Thread Rating:

Poll

11 votes (15.94%)
45 votes (65.21%)
13 votes (18.84%)

69 members have voted

RogerKint
RogerKint
Joined: Dec 5, 2011
  • Threads: 15
  • Posts: 1910
February 3rd, 2021 at 9:00:05 AM permalink
Quote: fantom

I would only put faith in a scientific, peer-reviewed study, cited or footnoted with a link to the actual study.

My guess is that there have not yet been any of these, or at least not any recently. I have read of one study from last November that was highly qualified as to its relevance to covid, mask-wearing, and infections. I won't cite it because it's not apropos of the situation as we see it now, with widely varying rules, rates of compliance, and follow-up as to who got covid, and whether or not mask-wearing was a factor.

Again, cite an actual study, usually quite length, dense, and difficult to follow, rather than a talking head, from any of the universally biased, left and right, who have an agenda.

That's not a political statement. It won't be until years from now that the traditional scientific method will or even CAN be applied to this. Nothing we hear or read in the media can possibly be accurate - there simply has not been enough time and studies to have been completed to allow for an accurate conclusion.

I agree that it makes sense that mask-wearing might reduce spread. But I say that only from my own common sense view of it. Recall that in the past it was commonplace to believe that you had to wait an hour after lunch until you could go back in the water. That WonderBread built strong bodies twelve ways. That doctor's preferred Chesterfield cigarettes.

I find it confusing that folks say "listen to the science" when there is NO REAL SCIENCE. Real science relies on observation and careful clinical, statistical analysis, not on offhand casual observation of conditions in nearby restaurants along with interviews asking people what they do at home. Taking a poll is not science.



B-b-but I'm so s-s-super scared!

100% risk of ruin
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10569
February 3rd, 2021 at 10:11:30 AM permalink
Quote: fantom

I would only put faith in a scientific, peer-reviewed study, cited or footnoted with a link to the actual study.

My guess is that there have not yet been any of these, or at least not any recently. I have read of one study from last November that was highly qualified as to its relevance to covid, mask-wearing, and infections. I won't cite it because it's not apropos of the situation as we see it now, with widely varying rules, rates of compliance, and follow-up as to who got covid, and whether or not mask-wearing was a factor.

Again, cite an actual study, usually quite length, dense, and difficult to follow, rather than a talking head, from any of the universally biased, left and right, who have an agenda.

That's not a political statement. It won't be until years from now that the traditional scientific method will or even CAN be applied to this. Nothing we hear or read in the media can possibly be accurate - there simply has not been enough time and studies to have been completed to allow for an accurate conclusion.

I agree that it makes sense that mask-wearing might reduce spread. But I say that only from my own common sense view of it. Recall that in the past it was commonplace to believe that you had to wait an hour after lunch until you could go back in the water. That WonderBread built strong bodies twelve ways. That doctor's preferred Chesterfield cigarettes.

I find it confusing that folks say "listen to the science" when there is NO REAL SCIENCE. Real science relies on observation and careful clinical, statistical analysis, not on offhand casual observation of conditions in nearby restaurants along with interviews asking people what they do at home. Taking a poll is not science.



Your last point is debatable since you're implying nothing useful can be learned unless under ideal conditions, or that an imperfect study is equivalent to people spouting random opinions.
The Hall of Unverified Claims is a vast place with many shelves.
kewlj
kewlj
Joined: Apr 17, 2012
  • Threads: 216
  • Posts: 4635
February 3rd, 2021 at 10:34:00 AM permalink
Well if a president (or former) said it......IT MUST BE TRUE.

Anyone for injecting a little bleach or disinfectant? LOL
OnceDear
Administrator
OnceDear 
Joined: Jun 1, 2014
  • Threads: 51
  • Posts: 6392
February 3rd, 2021 at 11:22:52 AM permalink
Quote: kewlj

Well if a president (or former) said it......IT MUST BE TRUE.

Anyone for injecting a little bleach or disinfectant? LOL

Oh Boy!
I really didn't want to have to do this.
Beware. The earth is NOT flat. Hit and run is not a winning strategy: Pressing into trends IS not a winning strategy: Progressives are not a winning strategy: Don't Buy It! .Don't even take it for free.
fantom
fantom
Joined: Dec 19, 2020
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 78
Thanks for this post from:
RogerKintJoeman
February 3rd, 2021 at 1:39:39 PM permalink
Quote: rxwine

Your last point is debatable since you're implying nothing useful can be learned unless under ideal conditions, or that an imperfect study is equivalent to people spouting random opinions.



I'm saying that a thousand random opinions do not make a scientific study. The opinions might be useful, but we read here, constantly, about observation bias. We see spouted countless "scientific theories" about totally random occurrences at the roulette or craps table that seem to make sense, but that fly in the face of proven mathematical fact.

I have heard several people say, in essence, "it's a proven fact that the dealer gets a blackjack [insert some wild number here] percent of the time on the first hand in a shoe." But we have simulation software available, and proven mathematical theorems that prove otherwise. Conclusively.

When we hear such things, we ask for validation.

We all may think that some action or activity makes sense. But not on the basis of scientific study - because there has not been enough time for there to have been enough studies.

For example. Just today I read: "Researchers from the University of Nicosia in Cyprus find hot weather and wind have a bigger impact on virus transmission rates that social distancing during a pandemic." ). I have no faith in this report, until I read the study instead of some blurb I found on the internet. Maybe it's true. Maybe not.

