The most important sentences for me in this article are “ By labeling whatever the current scientific consensus happened to be an immutable “fact,” media outlets made the normal evolution of scientific debates look dishonest, and pointlessly heightened mistrust of both scientists and media”.
This drives me absolutely crazy as someone who has done research for 3-4 decades. I wish to the heavens people would understand the scientific method and realize that science is about the constant state of learning and readjusting ones “consensus” about What to believe. If the media and our leaders had spent just a tiny bit of time in treating us as intelligent adults as the led us through this process instead of treating it like some gosh awful competitive game we would have saved so many more people and jobs.
Anyone who claims to "believe in science" and to claim a certain interpretation by way of the number of scientists behind it is essentially a moron, with no actual understanding of science.
Indeed. Such claims always remind me of Einstein's reaction to a pamphlet entitled "A Hundred Scientists Against Einstein": "If I had been wrong, one would have been enough."
Exactly. No scientist "believes" in anything. I have been involved in program management for a variety of projects that include evolutionary biology, but I would never say "I believe in evolution". Rather, I understand evolutionary biology and its role in X."
It's the same with believing in "the intelligence agencies" - many people claimed certainty regarding "Russian interference" when all 17 of them signed off on that theory. Of course, the fact that it was later revealed to be just one or two (and that they're the biggest liars among them all) came too late. The damage had been done.
Oh man, “science is real” has definitely shot up the list of things I absolutely hate to hear/read, hahaha. Upon even a remotely critical read, it’s a completely meaningless statement, but for the in-crowd it’s a 100% confirmation of whose side you’re on.
I want to compile a list of all those kind of nauseating, meaningless, performative phrases in case I ever need to induce vomiting.
“Science is real.”
“Facts matter.”
“I believe in truth.”
That’s all I’ve got so far off the top of my head.
Science may be real, but all models are wrong, as the eminent British statistician G.E.P. Box observed, before continuing, to note that some models are useful. Most of the politically fraught issues involving science of late have involved not ordinary science, but modeling.
Maybe I got the gist of your post wrong, if so, I apologize, but to clarify...
...the statement "some models are useful" in the context you mentioned it, did not refer to being politically useful or useful for manipulating opinion. Box meant some models make meaningful predictions, but none will perfectly predict the future.
Like the European weather models that predicted Hurricane Sandy or perhaps like Billy Bean's models that helped identify more productive baseball players.
I like that. Especially since so many who are fond of the phrase seem to believe that reality is subject to sociopolitical modeling.
The single sociology class I took was constant warfare until the teacher let me know I could get a "B" by NOT criticizing the models and experimental methodology and designs used to generate what passed for "knowledge" in the field (for the purpose of then spinning out about a 10-to-1 ratio of hypothetical bullshit to "science" in the class).
I took the deal, coz I was just dragging down the class. The other students were eager to learn what they were supposed to believe, as communicated by the "credentialed" class, and move on to the next mini-lobotomy.
Haha that one drives my friend nuts, me and the other guys love deploying “it is what it is” at the exact right time to give him the maximum amount of grief. Never gets old. But yeah that’s definitely another one.
HOWEVER. "It is what it is." actually can communicate, clearly, the extent of one's knowledge wrt a particular thing. Kind of a "Well, we're starting 'Principle of Identity", folks."
It's a lot better than the pretense that you DO know something, but that something is based on someone liking a Tweet by someone who appeared on a podcast where they had once allowed an alt-right-adjacent person to speak.
There are worse places to start than acknowledged ignorance.
Ah, yes, the yard signs of the bien-pensants. I've been trying to come up with a really good a opposing version that would definitely include the lines "Science requires skepticism" and "Eros is not agape", to rendered in the same color scheme, of course.
We have a consensus, man. And soon enough, a new internal intelligence agency to root out the kind of wrongthink that, according to the recent Vice article, caused media careerists to wet their pants and suffer from PTSD.
The scientific method and hypothesis that come form it is not run as a democracy. In fact many times it may appear the direct opposite of a democracy. That is why doing polls among scientists is asinine
Every sane person believes in "science", if you define that as believing it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Whether you believe the opinions and inferences of any given scientist, or a group thereof, that's quite another matter. That's not believing in "science," it's believing in people.
No. In the common usage of words, science is the opposite of belief. Science seeks objective information and uses critical analysis to determine out best current understanding, regardless of emotional or political preferences or traditions. Belief is often without objective support, and sometimes in contradiction, and almost always driven by emotion, politics, and tradition.
A "belief" is simply an attitude that something about the world is true. Clearly, scientists believe it is it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Matter of fact, that is a terse definition of science offered by Karl Popper. If you don't believe it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world, you don't believe in science. Of course most scientific observations about the physical world are couched in probabilities, and not stated to be true or false. This is why fact checkers are stupid. They don't get that, and rate things true or false that should be rated more probable, less probable, or simply "impossible to ascertain." Probably the most idiotic thing about fact checkers is rating something false simply because they have no evidence it is true. That's the argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it shows up in a deplorably large number of fact checks.
Not common usage, but the definition of “belief” used in epistemology. Weirdly, nobody here seems to tarry over defining “belief.” Or “science,” for that matter.
Don’t discount the role of “scientists” in the defamation of their own profession. Quite a few are more than eager to utilize the political wind of the moment in order to lift themselves and their careers into the limelight.
In a more innocent time from the not too distant past, a chubby, middle aged scientist would push fake data to justify a Grant to fund his 6 month excursion to Paris to study "the link between the Parisian silver fish and throat cancer" with his 20 year old intern he recruited for the project.
