TaleWorlds News: New News Necessary for the OT Neophytes

[eddiemccandless]

The senators are good men, but the Senate is a vicious beast. And many doctors of theology and priests were quite open-minded, well-meaning people who discussed the finer points of Tomist metaphysics as crazed crowds burned through things and people in the streets below them, because God willed so.

My problem is not with science itself, but how it is presented by - yes, often but not only by non-scientits like journalists or politicians - and the implied technocracy. That politics is reduced to mommy scientists knows best and the matter is settled. Dissent is unscientific and thus unacceptable. This kind of political scientism is fundamentally undemocratic, illiberal and whatever the opposite of humanistic is.

A microbiologist or and epidemiologist may be the most qualified to answer what covid is and how it spreads etc, but they are not uniquely qualified to determine what political action ought to be taken. A doctor may be qualified to tell you your arteries are clogged and the way to undo it is diet and exercise, but he shouldn't have the right to make you do that. You still have your moral and legal autonomy and you decide. Yes, technically the restrictions were enacted by political bodies, but they did so by just blindly appealing to the scientific authority. Though formally decided by political bodies, the idea that there is only one possible course of action - the one suggested and sanctioned by science - was widely spread and inserted into people's heads.

And this is still the best case scenario where

1) you have the faith and trust that the scientists truly gave their best effort, good faith opinion, which is a huge leap of faith, especially when untold amounts of money and power are involved. sure, there is probably zero corrupting pressure, or outright bribery, blackmail or any combination on a scientist researching how often a ladybug ****s.

2) the most qualified opinion is actually pretty qualified. This too is often not the case. Suppose there is a group of preteens. All but one are old order Amish and one is a "normal" kid. In this group, the normal kid is clearly the most qualified to drive a car. He's never driven one, he doesn't really understand ho a combustion engine works, but he understands the basic idea that you have to put the key in the starter, that the pedals are somehow involved. But I'm still not getting in that car, if he's driving.

I actually agree with you on the first part. The responsibility for decisions ultimately falls on government, but of course they don't want to be blamed if things go wrong so they hide behind the Science(TM) to justify them and shift responsibility. Science advises on what seems to be the best way to go, with different degrees of confidence (which are routinely ignored by whoever is in charge, I can tell you this by experience on unrelated matters).

My comment on the rest would be that if your last analogy is meant to represent decisions taken on covid you are kind of missing an element there. There is a concrete danger coming after the group, and the car is the only way out (and I can't think of something to put in there because there isn't really anything that comes to mind that would match the way covid works). Also the distinction between Amish and "normal" was a little cringe .

Science in general is based on an honor system. There are of course people who go against that and follow their self interest, but that applies to every profession. Following your line of thought we should stop listening to anything other categories say (police for example?). I would argue that that leads to anarchy. But maybe that's not what you are actually proposing and you just come off strong because of your frustration on the topic (which is honestly understandable).

Also, if you actually listen to the science that means that you talk to multiple people to try and get a feeling for what the community thinks, not just one individual. If you see multiple high profile scientists saying different things then there's probably not a consensus on the thing they talking about. And a good researcher will actually tell you when they are not sure about something (in fact it is rare to see someone put something in absolute certain terms, just read any medical scientific paper).

Of course that requires a more complicated and nuanced approach to science. So politicians don't do it, just like journalists don't do it. I would argue that that places the blame on them, not the scientific community.

That said, researchers definitely should be better at communicating, and many of them tried during covid who really should have spent that time working in their lab. But it's not like they don't know that they suck at it. They are doing what they can, it's not their job (although many are starting to realize that in this day and age it kind of is).

Journalists on the other hand should definitely know better, and they should make sure that they have things right instead of just publishing whatever gets them those sweet clicks.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

Science is like a car driven by an Amish, said the person whose threat to life has been minimized and lifespan doubled. I can show you a perfectly written code that does your job, your chores and gives you blowjobs and you'd complain that it has 5 errors.

People need to be spoken to in an authoritative tone given there are enough risks involved, because otherwise, they come up with their own little theories and no uniform solutions can be found as everyone is doing their own thing (because science is just incomplete knowledge HAHA GOTTEM). Meaning, everyone has equal legitimacy believing their newest conspiracy because no leading authority exists, which again, is all the more harmful because no uniform handling of the issue can exist as everyone is dissenting. Rip. Game over.

