Astrophysicist Paul Sutter on trusting science—and why so many people don’t
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
That's how you can tell a true scientist who follows and understands the scientific method. They 'll be the one willing to admit , "I/we don't know."
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
The data does not support this position. The data has an R2 of nearly .9 showing a relationship between bad metabolic health and BMI. They are saying the opposite that BMI is Bullshit both in the press release and in the paper itself.
What is wrong with the message? They are wrong, they are lying to the public and they know they are lying to the public when they message 30% of healthy BMI have bad markers while 30% of obese have good markers. You dont do this if you are honest.
Upvote
-8
(0
/
-8)
Where is that correlation? I don't see that in the paper but I'm skimming.
ALternatively, if you computed it, what's your methodology?
Upvote
0
(1
/
-1)
Except that view is complete lie and has been for over 50 years. With satellite broadband, it is even more of a lie.
That lie definitely ended when farmers had to start using with the future commodity market. To be successful (as in survive) you need education to understand that market as it could salvage a bad year.
It also ended with sensors and drones that enable crop inspection and water/fertility levels. There is a massive amount of information that needs to get processed. It also allows spot treatment of issues as in spraying a single weed area and not the whole field.
Equipment is getting more complex that a hammer and spanner cannot fix anymore.
Technology adoption requires education. The only thing that lie stands for is that people do want to be somewhere else.
Upvote
5
(5
/
0)
Bud, getting rid of the money that floats around in corrupt slush funds is exactly what 'get the money out of politics' means. You think 'campaign contributions' paid by lobbyists are going into the general fund or whatever? That the millions of dollars super PACs spend on advertising are part of the billions your agency spends on medical care? Is this is a common misconception? Are we even more fucked than it seems?
Your agency (ideally) spends taxpayer money on programs that benefit taxpayers. That's not the money we need to get out of politics.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
Right now everyone in public health is either dealing with intense trauma or pretending that we just have "a little post-traumatic stress". Fuck the fuck off with this fucking hostility to people who have dedicated their lives to keeping you alive. Sorry, but this needed to be said.
[/quote]
How about you go fuck off. It was public health officials that said not to wear masks. Oh until a non expert in the field wrote an op ed laying out 20 years of research showing masks work.
Or how about public health officials taking a year to accept aerosols despite clear evidence by June of 2020 all because 100 years ago someone said aeresols sound too much like the vapors.
https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
But yeah its totally a conspiracy theory to mention the replication crisis in medicine.
Upvote
-9
(2
/
-11)
Oh, won't they be surprised when they find out there's animal DNA in their cheeseburger!
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I'm assuming you don't know how quotes work and meant to say:
That is not how statistics works at all. You are computing the correlation between the fraction and the parameter, not the true distribution and the parameter.
As an illustration, if your percentages are instead:
51% of healthy have no negative health markers
50% of overweight have no negative health markers
49% of obese have no negative health markers
You end up with a perfect 1 for your correlation, despite the fact that that would mean your parameter (obesity) is almost completely useless.
That isn't the case here, of course. The BMI parameter is kinda sorta useful. The issue is more that there are other easy to measure things, like body fat percentage and waist circumference, that are just better. Oh yeah, by the way, the paper mentions waist circumference as a replacement measure, so it's not really about fat acceptance at all.
I'm also not sure why you're getting so worked up about everything.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
How about you go fuck off. It was public health officials that said not to wear masks. Oh until a non expert in the field wrote an op ed laying out 20 years of research showing masks work.
Or how about public health officials taking a year to accept aerosols despite clear evidence by June of 2020 all because 100 years ago someone said aeresols sound too much like the vapors.
https://www.nature.com/articles/533452a
But yeah its totally a conspiracy theory to mention the replication crisis in medicine.[/quote]
Ohhhh Kay..........I think two of our group need to take a break. Off you go , now. Take a stroll, have a juice, watch a funny video.
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
I think part of the issue is that Liberalism has "claimed" science in much the same way Conservatism has "claimed" patriotism. Now, don't get me wrong, Liberals are often quite patriotic, but for them it's a private matter between them and their democracy. Conservatives, on the other hand, without any misgivings, will shave the flag onto their dogs and be proud of the result.
Conservatives who understand the value of science, logic, reasoned discussion, and education exist. But they are very very quiet about it -- understandably, these days. Liberals on the other hand have yard signs literally proclaiming "science is real" as if that should actually be worth proclaiming.
There is currently a sizeable contingent of the population that's hostile to the idea of objective reality. But it hasn't always been that way, and it's not all conservatives. Yeah, yeah, we all know reality has a well-known liberal bias. But such clever slogans add to the feeling that science itself is a liberal boogeyman. It may well be a pipe dream, but science is for everyone.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
I think I meant to say fat rather than salt (though salt is definitely less bad for you than sugar in terms of how much Americans typically eat/drink of both). My original source: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well ... o-fat.html
Upvote
-1
(0
/
-1)
Which op-ed are you talking about? I found this one, is there an earlier one? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... hould-too/
This person is not an outsider, he is a professor at Harvard University’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
a lot of people said a lot of interesting things, but this kind of sums it all up.
