head you do not recognize?
do you have voices in your head you do not recognize?
I recognize all of the voices in my head. I am mostly able to ignore them.
Just because one of my personalities keeps changing the combination to my gun safe doesn't mean that little Billy won't come out with his rocks in hand.
Given the coronavirus reached worldwide pandemic levels in spite of worldwide efforts and that it still remains a threat, how can any rational person think that testing, treatment and containment methods were gratuitous?
we are all about testing and treatment, the more science the merrier. it is going on right now and will continue unabated.
however, once the left or anyone for that matter, uses the word *mandatory? no chance in hell.
the real question is..
why does the left always think they can just "mandate people jump through their hoops?
and why do they act shocked when everyone tellls them to shove their mandates up their ass?
I mean, that response is predictable yanno....
every time the left mandates we do something? you can bet it ain't gonna happen like that without a fight.
example: if obamacare did not have *mandates to buy insurance or pay a fine? that law might have lived.
the people who wrote that law thought we would just bow down and play their mandate games.... and they were very wrong.
so, tell gates to go play his mandate games with the communists... they are into being told what to do.
we are not communists - we will not be told what to do and then be expected to just do it.
individual liberty is a pain in the ass like that.
I hope you enjoyed the lockdowns - because you will never see that crap happen again.
me personally, I never actually stayed home or stopped surfing,
my life did not change one bit... but hey, that was also predictable
If you were a governor during the outbreak of this worldwide pandemic, would you allow large gatherings of people such as sporting events, concerts, mass transit ports to continue with people simply operating on the honor system? Would you allow bars and other inherently close proximity social gatherings to operate?
Do you recognize that one irresponsible person can geometrically affect many responsible persons? Do you realize that if government authorities simply leave it to the public to 'do the right thing' that this act alone signals to many of the ill-informed, naive, or wishful thinking in the population that maybe this virus thing is blown out of proportion?
Did you mingle with the population without wearing a mask and violating social distancing?
I'm going to save you some time.
measles, smallpox, rubella, and even the mumps are all twice as contagious as this covid virus
this new virus will be added to the list of expected deaths we have every year during flu season.
eventually, we will have a vaccine,
sitting around destroying our economies waiting for some vaccine? we are sooo done with that bs
much thanks to the left for those riots... seriously, they did us a favor.
people can go back to work and get outside to live their lives. (and we can stand in line to vote)
Well the POTUS fucked that up royally did he not?
The previous Administration like almost every preceding Administration,
handled it differently, they worked through it.
At least you are finally making an argument based on facts. In fact, the R0 for these diseases is as follows:
So no problems, right?
Note that only one of the above reached a worldwide pandemic level. Covid-19.
Smallpox could have easily been worse than Covid-19, but it broke out in times where people were far less mobile. So, in effect, Smallpox wiped out communities but was localized because the people (the carriers) were localized. If Smallpox infections started today with the travel and social-clustering as they were prior to the Covid-19 outbreak, it would likely reach a worldwide pandemic level.
AIDs (by the way) is a horrific disease taking a massive toll on human beings, but it was contained by the transmission and demographic. It wiped out millions of homosexuals - mostly male due to the transmission medium.
Measles is incredibly infectious but the infected individuals were less mobile (containing the infections locally) than now and the death rate is small (<500 per year compared to COVID-19 currently at 114,000+ in the USA).
Rubella was limited to pregnant women which served to contain it. And again, less mobile carriers and low death rate.
Nobody has immunity to COVID-19. We have no known cures, no known vaccines. The virus spreads via contact and is airborne. It can survive on surfaces for many hours (if not days). It is largely asymptomatic in many infected individuals. Covid-19 is insidious in its ability to infect people. And when it hit, we were happily very social and were zipping around the world at a fast pace (without knowing we were infected).
In result, the empirical data is something that only a fool would ignore. In spite of worldwide efforts (and clearly you see the efforts since you complain about them) COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic. To not find that to be cause for concern, to not take that seriously is .... well, amazing.
..... followed the advice of the WHO and CDC
this time trump also followed their advice,
99.9 percent of the people believed the WHO and CDC including you.
trumps only failure was not recognizing they were full of shit quick enough.
but how could he? they were the so called experts.
it takes time for real science to show the experts were wrong.
BS. They weren't around until 1948 & 1946 and hardly funded or effective for decades.
