to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science...
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science...
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
I don't think that scientists in general have the ethical fluidity of politicians. And I don't believe that most would alter what they regard as truth because funding depends on a certain outcome.
However, I think that it is absolutely true that scientists can be bound by dogma and that dogma can shape perceptions. And, that can (and has) drive what gets funded and what get published. The danger is that you eventually select for a certain type of thought or belief.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
I guess I need to hang out more with the scientists you know. The ones I know would have a tough time with a matching quiz putting together a city, a team name, and the sport. And, trust me, that's an experiment that I have repeated many times.
And, no, it's not every scientist or even every scientist I know. But it sure isn't uncommon or even a minority.
RE: RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science...
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Well, of course a scientist can have as shitty an opinion as anyone else. That's clear. And yes, because Krugman is a brilliant economist doesn't mean that he's right about politics. But Politics and science are different subjects. If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
People like Nye and Tyson (and Sagan before them) do the world (and especially the U.S.) a great service by trying to empower people to make decisions according to what we know is true as opposed to based on the mythology that informs so many of the decisions of the voting public.
People like Nye and Tyson (and Sagan before them) do the world (and especially the U.S.) a great service by trying to empower people to make decisions according to what we know is true as opposed to based on the mythology that informs so many of the decisions of the voting public.
Absolutely. But I think it's only a component of a problem. And one that different people can weight differently when formulating policy.
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
"No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society"
That is false and sounds like something that would come from alternative fact, truth challenged pres
RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science...
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
There's really two issues to the 'global warming' debate:
1) Is global warming occurring?
This is a scientific question and opinions shouldn't enter the equation. The evidence collected and the results of verified models are what matter.
2) What should humans, or more specifically the US, do to try and combat GW?
This is almost entirely a political question and whether you are a PhD in environmental science or a custodian, your thoughts on the matter are your opinions. A carbon tax is likely to help decrease emissions, but it's also (likely) a regressive tax that will disproportionately impact the poor. How you weigh the importance of those (environment vs poor) is your opinion and a scientist giving his opinion doesn't make him/her any more correct.
Note: I'm not advocating either side in this debate.
RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Why is it sad?
What's sad is the people making policy who completely ignore data so their friends and donors can make a few bucks
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
RE: RE: RE: For decades pols have tried to ascribe the imprimatur of science...
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
Regarding the scouting, we agree. That's what I meant about falling into the credentials trap.
But the larger point is the notion of attaching importance based on credentials is not how science works. A scientist has a theory, he designs an experiment, tests it and the outcome is determined. Another scientist reviews that opinion. They seek to improve the experiment and repeat the results. They can either validate or disprove the findings from the earlier experiment. From this, scientific knowledge is obtained. The credentials are more or less a measure of a scientists current grasp of knowledge in a particular field. It doesn't mean that the scientist opinion is right. Evidence does. All a PhD really can tell you is that the person has a track record of being a decent scientist.
RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
There is no argument. Science, data and the truth are the enemies of the current administration.
RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
I'm not talking about a granola-eating soccer mom who believes Jenny McCarthy for some reason.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
I assume this thread is likely headed for deletion so I won't put a ton of effort into it. I agree with your characterization and I loathe that phenomenon. But there are very consequential issues on which people go to great pains to avoid some pretty obvious conclusions supported by medical improvements and/or empirical evidence. It's easy to sneer at the rubes touting creation science and throwing around insipid polar bear memes, but without speeding this thread toward deletion there are ways in which the other "side" is as bad or worse, worse in that their folks are quite capable of doing otherwise but make the decision not to.
RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
they are also people with an agenda and they did not take an oath to tell the truth. They, like in other professions will rely on the credentials as a way to coerce other into believing what they say as fact or truth. It does not mean what scientists say is false, but that they also can be swayed by politics or money.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Not remotely in the same quantities.
RE: RE: RE: You have to be careful believing even scientists...
