In Science We Trust

[Clara Tea]

Survey shows that US atheists are overwhelmingly pro-vax

Survey shows that US atheists are overwhelmingly pro-vax

My guess is that this holds true for atheists everywhere. No?

Vaccines have been proven.

Atheists accept things that have been proven.

Theists reject things that have been proven. For example, DNA evidence, evolution, dating the age of the universe and age of the earth. Theists hope that science isn't taught (return of the Dark Ages of ignorance and torture).

 

[Clara Tea]

Survey shows that US atheists are overwhelmingly pro-vax

Survey shows that US atheists are overwhelmingly pro-vax

My guess is that this holds true for atheists everywhere. No?

I don't approve of double blind studies that give placebos to one group. This will result in "some of" the placebo group getting COVID, and "some of" that COVID infected group will die or get injured (especially the long-haulers who are sick for months).

I have never heard of a double blind study testing parachutes. But shouldn't we make sure that parachutes are okay? That means that we need a double blind study to give some people parachutes and give others backpacks filled with anvils (heavy metal, and no parachute). The anvil group will plunge to their deaths when they jump from the plane. They will certainly die. But don't we already know that?

Double blind tests make a very very slight statistical improvement of our knowledge. We already know that those with COVID will get sick, and we already know what percentage of people will get sick and what percentage of people will die. We know this because COVID is in the world, and we are currently suffering with a pandemic. We don't need to pay for a double-blind study which kills and maims many people in order to make more certain that the results of the vaccine test are statistically perfect.

Lets say that without a double blind study we know that 99.999 percent of our information is correct, based on the real statistics of the pandemic (knowing infection rates and death rates). Should we make that 99.99999999 percent certainty that our information is correct, and only kill 10,000 people to get that improved statistic? Or, should we use the vaccine if we are sure that it will provide approximately 94% protection?

By the way, the vaccine only has 60% protection against the Omicron variant.

Though I support science, and I am provax, I do not support putting anvils in backpacks and dropping people out of planes to die.

 

[Clara Tea]

Oh, I'm not going to wait for that....

Wouldn't it be better to prevent the apocalypse?

 

[Clara Tea]

Needles push your own flesh into blood stream

Probably a tiny amount of our own flesh won't hurt us much, and the vax will certainly help. Though some have reactions of the vaccine, it is better than getting COVID for most people.

 

[Clara Tea]

Phenomena, and that claim will need to be properly evidenced, as I am highly dubious. Though even were it the case, the fact humans are capable of profundity, even when motivated by vapid superstition, doesn't validated anything else.

Scientists, using Friedmann's Equation, determined that the universe is 13.8 billion years old. Theists assert that the universe is 6,000 years old. Dinosaur bones date to before 6.6 billion years ago. So, who is right? Science also says that time is relative. Fast speeds slow time (Special Relativity), and strong gravitational fields slow time (General Relativity). We know that the gravitational field at the beginning of the universe (when all mass and energy was in a small space) was intense.

So, there is no disagreement between science and theology (in regard to dating the universe).

I suspect that there are many areas of theology that could be explained with science.

However, theists are often dead set against science, or seeing things in a scientific perspective (which often could prove their points).

 

[Clara Tea]

Are you saying Covid 19 isn't real?

Some say that medical facilities are paid thousands of dollars more for Covid treatment than for other ailments, thus, broken legs are Covid....common colds are Covid....fist fight injuries are Covid (more and more money).

If we were to rely on Covid statistics, we'd have to believe that usually Covid runs for two weeks, yet, the number of currently infected people is unusually high, and the number who die from Covid doesn't match the statistics. The statistics are wrong.

Even Anthony Fauci admitted that the stats are wrong.

 

[Clara Tea]

Right. And these people should wear a big red letter A on their clothes in public so we can identify them. For public safety.

Fictional Hester Prynne (book: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne) was forced to wear the scarlet "A" for adultery. I suppose that it could be viewed as a warning (or advertising) to men, but mostly, it was a punishment for Hester.

Social distancing from the infected (who will probably only be infected for a couple of weeks) would assure that Covid is not passed to others, and then to still others. We are in a pandemic, and must do everything we can to stop the spread.

A further problem is mutation. As it mutates, and spreads to animals (domestic and wild), it can come back to the human population and kill some more. It might mutate to be harder to kill. The vaccines are only 60% effective (as opposed to 94% effective) against the new Omicron mutation. Consider the consequences if we don't kill Covid around the world and it mutates to be airborne, rather than spit born. It could travel 30 feet, rather than 6 feet. It could get around masks, rather than lodging in them. It might mutate to be more virulent.

 

[Clara Tea]

Because We the people hire officials that operate on our behalf to make sure these companies do ethical work. Of course we have to elect ethical people who work on the behalf of the public good.