Eisenhower & Johnson barely acknowledged their pandemics,
it was a normal virus cycle to them and they stayed out of it, even after Johnson was hospitalized for it.
Dead wrong.
I was against a lock down from the beginning.
If fact there were two comments of yours that the whole thing was a mistake months ago
that I not only voted up, but responded positively to because we so rarely agree.
I posted information about the pandemics of 1918, 1957-58, 1967-68 and 2009 multiple times.
This POTUS waffled, waffled some more and caved to pressure by trying to micro manage this like everything else.
The buck stops with him, not China or the WHO or Fauci or Birx.
But you keep on being you....
[Delete]
Why in the hell would you want him to do that? That would expose others as well as him.
Where in that post did he suggest that he would not wear a mask or practice social distancing as he got back to work or stood in line to vote? We can still do all these things and take sensible precautions without being confined to our homes. Honestly, how about you cool it down with the obvious hatred here and join the discussion like a rational human being?
Hear Hear!!
measles, smallpox, rubella, and even the mumps are all twice as contagious
The vast majority of intelligent folk have already been vaccinated for MMRVS.
The local ERs always gave us paramedics free vaccinations for whatever the current bug was. Still get them from friends even though I am now retired from the street.
did we shut down the country until we found a vaccine for any of them?
NO we did not.
COVID-19 reached a worldwide pandemic level. That should illustrate conclusively to everyone how serious this is.
It happened in spite of nations around the world taking extreme economy-crushing measures to isolate people from each other (which obviously inhibits the spreading).
Given a worldwide pandemic in spite of extreme precautions, can you not imagine the level of infection if these precautions had not been taken? Our healthcare systems would be well overrun, many more people would have died and we could easily be in a situation where the virus is out of control.
The infection is geometric and worldwide; how one can dismiss this as 'just another virus' is amazing.
You obviously don't understand the reality of the new novel coronavirus. This is different due to the fact that there is no vaccine, nobody is immune and it is easily transmitted.
I guess depending on what you mean by immune, it seems like a lot of people aren't in much danger from it at any rate.
How many Covid-19 patients have no symptoms? More than you might think.
Some findings in various studies so far:
So I don't know about "immunity" as it's technically defined, but it's clear that the disease is far less dangerous than the basic published numbers of cases and deaths would indicate. So, if our reaction is based on those misleading numbers, then the actions we are taking aren't really justified.
how is that different than the measles, smallpox, rubella, and the mumps when they first showed up?
we both know the answer is no to both questions above.... making your argument incomplete at best. or straight up bs.
so, do tell, what makes this one actually different?
There was no medical care when they first showed up. No ERs or Hospitals. Those diseases ran rampant in the communities that they struck. Many people died.
Just recently we had a measles outbreak in the US because of the decreasing vaccination rates. We still have a large portion of the population vaccinated, but enough people were not vaccinated that community spread was becoming possible.
If the states, nation and world had not applied the social distancing standards and stay at home orders, many many more people would have died, hospitals would have been over run causing more stress on the medical systems. Look at Brazil now. Opening as the case rates are going up.
and they did not shut down the country.... imagine that.
update, they just changed the science again.
it is a woman's prerogative to change her mind at any time
but I believe it is harder to keep up with the science mind about this virus.. LOL
they will eventually figure it out one day
How would you operate if you had any authority? Would you offer no guidelines until you fully understood the virus (meaning no guidelines will ever exist) or would you establish guidelines and then never change based on new information?
Is "Science" supposed to just "Spew Stuff" to the population, until they get it "Right" ?
Good grief you think that is how science works — just informally spews notions? Buy a vowel.
Good Grief..... You haven't seen that throughout this Covid-19 stuff ?
One day it's this....the next day it's different, totally negating what the first day was, as we were told.
That's .... Good Grief ?
Forget buying a vowel. I'd say buy a clue, right?
It's not just guidelines. It's laws. It's orthodoxy. To question is to speak heresy. To violate a "guideline" is to commit a crime.
Governors and mayors have declared emergencies and severely restricted the rights and liberties of citizens using the scientific conclusions as their justification. The economic consequences have been devastating for many people. It has seriously impacted the physical and mental health of others.
For violating these laws, people have been fined and arrested. Anyone trying to publish opposing viewpoints finds their voices censored.