You can treat public health as a tragedy of the commons. Recommended read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

 

[Pentagathoos]

I agree with you, almost.
But even long-standing conclusions can be wrong, such as this one about omega 3 fatty acids. Nurses still swear on it.
Why did it take so long to reverse the findings?
It's gratifying that science had self-corrected after decades, but what else that we believe now would be proven wrong eventually? This is about credibility of science, or at least particular branches that are prone to low-quality studies, but interesting to the general populace.

Omega-3s do seem to reduce heart attacks in some populations according to a fairly recent US study, in this case there was a mild risk reduction in people who rarely ate fish and something like a 77% reduction in African-American participants regardless of their dietary fish intake.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01169259 it was this study.

Also omega-3s may be more beneficial in terms of their affects on brain/mental health. And for joints maybe, haven't looked into that though.
Buuut in both cases I'm pretty sure you need to be taking good quality supplements at much higher strength than you usually find in generic fish oil pills.

Edit:
Also I think the original idea that Omega-3s were really important in heart health came from looking at Inuit diets because Inuits living their traditional lifestyle have super low levels of atherosclerosis and rare heart attacks. But this is true for basically every hunter-gather or hunter-gatherer-farmer population despite them having a very wide range of diets so the idea that there's one "superfood" that does this is just insanely moronic.

Edit2:
About the "Safe Sweden" thing
"In 2020, 16,461 assault cases were reported against women in a close relationship in Sweden. That is a 15.4% rise on the 2019 figure of 14,261, reported by the National Council for Crime Prevention." Uhh could that maybe possibly perhaps have something to do with the fact that lots of people are cooped up together more than they have ever been and are more stressed and anxious than normal because of some kind of global pandemic?

 

[kurczak]

you don't like to be told what to do.

I like how this is apparently an insult in your world

Experts can't advise on political action. When they do so, they are overstepping their expertise. There is no scientific, "rational" way to derive an ought from an is.

Your family doctor may tell you with 100% certainty that in order to unclog your arteries you need this and that diet exercise, but there is no way to "scientifically" say that you ought to do that. Maybe you like your lifestyle as is and prefer to live 1 year of non-stop party and debauchery than 10 years of the psychological torture of trying to be someone you are not. Not only is your doctor not allowed to make that decision, because he is not you. There is also no way for you to make that choice "scientifically" or "rationally" for yourself.

With covid, we didn't even have the 100% certainty of what the predicament actually is, yet """we""" came up with the most restrictive measures in living memory (if you live in the West and unless you are one of the few remaining people to actually remember the German occupation)

Science is like a car driven by an Amish, said the person whose threat to life has been minimized and lifespan doubled. I can show you a perfectly written code that does your job, your chores and gives you blowjobs and you'd complain that it has 5 errors.

People need to be spoken to in an authoritative tone given there are enough risks involved, because otherwise, they come up with their own little theories and no uniform solutions can be found as everyone is doing their own thing (because science is just incomplete knowledge HAHA GOTTEM). Meaning, everyone has equal legitimacy believing their newest conspiracy because no leading authority exists, which again, is all the more harmful because no uniform handling of the issue can exist as everyone is dissenting. Rip. Game over.

You can treat public health as a tragedy of the commons. Recommended read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

No, science was the non-Amish kid in the scenario. In some cases. In some cases, science is Michael Schumacher. I trust science to build a bridge, or a car, or a kitchen robot. Even to hurl me in a steel box across the ocean. Great, consistent results.

I don't trust """science""" when science is code for Fauci having a hunch about something that's never happened before. There is no magic code that does everything for me and maybe it has 5 purely aesthetic bugs, there's like 5 lines in BASIC.

Especially when he just admitted to lying to everyone like 5 minutes ago, but yeah that was for the greater good, so we need to keep trusting """"the science"""" unconditionally. They would never lie to you or manipulate you, what are you talking about. Trust is a precious thing and needs to be earned and carefully maintained. I owe them nothing, certainly not my trust and they can get ****ed if they don't like it.

Funny you should mention the tragedy of commons, because it turns out it's actually super racist and wrong. Science says so. Surely, you're not going to be a vulgar boor who dares to argue with a PhD who won the Nobel Prize for her research.

The tragedy of the commons is a false and dangerous myth | Aeon Essays

Far from being profoundly destructive, we humans have deep capacities for sharing resources with generosity and foresight

aeon.co

Tbc, eddie

 

[eddiemccandless]

Especially when he just admitted to lying to everyone like 5 minutes ago, but yeah that was for the greater good, so we need to keep trusting """"the science"""" unconditionally.

That is... Not what happened though. It's just not.

And looking forward to it, I genuinely enjoy our exchanges in here .

