Listen to the science

Author: cristo71 ,

Posts

Total: 46
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,516
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
--> @3RU7AL
On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 10,168
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @badger
If the science is fake, it's fake. We'll know. We'll be told by the people that have a clue. 
specific flaws in pfizer's corporate "science"

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 10,168
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @FLRW
On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.
it also make him a qualified expert
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,516
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5
 Malone was a graduate student in biology in the late 1980s at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, he injected genetic material—DNA and RNA—into the cells of mice in hopes of creating a new kind of vaccine. He was the first author on a 1989 paper demonstrating how RNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, which are basically tiny globules of fat, and a co-author on a 1990 Science paper showing that if you inject pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells, it can lead to the transcription of new proteins. If the same approach worked for human cells, the latter paper said in its conclusion, this technology “may provide alternative approaches to vaccine development.”  He dropped out of graduate school in 1988, just short of his Ph.D., and went to work at a pharmaceutical company called Vical. Now he claims that both the Salk Institute and Vical profited from his work and essentially prevented him from further pursuing his research. (A Salk Institute spokesperson said that nothing in the institute’s records substantiates Malone’s allegations. The biotech company into which Vical was merged, Brickell, did not respond to requests for comment.) To say that Malone remains bitter over this perceived mistreatment doesn’t do justice to his sense of aggrievement. He calls what happened to him “intellectual rape.”
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 209
0
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
0
2
3
--> @badger
I made no mention of “fake science.” You seem to insist on missing my point. I’m talking about virtue signaling with the word “science” being the virtue.

FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,516
3
2
5
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
2
5

Malone is a worthless piece of shit conman, you know, like Trump.
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 803
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
Definitely looks like a conman.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 10,168
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @FLRW
which specific claims (regarding current vaccine policy) do you believe are false ?
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 629
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
I think that the problem that the OP is getting at is the one called 'Scientism'. If you look at the original great populizers of science - those who brought it to widespread public attention during the dawning of mass media - they were highly esteemed, revolutionary scientists like Einstein or Feynman. During this period, it was Feynman who said that 'science is the belief in the ignorance of experts'. He was referring to the fact that science was the antithesis of what you might call a magisterial understanding of truth - the idea that a group of people tell you what was true and untrue, and that they ought to be believed on account of their expertise. To Feynman, and other great scientists of his generation, science was a wrecking ball that tore down ossified bureaucracies and hardened assumptions about the way that the world worked. As time went on, however, a gap formed between this class of 'science communicators' and the actual creme de la creme of the scientific world. It dropped down a notch with Sagan and DeGrasse Tyson - adept scientists and intelligent men, but they never left a mark similar to that left by Feynman or Einstein.

This level of prestige took an enormous step down with Bill Nye and the slew of internet populizers that followed in his wake in later decades - many of these people don't even hold advanced degrees, yet are treated by society as authorities on physical reality. This slow and steady degradation was also accompanied by the growth of scientific bureaucracies - by the present day, these are inhabited by a mix of careerist political climbers and hopelessly corrupt scientists-for-hire, with an ever-dwindling population of principled holdouts. Fauci is emblematic of this - he is best known for completely bungling the AIDS crisis and has only failed upwards since then. If you look at the actual revolutionary scientists you can see how low of an opinion someone like him is held in - Kary Mullis is the most famous example of this, but if you know anyone in the scientific world you know that the gold standard isn't people at the top of the NIH or the FDA, it's people at Harvard, Oxford, MIT, or the Salk Institute.

So the million dollar question is who, precisely, distils down whatever serum is dripped into the public's ears and branded as 'science'? Increasingly, it's scientific popularizers, scientific journalists, and scientific bureaucrats. We all know that there are scientists who will sell their soul to the devil - the ones who are on the payroll of gas companies and present research which comes to the convenient conclusion that there's a 0% likelihood of fracking mishaps, or that burning oil is actually good for the planet, are the prime example. The idea that we should just accept whatever is fed to us in the name of science present a serious problem - because how would the general public be able to differentiate between a slew of populizers, science journalists, and ecological bureaucrats who were compromised by business interests like oil and gas companies, and one that wasn't, if we were all uncritical consumers of scientific 'truth'? The same applies to health outcomes. Over 65% of FDA funding for drug regulation comes from the very companies which the FDA is supposed to be regulating. The former FDA commissioner now sits on the board of Pfizer. Two highly regarded vaccine experts resigned from the FDA over their approval of Pfizer's booster schedule. At what point does what the FDA says about vaccines cease to treated like divine revelation?