Socially, and politically, people have been publicly shamed for not following the "guidelines" to the letter. In all of this severe reaction, there is nothing of the humility that we should see in the analysis of rapidly evolving scientific findings. And this shouldn't surprise us. Humility or equivocation would imperil the ability to wield emergency powers.
None of this is how "guidelines" should work.
And isn't the politics of their condemnation fascinating? If a few dozen or maybe a hundred people want to go out to the streets or parks to demonstrate in favor of going to church or opening businesses, then they are cavalierly putting millions of lives at risk. But if several thousand people want to demonstrate for an issue the media and politicians can use? Then it's: "what virus?"
no, we don't think that is how science works.
but we do know that is how the left works with science.
8 ball was complaining that 'they' changed 'the science' again. I asked him for an alternative to having guidelines that change. You are now adding factors which divert the focus of the question from changes in guidelines to complaints that guidelines are troublesome.
As work continues in the scientific / medical communities (science) the sociological actions taken by authorities will naturally change. Is that not desirable to adjust actions based on new information?
If you were in charge, would you diminish the findings of science because 'science keeps changing its mind'? Or would you factor in the best information we have from science on the nature of this virus which has demonstrably become a serious worldwide pandemic and make decisions that are difficult for us all in the short term so that we do not have a worse reality in the longer term?
You and ItIsMe need to then synchronize your stories.
I don't have to do anything... my words stand on their own.
I didn't say guidelines were troublesome. Guidelines are fine. But a guideline is only a guide. Advice. My complaint is not that the guidelines are troublesome but that they are given too much weight and the consequences for not following them are too severe. The justification for this attitude is that the guidelines change so much. The enthusiasm for them and the draconian policies justified by them are not warranted because the guidelines are too unreliable.
Ab. So. Lutely! That is the best reason to diminish their importance.
That is equivalent to stating: I, 8-ball, have nothing.
I do not care. The point was that we were discussing the changing science. You are focusing on an entirely different matter. While it is an interesting thing to discuss, it is a tangent.
So you think that the evolving nature of scientific knowledge is cause to diminish its importance. Fascinating. Are you unaware that scientific knowledge is inherently an incremental, evolving asset? Science initially will gain vague insight on an area (take cosmology as an example) and then, with continued research, thinking, experimentation will refine the understanding over time. Every refinement is a change and you would find those changes to be a reason to diminish the importance of scientific findings.
I mentioned cosmology so let's look at an example. About 100 years ago everyone held that the universe was static (even Einstein). But with continued research (let's mention Hubble now) science discovered that the universe is actually changing ... it is expanding. With even more research science has discovered that the universe originated at a singularity. More research and we find that the universe is expanding at an accelerated pace which interestingly corrects Einstein's cosmological constant problem. And lately we have discovered dark energy and matter through evidence that seem to be responsible for the increasing acceleration. These few examples illustrate the evolutionary nature of scientific knowledge. Your comment diminishes the importance of each discovery because science keeps ... what ... changing its mind?
I do not think you actually believe this, but I also cannot explain why you would offer such a naive comment.
[deleted]
You are now trolling; a tacit admission that you have nothing.
[deleted]
Well, I do.
No, I have been discussing the presentation of, and responses to that science. It is what I have been talking about consistently in this seed. It is what people care about when they ask what science we are supposed to believe, which is what the title asks.
No one gives a shit about scientific findings that don't impact their lives. You want to go back and forth on the findings about whether or not T-Rex had feathers? Be our guest. It doesn't impact our lives. But when you tell us we can't go to work or millions will die, you really need to be right. You don't have the luxury of hiding behind disclaimers after the fact.
HA! OMFG! What a lying straw man that is! You changed the words in the question to change the meaning and then attack me for saying something I didn't say.
Your question to me was:
You didn't say jack shit about the importance of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. Your question was about a specific scenario and the scientific findings related to that scenario. But now you want to pretend I have a problem with science, generally. What a horseshit game you are playing.
Let's not - for the reason I mentioned above. Cosmology doesn't drive politicians to outlaw going to work.
How arrogant and dishonest to pretend that I don't understand how science works.
You choose to ignore things you don't like hearing. I won't speculate on why you do this but it is pretty ridiculous.
I, and others, have already explained to you that the ACTIONS people are taking in response to the scientific guidance is LIFE CHANGING so you better fucking get it right.
OR . . .
Hold your water and shut the fuck up about the allegedly catastrophic consequences of not following your guidance.