Now he instead disseminates fake data to score political points. It's obscene to witness the decline of real science.
«In a more innocent time from the not too distant past, a chubby, middle aged scientist would push fake data to justify a Grant to fund his 6 month excursion to Paris to study "the link between the Parisian silver fish and throat cancer" with his 20 year old intern he recruited for the project.»
The greatest such endeavour was a (female) sociologist who got quite a bit of funding from a foundation for a very serious proposal for "Studying social interactions in littoral communities in the third world", and spent the next three years on Copacana Beach in Rio photographing and chatting up cute people while getting a nice tan.
Osterholm was great at scaring the living shit out of people, like me, last year. And there was a lot of appropriateness to his concerns. But once it became obvious those concerns were not warranted because the virus was not especially deadly to the vast majority of the world, he should have just said "thank god" and left the podium. He didn't.
In my experience the most "pro-science" people are the ones with the least scientific education. When "the science" disagrees with their political views they're just as likely to discard it as the "anti-science" people. The whole thing is stupid. You can't simultaneously denigrate objective truth and be "pro-science".
Great point, except you always have to qualify a scientific truth as the best understanding at the moment. But yes, amazing how the “science is oppression” crowd changed sides, and will do so again when another inconvenient truth emerges.
Science is always suborned to morals. Only facts that do not directly contradict strongly held opinions are allowed by the mind. This shows up in cognitive dissidence within both political parties.
One has to constantly fight this. It is possible but very, very hard. I have found that the best way is to find people you trust with your whole being but may have different ways of thinking and experience. The key is trust. I. This day and age trust has been so shattered that people will just not listen to others that challenge their thinking. Fortunately I have a very small network i truly trust and who will challenge me. That helps but it is not always very comfortable
Hmmm...my experience is the opposite. Most of the anti-(certain)-science people I know (and to be anti-any-science implies that one is educated in at least some scientific discipline) have the least STEM education/experience. Besides, what's objective truth these days? There's always a differing opinion masquerading as the result of sound scientific research.
They've eroded public trust in actual science so much already. Using the phrase, "Trust the Science!" like a cudgel to beat people into their religious cult.
«one reason China has had a Chief Censor for 2000 years: to weed out irresponsible disinformation that can damage the entire country»
So did most european countries for the past 1,000 years, and in both cases it was to protect incumbents under the guise of protecting "the established order". The main differences however between censorship in Europe and in China:
* In favour of China, it is such a diverse and fragmented and wild place that some bias in favour of "stability" is not purely for protecting incumbents.
* In favour of China, it has the "Mandate of the stars" principle, which differs from the european notion of the "Divine right of kings" in being conditional, and conditional on the benefit of the majority, which also limits self-serving protection of the incumbents.
* In favour of Europe, it had so many and varied jurisdictions that it was quite difficult to censors the same things everywhere, so there was always some place that would allow opinions "unpopular" elsewhere.
Yes. Very different officials, entirely different cultures. Chinese media is the most trusted on earth, largely because its government keeps its promises and doesn't tell lies.
«Chinese media is the most trusted on earth, largely because its government keeps its promises and doesn't tell lies.»
We all understand that you genuinely like China and even its government, but you are overselling this by a large factor.
As you know from recently published surveys, the different levels of government in China have very different appreciation rates, and the central government which has the best appreciation most likely has it because of an ancient chinese (and not just chinese one) concept, that the Emperor is benevolent even if the local officials are bad, and in this the "Gongchan" dynasty is not too different from most others.
BTW I don't doubt that much if not most of the central politicians and officials are fundamentally benevolent (even when corrupt); as a rather famous leader said, he did not see most of his family and friends being slaughtered in purges or killed in war for the chinese people to remain poor.
There are many other details that show that, from the 5 generals of the PLA who refused to carry out the Tien An Men repression to "Great Underground Wall of China" (two stories that in the "west" are not very much mentioned).
But even the central level of government is repressive, paranoid, and a gigantic mess, even if it is run by a cohort of engineers.
As to the press, there seems to be amazing press freedom as long as "hot" topics are avoided. That is not too different from the less tightly controlled countries of the "west" :-).
As a side note, I have been watching during lockdowns *a lot* of chinese TV series and movies (subtitled in english) on Viki.com and I have noticed over the years they have become more and more americanized, reflecting obviously what is happening to chinese culture. That is a very big long term problem. I hope that the chinese people will be as resistant to americanization as much as the japanese have been.
Last week the Washington Post published the result a survey of 20,000 Chinese. The UK's York University recruited more than 600 students from 53 universities across China to conduct one-on-one interviews online.
The result? "The data show that Chinese citizens’ trust in their national government increased to 98 percent. Their trust in local government also increased compared to 2018 levels — 91 percent of Chinese citizens surveyed now said they trust or trust completely the township-level government. Trust levels rose to 93 percent at the county level, 94 percent at the city level and 95 percent at the provincial level. These numbers suggest that Chinese citizens have become more trusting in all levels of government”.
There is zero evidence of corruption at the top, policy-making level and overwhelming evidence–like 98% home ownership and ending extreme poverty–to the contrary.
But even the central level of government is repressive, paranoid, and a gigantic mess, even if it is run by a cohort of engineers.
As to "there seems to be amazing press freedom as long as "hot" topics are avoided," can you name one?
I recall watching Bill Clinton lambaste the President of China for an hour, live, on Chinese national TV, about Tiananmen.
I agree that they will be resistant to Americanization.
I've always known people were amazingly uninformed regarding even basic scientific facts (from about age 8). As I grew up, I saw that beyond the bog standard anti-intellectualism in K-12 education, adults were horrifically ill-served by reporting on science and matters that involved science.
It was routinely worse than would have been produced by a well-meaning 7-grader. How could this happen? Eventually I realized, and test out, what I later taught my kids: "Any science article, drop down at least 3, 4 paragraphs, sometimes all the way to the concluding paragraph, and you see something from a "Public Education Director for Corporation A" or "Spokesperson for the Department of Bureaus" or some other knowledgeable-sounding party. I told them to ask if the organization the spokesperson was representing had a vested interest in the result of the scientific inquiry, or situation to which science was supposedly being applied. The answer was, of course, always yes.
"And that's why you have an article supposedly about "science" in today's newspaper." All my kids report this approach has served them well, though it's not much of an insight nowadays.
In a crisis we use the science with the best evidence or most consensus. That was what was done here. Was it fixed or bound to be the permanent or only one? Of course not. Just the best estimation. And in cases where 2 or more have equal consensus it gets trickier but one thing everyone seemed to agree on was that until there was a vaccine we' still be in trouble. So we did that, too.
Wishing to the heavens for people to understand is a waste of your effort. Not because it will bear no fruit, because it’s already so. People do understand, pundits pretend otherwise and dishonestly use the weaponized idea that science is absolute to push any given agenda. But the average Joe isn’t quite as simple as the MMS and our Social Media Overlords project. We get it
Thank you. As a scientist it drives me crazy that people don’t understand the scientific method and how there are no hard and fast ‘truths’ in science. You put it very well
Exactly. And whatever Fauci's possible conflicts of interest *might be* with regard to gain of function research, he deserves the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to the constant state of learning on the efficacy of masks.
Fauci is correct on gain of function. It seems what YOU got from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we should not understand how diseases develop. We should NOT have trained anyone to deal with such events.
The media and "public health authorities" are a complete clown show.
The only time that quack Fauci has been right about anything is when he announced on 60 Minutes in March of 2020 that masks are useless, a fact all informed people have known since the Spanish Flu.
Regardless, we have the spectacle of Redfield, then director of the CDC, saying masks may be more effective than a vaccine.
Then we have the NYT, of all places, quoting a VT professor saying the "social distancing" nonsense was "almost like it was pulled out of thin air".
And, of course the tyrannical, impoverishing lockdowns which, like all the other "guidelines", show no statistical correlation with any Covid metric and therefore destroyed the financial lives of countless millions, for nothing.
And the latest clown-bureaucrat heading the CDC, Walensky, saying she has a sense of "impending doom".
And then we have ex-president Cheetoh's Experimental Emergency Warp Vax, which Kamala said she wouldn't take but then did, and which they now want to inject into children.
This despite the fact that, at last count, the CDC's own numbers show that 1086 people, in a nation of 320 milliion, under the age of 24 have succumbed to this plague. I'd like some "fact-checker" to explain how, exactly, that constitutes an "emergency".
My bullshit detector has run hot since Bush the Younger, but has now been pegged for over a year.
Masks *aren't* useless you use the right type of mask and wear it correctly in the correct context. COVID (and other airborne diseases) spread by way of aerosols. The fomite theory that held sway when Fauci made his original mask statements has been put to bed. There's a good reason that your dentist, doctor or surgeon's team wear masks. The tiny droplets that are expelled any time you speak, breathe with your mouth open, sneeze, laugh, cough or sing are blocked by N-95 masks and there is absolutely no legitimate debate about that. Furthermore, even a basic mask can often help stop transmission because it's not viral particles traveling on their own - they're often carried by larger droplets of moisture that even cheaper masks can prevent from reaching your nose or mouth.
I really don't understand why a reasonably educated, logical person wouldn't get this simple concept. But every time I end up in a "debate" with someone about it, they whip out some one-off study, usually one that doesn't adequately control for variables, or one which has an incredibly small sample size that says it's "inconclusive" whether masks "work." In that way, they're using the "science" of their choosing to question common sense and accepted modern medical knowledge.
Perhaps it's because some of us reasonably educated and logical types are not aware of a study that proves masks "work". The definition of "work" is important here. Let's start with that.
Getting into the specifics, some masks work better than others. That's also common sense. Different filtration media have different levels of filtration.
"In one study, the researchers sought to determine whether alternatives to high-efficiency N95 masks reserved for health care workers could offer similar protection for hospital personnel in the event of shortages. They tested the filtration ability of expired N95 masks, N95 masks that had been sterilized for reuse, and dozens of other face mask alternatives. The results show that both expired N95 masks and sterilized N95 masks provided the same level of protection as new N95 masks with greater than 95 percent filtration. Other alternatives provided less protection. For example, surgical masks with ties provided 71.5 percent filtration, while surgical masks with ear loops only provided 38.1 percent. Knowing the relative performance of alternatives to new N95 masks will help hospital administrators make evidence-based decisions to protect their staff.
In another study, the researchers examined the filtration ability of a variety of medical procedure masks, cloth masks and coverings recommended for the public. They tested masks made from cotton, nylon, and other materials and in different styles, including masks with ear loops and ties.
They found that the effectiveness of the masks varied widely: a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked an average of 26.5 percent of particles in the chamber, while a washed, two-layer woven nylon mask with a filter insert and metal nose bridge blocked 79 percent of particles on average. Other masks scored somewhere in between.
