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. mdgator05

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    9,494
    1,007
    1,668
    Dec 9, 2010
    Natural cycling versus CO2 pushing is a topic with extensive published research. The cuts necessary in the system is a topic with extensive research. Again, people are well aware of the fact that people have to eat. Also, people in economics and related fields have extensively studied the economic implications. So basically, you are arguing that they haven't studied a bunch of topics with extensive study. And implied that this study has been suppressed when there is a ton of it. Just because you don't have a background in this literature doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. 92gator

    92gator GC Hall of Fame

    11,344
    13,814
    1,678
    Jun 14, 2007
    ....and what you refuse to acknowledge, is that it works both ways, and either way, it serves to undermine the credibility and trustworthiness of *science*--by obscuring actual science, behind a veil of political overtones and undertones...

    Again, it's not the science itself that is distrusted--it's how it's used--the ends sought to be attained, claiming their basis on manipulated science.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    6,731
    1,682
    1,518
    Sep 20, 2014
    I would enjoy that quibble.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Trickster

    Trickster Premium Member

    6,731
    1,682
    1,518
    Sep 20, 2014
    That’s good to hear, truly, for it shouldn’t be. The history of science is full of errors and resistance to new theories. I have tremendous respect for those who seek to understand the world around us, and keep an open mind in the process.
     
  5. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    8,907
    1,123
    983
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    Sure. Science isn't a thing without scientists. No human endeavor occurs without humans. Setting aside the silliness of the poll, the question we're now discussing is, "is science trustworthy".

    Since definitions are important in any conversation: Science: a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. - wiki.

    Can we trust all those building blocks of knowledge that now compromise modern science? Do you get into 100,000 pound piece of metal and fly 500mph at 30,000 feet? Seems like most trust that type of science. Does one seek medical advice when sick or injured? etc.

    To me, that's completely separate from individual scientists using science for either perceived nefarious means or for reasons that conflict with one's own personal, spiritual, or religious beliefs.

    From Galileo to Fauci, science keeps marching forward, providing explanations and willingly changing its understanding of how the universe works. Skepticism is an integral part of this process, but on a whole science leads us down the path towards the closest testable truth available.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  6. BLING

    BLING GC Hall of Fame

    6,273
    388
    1,358
    Apr 16, 2007
    It actually doesn’t work both ways, unless you can demonstrate a relevant instance where money has successfully purchased entire “scientific consensus”.

    You might be conflating things here. (a)Scientific consensus, i.e the cold hard data and conclusions from academic researchers. (b)the policy decisions that might arise out of such conclusions.

    In the case of Exxon Mobil: Instead of engaging in an honest debate about (b) they muddied the waters for (a) by doing fake science and paying political lobbyists to hammer the point with GOP audiences in particular (but also with the general public in their advertising). If people simply educated themselves and stuck to real unadulterated science, that shouldn’t have happened. But propaganda works against an ill informed public.

    I would add it wasn’t helpful having people like Gore appear to cash in on it, and some of the proposed solutions to “address” the problem involved some perhaps cockamamie schemes too (carbon trading). But that is still not the same level of dishonesty as those who knowingly peddle lies and false science to deny reality.
     
  7. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,655
    555
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    Did the CDC ask the 30+ state school systems that were open and look at the data from the 2 largest studies in the US? It was obvious. Then emails from the union are used almost verbatim in the CDC guidance. Just a coincidence I guess...

    I had nothing against teachers unions before last year. But they played a money game at the expense of children, so that is why i'm so against what they did.

    You asked why republicans don't trust "science". I gave examples.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. dadx4

    dadx4 GC Hall of Fame

    Apr 3, 2007
    Gainesville, Fl
    I guess some of you think that gender fluidity is science too. It's a mental disorder called "gender dysphoria."
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  9. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,226
    1,043
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    You're making it sound like all the ATF's emails went straight into the CDC's report. But the NYPost only pointed out one example of the ATF's suggestions being used almost verbatim in their recommendations.
    was on Page 22 of the report.
    And one other suggestion from the ATF - that special remote working concessions be given to staff with documented high-risk conditions - that was included in the report, though apparently not verbatim.

    Those seem to be the only two items in the 33-page report that reflect the ATF's input. I think both seem pretty reasonable to include. Which ones bother you so much - the idea that the guidelines may need to be updated if conditions change or the idea that special concessions be given to staff with high-risk medical conditions?
    I'm really curious.

