- 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: "I Went to the Hospital with chest pains. The reality in the ER was interesting..."
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:07 am to TigerDoc
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:07 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Look what happened to mortality by county-level data, sorted by vote share.
Why is a serious medical study looking at politics? Wouldn't percentage vaccinated be the metric they'd want to look at?
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 11:08 am
1
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:12 am to Flats
One of the major reasons treatments and vaccinations aren't effective is because they aren't fully adopted by the public and there was obviously a politicization of treatments (D's more likely than R's to favor recs from institutional authorities, R's more likely than D's from alt-authorities).
In general, one of the most important social science topics of our time is why people sometimes don't trust scientific findings.
In general, one of the most important social science topics of our time is why people sometimes don't trust scientific findings.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:15 am to TigerDoc
quote:
In general, one of the most important social science topics of our time is why people sometimes don't trust scientific findings.
You mean why people sometimes don't trust scientists who claim that they have a scientific finding.
In the case of covid that's pretty obvious to most of us.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:19 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Seems like the wise thing to do would have been vaccinate elderly and obese, and isolate them.
Instead of the intellectually lazy method of shutting down most everything.
That might be true. I think it's easier to make that case now with the higher R0, airborne transmission, decreased lethality, and less uncertainty. There's always going to be a lot of disagreement over priorities with respect to balancing the different harms of a pandemic and it's important to put everything in context of what we knew then vs. now. It wouldn't unfold the same way if we knew then what we know now.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:21 am to Flats
No, sorry. What I meant was why people don't trust durable scientific consenses. It's ok to doubt individual findings.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:22 am to TigerDoc
quote:
One of the major reasons treatments and vaccinations aren't effective is because they aren't fully adopted by the public
Yes, so percentage vaccinated would be an actual control metric. Older people are also more likely to vote GOP; the graph doesn't control for that.
What's the source? Care to share it?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:22 am to TigerDoc
quote:
It wouldn't unfold the same way if we knew then what we know now.
Except it unfolded exactly the way they gameplanned in Oct. 2019. What they didn't count on was millions of people telling them GFY about their death jab.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:24 am to TigerDoc
quote:
No, sorry. What I meant was why people don't trust durable scientific consenses.
Who decides if it's durable?
When a "durable" consensus proves to be wildly wrong and almost certainly impacted by factors other than objective scientific methods, should a similar consensus not be doubted? Should the "experts" have an infinite number of strikes allowed?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:33 am to Flats
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:38 am to TigerDoc
quote:
Health Affairs
Seems legit.
Structural Racism And Black Women’s Employment In The US Health Care Sector
Building Community Power To Dismantle Policy-Based Structural Inequity In Population Health
Differences In Debt Among Postgraduate Medical Residents By Self-Designated Race And Ethnicity, 2014–19
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:44 am to Flats
It's a good question. We shouldn't presume any consensus to be permanent. Science only claims to establish (at best) provisional truths. The relevant scientific community itself decides and the public at large has to decide whether or not to provisionally accept the consensuses as a public good for the purpose of developing policy. Consensuses do fail and break down and when they do, there's usually a period of lack of consensus and hopefully issues can be settled and a new consensus emerge.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:50 am to Flats
Health research and treatment is supposed to serve everybody and so health and employment disparities are important to understand. The idea is to understand a problem before the public can address it.
By the way, science greatly suffers today to to a relative lack of viewpoint diversity with respect to conservative voices and this may be a significant contributor to why science is distrusted by parts of the public. Would that be worth studying?
By the way, science greatly suffers today to to a relative lack of viewpoint diversity with respect to conservative voices and this may be a significant contributor to why science is distrusted by parts of the public. Would that be worth studying?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:50 am to TigerDoc
quote:
We shouldn't presume any consensus to be permanent.
I'm not talking about permanent, I'm talking about just being plain wrong. Authority figures from health/government make claims, have a consensus behind these claims, claims turn out to be fantastically wrong.
You wonder why the right side of the political spectrum doesn't trust them; I think the more interesting question is why anybody trusts them at all. Why does the left continue to accept information from non credible sources?
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:54 am to Flats
[Galileo has entered the chat]
Consensus science is always right, just ask me about my experience.
