- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Excess deaths and sickness now is COVID’s fault - signed The Covidians
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:18 am to Powerman
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:18 am to Powerman
quote:
COVID does in fact cause blood clots and this has been known for a minimum of 18 months
Correct, and so do the shots. Difference? No one injects covid voluntarily into their body. Also, no one was able to give INFORMED consent for these shots because they weren't informed.
0
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:22 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Come on now. You cannot be serious.quote:I mean, not really.
We've literally landed in a world where people with ABSOLUTE EXPERT CREDENTIALS are being fricking deplatformed by blue haired gender studies majors
You've not seen examples of folks getting deplatformed and/or excoriated for simply questioning a hypothesis (aka "the scientific method")?
That is unfortunately our current world. There is no attempt at intellectual curiosity, nor often any tolerance of it. "Truth" is no longer determined through disposition of fact, but rather by correctness of consensus.
E.g. Some recent "truths":
• Hunter's laptop is Russian disinformation.
• Henry's Law is not applicable to CO2 in the ocean-atmosphere interface.
• Non-biologists cannot differentiate men from women.
• If you don't vax your 4y/o under an EUA, you're a terrible parent.
• The vax does not cause myocarditis.
Opposing those "truths" would get a CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC or PBS broadcaster fired.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:27 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Do Fauci's credentials matter?
But none of those credentials matter if they make bad arguments.
Do Walensky's?
I'm just wondering where you draw the line, because they have been more wrong, more often than McCullough.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:35 am to crazy4lsu
There was a ton of $$ in a Covid vaccine. Researchers rely on $ to do their research. Researchers being told to “make the research work or you won’t get future $” seems very plausible to me.
I’m not actually all that concerned about the original intent to protect the “vulnerable”. The juice was probably worth the squeeze for the elderly or very sick. Unfortunately there was NOT enough of them to make the vaccine profitable so it was pushed to everyone KNOWING that it probably WOULD NOT stop the spread which would’ve been the ONLY reason to give it to healthy people under 40.
I’m not actually all that concerned about the original intent to protect the “vulnerable”. The juice was probably worth the squeeze for the elderly or very sick. Unfortunately there was NOT enough of them to make the vaccine profitable so it was pushed to everyone KNOWING that it probably WOULD NOT stop the spread which would’ve been the ONLY reason to give it to healthy people under 40.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:41 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
You've not seen examples of folks getting deplatformed and/or excoriated for simply questioning a hypothesis (aka "the scientific method")?
Yeah, but it isn't by 'blue-haired gender studies' people, it is by other scientists.
quote:
That is unfortunately our current world. There is no attempt at intellectual curiosity, nor often any tolerance of it
I disagree. On the ground level, I see it a lot of intellectual curiosity. The main difference I think is that it just takes a lot more organizational and institutional effort to study things, which has its own discontents.
quote:
"Truth" is no longer determined through disposition of fact, but rather by correctness of consensus.
But that's always been the 'structure of fact,' in the sense that 'scientific progress' was always mediated by what Thomas Kuhn referred to as an accumulative of accepted facts. I think the key difference is that funding mechanisms have made it so that the exploration of anything anomalous has to have institutional support.
In some ways, the professionalization of the sciences, which is a relatively new feature of the discipline, limits the possibilities of what we can and could study. Which is why I continually bring up breaking up the regulatory capture of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals have in the industry. The seeking of profit motive for everything will eventually limit the possibilities of basic research. Seeking funding in of itself promotes a lot of 'bad science' as well, where we see a variety of statistical techniques to hide less than favorable results. The replication crisis is a predictable result of a the 'results-at-all-costs' mode of institutional research.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:43 am to RaginCajunz
quote:
Excess deaths and sickness now
Overall deaths were down in 2022 compared to the previous two years.
2020- 3,383,729 All-cause deaths in US.
2021- 3,458,697 All-cause deaths in US.