 

[kurczak]

My comment on the rest would be that if your last analogy is meant to represent decisions taken on covid you are kind of missing an element there. There is a concrete danger coming after the group, and the car is the only way out (and I can't think of something to put in there because there isn't really anything that comes to mind that would match the way covid works). Also the distinction between Amish and "normal" was a little cringe .

Science in general is based on an honor system. There are of course people who go against that and follow their self interest, but that applies to every profession. Following your line of thought we should stop listening to anything other categories say (police for example?). I would argue that that leads to anarchy. But maybe that's not what you are actually proposing and you just come off strong because of your frustration on the topic (which is honestly understandable).

Also, if you actually listen to the science that means that you talk to multiple people to try and get a feeling for what the community thinks, not just one individual. If you see multiple high profile scientists saying different things then there's probably not a consensus on the thing they talking about. And a good researcher will actually tell you when they are not sure about something (in fact it is rare to see someone put something in absolute certain terms, just read any medical scientific paper).

Of course that requires a more complicated and nuanced approach to science. So politicians don't do it, just like journalists don't do it. I would argue that that places the blame on them, not the scientific community.

That said, researchers definitely should be better at communicating, and many of them tried during covid who really should have spent that time working in their lab. But it's not like they don't know that they suck at it. They are doing what they can, it's not their job (although many are starting to realize that in this day and age it kind of is).

Journalists on the other hand should definitely know better, and they should make sure that they have things right instead of just publishing whatever gets them those sweet clicks.

Yes, there was "some" danger coming at us. But we didn't know what exactly it was, yet we took drastic measures, we jumped into a car driven by a preteen and just hoped for the best (fu I'm sticking with my gigabased analogy

Good analogy with the cops! Especially these days when they are under such scrutiny (in America). Imagine if the police instituted marital law for a year, because "yeah there's like a dangerous guy on the loose or something, just trust we're experts ok?" and "well, technically we didn't make that decision, the cabinet did. on our humble advice". And the cabinet would say that they are not responsible either, because like any rational person they are acting on the advice of security experts. When science and its findings become part of power dynamics, it also partakes in the scrutiny, skepticism and distrust that power deserves.

Science cannot hide behind phrasing it cautiously in journals and studies when the findings, no matter how cautiously and hypothetically phrased are used for very real and concrete infringements on people's rights. This is like the theologian saying "well i was only speculating that IF Jews WERE christkillers then god MIGHT HAVE revoked both the covenant and the protection of the Noahide laws and IF that WERE true, then one MIGHT be blameless in violent action against them. But I didn't go and burn down the shtetl, that was the crude and unwashed crowd who can't appreciate the refinement and sophistication of my speculative moral theology". I'm not suggesting that scientists shouldn't be allowed to publish whatever they've researched. I'm saying let's take away what is functionally their status of omniscient blameless authority. People have faith in "science" based on the tangible results I mentioned above and it's exploiting their naivete when we use the same word for building a combustion engine or a suspension bridge and something that's basically glorified guesswork.

That is... Not what happened though. It's just not.

???

Dr. Fauci Admits Feds Initially Misled About Face Masks: ‘Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers’ Had Enough

 

[eddiemccandless]

Why you are so eager to trust blindly an article that has an obvious clickbait title? Maybe watch the actual interview that they are talking about?

Fauci Explains Why Public Wasn't Told to Wear Masks When Pandemic Began

Dr. Anthony Fauci explains the purpose of masks and why the American public wasn't immediately told to wear masks when the coronavirus pandemic first took hold in the U.S.

www.thestreet.com

And one important thing, which he does not mention in that interview but has mentioned elsewhere, is that we did not know (nor could reasonably expect given past experiences) that asymptomatic spread would be a thing. So the thinking was that there was no need for you to wear a mask unless you were clearly sick. Health workers on the other hand needed the masks, just like they need the vaccines most and were among the first people to get it. It turned out that it was a mistake, but it was no lie.

Regarding the cop analogy, I believe that this is the example that you are looking for:

Update: Curfew begins Monday at 8 p.m. after looting, arrests in Berkeley

Update: A Berkeley City Council majority voted early Wednesday morning to extend the city's curfew to Friday morning but pushed the curfew start time to 9 p.m.

www.berkeleyside.org

(and many others like it that happened during the BLM protests). Police and local government did indeed do what you say. Had we had a coordinated public safety issue on the same scale of covid, you can bet they would have done so at the national level (in fact that is a thing in times of war).

I do hope we agree on the fact that the danger from covid is real at least (inb4 "it's just a flu").

