Post by: Jim Logajan on December 17, 2020, 10:29:33 PM
- A religious belief.
- An internet meme.
- A phrase on a teeshirt.
- Used to support whatever claims the stater also makes or believes.
- Meaningless tripe.
- All of the above.
Not a real poll - just had to get this off my chest. Only one of the answers is correct of course.
Post by: Rush on December 18, 2020, 05:39:55 AM
To say you “believe in” science is to admit that the objective proof that you claim, is fatally flawed, which means of course that it isn’t really science at all.
There is zero evidence that healthy people wearing masks everywhere prevents the spread of covid. The mask is a talisman and belief in it is like carrying around Brian’s shoe.
"The shoe is the sign. Let us follow His example! Let us, like Him, hold up one shoe and let the other be upon our foot, for this is His sign, that all who follow Him shall do likewise."
Post by: Mr Pou on December 18, 2020, 05:56:14 AM
But I better run this thru the fact checker first...
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on December 18, 2020, 06:16:00 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on December 18, 2020, 06:18:16 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcAyglcMYE&feature=youtu.be
“Science tells us that outdoor transmission of the virus is very rare, and that 80% of cases are contracted in people’s homes. So what do our leaders do? Close beaches, parks and recreation areas and confine us to our homes.”
Post by: Rush on December 18, 2020, 09:19:08 AM
Post by: nddons on December 18, 2020, 09:24:51 AM
Science IS science, just as facts should BE facts. No belief or feeling needed or wanted.Good call. I think the fact checkers are done fact checking Donald Trump for now so they should have time on their hands.
But I better run this thru the fact checker first...
Post by: nddons on December 18, 2020, 09:29:26 AM
HA HA HA HA Becky added Doctor.You two crack me up! Nicely played Becky!!!!!
Post by: Jim Logajan on December 18, 2020, 10:15:05 AM
Post by: Steingar on December 18, 2020, 10:20:06 AM
I imagine most of you believe in talking snakes and invisible men in the sky.
Post by: jb1842 on December 18, 2020, 11:32:24 AM
The only thing with which you have to have faith in regards to scientific advancement is that the folks doing it report their work honestly. That's an easy thing to believe, since the consequences for doing otherwise are dire.
I imagine most of you believe in talking snakes and invisible men in the sky.
I know wikipedia isn't always the best source of info, but your claim of scientific honesty is nothing but a fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
Post by: Anthony on December 18, 2020, 12:02:25 PM
I know wikipedia isn't always the best source of info, but your claim of scientific honesty is nothing but a fallacy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents
Science has been politicized and corrupted by the Left for a long time. They give the answers the people that fund them want to hear so they keep getting funded. Purely self serving .
Post by: nddons on December 18, 2020, 12:30:47 PM
The only thing with which you have to have faith in regards to scientific advancement is that the folks doing it report their work honestly. That's an easy thing to believe, since the consequences for doing otherwise are dire.When “scientists” accept grants from politicians who have drawn pre-conceived or agenda-driven conclusions, anything can be manipulated.
I imagine most of you believe in talking snakes and invisible men in the sky.
Only one man has been infallible; the rest of us, including scientists, priests, even pilots, are highly flawed human beings.
I work in a field where public trust means literally everything. In fact “public” is in the name of my profession of “Public Accounting.” Still, bad actors exist. Think Enron and Arthur Andersen. 28,000 Andersen partners and employees lost their jobs.
If only the DOJ held scientists to the same standards as CPAs.
Post by: Little Joe on December 18, 2020, 12:33:16 PM
The only thing with which you have to have faith in regards to scientific advancement is that the folks doing it report their work honestly. That's an easy thing to believe, since the consequences for doing otherwise are dire.I just read a great book called "Cat Tale" by Craig Pittman. It is the (true) history of the attempt to restore and recover habitat for the endangered Florida Panther. It is full of crooked politicians and crooked scientists. Mostly just one scientist, but still...
I imagine most of you believe in talking snakes and invisible men in the sky.
It describes how he gets his papers published in peer reviewed journals, but even though he is proven wrong many times later, the journals refuse to publish retractions.
It is a great book. It reads like a Carl Hiassen novel, but it is true.