We have a problem with willful ignorance. To get at this roto we need better education.
The stigma of geeks being ridiculed was big in my day, but not so much now, however if you correct someone in a conversation, more often than not, you will be ridiculed for pointing out the error in information. People get hurt egos. We need to teach kids to overcome the hurt from being corrected and revel in the learning process, even when that means their errors are brought to light.
Until then, people will remain willfully ignorant, because it appeases the ego.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
For the morbidly curious:
No, there's no signs of intelligent life in any of stine's other comments, either.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Thus the lasting humor in the joke "I made a mistake once...I thought I was wrong but I wasn't"
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Ok, that's nice, I didn't realize we were just talking about useless pablum and campaign slogans. If you really want to get money out of politics, you have to take the money out of government spending. If the government is spending billions of dollars, there will always be people trying to get a piece of it. I say this not to excuse waste, fraud, and abuse, which I condemn completely, but to explain the conditions that make it possible and why it is such a grave concern.
However, because the government is spending money on things people need, and reducing these appropriations is not possible for reasons either pragmatic or political (or both), then it is pretty much impossible to get money out of politics.
Now, better regulation, better enforcement, etc, these things are all possible, and they get complicated because you have all sorts of competing interests, as well as cost-benefit concerns as well since it is entirely possible to spend orders of magnitude more on enforcement than one risks in potential losses if you're not careful.
But just "get money out of politics" is a fool's dream. It's an attempt to do something that just feels right without really understanding and addressing any serious issues, or even admitting that they exist.
Upvote
-4
(1
/
-5)
No, "get money out of politics" is a shorthand primarily pertaining to campaign finance reform, but also including those other things you mentioned:
Uncivil Servant":3nwrjmo0 said:
The comment you made which I replied to suggested that you believed "get money out of politics" meant "stop government spending", which is bananas.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Are you deliberately misinterpreting the phrase, disingenuously making the perfect the enemy of the good, or genuinely under the impression that "get the money out of politics" extends to all government spending and is therefore unattainable?
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Telling people they are willfully ignorant will get you tossed out of any public forum though. If you want to make a difference (alienating people will only make it worse) you need to address distrust in authority. To do that is difficult and takes years if not decades - and probably does not get solved with one-size-fits-all approaches because different regions of the world have different insecurities.
Upvote
-1
(2
/
-3)
Upvote
1
(4
/
-3)
Not exactly just contrarianism re Flat Earth. Folding Ideas had a great video on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
Unfortunately the misguided and shortsighted (and remarkably effective) effort by the right to basically spread FUD regarding education in general and science in particular is putting the USA at a serious disadvantage in the global marketplace. China is rapidly gaining on the USA in science education and science advancement, and will likely surpass the USA within the next decade. Reversing this trend is a goal fraught with difficulty. Obtaining a high level of science literacy on a population wide basis is not something that can be achieved in short order. Couple the disparity in educational attainment with the disparity in China's manufacturing capability vs the USA, also brought to you by the GOP, and it will be interesting to see what the next decade entails. By interesting I mean interesting like watching a movie based on a Philip K Dick novel, not a Roddenberry universe movie.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
Science is done by humans, and correspondingly has a long history of coloring its results with human failings. Greed, ego, sloth, all the hits. It's no more immune from this than other human endeavors. We hope that the checks in place keep it to a minimum, but it's there.
It doesn't take too many instances of "OMG scientists are human too!?!" for people that lack critical thinking skills to discredit ANY scientist in their sight. Then normal evidence based changes or even reversals that are perfectly legitimate outcomes are seen as being deliberately misleading or manipulative.
In contrast, those that shout the loudest and pander to fear and suspicion don't have to worry about being right, much less rigorous. They only have to be heard. Much easier when you make it up as you go.
It doesn't take too many instances of "OMG scientists are human too!?!" for people that lack critical thinking skills to discredit ANY scientist in their sight. Then normal evidence based changes or even reversals that are perfectly legitimate outcomes are seen as being deliberately misleading or manipulative.
In contrast, those that shout the loudest and pander to fear and suspicion don't have to worry about being right, much less rigorous. They only have to be heard. Much easier when you make it up as you go.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Been saying the same thing for 20 years now. The nation that leads in innovation and technology advancement will lead the world's economy. The unabashed open hostility shown to science and especially to scientists by certain powerful entities in the U.S. will backfire in a profound way if it continues. It really is a matter of power and economic growth that defines geopolitical relations and we're on the verge of a disaster.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
He said some bone headed stuff in the Mass Effect story too. I wonder if he actually believes any of it or if he's just a contrarian troll for shits and giggles.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
Why should it matter? I don't give a shit what he believes either way. He's either a fool or an A hole. The joke's on him.
Upvote
2
(2
/
0)
ThatGuyFromEarth
Ars Praetorian
This decline began years ago… by the early 2000s the cable learning channels (History, Discovery, etc.) started turning to shows like Ancient Aliens and Finding Bigfoot, using the legitimacy of such channels to pander to idiots and give credence to these ideas, conspiracies and nonsense.
What was fringe “Weekly World News” grade schlock became mainstream entertainment being presented by a channels claiming to be dedicated to informative presentation… it quickly went from “You never know, maybe this jerk looking for Bigfoot might be onto something” to “it’s a conspiracy! all this X-Files bullshit is real!”
It timed fluidly with the introduction of social media, so all the wannabe, up and coming scam artists could easily carve out a niche for themselves early on.
It’s gone from being a joke to being a cancer.
The exact same way a washed up parasite like trump was able to be falsely portrayed as a successful businessman and not a shambling idiot…
Cable shows had been grooming audiences for decades… knawing away at reason and integrity.
Reality TV made it cool to be a raging sociopath or shallow douchebag.
Science had to go first though, science is reason and order, rational thinking and facts.
You can’t have control of the brainless masses if you let people have access to facts.
Cable TV sold out to become the purveyors of mystical thinking and conspiracy everything.
Once social media took hold that completed the slide to hell.
Now between pseudo”religious” conservatives using mystical reasoning to obfuscate their grabs at power and wealth and hucksters flooding social media with conspiracy theories and anti-science rhetoric it’s so ingrained in society it’s almost impossible to fight.
But make no mistake, this wasn’t just coincidence or simple individual greed to get better ratings, it was across the board and well orchestrated.
That in itself sounds like conspiracy, but it’s too full of connected characters, overlapping associations, and ties for it to be coincidence.
What was fringe “Weekly World News” grade schlock became mainstream entertainment being presented by a channels claiming to be dedicated to informative presentation… it quickly went from “You never know, maybe this jerk looking for Bigfoot might be onto something” to “it’s a conspiracy! all this X-Files bullshit is real!”
It timed fluidly with the introduction of social media, so all the wannabe, up and coming scam artists could easily carve out a niche for themselves early on.
It’s gone from being a joke to being a cancer.
The exact same way a washed up parasite like trump was able to be falsely portrayed as a successful businessman and not a shambling idiot…
Cable shows had been grooming audiences for decades… knawing away at reason and integrity.
Reality TV made it cool to be a raging sociopath or shallow douchebag.
Science had to go first though, science is reason and order, rational thinking and facts.
You can’t have control of the brainless masses if you let people have access to facts.
Cable TV sold out to become the purveyors of mystical thinking and conspiracy everything.
Once social media took hold that completed the slide to hell.
Now between pseudo”religious” conservatives using mystical reasoning to obfuscate their grabs at power and wealth and hucksters flooding social media with conspiracy theories and anti-science rhetoric it’s so ingrained in society it’s almost impossible to fight.
But make no mistake, this wasn’t just coincidence or simple individual greed to get better ratings, it was across the board and well orchestrated.
That in itself sounds like conspiracy, but it’s too full of connected characters, overlapping associations, and ties for it to be coincidence.
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)
I object to the characterization of axonal action potentials and synaptic chemotransmitters as "electrical induction."
Upvote
3
(4
/
-1)
My experience witnessing mistrust of science is largely due to ignorance of the scientific method. It’s usually expressed along the lines of “They said X was Y, and now they say X is Z! They can’t make up their minds!!!”
This is then usually contrasted with all the things they “know” that never change, especially their religious faith, which then segues into arguments about how “science is out to prove god doesn’t exist, it’s all atheists” etc.
This is then usually contrasted with all the things they “know” that never change, especially their religious faith, which then segues into arguments about how “science is out to prove god doesn’t exist, it’s all atheists” etc.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
We have all seen the video of a self-described "patriot" battering a federal police officer with the staff of an American flag while a violent right wing mob chants "U S A - U S A".
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
That's *part* of the problem. But, as you will see if you read the comments here, even when you explain it to them, they still refuse to accept that explanation. (Strategos777) Either they don't want to understand it, OR they're too pigheaded to understand it. Or, as in your last example, they're too scared to accept it since their whole world collapses.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
If you are riding in a car, and you look around, and everyone else in the car is wearing over-sized footwear and red rubber noses, you just might be riding in the clown car. And if, having realized that, you continue to ride in the clown car, you have no legitimate beef when people call you a clown.
Of course it is worth proclaiming. I am hoping that you meant to say that it shouldn't be necessary to proclaim it.
Upvote
5
(6
/
-1)
You have it all exactly backwards. Cable shows are and always have been after one thing only: ratings. Schlock sells because, unfortunately, it's what audiences prefer over higher-quality fare. If the bulk of the audience rejected and avoided tabloid garbage like the plague that it is, it wouldn't be dominating TV.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
As a child of the 90s and 2000s, the fall of Discovery is really sad to me. Without shows like Mythbusters I doubt I'd have gone into science.
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
Yep, it's *all* about ratings always has been about ratings. It's there because people watch it. And that's why I only turn on my TV for sports. Every time I'm laid up in the hospital, I'm amazed at how dreadful TV is. It's so mindnumbingly dumb, I have to remember to bring a book.
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
The size of the window precludes that from happening, cheesecloth not necessary
Upvote
1
(1
/
0)