@#12 , you were right... I've opened Pandora's box...

 

Told ya' so!

When you open a question this wide, the replies will wander in unimaginable directions. It is nearly impossible to steer a conversation like this. We not only have several brilliant people here, we have opinionated people. That mixture is...well...unpredictable.

 

Told ya' so!

When you open a question this wide, the replies will wander in unimaginable directions. It is nearly impossible to steer a conversation like this. We not only have several brilliant people here, we have opinionated people. That mixture is...well...unpredictable.

Wait a minute here... what gives you the right to judge the unpredictability of this thread???

 

It certainly went places that I did not expect.

 

Best to stay quiet and let others presume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.

 

Told ya' so!

When you open a question this wide, the replies will wander in unimaginable directions. It is nearly impossible to steer a conversation like this. We not only have several brilliant people here, we have opinionated people. That mixture is...well...unpredictable.

What? I thought this was the forum for that.

Off-Topic. It opens it up to the unimaginable.

Best to stay quiet and let others presume you are a fool, than to open your mouth and confirm it.

Only fools rush in.....

kv

 

@#12 , you were right... I've opened Pandora's box...

I'll need to hand it to you; it certainly isn't boring since "Looswires" absence.

Although many others have pitched in to help with that as well....

Can't forget the contributors.

kv

 

My favourite example of flawed science is yearly flu vaccines...

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...s-raises-questions-about-flu-vaccine-efficacy

"Applying very strict criteria to filter out potential bias and confounding, a US research team sifted more than 5,000 studies and found only 31 that they felt provided reliable evidence about the efficacy and effectiveness of flu vaccines. The findings were published online today by Lancet Infectious Diseases."

follow the money!

Context is everything, if you bothered to read the paper:

Background
No published meta-analyses have assessed efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in the USA with sensitive and highly specific diagnostic tests to confirm influenza.

you would see that they were looking for a particular type of randomised controlled trial where the occurrence of influenza was actually confirmed by a particular type of laboratory test. Of the 5707 trials looking into vaccine efficacy, only 31 met their criteria. You may want to believe that the other studies were con-jobs funded by the pharmaceutical industry but the reasoning doesn't hold up. This sort of flawed reasoning is simply bad science.

 

context is everything. I thought that article was a great example of picking and choosing data...

 

Okay, this might be too little too late to save this thread, but I found the initial thrust of the conversation here rather interesting.

The key word in that sentence is "prove." I will consider someone an authority if, over time, they consistently show themselves worthy of being considered one-- and anyone who demands to be considered an authority, is automatically disbarred from consideration. At least, by me.

....

It is their absolute right to do so, even when they go "too far." Jenny McCarthy may be a loon (and IMO she is), but the correct response is not to censor and suppress her views, but subject them to public ridicule and show why they are incorrect.

I'm reminded here of the Peter Principle: the person who most wants to be in charge of a group is the least likely to be capable of handling the duty. Likewise, authority in terms of relative expertise on a given subject is something that you earn by exhibiting your understanding in practice, not by bloviating to the world at large about how awesome you are. And even if you happen to be considered an authority in your field, that doesn't mean everything you say and do should be taken as unassailable perfection by the masses, either. I can tell a director that his movie is terrible even if I don't know how to direct, I can tell a mechanical engineer his car engine is a clunker even if I don't know how to design one, and I can tell a running back that he sucks at reading his blocks even if I've never had to memorize a playbook or sweat my way through two-a-days in the August heat.

But in each of those cases, I make sure I back up my assertions with arguments grounded in a modicum of evidence. Your engine sucks because it leaks oil like a goddamn sieve after less than a year on the road, you suck at reading your blocks because the all-22 film shows you running to darkness on play after play even when there's an opening in the very next gap that I could drive a semi-truck through, and your movie sucks because it's filled with more plot holes and deus ex machina than The Mummy Returns. I also try to make sure I know at least a little something about the subject before I spout off about it (at least in a public forum, anyway). For the above examples, I have years of practical experience repairing aging used cars, I've been watching football since before I could walk, and film study is closely related to all that literature I spent my college years plowing through (WHOOP WHOOP HUMANITIES MAJOR INTRUSION ALERT WHOOP WHOOP).