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
I don't think it's good enough to simply look at numbers of people. There's other types of impact. I would guess right now, that climate change skeptics have the greatest economic impact, in so much as they influence policy, but I don't know. I don't know how you measure the impact of Creationists because the harm is more intangible. But, things like GMO and gluten-free seem like huge industry drivers with large financial influence. Anti-Vaxxers have caused palpable harm to health and influenced mortality.
Then again, astrology, which likely cuts across all political barriers probably has adherents which dwarf anything else.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: If you think science is the exclusive province...
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
*every* opinion? Ok. I've encountered plenty that were not. At any rate, it seems you concede that some opinions are better than others so there's no reason to belabor the point.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: Listening to Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson talk science is fun...
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
You must hang around some select group of extremely boring scientists.
I've spent a lot of my career as an engineer working around scientists and researchers, from theoretical physicists, mathematicians and nuclear chemists down to the current set of data scientists. Flat is the last thing I'd ever describe most of these people. Odd? Unusual? Socially awkward (which applies to about half, fewer than most people would imagine). Yes. Flat? Limited set of interests? Absolutely not.
While I wouldn't have a big group to take to a ball game, they usually have a very diverse set of interests. No TV? Not these guys. Plenty of music, although not usually my cup of tea. All kinds of crazy hobbies. One physicist I worked with was a big origami guy (yes, apparently folding paper is a thing). Another has a wine collection that required him to build a temperature controlled addition to his house to store. My latest group has a scientist that is apparently 11 countries shy of having visited every country on Earth, and he's been to Antarctica. None of these people could ever be considered flat in any way (except athletically, they need a good gym membership in the worst way).
Back when we were starting Beakman's World, it came down to Paul Zaloom and Bill Nye to play Beakaman. And Zaloom got it because it was felt like he was more kid friendly. Nye loses the job. Anyway, we do the first season of Beakman's World and while we are doing the second season, Bill Nye the Science Guy comes out and it's a total fucking ripoff of the show he did not get.
Ask the people in Kiribati if climate change is happening
And when flooding in Bangladesh and other poor countries in southeast Asia continues to worsen the refugee crisis there will make Syria's seem like a joke by comparison.
Climate change is happening. It's a fact. The politics is in how we react to that stated fact.
We can choose like we did last fall not to make it a priority. In that sense every opinion did have equal value. Whether enough of those opinions were sufficiently educated in and accepting of science is another matter entirely.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
I don't think thats an appropriate way to run a society. Are we going to have separate school for kids who aren't vaccinated? How are you going to get people to stop from interacting outside of whatever de-facto segregation (which would actually not even be defacto as it'd have to be gov't mandated)?
the thing about vaccination is herd immunity. Vaccinations aren't nearly as effective if everyone isn't vaccinated. This is one of those rare instances where even small government proponents should understand that the gov't should be allowed to step in and mandate vaccinations.
On a macro level, many libertarians say "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others". This actually does hurt others.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
We have a spirited discussion every year here...
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
Back when we were starting Beakman's World, it came down to Paul Zaloom and Bill Nye to play Beakaman. And Zaloom got it because it was felt like he was more kid friendly. Nye loses the job. Anyway, we do the first season of Beakman's World and while we are doing the second season, Bill Nye the Science Guy comes out and it's a total fucking ripoff of the show he did not get.
how is star and creator of my crazy ex girlfriend
which is a fun creative show
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
Quote:
In comment 13440888 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
Quote:
Science isn't based on truth oaths, fer chrissakes.
I didn't say that. A little reading comprehension would be good for you. My point is that just because a scientist says it, that does not make it true. They don't take an oath to tell the truth so why do people rely on these scientists' findings and studies as being absolutely true?
However, I think that it is absolutely true that scientists can be bound by dogma and that dogma can shape perceptions. And, that can (and has) drive what gets funded and what get published. The danger is that you eventually select for a certain type of thought or belief.
Quote:
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
Because I work with many scientists/engineers and they are among the most avid sports fans I know. And many scientists have a more in depth understanding of current events than the average layman because they tend to want to understand the facts rather than the political bullshit spin.
