The P&R Plague Thread (Covid-19)

Lorewarn said:
Before I say anything else, I want to make abundantly clear that I am enthusiastically pro scientific method and do or at least try to have my first lens of perspective through an empirical/material framework.

With that said, what the hell does, "people chose not to believe science was real" mean? Surely not real as an antonym to imaginary... nobody, as far as I can tell, is claiming or believing that science is fake or made up. So I don't actually know what we're talking about.

What did "science is real" mean in the 20th century when eugenics was a widely accepted framework in the US, UK and elsewhere?

Did "science is real" have culpability in the BS of the food pyramid and and demonization of cholesterol and saturated fats (with sugar and refined carbs getting a pass) from the 70s to the 90s? Along those lines, remember when the "real" science inundated with non-stop narrative about how incredible and amazing milk was for our calcium and bone strength, with everything from school nutritional guidelines to savvy ad campaigns pushing this conclusion only to find out way later that not only did milk have no effect (or possibly a negative effect) on bone strength or density, but that this was all clever lobbying and messaging by the dairy industry with their deep lobbying power?

How long did it take for "science is real" to begrudgingly accept the plausibility or even likelihood of a lab leak of COVID? 

What "realness" of science led to the Tuskegee syphilis study?

Surely "science is real" has some blood on its hands for the opioid epidemic, with the FDA and medical schools tacitly going along with the idea that opioids are perfectly safe and non-addictive when prescribed by doctors, with a "trust your doctor" narrative leading to an addiction pipeline.

All of these examples and a million more took place under the flag of scientific credibility with little to no active present dissent, with folks being bullied into submission because "science is real". Science is nothing more than a lens - a methodology - to see and observe the world and make predictions. Saying "science is real" is like saying "cooking is real". I mean, you're right, but what does that mean? Does it being real imply that the kitchen isn't full of smoke, that Nestle isn't paying the chef to use their products, that nobody burns their food, that the food is healthy, the chef is honest and that nobody would ever poison the food?
Click to expand...
200w.gif


 
Lorewarn said:
Before I say anything else, I want to make abundantly clear that I am enthusiastically pro scientific method and do or at least try to have my first lens of perspective through an empirical/material framework.

With that said, what the hell does, "people chose not to believe science was real" mean? Surely not real as an antonym to imaginary... nobody, as far as I can tell, is claiming or believing that science is fake or made up. So I don't actually know what we're talking about.

What did "science is real" mean in the 20th century when eugenics was a widely accepted framework in the US, UK and elsewhere?

Did "science is real" have culpability in the BS of the food pyramid and and demonization of cholesterol and saturated fats (with sugar and refined carbs getting a pass) from the 70s to the 90s? Along those lines, remember when the "real" science inundated with non-stop narrative about how incredible and amazing milk was for our calcium and bone strength, with everything from school nutritional guidelines to savvy ad campaigns pushing this conclusion only to find out way later that not only did milk have no effect (or possibly a negative effect) on bone strength or density, but that this was all clever lobbying and messaging by the dairy industry with their deep lobbying power?

How long did it take for "science is real" to begrudgingly accept the plausibility or even likelihood of a lab leak of COVID? 

What "realness" of science led to the Tuskegee syphilis study?

Surely "science is real" has some blood on its hands for the opioid epidemic, with the FDA and medical schools tacitly going along with the idea that opioids are perfectly safe and non-addictive when prescribed by doctors, with a "trust your doctor" narrative leading to an addiction pipeline.

All of these examples and a million more took place under the flag of scientific credibility with little to no active present dissent, with folks being bullied into submission because "science is real". Science is nothing more than a lens - a methodology - to see and observe the world and make predictions. Saying "science is real" is like saying "cooking is real". I mean, you're right, but what does that mean? Does it being real imply that the kitchen isn't full of smoke, that Nestle isn't paying the chef to use their products, that nobody burns their food, that the food is healthy, the chef is honest and that nobody would ever poison the food?
Click to expand...
I’m baffled by this when we have s scientists publishing data about global climate change and we literally have millions of people then proclaim thru don’t believe it…it’s all fake. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
I’m baffled by this when we have s scientists publishing data about global climate change and we literally have millions of people then proclaim thru don’t believe it…it’s all fake. 
Click to expand...
It’s not that people believe climate change is fake, it’s the extent that it’s all man made vs nature doing what nature does plus some man made induced change is what people have disagreement about 

 
Archy1221 said:
It’s not that people believe climate change is fake, it’s the extent that it’s all man made vs nature doing what nature does plus some man made induced change is what people have disagreement about 
Click to expand...
It's the extent that some people want to do something about it vs people who don't want to do anything about it is what people have disagreement about.

 
NebraskaHarry said:
It's the extent that some people want to do something about it vs people who don't want to do anything about it is what people have disagreement about.
Click to expand...
The United States has done quite a bit about it.  Spending our way into oblivion to get not much more effect when other major industrialized countries..see China see India do nothing is what people mostly have disagreements on especially considering the impact nature itself has on climate change.  