/s
Consensus science is always right, just ask me about my experience.
/s
Posted on 1/19/23 at 11:59 am to Flats
If you're interested in this, the best resource I could recommend is Why Trust Science by the historian of science, Naomi Oreskes.
Scientific consensuses are typically less wrong than the products of alternative means of settling empirical questions and one of the reasons people trust them is that they do in fact change when new information comes in. The problem for the public is that we individually lack the ability to independently verify their results, so ultimately we do have to trust, but not blindly because there are things non-experts can do to contribute to better science being created.
Scientific consensuses are typically less wrong than the products of alternative means of settling empirical questions and one of the reasons people trust them is that they do in fact change when new information comes in. The problem for the public is that we individually lack the ability to independently verify their results, so ultimately we do have to trust, but not blindly because there are things non-experts can do to contribute to better science being created.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 12:04 pm to AmishSamurai
quote:
[Galileo has entered the chat]
Consensus science is always right, just ask me about my experience.
/s
Quite right, but let's look at why scientific consensus changed with Galileo.
1. He showed his work.
2. He was a recognized expert in the relevant fields.
3. Adequate time passed for the field to catch up (about 400 years for the church, but better late than never).
Pseudo-science propaganda often works on a principle referred to as the "Galileo Gambit" in which a contrarian expert is presented who opposes a consensus and the prop appeals to the reader's admiration of a fearless truth-teller opposing oppressive consensus.
But, take a look at base rates. Scientific fields always have contrarians and 99.999% of contrarians are not Galileos, so if you, Joe Schmo citizen, are presented with a choice of accepting consensus or a contrarian, you should require a mountain of evidence before being persuaded by the contrarian.
You should also not trust yourself alone to DYOR without a lot of knowledge yourself. Use responsible social-epistemic help.
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 1/19/23 at 12:09 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
The problem for the public is that we individually lack the ability to independently verify their results, so ultimately we do have to trust, but not blindly because grant dollars don't come from the "grant dollar" tree.
FIFY.
Consensus isn't science. It's group-think conformity trying to front the flow of the prevailing currency.
From the prologue for the book you just championed ...
quote:
revealing why the social character of scientific knowledge is its greatest strength
Oreskes shows how consensus is a crucial indicator of when a scientific matter has been settled, and when the knowledge produced is likely to be trustworthy
This is absolute dreck ... science is and always will be: healthy skepticism and trial/error experimentation ( scientific method).
Any concept that "consensus is fundamental to science" is absolutely anti-science.
This post was edited on 1/19/23 at 12:11 pm
Posted on 1/19/23 at 12:13 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
In general, one of the most important social science topics of our time is why people sometimes don't trust scientific findings.
Because the people BEHIND those "findings" were caught in lie after lie after lie as it relates not only to Covid, but many other things as well.
The premise of your argument is that the "experts" are the all knowing good guys, while those who have questions are uneducated villains and hicks.
The expert class DIED with Covid because of their Narcissism, Fascist tendencies and dishonesty.
Stop trying to blame RIGHTEOUS skepticism on the ignorance of the great unwashed.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 12:15 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
but not blindly because there are things non-experts can do to contribute to better science being created.
During CovidMania, actual Scientists and Academics had their lives destroyed because they dared to question the narrative.
You can't pursue knowledge and build trust when CovidGestapo are destroying people for asking questions.
Posted on 1/19/23 at 12:16 pm to TigerDoc
quote:
Scientific consensuses are typically less wrong
I don't disagree. Your problem in this specific area is that they've shown themselves to painfully wrong when it comes to covid and willing to bend to external, subjective and political pressures. A lot of them outright lied. Lies aren't rectified by new information. Do you understand that distinction? This isn't "we tried but we got it wrong", it's "we got it wrong and we don't care because we think it was in the public interest".
So the question isn't "is a scientific consensus normally trustworthy", it's "is a scientific consensus on covid trustworthy"? You continue to appeal to science in the macro sense, and I understand why you do that, but this is a micro discussion.
People who've destroyed their credibility don't get to hitchhike with legit studies and whine "but science". Nobody's questioning science, they're questioning health and government authorities when it comes to covid. And they're very justified in doing so.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News