Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Confidence in science

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by rivergator, Jul 20, 2021.

  1. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,191
    1,031
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    You keep harping on the teachers union. The CDC says it reached out to multiple groups, including those representing teachers, school systems and state lawmakers, to understand the practicality of what it might recommend.
    Doesn't it make sense that it would do that?
     
  2. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    No. But out of curiosity, what "scientific theory" did you think was being evaluated (for success, or otherwise)?
     
  3. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,257
    386
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    The irony of this post, is most of the anti-climate change stuff in the last couple decades was driven by Exxon Mobil and industry lobbyists who were dealing in “manipulated” science. Literally reading from a false industry friendly script and injecting that script into politics. Their lies worked better than their wildest dreams, considering even over a decade after they admitted it, there’s still “opinions” such as the post I’ve quoted here.

    Finding the bad actors really shouldn’t be this hard for people utilizing their brains. If there is a broad scientific consensus, and an opposing view which stands out from it, follow the money. See who’s funding it, and if the attacks on scientific consensus is coming from an industry lobby group, you can just about bet your ass it’s false. This was always clear, at least with the Climate Change “debate”. Even if one doesn’t fully embrace climate change “cut down on that burning shit into the air” seems more responsible than “drill baby drill” (which is effectively burn baby burn).

    Though I suppose this rule of thumb doesn’t always work either, as the anti-vaxx people are more inexplicable (I know some foreign adversaries amplify the propaganda essentially as an attack on the U.S, their motive is clear, but the citizens who do it are rather baffling to me).
     
  4. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,191
    1,031
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    I'm pretty sure there was no scientific consensus that the world was going to blow up in 10 years.
    "So, why don't you trust science."
    "Well, because somebody who wasn't a scientist said something stupid one time about the earth blowing up. That's why!"
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  5. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    552
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    No it doesn't make sense at all. The CDC had the data from the WI/NC studies showing no change in risk for having schools being open for in person learning. Take that data and apply it to their guidance. They chose to get in bed with the teacher's union.
     
  6. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,448
    1,004
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    You were dismissing concerns about climate change by saying that we haven't gotten to the point where the surface of the Earth is hotter than the sun. While true, nobody claimed that it would be. So you rejected your own absurd exaggeration to dispute a theory. The fact is that the prediction models have actually done a pretty good job of predicting global warming.

    Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming? | Carbon Brief
     
  7. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,191
    1,031
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    I'll ask again, do you think it makes no sense to talk to groups representing teachers, school systems and state legislators before making recommendations to see what is actually doable?
    Kinda like the Dept of Agriculture talking to farmers before it makes new rules about farming.
     
  8. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    Pretty sure Al Gore proclaimed the end of the earth within 10 years, about 30 years ago, and was backed by *science* in the process (with the end game being something about government dictating who can consume how much...).
     
    • Creative Creative x 1
  9. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,191
    1,031
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    You don't trust science because a non-scientist made a prediction that didn't come true? Well, that makes all kinds of sense.
     
  10. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    I was exaggerating--for entertainment purposes.

    No, no one actually said the earth was actually "...fitt'n to be hotter than the sun."

    :ninja2:
     
  11. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    Oh my...

    I used that as an example of science being used disingenuously for a nefarious result.

    NOT as an 'explanation' for why I don't trust science (bc, frankly, I DO trust SCIENCE--I am however, skeptical about how SOME folks seek to use science to further ulterior motives).
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,645
    552
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    What isn't doable about opening a school? The CDC had about 30+ states with in person schooling to study and the 2 very large studies already published. I mean this was pandering to a union. They didn't follow the data. Plain and simple. You asked for examples, I gave them.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    So you site Exxon taking great liberties with science to further their agenda, to show that I'm FOS when I say science is susceptible to manipulation and abuse...

    Sho'nuff dun show'd my ass!

    :monkey:
     
  14. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    7,006
    756
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    This makes sense.

    However, this skepticism makes it doubly confusing why conservatives would believe in someone like Trump.
     
  15. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,448
    1,004
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    Of course nobody said that. But you were using it to dismiss a theory. One that, again, has been pretty accurate. I would argue this is a pretty good demonstration of the topic of this thread. You have a theory that has proven to be quite accurate. You dismissed it and, for entertainment purposes, did so with over-the-top language that imputed obviously ridiculous positions on people who, again, have largely been accurate, because you don't like the implications of their results.
     
  16. GatorRade

    GatorRade Rad Scientist

    7,006
    756
    1,478
    Apr 3, 2007
    Indeed, the process of science needs to be carried out by someone. I think that the replication crisis alone should be grounds to justify anyone saying that they have lower confidence in science.

    That said virtually everyone will approve of a scientific finding that confirms their priors.
     
  17. slightlyskeptic

    slightlyskeptic GC Hall of Fame

    1,514
    334
    173
    May 13, 2021
    Science, in it's strictest definition, is supposed to be blind to influences like personal advancement, greed, self interest and politics. Unfortunately, a lot of "science" these days is all too influenced by all of those things. When you pollute science with obvious biases not based in scientific evidence it tends to corrode people's confidence.

    I think that both sides use "science" for their own selfish reasons much to the detriment of society. I cringe at some of the rhetoric I hear from some on the right regarding Covid and vaccines. Just as I cringe from some things I hear from the left regarding gender and their blind faith in quasi-political health organizations like the WHO.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,257
    386
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    The “science” wasn’t actually manipulated though, there was and is broad scientific consensus on climate change. This is what you are missing. A corporation crafted a pseudo-science fake study aimed at the political party that thinks deregulation can only be good, even when it kills you. You went with the political over the scientific, and given your ludicrous exaggerations, continue to do so.

    What they did is use a bunch of pseudo-science and buy off politicians to spread that confusing
    pseudo-science message.

    Anti-Vaxxers actually use that same tactic, minus the “buying off politicians” aspect, they tend to just be crazy.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,333
    13,812
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    I'll just address the bolded.

    It is this 'supposed' "...implications of [their] results", that is cause for great concern--because it is not part of the actual science--it is the leap from science, into politics. In terms of global warming (which you somehow seem reluctant to spell out, while I merely broached it as a general example, and you seek to hone in on it and mine for nuance, without actually spelling it out...).

    Scientific consensus: increased levels of CO2 are causing global warming (since changed to "climate change", after GW proven to be problematic...).

    *IMPLICATION OF THEIR RESULTS*--Let us reduce OUR production of CO2, by [insert: various governmental programs].

    Missing nexi, before we ought to surrender our freedom to totalitarian governance in the name of survival according to *science*:

    -How much is man caused vs the earth doing earthy shit like she's done for 6 Billion years;

    --how much can we impact reducing GW, while doing nothing to stem the likes of China and India from doing the same to themselves???

    --To what extent do we dismiss sciences like biology, that dictate that we need to eat to live, as we annihilate the economy--that feeds ppl--in order to reduce GW by X degrees over Y decades? (and come to find it didn't make a lick of difference???)

    So when *science* says: STFU with other science stuff....WE are the duly designated spokesfolks for Science, and we say the only science that matters, is GW, and the only acceptable course of action, is [INSERT: REDUCTION OF FREEDOM]...

    Maybe then, some of the Right's skepticism of the Left's idea of what constitutes *science* might come into a little better focus for you.

    (prolly not, but hey, I had fun writing this).
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
    • Agree Agree x 2
  20. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,191
    1,031
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Actually, I didn't ask for examples of anything. And you keep ignoring the fact that the CDC talked to all the parties involved - teachers unions, school systems, state lawmakers - and instead pretend it's all about the union. I get it, you don't like teachers unions.