They also tested a variety of modifications to improve the fit of commercially available medical procedure masks, like tightening ear loops, placing rubber bands over the top and bottom of the mask to reduce gaps, and placing a cut-out piece of nylon stocking over the mask to seal the gaps. The filtration ability improved by 60.3 to 80.2 percent depending on the modification made. As the fit of the medical procedure masks improved, so did their filtration efficiency.
In their study of masks recommended for the public, the researchers emphasize the importance of mask material and fit. Their results indicate that not only are certain cloth masks effective at keeping out viral particles, but in many cases perform as well as or better than non-N95 medical masks. Fabrics with multiple woven layers and reducing gaps provide substantially more particle filtration. The team continues to explore mask performance with studies in progress on the effects of facial hair and face shape on mask fit. The results of these projects will help the public and health care professionals choose mask options that provide the greatest level of protection."
Maybe I should stop here and try to understand where you're coming from regarding the scientific merits of masks vs. the unscientific belief that filtration media that works against particles with sizes similar to the moisture droplets expelled by humans somehow miraculously doesn't work against the same droplets when COVID is in them?
To put it another way - are you saying categorically that NO MASKS WORK EVER? If so, then you're clearly not someone who is open to changing their mind when presented with new or better information and I see no reason to continue the discussion. If not, then let's carry on.
Bull-fucking-shit "the virus does not need droplets of moisture..."
What the fuck DOES it need then? You're saying individual viruses travel through the air and that so many of them do so it's enough to cause an infection? LMFAO! That's the hill you're choosing to die on?
But don't let my sarcasm or whatever deter you. How DOES an airborne virus spread?
(CDC) postulate that the particles of more than 5 μm as droplets, and those less than 5 μm as aerosols or droplet nuclei (Siegel et al., 2007; WHO, 2014). Conversely, there have been some other postulations, indicating that aerodynamic diameter of 20 μm or 10 μm or less should be reckoned to be aerosols, based on their ability to linger in the air for a prolonged period, and the reachability to the respirable fraction of the lung (alveolar region) (Gralton et al., 2011; Nicas et al., 2005; Tellier, 2009). Small aerosols are more susceptible to be inhaled deep into the lung, which causes infection in the alveolar tissues of the lower respiratory tract,
That's right out of the very report you didn't read and tried to use to bullshit everyone into thinking you actually know WTF you're talking about.
Holy shit, you need to stop virtue signaling like this.
Read this before you respond. There's actually pretty well accepted and proven evidence for how many virions can fit on/in the smallest particle of moisture (from aerosols to droplets to loogies hocked) and even for aerosols it's not very many.
But let's cut the BS. Do you think good masks when worn properly are totally ineffective against COVID or other airborne pathogens? If so, why? I don't have time for idiots who accuse me of "spewing" bullshit when they clearly don't understand how viruses are "spewed" and blocked.
No I didn't say they were totally ineffective. I said there is not proof that they significantly reduce transmission of the virus due to the fact that the virions DO NOT NEED droplets of moisture to travel and actually float in the air much longer without the weight of it.
Those masks DO NOT block the virus in any way shape or form or people would suffocate trying.
Please show me your non peer reviewed evidence that is mostly government issued and think tank funded.
To expand on and clarify my reply below, masks ALSO trap a lot of the virus particle containing moisture that someone exhales or inhales. So even if SOME virus containing moisture DOES get through, the viral load will be MUCH lower and therefore the immune system has a better chance of fighting it off before it becomes an infection.
"The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.
"There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people," said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.
The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.
"Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency," said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.
Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since "there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19," said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Size matters, but not how you think
But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim.
The N95 filter is indeed physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. It works well for particles above that size, and actually snares particles below that size better than those at exactly the 0.3 level.
"N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3," Marr said. "If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander and small ones don’t get through."
N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.
Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:
The first is something called "Brownian motion," the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.
The second is the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.
"Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck," said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. "When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks."
This article was from June of 2020. Since that time it's become accepted that aerosols ARE a means of COVID transmission, so this sentence is not accurate *anymore*...
"Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since "there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19..."
But it DOES also spread via droplets, which is exactly what I've been saying throughout the discussion with Skutch.
Yes, exactly. And when the moisture evaporates, any particulate matter in the moisture gets trapped in the mask. That's why masks are disposable. Furthermore, better N-95 masks have electrostatic properties that make them even more effective at trapping moisture and whatever is in it.
How much ? How much does it take to get infected ? Once again you are employing random particle tests to say something might reduce the viral load without ever stating how much ? Is it .05% or 50% ??
The most important sentences for me in this article are “ By labeling whatever the current scientific consensus happened to be an immutable “fact,” media outlets made the normal evolution of scientific debates look dishonest, and pointlessly heightened mistrust of both scientists and media”.
This drives me absolutely crazy as someone who has done research for 3-4 decades. I wish to the heavens people would understand the scientific method and realize that science is about the constant state of learning and readjusting ones “consensus” about What to believe. If the media and our leaders had spent just a tiny bit of time in treating us as intelligent adults as the led us through this process instead of treating it like some gosh awful competitive game we would have saved so many more people and jobs.
Anyone who claims to "believe in science" and to claim a certain interpretation by way of the number of scientists behind it is essentially a moron, with no actual understanding of science.
Indeed. Such claims always remind me of Einstein's reaction to a pamphlet entitled "A Hundred Scientists Against Einstein": "If I had been wrong, one would have been enough."
Exactly. No scientist "believes" in anything. I have been involved in program management for a variety of projects that include evolutionary biology, but I would never say "I believe in evolution". Rather, I understand evolutionary biology and its role in X."