TiG clearly put the words "because science keeps changing its mind" in quotes because that's how many on this discussion are referring to the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.
Then your initial reply to me makes no sense. If two people are discussing the weather and someone else comes in discussing the unusual properties of water, that new interjection changes the focus.
This is so old; dealing with these stupid games on every exchange. Is it not possible for you to just engage on the topic without these pointless tactics? Look at what was written:
Science continues to evolve (typically to improve). Here
I asked if you would take the fact that science is learning more about coronavirus and making the appropriate changes in recommendations as a reason to diminish the findings of science . You reply with this:
You write
( assuming you are writing to answer my question in context ) that you ab.so.lutely! would diminish the importance of the findings of science because 'science keeps changing its mind'. Given that bizarre answer I gave you this response:
Not sure my question could be clearer. If you do not consider the fact that 'science keeps changing its mind' (science continues to learn and evolve) as a reason to diminish the findings of science then why did you reply with: "Ab. So. Lutely! That is the best reason to diminish their importance."?
You seem to want to answer my question in the affirmative while denying the consequence of your answer.
Read the paragraph preceding the question you quoted:
The part in blue speaks of the evolving nature of scientific knowledge; it is part of the context for the question. Thing is, even if I had not written that, one should not have to explicitly inform someone who understands how science works about the evolving nature of scientific knowledge.
Going by what you wrote (see the preceding content of this comment) your words suggest you do not understand how science works. Importantly, I am not pretending anything. Read my closing comment:
This means that not only am I not pretending ignorance on your part, but I am declaring that I do not think you are ignorant of science in spite of the odd words you wrote.
All you had to do was read what I wrote. This entire comment was nothing more than me quoting our words — words that were right in front of your eyes — and breaking them down.
What's gotten your panties all up in a wad [deleted]
That's a shame. I guess you just don't understand how these things work.
No one here is discussing the weather. If you like, you can start a seed on that.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't know. What's got you fantasizing about my underwear? Quarantine is lonely, I guess.
I'm not fantasizing about your underwear.
I'm not in quarantine.
I'm not lonely.
I don't know WHAT your story is though.
Irony.
An article consists of a hierarchy of threads. Each thread often focuses on a portion of the overall topic. This thread, 6 and sub-thread 6.1 are focused on the question of the science changing as the scientific community continues to research and experiment.
Anyone can easily see the focus of this thread by just reading the operative lines in the thread (6) and sub-thread (6.1). Here, they are:
8-ball established the focus of thread 6 with this:
I quoted " update, they just changed the science again . " in my response @ 6.1 which further solidified the focus of thread 6 and defined the focus for thread 6.1:
Thread 6.1 (the thread where you have been commenting) is focused on the dynamic of changing guidelines / recommendations based on the scientific community learning more about this virus.
In short, it is not unreasonable to focus on a sub-topic within a thread (e.g. 6), especially when one is within a sub-thread (e.g. 6.1).
Overall, there is nothing to be gained by losing one's cool, calling others stupid, telling them to shut the fuck up, etc. while you are engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics that, based upon what I have read, are designed to simply pick a fight.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I guess some people are allowed to accuse others of being not bright enough to understand or of being dishonest, but when others complain about it or return the favor, they are breaking the rules.
Tacos! I explicitly stated that I do not think you believe what your words seemed to express. I addressed your words (with quotes to be precise) but I purposely ended with my opinion which was:
It is demonstrably not the case that I called you stupid or even implied it; quite the opposite in fact. The word 'stupid' came from you directed at me. It is, however, quite true that I noted your use of intellectually dishonest tactics. I remain fully convinced that I was dealing with intellectually dishonest tactics.
Finally, @6.1.23 I demonstrated that within a thread on NT we (members) will sometimes naturally focus on a sub-topic; it is the nature of the 'thread' concept. I showed, with quotes, how the focus of this very thread is on the evolution (change) of scientific information for coronavirus. 8-ball set the focus @6 clear as a bell with:
So yes I am smart enough to understand the topic; but we were focused on a sub-topic. But none of this matters if one is here simply to pick a fight.
You and your allies are all over this seed talking about how people don't understand science or can't properly communicate with scientifically-minded people. It's arrogant and it's derogatory.
Meanwhile, you deliberately misquoted your own question and my answer to it in 6.1.12 and then proceeded to use that as grounds to lecture me on how science works. As far as I am concerned, that goes a long way toward implying that I'm stupid.