And, no, it's not every scientist or even every scientist I know. But it sure isn't uncommon or even a minority.
Quote:
In comment 13441023 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
What he's saying is that often scientists stray into policy prescriptions and away from evidence based science. And once they do so, their opinions are often just that...opinions.
An example of this would be Paul Krugman. By all accounts a brilliant economist (close to a 'science') but most of his OpEd's have little basis in fact. Unfortunately, many still (or used to) parrot his policy prescriptions and claim he's an expert because of his accomplishments in the field of economics.
Well, of course a scientist can have as shitty an opinion as anyone else. That's clear. And yes, because Krugman is a brilliant economist doesn't mean that he's right about politics. But Politics and science are different subjects. If we're talking about opinions regarding global warming, for example, some are much better than others because they are supported by actual evidence. And they are better in those cases, regardless of the credentials of the person who has the opinion.
Quote:
Listen to the idiots in this administration discount/ignore science.
This is super hard to believe and you likely will not believe, but science is more than just climate change.
My issue with the administration is not that they ignore science, and, their views on climate change not withstanding, but that they don't easily see a connection between scientific research (also distinct from science), and national security and therefore do not weight funding for 0it as much as I would like.
On the broader issue of science, especially climate change, and policy, I think it's possible to not be a climate change skeptic and still allow approaches to addressing is to dictate economic policy. Because, as much as we all love science, science is absolutely not policy. Nor should it be. It should be a factor that is taken into consideration, as a part of multiple factors. That, I think has been the mistake specifically wrt climate change. No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society. It's all or none and that is bound to create emotional schisms. And, if you really want to address climate change, then you can't use it as a costume to gussy up redistribution, internal or international, schemes. It makes the underlying problem look non-serious.
Bottom line is that science is science and economics is economics and policy has to intertwine the two to optimize both aspects. But don't blur them.
"No one has said that we should take steps to address it while still having a prosperous society"
That is false and sounds like something that would come from alternative fact, truth challenged pres
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
There's really two issues to the 'global warming' debate:
1) Is global warming occurring?
This is a scientific question and opinions shouldn't enter the equation. The evidence collected and the results of verified models are what matter.
2) What should humans, or more specifically the US, do to try and combat GW?
This is almost entirely a political question and whether you are a PhD in environmental science or a custodian, your thoughts on the matter are your opinions. A carbon tax is likely to help decrease emissions, but it's also (likely) a regressive tax that will disproportionately impact the poor. How you weigh the importance of those (environment vs poor) is your opinion and a scientist giving his opinion doesn't make him/her any more correct.
Note: I'm not advocating either side in this debate.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
Everything is political. But what we have to day is not as much science as much as it is corporations and other special interests groups paying for studies that prove their points, regardless of what the facts are. This is on both sides.
The fact that this guy who has some education but is not really any kind of expert on anything has garnered so much attention for speaking politically is sort of sad.
Why is it sad?
What's sad is the people making policy who completely ignore data so their friends and donors can make a few bucks
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Quote:
In comment 13441023 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
to what are really just partisan causes. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, puts a lot of PhD signatures into the service of this or that policy preference having little or nothing to do with science or at least with the particular field of science in which that individual is an expert. I want to feed the hungry too, but my opinion is no less important than the mechanical engineer on the subject because he has more degrees than I do.
Likewise the social scientist might consider himself analogous to the chemist or the biologist but most of us disagree.
Your opinion can in fact be less important than that of a mechanical engineer. This is true if one opinion is based on scientific research and established facts and another is based more or less on speculation and conjecture. Don't fall into the credentials trap. A PhD does not make an opinion more valid but evidence does.
If I and a mechanical engineer put an equal amount of time into researching the structural integrity of a given building, his opinion is likely to be much more important than my own. Conversely, if we put an equal amount of time into research something in my vocation, the likelihood is that my opinion would be better informed and "more important" than his. But if both of us spent an equal amount of time researching, say, the options at pick 23, why does it follow that his opinion is more important than mine? Because he has more letters after his name? The letters have nothing to do with his scouting skills.
