Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exhibit A of people who do not understand the scientific method.
Exhibit B of people who do not understand the scientific method combined with basic logic.
I hear this argument over and over,
"of course they got it wrong at first, it's a 'novel' virus, things change, XXXX changes along with it"
which at it's face is fine, but only a part of the picture.
The so called 'scientific method' is just that, a rough set of guidelines for motivations around particular actions. What it is ABSOLUTELY _NOT_ is a measure of quality of implementation. Software is rife with engineering methodologies that have been learned and gleaned through decades of experience. But somehow there are still tons of bugs in every strata of software, all created by those ostensibly following the 'methods'. In and of itself, this isn't news, we get it, despite methodologies, processes, best practices, etc, etc we are still human and mistakes happen.
So then why do some folks feel that they can simply throw out a statement like "IT'S THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD STOOPID, DUH!" and expect that has any more logical weight than those who are completely distrustful 'CUZ THINGS KEEP CHANGIN"? In the end for any 'method' there is a measure for quality of implementation, and THAT is what should be measured, not just simply adherence to the method.
Bringing things back to the point, folks will trust the scientists/doctors LESS not simply if they're 'wrong', but if this pattern of wrongness suggests that the way they're implementing their methodology is flawed. It's is just as flawed to blindly assume that evolving outcomes are 100% correlated with evolving knowledge vs also possibly being representative of flawed implementation. When we 'trust the experts', there is an expectation that the balance between the former and the latter is very heavily related to the former, but it is folly to not acknowledge the possibility of a high percentage of the latter.
Last edited by austinnerd; 05-29-2020 at 02:08 PM..
That time when someone said "the Science is settled", they were wrong. Science is never settled as new info comes in, science is revised and new variables added and analyzed. If something changes, the information is updated.
Experts know how to study the virus, they're not born with instructions for Covid19 embedded into their minds...
So if I criticize the experts that means that I automatically expect them to know everything on day 1?
I guess it also makes me a Trump supporter which I am not?
Can you see why these straw man arguments are ridiculous?
In this case? Yes. 100%.
There's no rationale for you to be criticizing experts as they learn more about a brand new thing and then update their tactics. If you're not a Trump supporter, then you have a warped sense of entitlement to be mad at these people for inconveniencing you with their corrections. Hopefully they find a way to forgive themselves.
Your original post is worded in such a way and with a tone that you seem to have expected flawless information from the experts from the start. Several people here inferred that from your post. If you didn't mean it that way at all then perhaps you need an edit?
The issue isn't the OP, it's the "experts", and worse, the MSM. Real scientists qualify their proclamations with statements saying "we think", "our opinion" or "what we believe"-UNTIL the scientific process can be used to test and validate their hypothesis. No real, credible scientist will state the unquestioned truth of an untested hypothesis. But our government bureaucrats are NOT typically scientists, or they haven't function as one for decades. Our media and most politicians are scientifically illiterate-and those are what the public hear, not scientists. Publishing qualifiers and suggestions that testing must be done to validate a hypothesis is ignored in the name of getting something printed or broadcast.
The problem is not that they change their minds with more time and data , but that many of them (not all) make recommendations early on with apparent 100% confidence that they are right, and then later they (sometimes) admit they were wrong. That does not inspire trust.
Of course, I do know that they can't be wishy-washy about their recommendations if they feel those recommendations are correct (because I think that would make some people much more skeptical and reluctant to follow the recommendation if it causes any inconvenience or added expense), but it does make them appear to be just guessing -- which, in my opinion, they are when it comes to a new virus, and maybe sometimes even with a new treatment. However, any guesses the experts make are usually educated guesses and not meant to fool the public.
Then it's the public's fault for being stupid. It's a new thing. People take their best stab based on previous experiences on mitigating damage. This assumption was wrong, let's correct our assessment.
If someone's faith is shaken bc in the face of a new virus, some of the treatments and precautions are incorrect, then they can stand in traffic.
There's no excuse for tolerating this level immaturity about an emerging disease. It's like dealing with an entire population of Science Karens.
Location: Somewhere gray and damp, close to the West Coast
20,955 posts, read 5,546,892 times
Reputation: 8559
Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Henry
Famously, Neil Ferguson in Britain orchestrated the lockdowns there and then was caught breaking the lockdown restrictions. That leads one to wonder just how seriously the scientists view the threat of virus if they themselves are seemingly unconcerned about the effects of the virus.
The issue at hand is not an issue of science or experts. It is an issue of policy. Some scientists and their supporters demand certain policy be implemented and try to stamp out any scientist that has a differing point of view.
The raw data being used is largely agreed upon by most scientists. It is the assumptions made by that data where things start to branch off.
Climate change is an issue because of the policy assumptions that some scientists demand to curb climate change. If scientists did not call for the radical reorganization of society and economy to curb climate change then there would likely be little controversy over it.
Likewise, if scientists did not call for indefinite lockdowns and threaten mass death if we didn't crash our economies I do not think that the lockdowns would be the issue they are today. If scientists are going to demand people make big changes they have to realize that they better be correct otherwise they are going to simply look like partisan hacks.
What I think COVID will do is make science even more partisan. Some of both sides still listened to opposing view points and some scientists were thought to be above the politics but I think now we will see both left and right sticking to the scientists that support their point of view. It is is clear that there is no such thing as apolitical science.
Dind-ding-ding! No more calls folks! We have a winner!
The pandemic? Is that still a thing?
Everyone is rioting. With encouragement from liberals
No more “social distancing”
Well, nothing like a major riot or disaster to push another major story aside. I wonder how much the pandemic will be covered this time next week?
I remember reading that the Chandra Levy story* ([/i]was THE big story in the days and on the morning of September 10 before the planes hit the Twin Towers, and then it (of course) just totally disappeared.
"Levy disappeared in May 2001, and it was suspected that she was murdered by her boss (a married Congressman, with whom it was alleged that Levy was having an affair), but he was later found to be innocent and another man was later found guilty of Levy's murder.
There's no rationale for you to be criticizing experts as they learn more about a brand new thing and then update their tactics. If you're not a Trump supporter, then you have a warped sense of entitlement to be mad at these people for inconveniencing you with their corrections. Hopefully they find a way to forgive themselves.
So because something is new or "novel" then according to you, there is no room for any criticism of how "experts" respond to it, right?
I guess if I encounter a new problem in my job that no one has dealt with before since we work in an emerging technology, I can tell my supervisor that it's unfair to negatively judge my performance when review time comes along because... Hey! I was learning and updating my tactics after all.
Since when does novelty of a new experience immunize someone from criticism or critique of how they handle that experience?
Then it's the public's fault for being stupid. It's a new thing. People take their best stab based on previous experiences on mitigating damage. This assumption was wrong, let's correct our assessment.
If someone's faith is shaken bc in the face of a new virus, some of the treatments and precautions are incorrect, then they can stand in traffic.
There's no excuse for tolerating this level immaturity about an emerging disease. It's like dealing with an entire population of Science Karens.
Calling someone a "Karen" is both sexist AND racist. Congratulations.
Imagine if someone had a derogatory name for a type of black woman who exhibited bad behavior
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