Yep! You get to call me a liar and you get away with it. All through these threads you dance around the CoC by using terms like "intellectually dishonest" instead of liar, but it means the same thing. The fact that it's allowed so much is utter bullshit.
Well, again I need to have things explained to my simple because back in 6.1.12, when I had tried to clarify my focus on, and concern for the guidelines, you had to chide me with this:
So you get to meander about to wherever the discussion leads your thoughts, but if I want to focus on a particular point, then NO NO! That's improper. The Discussion Police have decided it!
Where do you see that? I just went back and looked and I see direct quotes.
What I see is you reading between the lines (very common for you in my experience) and coming up with an incorrect negative interpretation. Seems to me there is no disagreeing with you without triggering venom.
Almost ironic. I have never called you a liar on any social forum at any time. My calling you out for using intellectually dishonest tactics is a criticism of the style of discourse you have chosen (or, maybe, inadvertently used). Calling someone a liar is a psychological statement about the person's character (it implicitly means pathological liar because everyone has lied in their lives). This is an example of you exaggerating what I have written in the most negative extreme you can find. To what end besides going negative / picking a fight?
I had already explained to you the focus on the sub-thread. You then came back with your guideline topic. Rather than repeat my explanation that I have been talking about changing information in science I chose to, at that point, not do so and simply say:
You apparently want me to just sit silent while you insert an entirely different sub-topic in the thread in a direct REPLY to me. Note, at the end of the quote I even noted that your topic is interesting but it does not follow what we were discussing.
Here you go again with fabrication. I have taken time to explain the Article:topic and Thread:sub-topic dynamic that is in effect here (and in other social forums). I did not meander in this thread, quite the opposite, Indeed, it certainly seems you are angry because I did not switch focus to your tangent.
If you do not want to talk about the changing scientific information which is demonstrably the focus of thread 6.1 (before all this meta) then all you had to do is open a new thread. Thread 10 is currently available. Write a comment @10 on the impact of officials making rules that adversely affect the rights, liberties and economic situation of many. Maybe some will participate in your thread. But note how your thread on 'officials impacting rights, liberties, etc.' is quite different from the 'why trust science if they keep coming up with new findings?' topic.
This was already pointed out to you. In 6.1.5 I talked at length about how the scientific findings on Covid-19 have been used to justify extreme legal actions and social intolerance. In that context, you replied with
Followed by me:
Then you wanted to rephrase things and attack as if I had answered a different question. A question on science in general. Thus,
And then you proceeded to teach me how science works. Because apparently I need that lesson.
This is now the second time I have pointed this out to you. The first time you did not respond with respect or humility. Your mind was not open to a point of view not your own. You did not consider your words and their impact. You did not acknowledge what you had done. The scientific mind was not open to correction of a mistake. Instead, you attacked me.
And then you have the nerve to criticize me for my venom.
As far as I'm concerned, we're done until your attitude changes.
Read my question:
The question offered two paths (you could have offered a third):
Two questions:
Answering question 1 as 'yes' (or absolutely) or question 2 as 'no' whether the example is COVID-19 or any other area of scientific research, indicates a misunderstanding of science.
'But they said masks are not helpful and then they said to use masks' ...
What do you conclude by that hypothetical complaint? Do you conclude that worldwide science does not have a clue ( diminish its importance ) because new information has caused a change in recommendation?
but I believe it is harder to keep up with the science mind
Unfortunately, very few can keep up with the scientific community.
How could you possibly get that from what I wrote?
Where do you see me arguing that the public should wait until we have a complete understanding. You are going off the rails here Nerm.
Your language of 'science to get its act together' reveals your bias. It also indicates a failing on your part to understand how science works and how scientific findings are effectively used in society. I am confident you know better so why make comments that suggest otherwise?
Good grief, conspiracy theory now. Science is a process and body of knowledge. Science is used by people. Most of the time it is used to advance society in a positive way; sometimes it is used for bad purposes. Again, it is silly for me to explain this basic notion but look at what you just wrote.
To be Truly "Effective" , one doesn't go out and tell the folks one thing, then change their mind and tell them something different...…. Wash, Rinse, Repeat, Wash, Rinse, Repeat.....Wash, Wash, Wash...….maybe repeat...….yes....we got it ……… Rinse is the way !
..... Wait......
....... forget Rinse...
......Just wash....