My point is that it will be a long time before we have the real science, based on empirical analysis, that makes an accurate conclusion, either way, about a host of "science" that we have read about. It's clearly too soon to tell. Use your best judgement, conclude what you want from what you read and see. But don't be surprised if, maybe years from now, it won't be amazing how wrong we were about a lot of this.
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10569
Thanks for this post from:
rawtuff
February 3rd, 2021 at 2:49:02 PM permalink
Quote: fantom

I'm saying that a thousand random opinions do not make a scientific study. The opinions might be useful, but we read here, constantly, about observation bias. We see spouted countless "scientific theories" about totally random occurrences at the roulette or craps table that seem to make sense, but that fly in the face of proven mathematical fact.



Why would I care about opinions in the face of facts, mathematical or otherwise?

Quote:

I have heard several people say, in essence, "it's a proven fact that the dealer gets a blackjack [insert some wild number here] percent of the time on the first hand in a shoe." But we have simulation software available, and proven mathematical theorems that prove otherwise. Conclusively.

When we hear such things, we ask for validation.



Of course.

Quote:

We all may think that some action or activity makes sense. But not on the basis of scientific study - because there has not been enough time for there to have been enough studies.



Sure but you're missing the time factor here. We are acting on the best data we have. You can analyze why a plane crashed in a more perfect manner later, but when the pilots are trying to save it at the time they act on the best data they have. A year from now we may have a much better idea of what we should have done better. But no reason to think we should wait until our knowledge is more perfected.

Often, even one study is not enough to confirm something until others are done independently and get the same results. Should we wait 6 months before acting on anything we think we know?

Quote:

For example. Just today I read: "Researchers from the University of Nicosia in Cyprus find hot weather and wind have a bigger impact on virus transmission rates that social distancing during a pandemic." ). I have no faith in this report, until I read the study instead of some blurb I found on the internet. Maybe it's true. Maybe not.

My point is that it will be a long time before we have the real science, based on empirical analysis, that makes an accurate conclusion, either way, about a host of "science" that we have read about.

It's clearly too soon to tell. Use your best judgement, conclude what you want from what you read and see. But don't be surprised if, maybe years from now, it won't be amazing how wrong we were about a lot of this.



I have no argument with the idea that we should make judgments made on objective empirical data, but I'm sure you would agree that waiting years or even 6 months is a rather useless point, when we need to act now. Every day makes a difference. We use the best data we have with the people with the necessary expertise.
The Hall of Unverified Claims is a vast place with many shelves.
AxelWolf
AxelWolf
Joined: Oct 10, 2012
  • Threads: 152
  • Posts: 20168
February 3rd, 2021 at 9:02:42 PM permalink
Quote: Wizard

Maybe I was too quick to throw out a warning regarding the conversation about masks. I'm all in favor of a good science-based discussion of anything. You may talk about it, but I'll be watching to make sure the topic stays scientific/mathematical. Perhaps a good subtopic is whether or not this statement is true or false, "CDC comes out with a statement that 85% of the people wearing masks catch it (covid)."

I expect a full written apology and a gift. And Please, no more Dogs Playing Poker. 😉
♪♪Now you swear and kick and beg us That you're not a gamblin' man Then you find you're back in Vegas With a handle in your hand♪♪ Your black cards can make you money So you hide them when you're able In the land of casinos and money You must put them on the table♪♪ You go back Jack do it again roulette wheels turinin' 'round and 'round♪♪ You go back Jack do it again♪♪
rxwine
rxwine
Joined: Feb 28, 2010
  • Threads: 175
  • Posts: 10569
February 3rd, 2021 at 11:48:56 PM permalink
Quote: AxelWolf

I expect a full written apology and a gift. And Please, no more Dogs Playing Poker. 😉


The Hall of Unverified Claims is a vast place with many shelves.
fantom
fantom
Joined: Dec 19, 2020
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 78
Thanks for this post from:
SOOPOOJoeman
February 4th, 2021 at 7:51:16 AM permalink
Admitting that hindsight is always 20-20, my only point is that I am certain that we will learn, at some point in the future, whether or not all the things we have been given as "science" worked out to be that. Maybe, even probably, but not enough time has passed for there to have been truly scientific analysis of what is going on, even up to today.

It's good to rely on science, but most of what is being touted as "science" is not that, at all. Not because I question the source or the point of view of whoever is spewing it, regardless of their supposed or suspected leanings, left or right.

A consistent belief is that the most current and up to date "science" is the best, and is correct to an absolute certainty.

In the fifties there were numerous supposedly "scientific" treatments for polio. Thalidomide was prescribed to pregnant women in the sixties. In the eighties, HIV/AIDS was supposedly transmitted in a variety of ways that were later found to be false. All of these situations carried the stamp of "science", only to be discredited when better studies came along to discredit them..

In all cases we can assume that the scientists presented these ideas with the best of intent, with no political bias, intentional or systemic.

Throughout history, the best science has routinely been found to be totally incorrect. Eighteenth century doctors were absolutely certain that bleeding patients was a good thing to do, and swore up and down that the "most current thinking" was completely and absolutely sound.

What makes you think that this never-ending advance - brought about solely by the passage of time - will not still go on?

In 1901, President McKinley suggested that the patent office be closed - everything that could be invented, he said, has already been invented.

Don't be surprised if a lot of what we know about COVID is just wrong.
fantom
fantom
Joined: Dec 19, 2020
  • Threads: 1
  • Posts: 78
February 4th, 2021 at 8:02:41 AM permalink
Could someone please tell me if the following sequence of posts constitute an outlawed political statement? Remember that this is a completely and totally fictitious, situation, with no connection to any prior post or former executive, living or dead.

Federal official, documented with verifiable video recording: "Drinking a tablespoon of hydrochloric acid, twice a day, cures ingrown toenails."

Poster: Well, if a federal official said it... IT MUST BE TRUE. Anyone for swallowing a little HCL? LOL

Again, this is a totally made up scenario. I simply ask for a ruling as to whether this is or is not a violation of the rules.

  • Jump to: