Current Events > Science Magazine: Fuck anti-science.

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1405?fbclid=IwAR3rerpG7TsI4-87kwY1n-lRoG22PcEbJI37FMyplzy0zMHve3pbCwdCf1A

---

Science is only useful if it reinforces our morals and values.

https://youtu.be/gQEwfkWsW9c

---

This is an amazing article. Its a shame people wont read it

AsteriskChamps posted...

Science is only useful if it reinforces our morals and values.

nah fuck that

---

soulunison2 posted...

This is an amazing article. Its a shame people wont read it

It's a lot of words that just says "troglodytes are bad".

The root issue is, again, ridiculous American partisanism and factioning.
One side uses "science!" as a hammer against the other, that other side reacts by pointing out how the hammer changes almost daily and occasionally denying that a hammer even exists, and then that first side happily bludgeons with another hammer.
Meanwhile, actual scientist wonder why nobody ever listens, without realizing that neither of those sides above really understands that science is not a monolithic truth, but a defined process of seeking truth.

AsteriskChamps posted...

Science is only useful if it reinforces our morals and values.

Yet every time there is a discussion about the moral dilemma of something like abortion, nobody can seem to agree what morals and values we actually share.

---

Wii_Shaker posted...

Yet every time there is a discussion about the moral dilemma of something like abortion, nobody can seem to agree what morals and values we actually share.

the phrase "our morals" means "I'm an authoritarian and want you to submit to my morals"

---

Sackgurl posted...

the phrase "our morals" means "I'm an authoritarian and want you to submit to my morals"

I know what he's trying to do. Also, it's weak sauce.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

The root issue is, again, ridiculous American partisanism and factioning.
One side uses "science!" as a hammer against the other, that other side reacts by pointing out how the hammer changes almost daily and occasionally denying that a hammer even exists, and then that first side happily bludgeons with another hammer.
Meanwhile, actual scientist wonder why nobody ever listens, without realizing that neither of those sides above really understands that science is not a monolithic truth, but a defined process of seeking truth.

let's be clear: the side talking about how the hammer "changes" is generally taking a position that the hammer crushed into dust 50 years ago as an ad hominem to avoid confronting that truth

that side kind of deserves to be bludgeoned

when the hammer says X, the best thing you can do is act accordingly, even if it means changing your approach when the hammer changes

because the alternative is doing nothing and suffering the consequences of doing nothing

the change is a matter of a few degrees at a time, not a 180

---

Dumb article tbh. Science is awesome(along with math) but why don't these science-based articles mention anything at all about health and nutrition to defend against the virus. I mean literally they never bring it up at all and that's fucking anti-science as you can get. A real biology/physiology class will teach you about the body, vitamins/minerals and how they work in the body..... I mean that's elementary.

Yeah it's helpful to distance responsible and cover your face around people but healthy levels of vitamin C & D are even more important. Most important of all perhaps is glutathione the master anti-oxidant even more powerful than vitamin C. How do to get that? It's something your body makes when you engage in healthy physical activity. That's why you feel like garbage if you laze around all day, day after day especially.

When a science-based source completely ignores the health and nutrition aspect when talking about the virus you know they're biased only telling what they want the public to hear which suggests to me they're withholding information.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a lot of words that just says "troglodytes are bad".

The root issue is, again, ridiculous American partisanism and factioning.

The point is that anyone seeking to rely on scientists to deliver us from anti-science are looking in the wrong place. Science cannot convince people who refuse to believe in it. Science cannot be made more palatable, more convenient, without a severe loss of what makes it science.

It's not new information, certainly, but it is taking a stand.


---

Sackgurl posted...

the change is a matter of a few degrees at a time, not a 180

When we see rapid fire articles along the lines of "hydroxychloroquine is a miracle covid drug!", "no it's not", and "hold on, maybe it is?" all that does is foster doubt about science itself, especially among those who don't understand that science is meant to change its understanding as more things are better understood.

The inverse of that, is the alleged "pro-science" band-wagoners who hold hesitation and skepticism as nigh-blasphemy, without realizing that science is never actually "settled" at all.

Then, the worst of all, is the "deferent and epicycle" belief that science must be forcefully nudged and shaped into supporting the current zeitgeist, regardless of what the actual science is discovering.

Demon1050 posted...
Y'know what might have helped shore up your argument? An article.

---

you dont need an article to show that troglodytes are a danger for progress.

just bonk them on the head with a club, a baseball bat or whatever to knock some sense into them... >_>

ZevLoveDOOM posted...

just bonk them on the head with a club, a baseball bat or whatever to knock some sense into them... >_>

Troglodytes have thick skulls. That just pisses them off even more.

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a lot of words that just says "troglodytes are bad".

The root issue is, again, ridiculous American partisanism and factioning.
One side uses "science!" as a hammer against the other, that other side reacts by pointing out how the hammer changes almost daily and occasionally denying that a hammer even exists, and then that first side happily bludgeons with another hammer.
Meanwhile, actual scientist wonder why nobody ever listens, without realizing that neither of those sides above really understands that science is not a monolithic truth, but a defined process of seeking truth.

This is all well and good but if you take skepticism to mean that we should never back an idea, even if it is the best idea, then that is also missing the point of science.

It doesn't do anyone any good to just say "how do you know". Science really is just saying "this is the best answer we have, so far".


---

pinky0926 posted...

This is all well and good but if you take skepticism to mean that we should never back an idea, even if it is the best idea, then that is also missing the point of science.

"skepticism" is this context is usually along the lines of "you told me something completely different just last week"

Questionmarktarius posted...

"skepticism" is this context is usually along the lines of "you told me something completely different just last week"

When I look into these things I generally find two things

1) the "180 about turn change in narrative" comes almost entirely from bad journalism, or bad comprehension of journalism, or straight up lying fake news, and usually not bad science
2) corrections to the model tend to not actually change the overall position. I.e. if NASA tells you that climate change is happening and in their argument they erroneously got a data point wrong, it's likely that the entire model that predicts climate change doesn't fall flat because of it.

So with Coronavirus for example, I strongly doubt many if any scientists were saying it was a miracle drug, or a toxic poison, or a total placebo. Where did the change in story actually come from?

As for point 2, sure - they need to verify. But if you told me the structural integrity of the house should be called into question because one of the dining room chairs had a crack in a leg I'd say that's a nutty way to think.

---

pinky0926 posted...

1) the "180 about turn change in narrative" comes almost entirely from bad journalism, or bad comprehension of journalism, or straight up lying fake news, and usually not bad science
2) corrections to the model tend to not actually change the overall position. I.e. if NASA tells you that climate change is happening and in their argument they erroneously got a data point wrong, it's likely that the entire model that predicts climate change doesn't fall flat because of it.

Those two tend to be a feedback loop.
Something changes in the model, bad journalists freak out, and then a scientist awkwardly explaining the model causes journalists to freak out.
Especially so when there's a journalist who almost understands the model. That's how we get "continents underwater by 2005!" shock-articles.

Vitamin C has not been proven to boost the immune system.

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Vitamin C has not been proven to boost the immune system.

It has, though, but only if you're already on the verge of scurvy.
This is a very good example of the "bad journalism" above.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Those two tend to be a feedback loop.
Something changes in the model, bad journalists freak out, and then a scientist awkwardly explaining the model causes journalists to freak out.
Especially so when there's a journalist who almost understands the model. That's how we get "continents underwater by 2005!" shock-articles.

Well yes agreed. I think that's kind of the point the article is making, no? It's saying that the science is good, and the communication is initially fine, but we're up against a nasty machine of fake news and special interest motivated botnets.

---

I don't think people are really anti- science. They're anti whatever Boogeyman image their politician came with, or they aren't sold on the methodology of a study. I mean how can you be against testing hypothesis and analysis. It's absurd.

---

pinky0926 posted...

special interest

And there's the problem.
Politics obscures the truth, to manipulate the masses. When science becomes political, it diminishes the science itself.

Questionmarktarius posted...

"you told me something completely different just last week"

what must be emphasized here is that the 'you' is not the same person this week as last week

the trend looks like this:

1) scientist makes finding

2) conservative propaganda organization pens objective lies about finding within minutes of press release and is retweeted by botnets (note: step 1 not required for step 2)

3) mainstream media completes research into the story and releases a contrary evaluation of the science after the propaganda has been repeated enough to be viewed as 'news'

4) scientist makes finding that adjusts the implications of the model to a nonzero extent

5) conservative propaganda organization pens exaggeration of update as "gotcha" to mainstream media and is retweeted by botnets

6) media attempts to clarify scientist findings but lack of scientific comprehension either on reporter or reader end muddles the message

7) people ask "why can't scientists give us a clear message?"