........maybe repeat is better......
......… but we'll let you know in our next "Study"......
..... that may "Change" anyway !
In the meantime...… Livelihoods are being lost.
You know ……. Being able to actually Live when one isn't close to being sick.
Science is just GREAT !
Ignorance of science seems to know no bounds. Sad that folk who have never studied any science (or don't even have a high school or college diploma) can deny advanced knowledge.
Albert Einstein said "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."
Indeed. And in this day and age of information which is easily accessible, it's both sad and pathetic people remain so willfully ignorant of science and/or reject the most basic of sound scientific principles. When someone says something along the lines of "evolution is pseudoscience and a world wide conspiracy perpetrated by godless scientists," that goes beyond ignorant to just plain stupid.
There is science, there are scientists, there are mouth pieces with a science background, their are politicians (and partisans) and their are talking heads. When discussing "science" there should be a distinction on who/what is being discussed. For example the talking heads reported a mouth piece for the WHO said something yesterday that had to walked back today, because the scientists pointed out the science didn't quite back it up.
I think the point isn't so much the inconclusive nature of scientific findings it is more the way in which those findings are used to arrive at policy. And I mean the way findings are used by some scientists, policy-makers, politicians, the media and the public in general, for reasons that are not all that scientific. Certainly some of you have already touched on that above. There is an interesting opinion piece in the Guardian , fairly well cited, that discusses this with respect to the science behind Covid-19 in particular.
The last two paragraphs are what should concern us. While I agree with TiG and others here who have said that perhaps it is best to "err on the side of caution" with respect to this virus, I can see why many have come to distrust the science. And it isn't so much the science but the way that some leaders and the media have used the science under one set of circumstances, but then pushed the science aside in another, and for reasons not related to the underlying science at all. The science behind the pathogenesis and transmission of Covid-19 has not changed from the outset (aside from continued learning), only the use of the science/findings in politics, the media and policy-making has. But that doesn't mean that each of us can't be smart about how we go about our daily business whether we doubt the Covid-19 science (or how it is used), or not.
the measles, smallpox, rubella, and even the mumps are all twice as contagious than this covid bug but we don't shut our country down over any of them.
this virus will go on the list of expected deaths we tolerate every year like any other bug. people will wear masks, social distance and take extra precautions when they have respiratory issues.. but, another lockdown? not going to happen.
that's what happens when people make decisions based on nothing but speculation and emotions.
this phenomenon makes people easy to manipulate.
well... most people... LOL
Three months ago it was stupid to be marching in the streets during a global pandemic no matter the cause. Still is. What fools fanatics can be.
I've seen cabin fever before in others snowed in and it's not a pretty sight.
Cabin fever can lead to grabbing that bloody axe and running through the snow naked.
The Darwin awards will go overtime this year.
Clearly, this statement is made in ignorance (or political propaganda). The reason the country doesn't shut down for the purpose of limiting the spread of these diseases is because, unlike the coronavirus … those diseases are limited in their spread because …
Vaccine preventable diseases currently include:
Diseases for which vaccinations form part of the NHMRC Standard Vaccination Schedule
The stupidity of the Trump strategy to help his re-election chances by getting the stock market moving via opening the economy, even in the presence of a pandemic, only invites more infection and more angst over the economy! By Trump and McConnell failing to extend and increase payroll protection funds, thus putting money into the economy so Americans could pay their rent, buy food, etc., they exacerbate the very problem that Trump tries to avoid! And Trump/Mnuchin's concealing the identity of businesses receiving $500 billion, raises legitimate concerns that Trump himself and his donors are the likely beneficiaries.
Trump’s solution for the coronavirus? Don’t talk about it
which one of those vaccine preventable diseases did we shut the country down for while waiting on a vaccine to be found?
name just one... I will wait.
Why do you think the world (not just the USA) was shut-down waiting for a vaccine? 'Waiting for a vaccine' was not the reason. If we had shut down waiting for a vaccine we would likely be shut down for 18 months or more. No, waiting for a vaccine was not the reason.
The reason (the key one at least) is to create a barrier to isolate people from one another to inhibit the spread of the virus until the infection rates were reduced to a level we could manage.
I explained why these other diseases had different societal reactions @5.2.5 yet you never offered a reply to my comment.