2022- 3,200,710 All-cause deaths in US
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:49 am to crazy4lsu
quote:You do realize that is even WORSE then, right? Scientists telling outlets to ban their fellow scientists? That's pretty much exactly what I'm talking about.
Yeah, but it isn't by 'blue-haired gender studies' people, it is by other scientists.
quote:This is gobblygook and wasn't even a response to the thing quoted.
I disagree. On the ground level, I see it a lot of intellectual curiosity. The main difference I think is that it just takes a lot more organizational and institutional effort to study things, which has its own discontents.
quote:More gobblygood that was unresponsive. Good science and good scientists have NEVER before tried to win the argument by simply using their access to power to shut everyone else up.
But that's always been the 'structure of fact,' in the sense that 'scientific progress' was always mediated by what Thomas Kuhn referred to as an accumulative of accepted facts. I think the key difference is that funding mechanisms have made it so that the exploration of anything anomalous has to have institutional support.
quote:took a massive shite on itself the last 2 years. INDISBUTABLY.
the professionalization of the sciences,
quote:Dude is aware of the replication crisis, yet seems oblivious to the problem of silencing everyone in the world who has doubts about VERY short run studies that are doomed to have problems once examined in the long run(because humans aren't perfect, not even the really smart ones)
The replication crisis is a predictable result of a the 'results-at-all-costs' mode of institutional research.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Do Fauci's credentials matter?
Do Walensky's?
I'm just wondering where you draw the line, because they have been more wrong, more often than McCullough.
Well, to me, they've never mattered. Why would they? Arguments are distinct things which exist independent of the person who makes them. Fauci might have the most prolific publication record of any physician-scientist, but those credentials didn't make him immune to bad arguments. Credentials, by themselves, aren't sufficient enough to carry arguments by themselves. They do tend to serve as rhetorical items which tend to exploit the logos and then the pathos of the reader, but highly-educated people make bad arguments all the time. Despite what people have suggested, I don't think I've taken any position that aligns with what the CDC or Fauci have said.
That said, the institutional system we've designed is superb at keeping outsiders out. The degree to which systemic effects color those outsiders arguments is up for some debate.
My own personal bias is that I'm ultimately an empiricist, and I shy away from bolder, larger claims unless I feel the accumulation of evidence supports those claims. I'm more interested in the accumulation of evidence than I am in the larger claims too, because I think those little facts matter just as much as the 'big facts,' especially in developing disciplines.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:51 am to Jake88
Just looking at La’s data, the VAST MAJORITY of deaths were those over 70. Basically Covid killed people that were probably in the last years of their life all at once.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:51 am to crazy4lsu
quote:Oh, and not for nothing but yes, in a GREAT MANY cases, the people pulling the trigger were blue haired 20 something "moderators" on social media platforms based often on ONE fricking email to them from some power that be.
Yeah, but it isn't by 'blue-haired gender studies' people, it is by other scientists.
Sheesh. We can't converse if you can't be honest.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:54 am to crazy4lsu
quote:A world where "science" deplatforms "bad arguments".
But none of those credentials matter if they make bad arguments.
Good lord. Every scientist in history who ever mattered is rolling over in their graves.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 6:59 am to High Desert
quote:
This is gobblygook and wasn't even a response to the thing quoted.
It was. It is in reference to the scale of research teams you need to run experiments. The days of the amateur scientist are things of the past, and because you need to be part of the system to get access to funding lines, you are limited in what you can study, especially at the beginning of a career.
quote:
More gobblygood that was unresponsive. Good science and good scientists have NEVER before tried to win the argument by simply using their access to power to shut everyone else up.
What? They very much have. Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur, Ernest Lawrence and Robert Oppenheimer, Humphrey Davy and Michael Faraday. The difference now is that we have the professionalization of the sciences, so it is more impersonal, while also the scale, but this is just not true.
quote:
Dude is aware of the replication crisis, yet seems oblivious to the problem of silencing everyone in the world who has doubts about VERY short run studies that are doomed to have problems once examined in the long run(because humans aren't perfect, not even the really smart ones)
Great, but that still doesn't excuse bad arguments.