Rfhirsch: I am with you in spirit! But...
In theory, a good scientist trades beliefs for hypotheses. In practice, YMMV (your mileage may vary)...
"No scientist "believes" in anything." kind of sounds a lot like a belief which, if you meant it to be ironic, is fantastic!
I believe in evolution. 😁
There you go with your "no true scotsman" logical fallacy! I believe in facts over the truth! Don't deny the science.
The problem is the "facts" change as we learn more
??? Who are you replying to???
I suggest scientists believe in the scientific method ....
It's the same with believing in "the intelligence agencies" - many people claimed certainty regarding "Russian interference" when all 17 of them signed off on that theory. Of course, the fact that it was later revealed to be just one or two (and that they're the biggest liars among them all) came too late. The damage had been done.
Hope this skepticism extends to the “settled science” of “climate change”
Conservation is good, climate change is a popular way to make that happen
Dude, science is real. Haven’t you heard?
Oh man, “science is real” has definitely shot up the list of things I absolutely hate to hear/read, hahaha. Upon even a remotely critical read, it’s a completely meaningless statement, but for the in-crowd it’s a 100% confirmation of whose side you’re on.
I want to compile a list of all those kind of nauseating, meaningless, performative phrases in case I ever need to induce vomiting.
“Science is real.”
“Facts matter.”
“I believe in truth.”
That’s all I’ve got so far off the top of my head.
Vapid, performative signaling is the currency of the day.
Science is real. Deal with it. I'm a scientist.
Science may be real, but all models are wrong, as the eminent British statistician G.E.P. Box observed, before continuing, to note that some models are useful. Most of the politically fraught issues involving science of late have involved not ordinary science, but modeling.
DNY: "some models are useful"
Maybe I got the gist of your post wrong, if so, I apologize, but to clarify...
...the statement "some models are useful" in the context you mentioned it, did not refer to being politically useful or useful for manipulating opinion. Box meant some models make meaningful predictions, but none will perfectly predict the future.
Like the European weather models that predicted Hurricane Sandy or perhaps like Billy Bean's models that helped identify more productive baseball players.
Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness
Science is real is true. But "science is real" is what politicians say to promote their ideologies.
Yup, it’s rhetorical shorthand for, “I’m right and if you disagree with me, you’re a science denier.”
Saying “science is real” has about as much usefulness in terms of information conveyed as saying, “water is wet”.
And I am a scientist, too.
And Quite often paid for by large corporations, think tanks, NGO's, and covert agencies.
Better to say, "Real is science". Or that trying to objectively understand reality is science.
And I am a scientist, too, with both industry and academic careers.
I like that. Especially since so many who are fond of the phrase seem to believe that reality is subject to sociopolitical modeling.
The single sociology class I took was constant warfare until the teacher let me know I could get a "B" by NOT criticizing the models and experimental methodology and designs used to generate what passed for "knowledge" in the field (for the purpose of then spinning out about a 10-to-1 ratio of hypothetical bullshit to "science" in the class).
I took the deal, coz I was just dragging down the class. The other students were eager to learn what they were supposed to believe, as communicated by the "credentialed" class, and move on to the next mini-lobotomy.
I commit science... : )
Add to this list “I’m a scientist” and “Some scientists say”
It is what it is...
Haha that one drives my friend nuts, me and the other guys love deploying “it is what it is” at the exact right time to give him the maximum amount of grief. Never gets old. But yeah that’s definitely another one.
HOWEVER. "It is what it is." actually can communicate, clearly, the extent of one's knowledge wrt a particular thing. Kind of a "Well, we're starting 'Principle of Identity", folks."
It's a lot better than the pretense that you DO know something, but that something is based on someone liking a Tweet by someone who appeared on a podcast where they had once allowed an alt-right-adjacent person to speak.
There are worse places to start than acknowledged ignorance.
I just want to explode when I hear these things
Ok. Go boom. 💥
Spoken like a true hypocrite. Posting about how science isn't real on a device created by science.
You forgot:
"Heil, Hitler!"
Because science, bitches!
Ah, yes, the yard signs of the bien-pensants. I've been trying to come up with a really good a opposing version that would definitely include the lines "Science requires skepticism" and "Eros is not agape", to rendered in the same color scheme, of course.
I’d buy one.
We have a consensus, man. And soon enough, a new internal intelligence agency to root out the kind of wrongthink that, according to the recent Vice article, caused media careerists to wet their pants and suffer from PTSD.
The scientific method and hypothesis that come form it is not run as a democracy. In fact many times it may appear the direct opposite of a democracy. That is why doing polls among scientists is asinine
Every sane person believes in "science", if you define that as believing it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Whether you believe the opinions and inferences of any given scientist, or a group thereof, that's quite another matter. That's not believing in "science," it's believing in people.
No. In the common usage of words, science is the opposite of belief. Science seeks objective information and uses critical analysis to determine out best current understanding, regardless of emotional or political preferences or traditions. Belief is often without objective support, and sometimes in contradiction, and almost always driven by emotion, politics, and tradition.
A "belief" is simply an attitude that something about the world is true. Clearly, scientists believe it is it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world. Matter of fact, that is a terse definition of science offered by Karl Popper. If you don't believe it is possible to obtain independently subjectively verifiable knowledge about the physical world, you don't believe in science. Of course most scientific observations about the physical world are couched in probabilities, and not stated to be true or false. This is why fact checkers are stupid. They don't get that, and rate things true or false that should be rated more probable, less probable, or simply "impossible to ascertain." Probably the most idiotic thing about fact checkers is rating something false simply because they have no evidence it is true. That's the argumentum ad ignorantiam, and it shows up in a deplorably large number of fact checks.