Perhaps more importantly, when it comes to things I don't know a damned thing about like climate change or needlepoint, I keep my mouth shut and defer to people who might know what the hell they're talking about. That's a big part of why folks like Jenny McCarthy are such utter fruitbats -- their ignorance of the subject is almost painful in its totality, and yet that doesn't stop them from lurching their way into the national spotlight and spraying their moon logic in every direction.

McCarthy and her ilk also love to show off their confirmation biases like they were next fall's fashions. There's a zero percent chance that they will change their stance on the subject no matter how many mountains of evidence to the contrary are presented to them, and that pisses me off to no end because they're arguing in bad faith. Real, productive discussion means being willing to entertain the possibility that you could be wrong; if you aren't, you aren't arguing, you're proselytizing. Dueling monologues may work in DeLillo's novels, but they're a poor substitute for actual debate.

To be fair to the scientists mentioned in that article, I kinda doubt they're really arguing they should be treated like infallible science popes (although I bet their mitres would be fabulous). Rather, they seem to be just venting frustration at having to deal with people who are more interested in spouting their lunatic assertions in front of a camera than they are actually engaging in any meaningful way with the subject they're ostensibly discussing.

 

... I'm reminded here of the Peter Principle: the person who most wants to be in charge of a group is the least likely to be capable of handling the duty.

That explains why most politicians suck...

... There's a zero percent chance that they will change their stance on the subject no matter how many mountains of evidence to the contrary are presented to them, and that pisses me off to no end because they're arguing in bad faith.

Yes, some people are simply not worth arguing with... but it's very sad to watch them drag others down into their bottomless pit of ignorance and prejudice ...

 

c) There is no such thing as "settled science".

It's settled science that the earth revolves around the sun
It's settled science that gravity causes things to fall towards the ground
It's settled science that bees pollinate flowering plants
It's settled science that Electric Potential causes charge to move
It's settled science that the sun makes helium from hydrogen via fusion reaction
It's settled science that light is a wave and a particle
It's settled science that what we perceive as color is light waves at different wavelength
It's settled science that asteroids burn as they enter the atmosphere
It's settled science that the moon moves the ocean's tides
It's settled science that certain metals conduct current via free electrons

and so on... This is nothing more than another anti-science myth.

 

It's settled science that the earth revolves around the sun
It's settled science that gravity causes things to fall towards the ground
It's settled science that bees pollinate flowering plants
It's settled science that Electric Potential causes charge to move
It's settled science that the sun makes helium from hydrogen via fusion reaction
It's settled science that light is a wave and a particle
It's settled science that what we perceive as color is light waves at different wavelength
It's settled science that asteroids burn as they enter the atmosphere
It's settled science that the moon moves the ocean's tides
It's settled science that certain metals conduct current via free electrons

and so on... This is nothing more than another anti-science myth.

I think that what the phrase is referring to, is that you can always learn something new about something old...

 

I think that what the phrase is referring to, is that you can always learn something new about something old...

There are things that are known. It's not inconsistent to say we can learn more and say we already have a body of knowledge about the subject. But the phrase in question is erroneous.

For example, flatlanders use this and similar to reject truth about the earth's shape.

 

Yes, some people are simply not worth arguing with... but it's very sad to watch them drag others down into their bottomless pit of ignorance and prejudice ...

And in the case of Jenny McCarthy, her vehement ignorance could actually get people killed for following her bad advice.

 

And I'd like to add one more statement to the list:

Imperfect does not mean wrong.