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 7:02 am
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:01 am to High Desert
quote:
A world where "science" deplatforms "bad arguments".
I'm saying that using credentials to carry an argument isn't sufficient enough for an argument. You seem intent on misreading me.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:03 am to crazy4lsu
quote:
It was. It is in reference to the scale of research teams you need to run experiments. The days of the amateur scientist are things of the past, and because you need to be part of the system to get access to funding lines, you are limited in what you can study, especially at the beginning of a career.
Um, this is just false. I mean, brazenly and stupidly false. You do NOT have to be part of the system to effectively analyze results put out by the system. And the use of "amateur" here is just pathetic.
quote:
What? They very much have. Robert Koch and Louis Pasteur, Earnest Lawrence and Robert Oppenheimer, Humphrey Davy and Michael Faraday. The difference now is that we have the professionalization of the sciences, so it is more impersonal, while also the scale, but this is just not true.
You're starting to go Kamala on us. quote:Science is absolutely FULL of historical "bad arguments" that turned out to be not so bad. For people, who call themselves scientists in a "system" that says it is dedicated to science to even HINT that "bad ideas" should be scrubbed from the public sphere is stupid arrogance at its highest form.
Great, but that still doesn't excuse bad arguments.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:04 am to STEVED00
quote:
There was a ton of $$ in a Covid vaccine. Researchers rely on $ to do their research. Researchers being told to “make the research work or you won’t get future $” seems very plausible to me.
I mean, yeah. It was actually this board that convinced me I needed to get on the gravy train, which I rode to a few publications that absolutely no one will look at.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:05 am to crazy4lsu
quote:You do realize you've spent the last several pages using the credentials of the "system" to support its arguments, right? I mean, you do realize that, right?
I'm saying that using credentials to carry an argument isn't sufficient enough for an argument. You seem intent on misreading me.
And, anyone who has paid any attention to human history at all knows, "systems" are EXTREMELY PRONE to blinders.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:07 am to High Desert
quote:
Um, this is just false. I mean, brazenly and stupidly false. You do NOT have to be part of the system to effectively analyze results put out by the system. And the use of "amateur" here is just pathetic.
What? Where did I say that? You need to be part of the funding system to actually run experiments. Anyone who has access to the final result can analyze results, but again, if you want to run experiments, you need to be in the institutional structure.
quote:
You're starting to go Kamala on us.
I have no idea what this means.
quote:
Science is absolutely FULL of historical "bad arguments" that turned out to be not so bad.
Give me some specific examples.
quote:
For people, who call themselves scientists in a "system" that says it is dedicated to science to even HINT that "bad ideas" should be scrubbed from the public sphere is stupid arrogance at its highest form.
Do you think I agree with deplatforming? Again, you seem intent on misreading me for some reason.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:07 am to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
Covidians don't do science, they do emotions
Hundreds on his board are an emotional wreck over covid vaccines. You're the pot, they're the kettle. Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:08 am to crazy4lsu
quote:To add, the only rational reaction to a scientist who sincerely suggests banning all arguments that he and his system declare unworthy is to immediately dismiss that person as a non-scientist NO MATTER HOW COMPELLING his arguments.
I'm saying that using credentials to carry an argument isn't sufficient enough for an argument. You seem intent on misreading me.
Posted on 1/23/23 at 7:10 am to High Desert
quote:
You do realize you've spent the last several pages using the credentials of the "system" to support its arguments, right? I mean, you do realize that, right?
Again, what? Can you summarize the position I've laid out, because I'm questioning some aspects of your comprehension.
quote:
And, anyone who has paid any attention to human history at all knows, "systems" are EXTREMELY PRONE to blinders.
Great, but there is still a process on how those systems are upended. Again, Thomas Kuhn probably makes the clearest argument about how that progress is structured in his book 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.'
This post was edited on 1/23/23 at 7:12 am
Page 3 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News