Don't take the pills. And elect ethical officials who will hold these unethical companies accountable so drug companies will learn not to do unethical things to the public.

Force feed the execs who make the harmful medicine (dose of their own medicine). Test bulletproof vests by strapping them to the president of the company. Many such vests were used in Iraq, and were "eventually" recalled. They were manufactured by former military generals who knew that they were defective before they sold them.

 

[Augustus]

Where is the objective evidence for this clam obtained? If not from the scientific method?

I'll say it once again: I am not attacking "science" so saying "science is useful" is not an argument against anything I've said. I'm pointing out that there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility so we should not simply "trust the science" but critically evaluate scientific findings.

Instead of creating strawmen, why not answer the simple question I asked:

Do you agree there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility? Yes/no

Now that's a straw man, and one need only read my posts on this to know that.

Do you then agree that the sciences, and the application of scientific methods, are human activities and are subject to the limitations and failings of any other human activity?

If so, what precisely are you disagreeing with that I'm saying?

Sorry to hear that, now was your motivation to receive the vaccine not based on scientific evidence of its efficacy then?

Or is that just naïve scientism?

In part. Overall, my decision making was more based on heuristic regarding unknown risk v known risk.

No idea why you mention scientism.

Maybe they can find some cream for that monstrously enlarged ego?

In other news I've been reading excerpts from the creationist Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation for his PhD. Of course I'm just a simple atheist, not a genius like you, so maybe I can ask you a few questions about his "scientific facts"?

As I've told you 10 times, I'm an atheist too so I don't care about what some creationist has said.

If you think it is arrogant to think critically and empirically about the sciences, then you are hardly a proponent of science and reason are you? Perhaps you and Kent would get on better than you think

 

[Augustus]

Define sciences for me? How are you obtaining this information exactly? How is the obtaining of this information not part of science exactly? Do you have access to some other method of validating conclusions scientists make then?

The sciences are particular areas of enquiry related to the physical world, biological entities, the social world etc. In general, the physical sciences tend to be far more reliable than the social and certain areas of the biological.

Once again, despite your naive assumptions there is no clear demarcation between science and not science that is clearly marked by people who do and don't follow "The Scientific Method". If you listen to people who know far more about the sciences than me or you, they will tell you that "The Scientific Method" is one of these crude simplifications they teach to schoolkids that, unfortunately, many people never move past.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend.

I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.

Why do you think you understand "The Scientific Method" better than him?

What factors beyond application of "The Scientific Method" would be relevant when looking at scientific results? Methodology, maths, philosophical assumption that underpin the experiment, etc.

[Heisenberg ]said to Einstein: “Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits.” Einstein responded, “But you don’t seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?” Heisenberg goes on, “In astonishment, I said, ‘I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory. . . .’ Einstein replied, ‘Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense.’ ” And then came Einstein’s famous sentence: “Only the theory decides what one can observe.”5 All this must have come to Heisenberg as a scathing attack on what he regarded as his fundamental orientation, derived from reading Einstein’s early works, and being guided by them from the start, right through his most recent triumph. Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism had escaped Heisenberg’s notice, went on to explain at length how complicated any observation is in general, how it involves assumptions about phenomena that in turn are based on theories. For example, one almost unconsciously uses Maxwell’s theory when interpreting experimental readings involving a beam of light... [Heisenberg later ]added a rather striking conclusion: While the theory determines what can be observed, the uncertainty principle showed him that a theory also determines what cannot be observed.

Cookie Absent

 

[Augustus]

Why did you get vaxed and have even taken a booster dose? Side effects are possible with all medication.

Presumably for the same reason you did

 

[F1fan]

I'll say it once again: I am not attacking "science" so saying "science is useful" is not an argument against anything I've said. I'm pointing out that there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility so we should not simply "trust the science" but critically evaluate scientific findings.

OK. Give examples of sciences that have "wildly different levels of accuracy".

 

[Aupmanyav]

Presumably for the same reason you did

I did it because I believe in science and medical advice rather than in hocus-pocus.

 

[F1fan]

The sciences are particular areas of enquiry related to the physical world, biological entities, the social world etc. In general, the physical sciences tend to be far more reliable than the social and certain areas of the biological.

So perhaps you are referring to the minimum statistical standard in testing that is different. The physical sciences use a 99.95% standard while the social sciences use a 95% standard. This is because the social sciences can't control variables to the degree other sciences can do.

Once again, despite your naive assumptions there is no clear demarcation between science and not science that is clearly marked by people who do and don't follow "The Scientific Method". If you listen to people who know far more about the sciences than me or you, they will tell you that "The Scientific Method" is one of these crude simplifications they teach to schoolkids that, unfortunately, many people never move past.

Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg:

Not only does the fact that the standards of scientific success shift with time make the philosophy of science difficult; it also raises problems for the public understanding of science. We do not have a fixed scientific method to rally round and defend.

I remember a conversation I had years ago with a high school teacher, who explained proudly that in her school teachers were trying to get away from teaching just scientific facts, and wanted instead to give their students an idea of what the scientific method was. I replied that I had no idea what the scientific method was, and I thought she ought to teach her students scientific facts. She thought I was just being surly. But it’s true; most scientists have very little idea of what the scientific method is, just as most bicyclists have very little idea of how bicycles stay erect. In both cases, if they think about it too much, they’re likely to fall off.

Why do you think you understand "The Scientific Method" better than him?

What factors beyond application of "The Scientific Method" would be relevant when looking at scientific results? Methodology, maths, philosophical assumption that underpin the experiment, etc.

[Heisenberg ]said to Einstein: “Since it is acceptable to allow into a theory only directly observable magnitudes, I thought it more natural to restrict myself to these, bringing them in, as it were, as representatives of electron orbits.” Einstein responded, “But you don’t seriously believe that only observable magnitudes must go into a physical theory?” Heisenberg goes on, “In astonishment, I said, ‘I thought that it was exactly you who had made this thought the foundation of your relativity theory. . . .’ Einstein replied, ‘Perhaps I used this sort of philosophy; but it is nevertheless nonsense.’ ” And then came Einstein’s famous sentence: “Only the theory decides what one can observe.”5 All this must have come to Heisenberg as a scathing attack on what he regarded as his fundamental orientation, derived from reading Einstein’s early works, and being guided by them from the start, right through his most recent triumph. Einstein, whose development away from positivistic instrumentalism to a rational realism had escaped Heisenberg’s notice, went on to explain at length how complicated any observation is in general, how it involves assumptions about phenomena that in turn are based on theories. For example, one almost unconsciously uses Maxwell’s theory when interpreting experimental readings involving a beam of light... [Heisenberg later ]added a rather striking conclusion: While the theory determines what can be observed, the uncertainty principle showed him that a theory also determines what cannot be observed.

Cookie Absent

You are trying to make it seem like science is a guess. In fact we humans can know a great deal about what is real and true about the universe, and we can be certain about a great deal of what we discover. When I was in college I was waiting for an appointment and picked up a copy of Cell Magazine someone had left in the waiting area. Holy ****, I read through it and could not make heads or tails out of much of it. It covered information about cells that required a great deal of biological knowledge. I was impressed how much science has learned about how cells work and what they do. Those who have contempt for science in general seem to do so for religious/political reasons, and have little clue to how much science has revealed, how it works, and how ethical scientists are in their work. I see those ignorant about science take any arbitrary failure in science and try to apply that to all of science. It's bad faith.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm pointing out that there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility so we should not simply "trust the science" but critically evaluate scientific findings.

Do you agree there are many sciences and these have wildly different levels of accuracy and utility? Yes/no

Do you then agree that the sciences, and the application of scientific methods, are human activities and are subject to the limitations and failings of any other human activity?

If you think it is arrogant to think critically and empirically about the sciences, then you are hardly a proponent of science and reason are you?

You have not answered Sheldon's question as to which sciences have "wildly different levels of accuracy". How can anyone say yes or no if you do not mention which science are you referring to?
Of course, scientists are aware of the limitations. Science has its own course correction method which is critical and empirical. What does not prove to be true is discarded.

 

[F1fan]

Fictional Hester Prynne (book: The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorne) was forced to wear the scarlet "A" for adultery. I suppose that it could be viewed as a warning (or advertising) to men, but mostly, it was a punishment for Hester.

That's how my fictional wife found out.

Social distancing from the infected (who will probably only be infected for a couple of weeks) would assure that Covid is not passed to others, and then to still others. We are in a pandemic, and must do everything we can to stop the spread.

A further problem is mutation. As it mutates, and spreads to animals (domestic and wild), it can come back to the human population and kill some more. It might mutate to be harder to kill. The vaccines are only 60% effective (as opposed to 94% effective) against the new Omicron mutation. Consider the consequences if we don't kill Covid around the world and it mutates to be airborne, rather than spit born. It could travel 30 feet, rather than 6 feet. It could get around masks, rather than lodging in them. It might mutate to be more virulent.

The global population has been lucky that there hasn't been a more devastating pandemic. The whole "let me decide if I want the vaccine" attitude is what keeps these pandemics an ongoing threat. I wish the USA government would make it illegal for media outlets making false statements about vaccines, health officials, and any virus. It is a public health threat that they are allowed to present opinions contrary to fact.

 

[Sheldon]

ganthercage said: ↑
do you know that some of scientific phenomenons are proved in religion books before any scientific person proved it

Like bleeding to death will kill you?