Also something that I think you are missing: scientists are not phrasing things cautiously to cover their asses. They are phrasing things in the way that science and statistical analysis allows. And scientists are not in charge of anything but their own research (if they are lucky). Elected officials are in charge, elected officials take responsibility of what happens under their watch. They can follow someone's advice, but ultimately they are the ones making decisions. That is literally their job and what they are elected and paid for. Cuomo, Abbott, Trump, Biden, Boris Johnson, I don't care who they are, that is their role and their responsibility.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

I don't trust """science""" when science is code for Fauci having a hunch about something that's never happened before. There is no magic code that does everything for me and maybe it has 5 purely aesthetic bugs, there's like 5 lines in BASIC.

Nah, Fauci probably did a good job given the information at the time.
Events occur chronologically, btw, in case you didn't know.

Especially when he just admitted to lying to everyone like 5 minutes ago, but yeah that was for the greater good, so we need to keep trusting """"the science"""" unconditionally. They would never lie to you or manipulate you, what are you talking about. Trust is a precious thing and needs to be earned and carefully maintained. I owe them nothing, certainly not my trust and they can get ****ed if they don't like it.

Cool explain how much trust people would have in '''''''''science''''''''' when the streets would be littered with the dead. Gl.

Funny you should mention the tragedy of commons, because it turns out it's actually super racist and wrong. Science says so. Surely, you're not going to be a vulgar boor who dares to argue with a PhD who won the Nobel Prize for her research.

Nah the tragedy of the commons is a very simple concept still in use, and we can go over it and you will 100% agree with it. Herdin was a bit racist but that doesn't take away from his academic contributions. Nor does Ostrom '''prove him wrong'''. I'd email Ostrom and ask her and she'd agree that Hardin is still incredibly relevant, but she's dead. I can email her colleagues if you want. You can email them too.

Dr. Fauci Admits Feds Initially Misled About Face Masks: ‘Wanted to Make Sure Health Care Workers’ Had Enough

Yeah. People need to make tough decisions. Welcome to reality.
Out of curiosity, to test your fiber a bit: If someone came to your house looking for your friend to kill him (but not you), would you disclose he was in your house?

When science and its findings become part of power dynamics, it also partakes in the scrutiny, skepticism and distrust that power deserves.

If only there was a way to subject it to scrutiny, right?

Science cannot hide behind phrasing it cautiously in journals and studies when the findings, no matter how cautiously and hypothetically phrased are used for very real and concrete infringements on people's rights.

What are people's rights?

I'm saying let's take away what is functionally their status of omniscient blameless authority. People have faith in "science" based on the tangible results I mentioned above and it's exploiting their naivete when we use the same word for building a combustion engine or a suspension bridge and something that's basically glorified guesswork.

Lets say I agree with you 100%. What would this look like? No delirious rambling please, just one specific example.

 

[Sundeki]

Modern "science", and the replication crisis talked about earlier, is extremely politically charged in the information/disinformation age, as any idiot can create a 'study' that acts as confirmation bias, because they control the conditions and parameters of the experiment, and only the most emotion-inducing studies will ever be replicated/refuted.

This whole "just trust the science heathen" thing, with all the issues science has these days, completely spits in the face of what the scientific method is. Lysenko would be proud.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Modern "science", and the replication crisis talked about earlier, is extremely politically charged in the information/disinformation age, as any idiot can create a 'study' that acts as confirmation bias, because they control the conditions and parameters of the experiment, and only the most emotion-inducing studies will ever be replicated/refuted.

This whole "just trust the science heathen" thing, with all the issues science has these days, completely spits in the face of what the scientific method is. Lysenko would be proud.

Out of curiosity, how many peer reviewed papers have you published?

 

[Mad Vader]

Out of curiosity, how many peer reviewed papers have you published?

Oh yeah? And how many likes have you received, you evil paper-pushing overlord?
One day, the true patriots will march on those useless ivory towers and stop the endless beaker accumulation.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Oh yeah? And how many likes have you received, you evil paper-pushing overlord?
One day, the true patriots will march on those useless ivory towers and stop the endless beaker accumulation.

I don't work with beakers . My point is, that was a quite a strong opinion on the peer review system. Surely it must come from someone who has experience working in it, and given that I (and everyone else I know who works in my field) routinely get my work rejected despite putting hours into it, I'd love to learn how that "any idiot can make up a study" thing works so that I can take advantage of it in the future.