This is what I see in nearly every conversation about science. "Well, that is based on models, and models are not perfect..." or "There are tolerance limits to the measurments that disqualify the data" or "Here is an exception that proves the science got it all wrong..." Unless the science is backed by perfect, 0% tolerance measurements and predicts every event with complete fidelity, many will want to immediately reject the science. However, the whole world is imperfect, and not all conditions can be always controlled or accounted for. Anyone who has ever designed and implemented an electrical or mechanical system well knows that not everything can be taken into account. But does that mean the principle that is being exploited isn't sound? If I build a radio transmitter and use experimental values for some components, does that mean radio transmission principles are a scientific hoax? After all, if all science has to be perfect, I should be able to calculate each component down to a 0% tolerance and make it work right out of the box, right? Wrong. As I said, the world isn't perfect, and a scientists and science observers, we should keep in mind that there will always be conditions we can't possibly account for 100%. As I read things like "Models are not perfect representations of reality", while I now that is certainly true, I also know that models are extremely important, and no science can be done without them. In other words, one cannot responsibly reject any scientific principle wholly because it is based on modeling. Sadly however, this is exactly what we as scientists and science observers have to contend with every day. And as anti-science grows in our culture, these issues only get worse.

 

And in the case of Jenny McCarthy, her vehement ignorance could actually get people killed for following her bad advice.

I guess that lays a burden of responsibility on those who know better...

 

And I'd like to add one more statement to the list:

Imperfect does not mean wrong.

This is what I see in nearly every conversation about science. "Well, that is based on models, and models are not perfect..." or "There are tolerance limits to the measurments that disqualify the data" or "Here is an exception that proves the science got it all wrong..." Unless the science is backed by perfect, 0% tolerance measurements and predicts every event with complete fidelity, many will want to immediately reject the science. However, the whole world is imperfect, and not all conditions can be always controlled or accounted for. Anyone who has ever designed and implemented an electrical or mechanical system well knows that not everything can be taken into account. But does that mean the principle that is being exploited isn't sound? If I build a radio transmitter and use experimental values for some components, does that mean radio transmission principles are a scientific hoax? After all, if all science has to be perfect, I should be able to calculate each component down to a 0% tolerance and make it work right out of the box, right? Wrong. As I said, the world isn't perfect, and a scientists and science observers, we should keep in mind that there will always be conditions we can't possibly account for 100%. As I read things like "Models are not perfect representations of reality", while I now that is certainly true, I also know that models are extremely important, and no science can be done without them. In other words, one cannot responsibly reject any scientific principle wholly because it is based on modeling. Sadly however, this is exactly what we as scientists and science observers have to contend with every day. And as anti-science grows in our culture, these issues only get worse.

A very simple example of what I think you're saying would be the difference between newtonian and relativistic mechanics.... it's not that Newton's approach is wrong, it's just not complete when it tries to deal with more extreme physics... and there are some extreme phenomena that not even relativity can explain...

 

I reserve the right to form my own opinion of everything, and to change my opinion as I see fit, despite the opinions of others and regardless of their expertise.



Now, before you brand me a science heretic, don't you do the same?

 

I have no problem with anyone forming their own opinions. However, if one wants me to consider his opinion, one in advised to come up with a substantial reason why I should. Offering nothing more than rote rejection that is devoid of substantial factual information isn't worth my time to consider. For example, I don't waste time considering an opinion rejecting published research based on unspecified claims of "flaws" in the model or "errors" in the measurements.

But I do have a problem when such arguments are passed off as substantive alternatives to the part being rejected. The issue is that dumbs down the conversation, as it diverges from examination of the data and focuses only on rejection and denial. Good science is never done that way.

It has become fashionable and trendy to reject research based on the inherent issues involved with collecting, analyzing and summarizing data. Yes, we all know there are issues and that's why we are so careful to review our work before making it public. The trend is to repeatedly warn against institutional knowledge, while attempting to scare folks away from it. This does not reflect rational thought.

So, continue to form your opinions. I'll consider those which are supported by evidence, reason and logic, and reject those which aren't.