Regarding the scouting, we agree. That's what I meant about falling into the credentials trap.
But the larger point is the notion of attaching importance based on credentials is not how science works. A scientist has a theory, he designs an experiment, tests it and the outcome is determined. Another scientist reviews that opinion. They seek to improve the experiment and repeat the results. They can either validate or disprove the findings from the earlier experiment. From this, scientific knowledge is obtained. The credentials are more or less a measure of a scientists current grasp of knowledge in a particular field. It doesn't mean that the scientist opinion is right. Evidence does. All a PhD really can tell you is that the person has a track record of being a decent scientist.
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
There is no argument. Science, data and the truth are the enemies of the current administration.
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
I'm not talking about a granola-eating soccer mom who believes Jenny McCarthy for some reason.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
There are many scientists out there whose sole existence AND FUNDING is based upon proving a particular position. Job security knows no boundaries.
This does not mean global warming is false or fake. It also does not mean we are doomed and that the exhaust pipe on your car is solely to blame.
The most epic story around this happened last summer when a group of global warming scientists (who were looking to prove that the ice is melting due to global warming and that areas near the north pole that were once locked with ice now can be navigated by boats) set out to prove this theory and their ship got stuck in the ice. They had to be rescued by helicopter. The word is that they planted a few trees as an offset to the fuel consumed by their rescue helicopter. No matter where you stand on this issue... that shit is funny.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
You would need a scientist to develop the objective measure, but if you can't trust scientists, how can you then trust the measure he develops?
Quote:
In comment 13440762 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Of one side of the spectrum, I suggest to you a thought experiment. Look at the voting behaviors of counties with a Whole Foods and with above average vaxx exemptions. Too many people love science when it affirms their beliefs and distinguish or dismiss it when it doesn't.
Science is not the exclusive province of one side. But one side very clearly embraces anti-science and junk science. That is not refutable, but I'm sure it will will be...
Eh, plenty of leftist anti-vax nut jobs (not to mention the GMO movement).
Not that it really matters. Arguing over which side hates science more is just one way our politicians divide the country and distract us from the actual issues.
Quote:
My god what a terrible post.
Wow, ship got stuck in ice, funny story that proves your (nonsensical) point!
Ever consider that they were probably sailing through an area where glacier/ice had fragmented that [i]shouldn't even be water[i]?
Please go ahead and prove to me that there's some objective measure to not trust scientists.
You would need a scientist to develop the objective measure, but if you can't trust scientists, how can you then trust the measure he develops?
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Then again, astrology, which likely cuts across all political barriers probably has adherents which dwarf anything else.
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
Link - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
In comment 13441173 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
Quote:
In comment 13441123 WideRight said:
Quote:
are opinions. And saying someone's opinion is "better" is purely subjective, another opinon.
And an Op Ed is short for Opinions and Editorials. Doesn't matter who the author of the Op Ed is. It's there only for you to agree or disagree with. That its the Times and the author is a Nobelaureate deserves some respect, but doesn't make any of it factual. And to be clear, they are not pretending that its factual, either.
Horseshit. An opinion based on evidence is better than one that is not. Or at least a reasonable person should think so.
Sorry. Every opinion is based on evidence. Perhaps you meant to say that opinions based on scientific evidence are better than those based on anecdotal evidence? I tend to agree with that, but that's my opinion. Science naysayers probably disagree.
*every* opinion? Ok. I've encountered plenty that were not. At any rate, it seems you concede that some opinions are better than others so there's no reason to belabor the point.
Quote:
In comment 13440895 Bill L said:
Quote:
In comment 13440888 HomerJones45 said:
Quote:
In comment 13440751 732NYG said:
Quote:
In comment 13440743 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
Listening to them weigh in on public policy, or to try afford the imprimatur of science to their policy preferences, is painful.
It's a real shame that science is suddenly a political talking point.
well, it's always going to be because we elect politicians and not board's of lab coats. Politicians must allocate resources, scientists don't need to think about it.