And that is the problem. People should be better informed about science. If they were, they would understand that science itself represents our best understanding of our physical reality. When that understanding is low in a specific area (as with the onset of the coronavirus pandemic) people should spend time understanding what we know and what we do not know. Then, based on that, evaluate the decisions made by political authorities.
Instead we see people blaming science and somehow presuming that scientists are in political control.
On top of that, when new information arises as a result of science continuing to do what it does — learn about reality — many stupidly translate learning into ' science does not know what it is talking about because it keeps changing' .
I am very patient with people who genuinely do not understand something. But arrogant, willful ignorance of science and the stubborn and misguided blaming of science itself makes me question the educational system in our nation.
Indeed.
Indeed. When we were in grade school, junior high, and high school they actually had classes called "Science 1" or "Physics 2", or "Biology 101". That has all been supplanted now with other sorts or curricula that school boards and elected officials feel is more important than understanding the basics of mathematics, science and the scientific method. Instructional time for science related curricula in grade schools has plummeted with terrible results. Interesting study on that HERE .
In my day the schools had programs with non-PC sounding names like Mentally Gifted Minors (MGM) that recognized those students with above average proficiency in mathematics and science and helped set them on a track to becoming scientists and engineers. Now such programs are few and far between. In high school I studied calculus as a junior and advanced calculus as a senior, preparing me to better understand mathematics practical applications in science and engineering while in college. Today it is very rare that calculus is even taught at the high school level except in some spotty AP curricula, and the only real "science" that remains is social science. Ask a high-school kid these days what the Periodic Table of Elements is and they are likely to think it is an advanced weapons pallet in Call of Duty or Halo.
At the university level there has also been a continuing decline in enrollment in the scientific and engineering curricula in the last 40 or so years. Interesting take on that HERE . Our universities are teaching more math and science to foreign students than they are to US citizens, many of whom do not stay in the U.S. afterward. So you are absolutely right to question the educational system in our nation when it comes to mathematics and science, and it starts at the early ages where we have failed to cultivate a positive attitude toward those subjects.
There also seems to be a kind of hostility towards science these days. I just don't get it. Science is awesome.
Perhaps, but mostly I think just a general disinterest in the details and what some consider to be the tedium of the scientific method. I love it myself. And that starts with the decline in getting kids interested in mathematics and science at the younger levels like they used to. I likely wouldn't be where I am today without the curriculum and special programs they had in my elementary schools, junior high, and high school. Curricula and programs that have nearly disappeared over the years and in today's schools.
Also, what is your take on the theory that educators and students have become "lazy" (for lack of a better word) in the teaching and learning of mathematics and science due to the emergence of technology that can do the computations and thinking for us? Do you feel this has created a situation where students and perhaps even some educators have skipped the basics and therefore lack a full understanding of the underlying mathematical concepts or scientific principles? We live in an input/output age now, but the problem is that garbage in equals garbage out. That might be overstating it, but you get my gist?
Couldn't agree more my friend!
I suppose that's true too. But that is just the effect of not cultivating interest in science from an early age or in schools, As you previously mentioned.
As do I.
We need more scientific oriented programming like Bill Nye the Science Guy, Cosmos, and others like that, especially for kids.
Neither would I.
It's the dumbing down effect in America.
I added a paragraph to my post above as you were writing your response. I'd really be interested in your take on this as I have read about it in several studies and publications about the current state of public education.
I see. Thank you for pointing that out.
Happy to oblige.
I tend to agree. Although, I think the laziness probably applies more to students. While technology is great and can be an excellent learning tool, having it do all the work for you (depending on the subject) means there is no incentive to do the work yourself, such as learning the "long" way of mathematics. Long division calculations is a basic arithmetic that comes to mind as an example.
I wouldn't be surprised if the basics were skipped. Or at least glossed over rather than requiring actual work or effort to be put into it. But I tend to think it's as much a discipline issue as it is a laziness issue. Parents may not push their kids to learn or actually sit down and do the work. Little to no supervision. So there is less incentive to learn basic concepts or scientific principles. But that might also be an oversimplification of the problem.
Actually, garbage in, garbage out has been a basic concept since the early days of home computers. And yes, it is still a problem.
Not overstating. I think you summed it up nicely, if simplistically.
Thanks! This article has really got me to thinking about how we might improve the educational system in the US and get people interested again in mathematics and science. I think it is critical to our future and our ability to tackle new challenges. Perhaps that discussion could be expanded in another article.