If that is, indeed, the common usage of words, then the common usage understands neither science nor belief.
Not common usage, but the definition of “belief” used in epistemology. Weirdly, nobody here seems to tarry over defining “belief.” Or “science,” for that matter.
Don’t discount the role of “scientists” in the defamation of their own profession. Quite a few are more than eager to utilize the political wind of the moment in order to lift themselves and their careers into the limelight.
*cough*Osterholm*cough*Fauci*cough*Mann*cough*
In a more innocent time from the not too distant past, a chubby, middle aged scientist would push fake data to justify a Grant to fund his 6 month excursion to Paris to study "the link between the Parisian silver fish and throat cancer" with his 20 year old intern he recruited for the project.
Now he instead disseminates fake data to score political points. It's obscene to witness the decline of real science.
Admittedly, I can see some rationale for the former.
Well we all know the Coney Island Whitefish has a measurable impact on women's fertility...
Bruh, those silverfish are DANGEROUS.
«In a more innocent time from the not too distant past, a chubby, middle aged scientist would push fake data to justify a Grant to fund his 6 month excursion to Paris to study "the link between the Parisian silver fish and throat cancer" with his 20 year old intern he recruited for the project.»
The greatest such endeavour was a (female) sociologist who got quite a bit of funding from a foundation for a very serious proposal for "Studying social interactions in littoral communities in the third world", and spent the next three years on Copacana Beach in Rio photographing and chatting up cute people while getting a nice tan.
Finally, a research grant I can support.
True of any profession. Mediocrities are always in search of alternative paths to the top that don't require skill or effort.
Fair enough
*cough*Kaepernick*cough*
Good heavens man! All this coughing and your avatar is not wearing a mask.
Do you want to kill us all?
Indeed, another Birx in the wall.
Nice!!
Osterholm is excellent. You, OTOH are an ignoramus.
Osterholm was great at scaring the living shit out of people, like me, last year. And there was a lot of appropriateness to his concerns. But once it became obvious those concerns were not warranted because the virus was not especially deadly to the vast majority of the world, he should have just said "thank god" and left the podium. He didn't.
Hard to resist fame.
Yeah, a bunch of twats.
In my experience the most "pro-science" people are the ones with the least scientific education. When "the science" disagrees with their political views they're just as likely to discard it as the "anti-science" people. The whole thing is stupid. You can't simultaneously denigrate objective truth and be "pro-science".
You can if you are educated in the postmodern framework. Lysenko is back, baby.
Great point, except you always have to qualify a scientific truth as the best understanding at the moment. But yes, amazing how the “science is oppression” crowd changed sides, and will do so again when another inconvenient truth emerges.
Science is always suborned to morals. Only facts that do not directly contradict strongly held opinions are allowed by the mind. This shows up in cognitive dissidence within both political parties.
One has to constantly fight this. It is possible but very, very hard. I have found that the best way is to find people you trust with your whole being but may have different ways of thinking and experience. The key is trust. I. This day and age trust has been so shattered that people will just not listen to others that challenge their thinking. Fortunately I have a very small network i truly trust and who will challenge me. That helps but it is not always very comfortable
Hmmm...my experience is the opposite. Most of the anti-(certain)-science people I know (and to be anti-any-science implies that one is educated in at least some scientific discipline) have the least STEM education/experience. Besides, what's objective truth these days? There's always a differing opinion masquerading as the result of sound scientific research.
It's fucking bullshit bruh.
They've eroded public trust in actual science so much already. Using the phrase, "Trust the Science!" like a cudgel to beat people into their religious cult.
Bah. People bug me.
That's one reason China has had a Chief Censor for 2000 years: to weed out irresponsible disinformation that can damage the entire country.
«one reason China has had a Chief Censor for 2000 years: to weed out irresponsible disinformation that can damage the entire country»
So did most european countries for the past 1,000 years, and in both cases it was to protect incumbents under the guise of protecting "the established order". The main differences however between censorship in Europe and in China:
* In favour of China, it is such a diverse and fragmented and wild place that some bias in favour of "stability" is not purely for protecting incumbents.
* In favour of China, it has the "Mandate of the stars" principle, which differs from the european notion of the "Divine right of kings" in being conditional, and conditional on the benefit of the majority, which also limits self-serving protection of the incumbents.
* In favour of Europe, it had so many and varied jurisdictions that it was quite difficult to censors the same things everywhere, so there was always some place that would allow opinions "unpopular" elsewhere.
Yes. Very different officials, entirely different cultures. Chinese media is the most trusted on earth, largely because its government keeps its promises and doesn't tell lies.
«Chinese media is the most trusted on earth, largely because its government keeps its promises and doesn't tell lies.»
We all understand that you genuinely like China and even its government, but you are overselling this by a large factor.
As you know from recently published surveys, the different levels of government in China have very different appreciation rates, and the central government which has the best appreciation most likely has it because of an ancient chinese (and not just chinese one) concept, that the Emperor is benevolent even if the local officials are bad, and in this the "Gongchan" dynasty is not too different from most others.
BTW I don't doubt that much if not most of the central politicians and officials are fundamentally benevolent (even when corrupt); as a rather famous leader said, he did not see most of his family and friends being slaughtered in purges or killed in war for the chinese people to remain poor.
There are many other details that show that, from the 5 generals of the PLA who refused to carry out the Tien An Men repression to "Great Underground Wall of China" (two stories that in the "west" are not very much mentioned).