Scientists make horrible politicians (and lawyers). They just don't see the world in the same way. For scientists truth there is a truth that is immutable, even if they have to go through a lot of disproof to find it. Generally, they are confused by multiple entendre and veneer. They often lack flexibility and, while sometimes creative, they are not facile.
While sometimes creative? What kind of scientists do you work with that are only occasionally creative?
Lay it on the table - scientists make lousy lawyers and politicians because they're not entirely full of shit. That's why someone could bust into NASA and tell them in 10 years they had to go to the moon and we actually got there. If there was a room full of lawyers, ten years later they'd still be having a debate about the distance to the moon or what the optimal space suit color is.
Yeah, scientists can be creative in their experiments and some can make profound leaps in concepts. You'd be amazed, however, how many incrementalists there are in most disciplines. I guess what I meant is that, in my experience, scientists tend to be pretty flat and external things don't enter the brains often (tv, sports, more than superficial current events, etc).
You must hang around some select group of extremely boring scientists.
I've spent a lot of my career as an engineer working around scientists and researchers, from theoretical physicists, mathematicians and nuclear chemists down to the current set of data scientists. Flat is the last thing I'd ever describe most of these people. Odd? Unusual? Socially awkward (which applies to about half, fewer than most people would imagine). Yes. Flat? Limited set of interests? Absolutely not.
While I wouldn't have a big group to take to a ball game, they usually have a very diverse set of interests. No TV? Not these guys. Plenty of music, although not usually my cup of tea. All kinds of crazy hobbies. One physicist I worked with was a big origami guy (yes, apparently folding paper is a thing). Another has a wine collection that required him to build a temperature controlled addition to his house to store. My latest group has a scientist that is apparently 11 countries shy of having visited every country on Earth, and he's been to Antarctica. None of these people could ever be considered flat in any way (except athletically, they need a good gym membership in the worst way).
Climate change is happening. It's a fact. The politics is in how we react to that stated fact.
We can choose like we did last fall not to make it a priority. In that sense every opinion did have equal value. Whether enough of those opinions were sufficiently educated in and accepting of science is another matter entirely.
Someone who's intelligent?
Quote:
In comment 13441182 giants#1 said:
Quote:
In comment 13441173 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
Not remotely in the same quantities.
Do you have a factual study that supports your perception?
This doens't answer your question but I found this to be very interesting and surprising. Although, I will say I think this is traced more to a political ideology of big gov't vs small gov't than anti-science. But I was surprised at the findings in the referenced Pew poll. Link - ( New Window )
I think you framed it well. It's a gov't thing as opposed to a vaccination thing. Personally, I'm as big a vaccination proponent as you can find but I am on the fence about gov't mandated vaccination. I do feel, however, that if you choose not to vaccinate, then you (and your kids) should be separated from contact with other people. I guess that's a de facto mandatory vaccination, but I'm saying that you still have a choice.
the thing about vaccination is herd immunity. Vaccinations aren't nearly as effective if everyone isn't vaccinated. This is one of those rare instances where even small government proponents should understand that the gov't should be allowed to step in and mandate vaccinations.
On a macro level, many libertarians say "do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt others". This actually does hurt others.
Quote:
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
Quote:
Do you speak the way you post? Who uses "insipid"??
Someone who's intelligent?
Or magniloquent
Quote:
In comment 13441199 Sonic Youth said:
Quote:
The anti-vaxxers I've talked to have been completely ignorant. They kick and scream without even conceptually understanding the concept of herd immunity.
I wouldn't choose herd immunity as a reason for vaccination. That's a benefit of vaccination but, you can't impose altruism, IMO. There are direct and tangible benefits to the individual due to vaccination and direct benefits in not being generally contagious period. That should be the motivator.
I don't think it's so much altruism as it is public health. It's not protecting an individual for their own good, its about protecting the population from the ramifications of an individual's ill conceived decisions.
but just for yourself, when was the last year you failed to get a flu shot?
I used to love Beakman's world!!