The gold standard for science is the ability to make accurate predictions - that's what we use to test hypotheses, it's the core of the discipline. All throughout this pandemic, I have predicted one thing, the experts have predicted another, and I have been right. I said that there would be booster programs back in spring of 2021 and I had people calling me crazy - I was right. I said that a new Covid variant would come roaring back when it looked like things had died out in the summer of 2021 - I was right. I said that mask and lockdown policy would have little impact on covid numbers between US states and that temporally specific discrepancies were due to localized seasonal spikes - I was right. I predicted that Covid would never be eradicated - it has animal reservoirs and mutates way too fast - I was right. My predictions more accurate - am I more intelligent than all of these PhDs? No, I don't think so. But I don't have the same biases and don't exist in the same ecosystems of social pressures that they do, and so am unaffected by the things that introduce bias and distort their own predictions in a way which weakens their accuracy. Everyone should be at the bare minimum critical of the conflicts of interest that our self-anointed masters of reality are operating under, and shouldn't for a second take anything that they say as gospel truth. That's the polar opposite of what the greatest scientists in the world have understood science to be, and it's an incredibly ugly corruption of a beautiful tool.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 209
0
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
0
2
3
Excellent post, Resurget.

I also submit this excellent article which discusses this same issue. I hope that those who disagree with me find more agreeable middle ground here:



zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 6,155
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @cristo71
I wasn't addressing your point directly.

Just responding to it.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 10,168
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @ResurgetExFavilla
I predicted that Covid would never be eradicated - it has animal reservoirs and mutates way too fast - I was right.
exactly - this is the longest "two weeks" of my life
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 209
0
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
0
2
3
--> @zedvictor4
Your point is what then, exactly? Should I simply ignore you?

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 6,155
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @cristo71
If you are unable to understand the meaning.

Then ignore for sure.

Simple.
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 209
0
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
0
2
3
--> @zedvictor4
What do you think about the Christian Science Monitor article I posted on this subject in post 35?

zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 6,155
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @cristo71
A balanced article.

11 days later

Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 47
Posts: 620
3
6
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
3
6
10
--> @cristo71
The problem with "listen to the science" is that it doesn't add anything usefull to the conversation. Everyone agrees that we should base our actions on facts rather than fiction --- but people are generally bad at distinguishing credible science from bollocks. Listening to science is far too vague, it cannot prevent uneducated fools from trusting some random source because they don't know how to detect real science. "Listen to the science" may be misused as a justification to trust your own "research" into "the science". Put simply, people can listen to anything and believe it to be sciecne. A better way to communicate the consensus of science is to say:

"Be aware that ............ is a scientific fact you can't ignore".

This gets the relevant point across without relying on people's own ability to understand science. The average person won't read the peer-reviewed scientific literature just because some political figure asked them to --- if they are to hear sound scientific facts they must be told directly. When you are specific in your appeal to science you are simultaniously discrediting all the untrustworthy sources out there propagating bogous claims that contradict the evidence.


What I am saying is that "listen to the science" is ineffective because nobody knows how to tell science from bullshit. Politicians should cite specific facts instead.
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 370
Posts: 13,275
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
--> @Benjamin
because nobody knows how to tell science from bullshit. Politicians should cite specific facts instead.
That is the saddest part of people not just today but in general; they are taught from a young age, due to how education works, to just down what they're told and literally never learning to question it. If everything runs on hierarchy and they take in only their highest-ranked media as gospel, people are going to end up very incapable of proving it wrong or realising they're being duped if the authorities pull the wool over their eyes at some point.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 81
Posts: 2,529
4
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
4
8
11
It is notions like "Listen to the science" that got people mislead. No, using your ears to get information is highly unreliable because there are so many conmen that use non-authentic evidence to fool people and we wouldn't notice it right hand.

No, no, look at the science. There, you will be able to distinguish between authentic and non-authentic work by just looking at it.
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 17
Posts: 6,155
3
3
4
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
4
--> @Intelligence_06
I'm not sure if authenticity is relevant.

Science could just as easily conclude in authentic nonsense,  as it could in authentic sense.

Whether or not we can distinguish between fact and fantasy is more important.

And unless we understand the science we have no way of deciding, other than the assurance of people who we choose to put our trust in.
Intelligence_06
Intelligence_06's avatar
Debates: 81
Posts: 2,529
4
8
11
Intelligence_06's avatar
Intelligence_06
4
8
11
--> @zedvictor4
What would you even call "scientific nonsense"? Scientists trying to experiment with quantum physics and end up with different things each time?

If it is scientific nonsense, it is nothing at all, unless it is a derivative, in which "It is impossible to find sense within xxx...".