 
Archy1221 said:
The United States has done quite a bit about it.  Spending our way into oblivion to get not much more effect when other major industrialized countries..see China see India do nothing is what people mostly have disagreements on especially considering the impact nature itself has on climate change.  
Click to expand...
Appears you fall under the don't want to do anything about it crowd.

 
Guy Chamberlin said:
I think I agree with your over-arching point, but you appear to be saying that science is the critical methodology we need to make informed decisions, not simply belief in what a certain scientist says. That's not really at odds with saying "science is real" other than the word "believe" which is inherent in any statement. I don't find it silly in the current context, in which people are throwing their belief to people uniquely unqualified in both experience and methodology, i.e. an actual war on science itself.  
Click to expand...
My issue is that I found it to be nothing more than a virtue signal.  The word 'science' became synonymous with 'restrictions/shutdowns/isolation'.  I had arguments on this very forum with folks on either side (still stupid that we had 2 distinct 'sides' in a public health crisis).  I distinctly remember arguing about what the expected mortality rate should be post-mass vaccination based on the mRNA trials with 'follow the science' posters.  While they were coarsely on the right 'side' of things, I felt they were using the words 'science' and 'data' without really understanding how either should be applied.

I always treated the ivermectin and 'it's the flu' crowd accordingly.  Felt I gave them the attention they deserved about midway through the pandemic

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Archy1221 said:
It’s not that people believe climate change is fake, it’s the extent that it’s all man made vs nature doing what nature does plus some man made induced change is what people have disagreement about 
Click to expand...
So you're saying the real argument is one side claiming it's 'all man made' vs another side saying it's 'nature doing what nature does' with a sprinkling of man made-ness?  

FWIW, very few organizations that don't have the word 'Petroleum' in their name are skeptical at this point.

 
Jason Sitoke said:
So you're saying the real argument is one side claiming it's 'all man made' vs another side saying it's 'nature doing what nature does' with a sprinkling of man made-ness?  

FWIW, very few organizations that don't have the word 'Petroleum' in their name are skeptical at this point.
Click to expand...
I’m saying exactly what I said.   One poster offered up a notion that people who weren’t bought into the man is responsible for the climate changing are climate change deniers or that climate change is fake.   I don’t find that to be true in most cases where I talk to people about their opinion on the matter.  
Some folks agree the climate changes and has changed since the Earth was born.  I mean, I live on what was once covered in water and turned to dry land prior to arrival of any human being.  The disagreement is to what extent humans are causing the climate to change above and beyond what nature would do on its own and secondly how that human caused change impacts the globe and our ability to survive it.  

 
Archy1221 said:
I’m saying exactly what I said.   One poster offered up a notion that people who weren’t bought into the man is responsible for the climate changing are climate change deniers or that climate change is fake.   I don’t find that to be true in most cases where I talk to people about their opinion on the matter.  
Some folks agree the climate changes and has changed since the Earth was born.  I mean, I live on what was once covered in water and turned to dry land prior to arrival of any human being.  The disagreement is to what extent humans are causing the climate to change above and beyond what nature would do on its own and secondly how that human caused change impacts the globe and our ability to survive it.  
Click to expand...
No one denies that the climate has changed throughout the history of the Earth, so not sure who the 'others' are when you say 'some folks agree the climate changes'.  And there is no real good faith argument that stands up to criticism that human-induced climate change is not the primary factor in our planet currently warming.

 
I think the bigger disagreement is that regardless of whether men are causing it, or it's just the earth doing what it wants to, some folks say, "maybe we should try to fix this in a direction that actually continues to work well for us since we are concerned with our own survival and self-interest" and some other folks say, "don't worry about it" and are committed to doing nothing to keep the earth hospitable to humans and the ways we have found effective for living.

 
Lorewarn said:
I think the bigger disagreement is that regardless of whether men are causing it, or it's just the earth doing what it wants to, some folks say, "maybe we should try to fix this in a direction that actually continues to work well for us since we are concerned with our own survival and self-interest" and some other folks say, "don't worry about it" and are committed to doing nothing to keep the earth hospitable to humans and the ways we have found effective for living.
Click to expand...
The US is doing something.  Actually we are doing lots of something.   Your issue is with countries like China and India. 

 
Climate change is going to happen, it has to happen.  It is exactly like your health, the older you get, the more s#!t you deal with.

We all know this and most of us still don't do anything but the bare minimum with our health.  A little walk here or there or some light gardening to get some "exercise" 

Just like super climate-bros...they still do the bare minimum but they still love to lecture others.  That is what no one likes.  

None of us eat perfectly each day, hit the gym each day, get 10 hours of sleep each day, drink a gallon of water each day, stay away from anything "bad" for us each day.  Even though we know we should.

So then you have these weirdos that won't even take care of themselves 100% of the time but will still lecture others about using some hairspray or drinking from a styrofoam cup?  f#&% off.

 
Back
Top