Latest Coronavirus - Yikes

#80,351
#80,351
Just anecdotes from one local ICU: Way more men end up on the ventilator than women. This one ICU now has 6 nurses confirmed positive. One is now a patient in her own ICU.

Whatever they are doing is not working. They can't even keep themselves safe.
 
#80,352
#80,352
luthervol said:
Of course not. But they are more noble, objective, and without agenda than most other professions.
Obviously you must always consider the source and judge on the totality of the evidence.
Click to expand...

That is a religious claim. The profession of "scientist" says nothing about your character or adds any additional value to what you say.

Science is a method for completely removing all qualities of the person doing the science, leaving only the objective results of their work.

We now have a majority of the population who love the idea of science, but having gone through the American education system, don't know the first thing about it. The result is just believing "scientists" without any ability or desire to analyze or verify their science.

How many people quote science? How many people quote "scientists" ? At this point, we might as well be talking about the word of the witch doctor who lives on the mountain. Which, ironically, is literally anti-science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RavinDave, allvol123 and McDad
#80,355
#80,355
Ten_Titans said:
That is a religious claim. The profession of "scientist" says nothing about your character or adds any additional value to what you say.

Science is a method for completely removing all qualities of the person doing the science, leaving only the objective results of their work.

We now have a majority of the population who love the idea of science, but having gone through the American education system, don't know the first thing about it. The result is just believing "scientists" without any ability or desire to analyze or verify their science.

How many people quote science? How many people quote "scientists" ? At this point, we might as well be talking about the word of the witch doctor who lives on the mountain. Which, ironically, is literally anti-science.
Click to expand...
The cult of leftism, including their 'believe all scientists all the time' routine, is- like you said- basically a religion (which they widely pan).

My favorite thing is how we're told science is the be-all, end-all by people that will do things like discard data they don't like (seen repeatedly in this thread); intentionally avoid labeling things as they really are (example: transsexualism is mental illness, or at least a symptom of underlying mental illness, demonstrated by the monstrous dissatisfaction rates among transitioned people and insanely high suicide rate); and use words like 'settled science' (an oxymoron).
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123 and 10nacvols
#80,358
#80,358
McDad said:
How do you differentiate between good science and bad science (if you are able)?
Click to expand...
Not a simple task and there is no way to know with absolute certainty. You just form your best opinion based on all of the evidence while considering the "what if" consequences of being right or wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#80,361
#80,361
Ten_Titans said:
That is a religious claim. The profession of "scientist" says nothing about your character or adds any additional value to what you say.

Science is a method for completely removing all qualities of the person doing the science, leaving only the objective results of their work.

We now have a majority of the population who love the idea of science, but having gone through the American education system, don't know the first thing about it. The result is just believing "scientists" without any ability or desire to analyze or verify their science.

How many people quote science? How many people quote "scientists" ? At this point, we might as well be talking about the word of the witch doctor who lives on the mountain. Which, ironically, is literally anti-science.
Click to expand...
Disagree. A chosen profession speaks plenty about character, on the whole.
I'll go out on a limb and say the character of nurses tends to be a little higher on average than the character of drug dealers.
 
#80,362
#80,362
luthervol said:
Not a simple task and there is no way to know with absolute certainty. You just form your bestl while considering the "what if" consequences of being right or wrong.
Click to expand...
Does this mean valid science/scientists are evidentiary and truthful in the micro while at the same time are inconclusive and refutable in the macro?
 
#80,364
#80,364
McDad said:
Does this mean valid science/scientists are evidentiary and truthful in the micro while at the same time are inconclusive and refutable in the macro?
Click to expand...
Sure. It took awhile to conclusively prove the Earth revolved around the sun.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#80,365
#80,365
luthervol said:
Sure. It took awhile to conclusive prove the Earth revolved around the sun.
Click to expand...
Any alteration to your answer if I substitute conclusive for valid:
Does this mean conclusive science/scientists are evidentiary and truthful in the micro while at the same time are inconclusive and refutable in the macro?[/QUOTE]
 
#80,366
#80,366
McDad said:
Any alteration to your answer if I substitute conclusive for valid:
Does this mean conclusive science/scientists are evidentiary and truthful in the micro while at the same time are inconclusive and refutable in the macro?
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]
It's inconclusive until it is conclusive.
At what point did it become conclusive that the earth revolved around the sun?
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#80,367
#80,367
It's inconclusive until it is conclusive.
At what point did it become conclusive that the earth revolved around the sun?[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how conclusive science in the micro is inconclusive in the macro? The data are not changing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#80,368
#80,368
[/QUOTE]
Can you explain how conclusive science in the micro is inconclusive in the macro? The data are not changing.[/QUOTE]
People can view the same data and some find it conclusive while others find in inconclusive.
We still have a flat earth society.
I'll call it conclusive when 87.4% find it conclusive; even though I may have found it conclusive before 72% of that 87.4% did.
 
#80,369
#80,369
I'll repost so we can get the "quote" function back on track.

People can view the same data and some find it conclusive while others find in inconclusive.
We still have a flat earth society.
I'll call it conclusive when 87.4% find it conclusive; even though I may have found it conclusive before 72% of that 87.4% did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#80,373
#80,373
luthervol said:
I'll repost so we can get the "quote" function back on track.

People can view the same data and some find it conclusive while others find in inconclusive.
We still have a flat earth society.
I'll call it conclusive when 87.4% find it conclusive; even though I may have found it conclusive before 72% of that 87.4% did.
Click to expand...

How many scientists are part of the flat earth society? How many believe there’s more than 2 genders?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and FLVOL69
#80,374
#80,374
luthervol said:
I'll repost so we can get the "quote" function back on track.

People can view the same data and some find it conclusive while others find in inconclusive.
We still have a flat earth society.
I'll call it conclusive when 87.4% find it conclusive; even though I may have found it conclusive before 72% of that 87.4% did.
Click to expand...
Do you require a minimum acceptable standard of conclusivity (as a percentage or otherwise)?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top