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

And there's the problem.
Politics obscures the truth, to manipulate the masses. When science becomes political, it diminishes the science itself.

I honestly think that can be contended on rhetorical grounds. At least, I think it depends what you mean by it.

For example, if science state that X exists, and then through social discourse or astroturfing or any lobbying or whatever a popular thought becomes "if you believe in X you are part of the yellow team", then does that mean scientists are biased towards the yellow team? Would they be wrong in saying that the yellow team is more correct on the X issue? And is there not an imperative to correct the Blue team and tell them they are wrong (with the implcit understanding that 'wrong' means, "as far as we know")?

In that example obviously not. And yet despite so much good science it is now widely held that "vaccines cause autism" is a leftist position.

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

And there's the problem.
Politics obscures the truth, to manipulate the masses. When science becomes political, it diminishes the science itself.

no the problem is a specific subset of politics--conservatives--politicize the science in order to diminish it.

there is clear incentive for this: their political donors operate industries that science shows are harming people. in order to protect the donors it is in their interest to diminish the science.

this is exactly the same as the republican governing strategy: govern badly, then campaign to shrink government because "government can't do anything right!"

---

Questionmarktarius posted...

It's a lot of words that just says "troglodytes are bad".

The root issue is, again, ridiculous American partisanism and factioning.
One side uses "science!" as a hammer against the other, that other side reacts by pointing out how the hammer changes almost daily and occasionally denying that a hammer even exists, and then that first side happily bludgeons with another hammer.
Meanwhile, actual scientist wonder why nobody ever listens, without realizing that neither of those sides above really understands that science is not a monolithic truth, but a defined process of seeking truth.

science is seeking truth, the others are liars

Sackgurl posted...

there is clear incentive for this: their political donors operate industries that science shows are harming people. in order to protect the donors it is in their interest to diminish the science.

"Green" is vastly more lucrative than stagnant old commoditized tech.

I think "skepticism" here is mostly just clever word play and not a real point. Most people aren't trained to have scientific skepticism.

You should defer to the experts.

---

COVxy posted...

I think "skepticism" here is mostly just clever word play and not a real point. Most people aren't trained to have scientific skepticism.

You should defer to the experts.

When "skeptics" find out they're supposed to be able to identify precisely what is wrong with the idea and then come up with an actually better and more precise idea they seem to disappear never to be found

Also, I did read your post on neuro modelling and found it interested and intended to reply, but it is gone :(

---

pinky0926 posted...

Also, I did read your post on neuro modelling and found it interested and intended to reply, but it is gone :(

Ooo what's that about?

---

AsteriskChamps posted...

Science is only useful if it reinforces our morals and values.

---

Oh this is odd:


Is this because Spookie has auto-censoring on? Wouldn't have expected to see it on my end.

---

CyricZ posted...

Is this because Spookie has auto-censoring on? Wouldn't have expected to see it on my end.

This looks like a job for science!

You've already got your hypothesis. Let's experiment now.
I've got filtering off.

Questionmarktarius posted...

I've got filtering off.

Now I just turned it on.

Yup. Confirmed.

It actually came to me as a single alert with two messages. It was filtered, and I'd hazard it's because the filtered one was first. You've been posting before unfiltered and it showed up unfilttered.

---

CyricZ posted...

It actually came to me as a single alert with two messages. It was filtered, and I'd hazard it's because the filtered one was first.

Seems to me like it's filtering if any of the posts contained in a mass-notification have filtering turned on.
The filtered one was second.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Seems to me like it's filtering if any of the posts contained in a mass-notification have filtering turned on.
The filtered one was second.

Only one way to find out. Send a post unfiltered, then another filtered.

---

CyricZ posted...

Only one way to find out. Send a post unfiltered, then another filtered.

That already happened

(filtered)

(unfiltered)

(filtered again)

---

ImAMarvel posted...

Why the fuck are we talking about this shit instead of the article? Which is spot on btw. Fuck the republican party something fierce.

This thread isn't going to change anyone's opinions on anything.
May as well figure out how filtering settings affect new-post notifications.

CyricZ posted...

Ooo what's that about?

I was asking about how psych science handles modelling when the ideas being presented are ostensibly vague.

E.g. how do you quantify and test for "love" in a predictable way. And if you can't, is it scientific

---

https://youtu.be/io-t-bUkfY8
---