Post by: Number7 on December 18, 2020, 08:50:04 PM
The only thing with which you have to have faith in regards to scientific advancement is that the folks doing it report their work honestly. That's an easy thing to believe, since the consequences for doing otherwise are dire.
I imagine most of you believe in talking snakes and invisible men in the sky.
Asshole post of the week!
Post by: Steingar on December 21, 2020, 09:28:09 AM
When “scientists” accept grants from politicians who have drawn pre-conceived or agenda-driven conclusions, anything can be manipulated.
Only one man has been infallible; the rest of us, including scientists, priests, even pilots, are highly flawed human beings.
I work in a field where public trust means literally everything. In fact “public” is in the name of my profession of “Public Accounting.” Still, bad actors exist. Think Enron and Arthur Andersen. 28,000 Andersen partners and employees lost their jobs.
If only the DOJ held scientists to the same standards as CPAs.
Scientists accept grants from government agencies and charitable foundations. All of these use groups of scientist to peer evaluate grants to determine which get funded. Have any of you served on any of these? I have. There are no top-down political directives, only the rules of the granters that are understood by the grantees beforehand. The emphasis has always been on funding the best science.
Post by: Number7 on December 21, 2020, 09:34:01 AM
Scientists accept grants from government agencies and charitable foundations. All of these use groups of scientist to peer evaluate grants to determine which get funded. Have any of you served on any of these? I have. There are no top-down political directives, only the rules of the granters that are understood by the grantees beforehand. The emphasis has always been on funding the best science.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
Post by: Rush on December 21, 2020, 09:58:58 AM
Scientists accept grants from government agencies and charitable foundations. All of these use groups of scientist to peer evaluate grants to determine which get funded. Have any of you served on any of these? I have. There are no top-down political directives, only the rules of the granters that are understood by the grantees beforehand. The emphasis has always been on funding the best science.
And there is never any selection bias in choosing grants? And are the rules of the granters always free from confirmation bias?
Post by: Steingar on December 21, 2020, 11:57:39 AM
And there is never any selection bias in choosing grants? And are the rules of the granters always free from confirmation bias?
Of the study sections I've served on the granters rules included assurances that the grantees followed certain federal guidelines on the use of human and animal subjects. Different agencies have different foci, for example the AHA study section I served on was focused on cardiac issues. A good grant could be excepted were it not in this field, though I never saw it happen. Grants take a lot of work and a long time to write, scientists usually send them where they have the best chance of being funded.
Post by: Lucifer on December 21, 2020, 12:07:56 PM
Of the study sections I've served on the granters rules included assurances that the grantees followed certain federal guidelines on the use of human and animal subjects. Different agencies have different foci, for example the AHA study section I served on was focused on cardiac issues. A good grant could be excepted were it not in this field, though I never saw it happen. Grants take a lot of work and a long time to write, scientists usually send them where they have the best chance of being funded.
Yep. And those "best chance of being funded" places typically want a result to fit their narrative.
Question: How many times has a study been done for a group, and that study contradicts the group that paid for it. Does that same group that performed the study get another chance at another grant?
Post by: nddons on December 21, 2020, 01:26:46 PM
And there is never any selection bias in choosing grants? And are the rules of the granters always free from confirmation bias?Not at all! Look at the agencies giving SBIR grants for example. No possible influence or bias there. Just a detached and disinterested support of science and technology.
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/award/all
Post by: Steingar on December 23, 2020, 07:51:14 AM
Yep. And those "best chance of being funded" places typically want a result to fit their narrative.
Question: How many times has a study been done for a group, and that study contradicts the group that paid for it. Does that same group that performed the study get another chance at another grant?
Once again, I have personally overturned dogma that was in place for the better part of a decade. The study, which was cited here, was published in Nature and received federal funding for millions dollars because it was good science. That's what matters, good innovative science.
Post by: Lucifer on December 23, 2020, 07:52:36 AM
Once again, I have personally overturned dogma that was in place for the better part of a decade. The study, which was cited here, was published in Nature and received federal funding for millions dollars because it was good science. That's what matters, good innovative science.
Coming from you that is a laughable statement.
Post by: Number7 on December 23, 2020, 09:22:09 AM