But even the central level of government is repressive, paranoid, and a gigantic mess, even if it is run by a cohort of engineers.
As to the press, there seems to be amazing press freedom as long as "hot" topics are avoided. That is not too different from the less tightly controlled countries of the "west" :-).
As a side note, I have been watching during lockdowns *a lot* of chinese TV series and movies (subtitled in english) on Viki.com and I have noticed over the years they have become more and more americanized, reflecting obviously what is happening to chinese culture. That is a very big long term problem. I hope that the chinese people will be as resistant to americanization as much as the japanese have been.
As you know from recently published surveys?
Last week the Washington Post published the result a survey of 20,000 Chinese. The UK's York University recruited more than 600 students from 53 universities across China to conduct one-on-one interviews online.
The result? "The data show that Chinese citizens’ trust in their national government increased to 98 percent. Their trust in local government also increased compared to 2018 levels — 91 percent of Chinese citizens surveyed now said they trust or trust completely the township-level government. Trust levels rose to 93 percent at the county level, 94 percent at the city level and 95 percent at the provincial level. These numbers suggest that Chinese citizens have become more trusting in all levels of government”.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pandemic-shake-chinese-citizens-trust-their-government/?utm_source=China+Digest+English&utm_campaign=66b2666aff-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_8_15_2020_13_19_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&ct=t(EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_8_15_2020_13_19_COPY_01)
There is zero evidence of corruption at the top, policy-making level and overwhelming evidence–like 98% home ownership and ending extreme poverty–to the contrary.
But even the central level of government is repressive, paranoid, and a gigantic mess, even if it is run by a cohort of engineers.
As to "there seems to be amazing press freedom as long as "hot" topics are avoided," can you name one?
I recall watching Bill Clinton lambaste the President of China for an hour, live, on Chinese national TV, about Tiananmen.
I agree that they will be resistant to Americanization.
I've always known people were amazingly uninformed regarding even basic scientific facts (from about age 8). As I grew up, I saw that beyond the bog standard anti-intellectualism in K-12 education, adults were horrifically ill-served by reporting on science and matters that involved science.
It was routinely worse than would have been produced by a well-meaning 7-grader. How could this happen? Eventually I realized, and test out, what I later taught my kids: "Any science article, drop down at least 3, 4 paragraphs, sometimes all the way to the concluding paragraph, and you see something from a "Public Education Director for Corporation A" or "Spokesperson for the Department of Bureaus" or some other knowledgeable-sounding party. I told them to ask if the organization the spokesperson was representing had a vested interest in the result of the scientific inquiry, or situation to which science was supposedly being applied. The answer was, of course, always yes.
"And that's why you have an article supposedly about "science" in today's newspaper." All my kids report this approach has served them well, though it's not much of an insight nowadays.
In a crisis we use the science with the best evidence or most consensus. That was what was done here. Was it fixed or bound to be the permanent or only one? Of course not. Just the best estimation. And in cases where 2 or more have equal consensus it gets trickier but one thing everyone seemed to agree on was that until there was a vaccine we' still be in trouble. So we did that, too.
Wishing to the heavens for people to understand is a waste of your effort. Not because it will bear no fruit, because it’s already so. People do understand, pundits pretend otherwise and dishonestly use the weaponized idea that science is absolute to push any given agenda. But the average Joe isn’t quite as simple as the MMS and our Social Media Overlords project. We get it
Thank you. As a scientist it drives me crazy that people don’t understand the scientific method and how there are no hard and fast ‘truths’ in science. You put it very well
Exactly. And whatever Fauci's possible conflicts of interest *might be* with regard to gain of function research, he deserves the same benefit of the doubt when it comes to the constant state of learning on the efficacy of masks.
Fauci is correct on gain of function. It seems what YOU got from the COVID-19 pandemic is that we should not understand how diseases develop. We should NOT have trained anyone to deal with such events.
All we got from that research so far IS COVID 19. There is no guarantee you can train people to deal with a virus that may not have formed yet.
I predicted some years ago, as the interwebs heralded the democratization of media, that ad populum would be the new arbiter of truth.
And the idiocracy marches on...
The media and "public health authorities" are a complete clown show.
The only time that quack Fauci has been right about anything is when he announced on 60 Minutes in March of 2020 that masks are useless, a fact all informed people have known since the Spanish Flu.
Regardless, we have the spectacle of Redfield, then director of the CDC, saying masks may be more effective than a vaccine.
Then we have the NYT, of all places, quoting a VT professor saying the "social distancing" nonsense was "almost like it was pulled out of thin air".
And, of course the tyrannical, impoverishing lockdowns which, like all the other "guidelines", show no statistical correlation with any Covid metric and therefore destroyed the financial lives of countless millions, for nothing.
And the latest clown-bureaucrat heading the CDC, Walensky, saying she has a sense of "impending doom".
And then we have ex-president Cheetoh's Experimental Emergency Warp Vax, which Kamala said she wouldn't take but then did, and which they now want to inject into children.
This despite the fact that, at last count, the CDC's own numbers show that 1086 people, in a nation of 320 milliion, under the age of 24 have succumbed to this plague. I'd like some "fact-checker" to explain how, exactly, that constitutes an "emergency".
My bullshit detector has run hot since Bush the Younger, but has now been pegged for over a year.
Something is up.