    Since I have not seen you answer my basic question, I take it that you think the CDC had absolutely no business discussing recommendations for school opening with anyone who has anything to do with schools.
    I disagree.
     
    Last edited: Jul 20, 2021
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 1
  10. exiledgator

    exiledgator Gruntled

    8,907
    1,123
    983
    Jan 5, 2010
    Maine
    That sounds like a science term
     
  11. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,655
    555
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    I did answer it, you just didn't like the answer. The CDC had plenty of data at their disposal to make the decision themselves. They chose to let lobbyists influence them. You asked a question and I answered it. You have your answer why some republicans don't trust "science".
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  12. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,226
    1,043
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    Ok, you don’t think the cdc should have talked to anyone involved in schools, or at least not taken their recommendations.
    Now, again, which of those two items from the ATF do you think shouldn’t be in the guidelines?
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,655
    555
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    They also had phone calls with the CDC to lobby them. We don't have transcripts of those phone calls. That's the issue. When you let people lobby you and influence you, the science is out the window. They had real world data from a majority of the country and 2 huge studies to make their recommendation yet took calls and emails from the WH and the teachers unions. Just like many complained(rightly so) about the Trump WH having a say in what the CDC was recommending last year I feel the same in this situation. Make the recommendation off of science, It's not that hard.
     
  14. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,226
    1,043
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    And you still can't answer that simple question.
     
  15. gator95

    gator95 GC Hall of Fame

    3,655
    555
    423
    Apr 3, 2007
    Both items shouldn't have been in there, along with a bunch of other things. Heck, by their recommendations, almost no one should've been in person last year. Well, that was proven to be wrong and they had the data to prove it. Just stupid.
     
  16. rivergator

    rivergator Too Hot Mod Moderator VIP Member

    31,226
    1,043
    2,258
    Apr 8, 2007
    You don’t think the guidelines should have left for change if the conditions change?
    I disagree.
     
  17. Gatorhead

    Gatorhead GC Hall of Fame

    9,547
    1,717
    863
    Apr 3, 2007
    Philadelphia
    I agree with the bulk of your comments as I agree with most of Tillys.
    HOWEVER - What I am "getting" from your comments, Tilly's, teagator and others is that Science, like ALL THINGS is subject to the machinations
    of people. Call it the failures associated with Original Sin if you like HOWEVER that does not make Science or the Scientific Method WRONG.

    At least Science has PEER REVIEW which acts as a fail safe to those whom wish to engage in dishonesty, false information or outright lies. One will not be published when reciting lies or falshood's unless one is involved in the more esoteric pseudo scientific disciplines such as UFO's, Supernatural Beings, Voices in ones head, Mermaids, Unicorns and of course, those believing UGA could possibly win another national Title.

    I know of nothing else, created by the minds of people, that offer a better solution to understanding our physical universe than the Scientific Method and of course Hard Work.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. duchen

    duchen VIP Member

    9,027
    3,240
    1,723
    Nov 25, 2017
    I have been trying to apply scientific logic to identify the moderator who moved the Tampa Bay Lightning threads into the GC Hall of Fame. The answer comes to me, but then it sort of fades. Any ideas?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  19. 14serenoa

    14serenoa Living in Orange and surrounded by Seminoles... Premium Member

    4,359
    1,529
    463
    Jul 28, 2014
    Science is about the best science/knowledge available today...we learned how to create fire, then we learned how to use it to create metal tools and weapons...science is a fluid process of discovery.
     
  20. Gatorhead

    Gatorhead GC Hall of Fame

    9,547
    1,717
    863
    Apr 3, 2007
    Philadelphia
    And it's ALSO IMPORTANT to realize Science on ANY SUBJECT is a WORK IN PROGRESS.

    You will find few scientists that claim their work to be "Sacrosanct". Even the most fundamental laws of Science we currently have are being challenged by new experiments, NEW TOOLING TECHNOLOGY, new finds, new information.

    This is an important cornerstone of how science works. Now I will GLADLY admit that some Scientists CLING to past work and GRUDGINGLY surrender to new findings. This can be acrimonious, bitter and long lasting.

    This is particularly true in the field of Archeology now that DNA, Genetics and other Scientific Fields "cross over" linked endeavors.

    Examples of Scientific mistakes that are correcting themselves via continued research.

    CLOVIS First / Archeology
    Geology / Uniformitarianism
    Medicine / Bloodletting

    I think Ya'll get the point.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1