 

[Nodice83]

I don't work with beakers . My point is, that was a quite a strong opinion on the peer review system. Surely it must come from someone who has experience working in it, and given that I (and everyone else I know who works in my field) routinely get my work rejected despite putting hours into it, I'd love to learn how that "any idiot can make up a study" thing works so that I can take advantage of it in the future.

I work with beakers and I'd love to know that wisdom too. There are days I wish all "peers who reject my papers" disappear...

 

[Sundeki]

Out of curiosity, how many peer reviewed papers have you published?

The exact same number as most of the scientific community, apparently.

I don't work with beakers . My point is, that was a quite a strong opinion on the peer review system. Surely it must come from someone who has experience working in it, and given that I (and everyone else I know who works in my field) routinely get my work rejected despite putting hours into it, I'd love to learn how that "any idiot can make up a study" thing works so that I can take advantage of it in the future.

If you take a moment to reread what I said, you'll find I wasn't talking about the level of difficulty involved getting someone reputable to publish the study.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Well, I was under the impression that the whole criticism was going towards reputable science. If we are talking about quacks and predatory journals then I don't think anyone would argue that those are good (or that they are science for that matter).

 

[Zombie Warrior]

RE: recent canadian english news media reaction to Quebec's bill 96 to preserve the decreasing french speaking culture.

I'm so disappointed. Anglophone media will only look with disdain at Canada's francophone and native american cultures as if their existence needs to be justified and any action taken to try to preserve any of those cultures will only be understood as attacks against anglophones. What's more, the outrage is hypocritical because essential services (like education) in French, one of the two official languages of Canada I remind you, are less and less available outside of Quebec and that fact has escaped the notice of pretty much everyone.

The anglophone minority of Quebec receive more support than any other Francophone, Native American or Canadian Gaelic minority group combined. In fact, the hypocrisy stinks even more when you realize the country has a pretty dark history: the francophones, the gaels and the native americans, so local cultures which don't have english as their first language which thrived for centuries, have been the targets of discrimination, assimilation and cultural genocide. And yet, one lame bill which only does the bare minimum to do something vaguely in the direction of trying to protect french is causing an outrage in the canadian anglophone media.

The hard truth: all minority languages in Canada are in danger of extinction and not enough is being done to protect any of them.

 

[Sundeki]

Well, I was under the impression that the whole criticism was going towards reputable science. If we are talking about quacks and predatory journals then I don't think anyone would argue that those are good (or that they are science for that matter).

Well that's kind of the problem. Due to the replication crisis, what is or isn't "quack" science is increasingly difficult to figure out, and what is considered "quack" science often depends upon whether or not the results align with the readers' political views. 'Science', as the method it should be, is also not infallible, and established fact is constantly being revised. Meaning concepts like "just trust the science!" is inherently contradictory to what science is; the methods of skepticism that challenges established understanding and thinking. My criticism isn't about the actual science itself, but the political, social, and business bull****, particularly the agendas, that surround much of the science these days.

 

[Nega-Brutus]

We needs communism.

 

[Captured Joe]

We need the Kingdom of Yugoslavia back.

 

[eddiemccandless]

Well that's kind of the problem. Due to the replication crisis, what is or isn't "quack" science is increasingly difficult to figure out, and what is considered "quack" science often depends upon whether or not the results align with the readers' political views. 'Science', as the method it should be, is also not infallible, and established fact is constantly being revised. Meaning concepts like "just trust the science!" is inherently contradictory to what science is; the methods of skepticism that challenges established understanding and thinking. My criticism isn't about the actual science itself, but the political, social, and business bull****, particularly the agendas, that surround much of the science these days.

I can agree with that, to a point. The thing is though that quacks for the most part don't actually bother to falsify studies to prove the soundness of what they are doing. And there is a huge difference between being open to change in what we know and complete nihilism. If you have a serious disease your best shot of getting out of it is still going to a doctor, not the shaman that will make you drink dung beetle blood to cleanse your aura. @kurczak has been saying that the two are the same, or at least that's what it comes across as, and your bit about "any idiot" being able to falsify a study frankly sounded like that too.

The overwhelming majority of people who work in science are doing their best and working hard, often for little to no money and little to no recognition (let's not forget that the actual work is done by PhD students and the likes). It is incredibly annoying and frustrating to see this kind of attitude from swats of the general public.

Edit: and regarding the replication crisis, I agree that it's an issue, but it's not like that wasn't happening in the past. We just know about it now, which is proof that the process works if nothing else. The reaction to that should be "ok we need to fix this so that our knowledge can be more reliable", not "everything we have learned that has lead to better medical care and improved quality of life/life expectancy now sucks, everything is terrible, let's go back to living in caves".