Like rising from the dead, after rigor mortis has set in. In fact science is lagging well behind in evidencing resurrections after rigor mortis has set in.

 

[Augustus]

OK. Give examples of sciences that have "wildly different levels of accuracy".

You have not answered Sheldon's question as to which sciences have "wildly different levels of accuracy".

Chemistry/geology/physics and psychology/neuroscience/economics/medicine for example

So perhaps you are referring to the minimum statistical standard in testing that is different. The physical sciences use a 99.95% standard while the social sciences use a 95% standard. This is because the social sciences can't control variables to the degree other sciences can do.

And therein lies the rub...

Add in things like publication bias towards novelty, scholars' pressure to publish, ideological biases, funding biases, deliberate fabrication, lots of people throwing random darts at the board, etc. then with a 5% normative error rate you guarantee much of what is published will be untrue, in some disciplines over 50%.

You are trying to make it seem like science is a guess.

No, you are attacking a figment of your imagination.

How can you spin quoting a Nobel prize winning physicist, Einstein and Heisenberg as somehow being "anti-science"?

Do you think they are wrong? If so, why?

"Rationalists" here treat "science" like a teenage girl treats a boyband. It is to be to be fawned over, rather than treated critically. Then they will pat themselves on the back for how rational and sceptical they are

In general, I'm saying we should think critically about the sciences rather than simply blindly trusting them, particularly the less accurate ones. If you have a rational argument against that then make it rather than resorting to fallacious arguments and misrepresentations.

Those who have contempt for science in general seem to do so for religious/political reasons, and have little clue to how much science has revealed, how it works, and how ethical scientists are in their work. I see those ignorant about science take any arbitrary failure in science and try to apply that to all of science. It's bad faith.

What is bad faith is your misrepresentation of what I said based on jumping to completely incorrect conclusions rather than simply reading what I said without prejudice.

Would you say the Einstein, Heisenberg and Weinberg have 'contempt for science' or have a poorer understanding of "how it works' than you do?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Chemistry/geology/physics and psychology/neuroscience/economics/medicine for example.
Add in things like publication bias towards novelty, scholars' pressure to publish, ideological biases, funding biases, deliberate fabrication, lots of people throwing random darts at the board, etc.
How can you spin quoting a Nobel prize winning physicist, Einstein and Heisenberg as somehow being "anti-science"?
"Rationalists" here treat "science" like a teenage girl treats a boyband. In general, I'm saying we should think critically about the sciences rather than simply blindly trusting them, particularly the less accurate ones. If you have a rational argument against that then make it rather than resorting to fallacious arguments and misrepresentations.

Where exactly? Are scientists not aware of the limitations? Yeah, all these pressures are there, but science advances in spite of them. And what is not true will be discarded. Weinberg, Heisenberg, Einstein were not anti-science, they were high-lighting the problems, which is what all scientists should do. Nobody's word is taken as God's word in science. You are underestimating 'rationalists'. If a 'rationalist does not acknowledge limitations, then, it is not 'rationalism'. Science examines itself critically, that is why you always have a section on criticism in Wikipedia.

 

[Augustus]

Where exactly? Are scientists not aware of the limitations? Yeah, all these pressures are there, but science advances in spite of them. And what is not true will be discarded

Some scientists are aware, others aren't.

There is also the problem of thinking of a singular "science", rather than multiple sciences that need to be treated separately.

While the sciences may advance, and ideas may be discarded in time, that does not mean they are discarded quickly, or that they cause no harm in the years/decades before they are discarded.

That is why we shouldn't simply "trust the science". We should think critically about it.

Weinberg, Heisenberg, Einstein were not anti-science, they were high-lighting the problems, which is what all scientists should do. Nobody's word is taken as God's word in science. You are underestimating 'rationalists'. If a 'rationalist does not acknowledge limitations, then, it is not 'rationalism'. Science examines itself critically, that is why you always have a section on criticism in Wikipedia.

I agree, that was the point I was making. I'm amazed any person who identifies as a rationalist could actually object to it. It's nether complicated nor original, just basic common sense.

Yet here we are with multiple "rationalists" who keep finding something "anti-science" about acknowledging the limitations of the sciences and our need to examine them critically.

From experience, every time I make similar points exactly the same thing happens and people assume I'm an anti-science creationist attacking science out of hatred. This is why I tend to get a bit blunt as they will never correct their initial error no matter how many times it is clarified.

See threads about scientism for example. Scientism is simply an excessive faith in the accuracy and scope of scientific methodologies, yet many here will argue there is no such thing and the only people who say there is are religious fanatics.

As a result, I tend to have a low opinion of 80% of RF "Rationalists" as they are as ideologically blind and wilfully ignorant as any fundy on certain issues.