For starters, curriculums can be geared to be more science & math oriented. Perhaps more hands on experiments for kids?
Mom was a math major in college and she took over my math and science education when she realized that our small town elementary school was deficient in both.
Mom also taught me to read years earlier by the National Geographic. I inherited over 50 years of Nat Geo from mom.
When I had a question, I didn't ask my undereducated teachers, I asked mom.
Mom was kind of like having a computer long before they were invented.
Mom also turned me on to Robert Heinlein. She sparked my interest in sci-fi and believing seven impossible things before breakfast.
And its not even mothers day.
My Dad did that for me. I was an avid HG Wells reader as a kid. I must have read The Time Machine, War of the Worlds and The First Men in the Moon 10 times each. I even wrote a short Sci-Fi book (with illustrations) when I was in 3rd or 4th grade. Reading it years later I realized that it sounded a lot like a cross between The Time Machine and The First Men in the Moon, dealing me my first lesson in plagiarism. (-:
My Dad also bought us erector sets and science kits rather than the usual toys for birthdays and Christmas. My favorites were the crystal radio kits. I would tinker with those all night and listen to various radio stations with amazing clarity at that time. Eventually I learned how to fix radios and televisions (remember the old transistor tubes you could take down to Thrifty's where they had the tube testers?). I had a little business as a teenager fixing such things for neighbors and friends in addition to rebuilding, bikes, lawn mowers and edgers. Come to think of it, I don't think I ever gave my Dad enough credit for instilling that zeal for science and engineering in me. I'll have to thank him for that this Fathers Day.
Your mother seems like an amazing person.
Gravity is science. Believe or don't believe. No one makes you believe it or stops you from not believing it. Freedom.
If I don’t believe will I drift off into space? (-:
If one needs to believe in science, then they don't understand the science. Science doesn't go by belief.
Same point as my comment, but mine was funnier... (-:
Fair enough
There is no such legitimate question, Liberals: Which 'Science' Are We Supposed To Believe?
The author of the seeded article posits a logical fallacy upon which he builds a false argument, namely, "Liberals are constantly demanding that we "believe the science." I'm all for that. But the problem is "the science" changes, often quickly. Worse yet, what some want to call science is increasingly politics masquerading as science. And nothing has demonstrated that better than the coronavirus."
No! Science doesn't change as it is a method of evaluating reality by …
• Defining a Problem
• Formulating an hypothesis regarding the logistics of said problem
• Testing the viability of that hypothesis via experimentation
• Coming to a conclusion based on that experimentation and the information derived …
• And always being open to further study, objectively accepting that earlier conclusions may be incomplete or in error.
The FACTS and the science regarding the corona virus HAVE NOT CHANGED! What has changed is the realization that what were initially believed to be facts, were either in error, incomplete, or, a combination of both. And Donald Trump's pronouncements regarding the virus were not based on facts nor science, rather his attempts to create a narrative to prevent a stock market plummeting, and thus, likewise his re-election chances!
The earth did not become an oblate spheroid because Copernicus said it was … it was always an oblate spheroid, Copernicus came to that factual realization based on phenomena that could not be true if the earth was flat … like seasons … like ships disappearing behind a horizon without falling off the (flat) earth.
Galileo didn't change the solar system from geocentric to heliocentric, he observed the moons of Jupiter revolving around Jupiter itself, thus debunking the CHURCH (the Republican bullshit machine of its day) ethnocentric bullshit story that the Earth, and thus the church, was the center of the universe.
It's no coincidence that religionists like Pence, Barr, Pompeo and others appeal to religionists in their base; and the hypocrisy of a whore-master like Trump being a Great White Hope merely underscores the potential dangers of defying reality in order to placate the fears implanted in the religious indoctrination of children before they are able to question objectively, or even be permitted to choose what they believe!
From the seeded article …
The George Floyd demonstrations are both understandable and a constitutional right — unless they devolve into riots and destruction. But not only are the believe-the-science scolds not criticizing the protest marches, they are supporting them.
Let's clear this up right now; every time Trump says "ANTIFA," it's analogous to Hitler's having said "Jew"! Tyrants need scapegoats to effectively divide and conquer a populace and the most effective way to do this is to galvanize those already predisposed to particular hatreds and scapegoats. It's not any "antifa" causing destruction and devolving situations, it's this … white nationalists in blackface
And … this … white nationalists doing Trumpian dirtywork …