Masks *aren't* useless you use the right type of mask and wear it correctly in the correct context. COVID (and other airborne diseases) spread by way of aerosols. The fomite theory that held sway when Fauci made his original mask statements has been put to bed. There's a good reason that your dentist, doctor or surgeon's team wear masks. The tiny droplets that are expelled any time you speak, breathe with your mouth open, sneeze, laugh, cough or sing are blocked by N-95 masks and there is absolutely no legitimate debate about that. Furthermore, even a basic mask can often help stop transmission because it's not viral particles traveling on their own - they're often carried by larger droplets of moisture that even cheaper masks can prevent from reaching your nose or mouth.
I really don't understand why a reasonably educated, logical person wouldn't get this simple concept. But every time I end up in a "debate" with someone about it, they whip out some one-off study, usually one that doesn't adequately control for variables, or one which has an incredibly small sample size that says it's "inconclusive" whether masks "work." In that way, they're using the "science" of their choosing to question common sense and accepted modern medical knowledge.
Perhaps it's because some of us reasonably educated and logical types are not aware of a study that proves masks "work". The definition of "work" is important here. Let's start with that.
Getting into the specifics, some masks work better than others. That's also common sense. Different filtration media have different levels of filtration.
https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/epa-researchers-test-effectiveness-face-masks-disinfection-methods-against-covid-19
"In one study, the researchers sought to determine whether alternatives to high-efficiency N95 masks reserved for health care workers could offer similar protection for hospital personnel in the event of shortages. They tested the filtration ability of expired N95 masks, N95 masks that had been sterilized for reuse, and dozens of other face mask alternatives. The results show that both expired N95 masks and sterilized N95 masks provided the same level of protection as new N95 masks with greater than 95 percent filtration. Other alternatives provided less protection. For example, surgical masks with ties provided 71.5 percent filtration, while surgical masks with ear loops only provided 38.1 percent. Knowing the relative performance of alternatives to new N95 masks will help hospital administrators make evidence-based decisions to protect their staff.
In another study, the researchers examined the filtration ability of a variety of medical procedure masks, cloth masks and coverings recommended for the public. They tested masks made from cotton, nylon, and other materials and in different styles, including masks with ear loops and ties.
They found that the effectiveness of the masks varied widely: a three-layer knitted cotton mask blocked an average of 26.5 percent of particles in the chamber, while a washed, two-layer woven nylon mask with a filter insert and metal nose bridge blocked 79 percent of particles on average. Other masks scored somewhere in between.
They also tested a variety of modifications to improve the fit of commercially available medical procedure masks, like tightening ear loops, placing rubber bands over the top and bottom of the mask to reduce gaps, and placing a cut-out piece of nylon stocking over the mask to seal the gaps. The filtration ability improved by 60.3 to 80.2 percent depending on the modification made. As the fit of the medical procedure masks improved, so did their filtration efficiency.
In their study of masks recommended for the public, the researchers emphasize the importance of mask material and fit. Their results indicate that not only are certain cloth masks effective at keeping out viral particles, but in many cases perform as well as or better than non-N95 medical masks. Fabrics with multiple woven layers and reducing gaps provide substantially more particle filtration. The team continues to explore mask performance with studies in progress on the effects of facial hair and face shape on mask fit. The results of these projects will help the public and health care professionals choose mask options that provide the greatest level of protection."
Maybe I should stop here and try to understand where you're coming from regarding the scientific merits of masks vs. the unscientific belief that filtration media that works against particles with sizes similar to the moisture droplets expelled by humans somehow miraculously doesn't work against the same droplets when COVID is in them?
To put it another way - are you saying categorically that NO MASKS WORK EVER? If so, then you're clearly not someone who is open to changing their mind when presented with new or better information and I see no reason to continue the discussion. If not, then let's carry on.
You're purposely not stating how much improvement there is from wearing vs not wearing a mask.
You're conflating particles of unknown size with virons which are very tiny.
The virus does not need droplets of moisture to transmit from one person to another.
Stop spewing bullshit.
You're the one that is non scientific due to your constant apples to oranges conflation of particles of unknown size compared to virons.
Bull-fucking-shit "the virus does not need droplets of moisture..."
What the fuck DOES it need then? You're saying individual viruses travel through the air and that so many of them do so it's enough to cause an infection? LMFAO! That's the hill you're choosing to die on?
But don't let my sarcasm or whatever deter you. How DOES an airborne virus spread?
(CDC) postulate that the particles of more than 5 μm as droplets, and those less than 5 μm as aerosols or droplet nuclei (Siegel et al., 2007; WHO, 2014). Conversely, there have been some other postulations, indicating that aerodynamic diameter of 20 μm or 10 μm or less should be reckoned to be aerosols, based on their ability to linger in the air for a prolonged period, and the reachability to the respirable fraction of the lung (alveolar region) (Gralton et al., 2011; Nicas et al., 2005; Tellier, 2009). Small aerosols are more susceptible to be inhaled deep into the lung, which causes infection in the alveolar tissues of the lower respiratory tract,
That's right out of the very report you didn't read and tried to use to bullshit everyone into thinking you actually know WTF you're talking about.
Holy shit, you need to stop virtue signaling like this.
Um. WTAF? 95% filtration efficiency doesn't compute for you?
95% of particles of what size ? You can hold a piece of screen in front of you face and stop 95% of a certain size of particles.
Holy fuck how dumb are you ?
Read this before you respond. There's actually pretty well accepted and proven evidence for how many virions can fit on/in the smallest particle of moisture (from aerosols to droplets to loogies hocked) and even for aerosols it's not very many.
But let's cut the BS. Do you think good masks when worn properly are totally ineffective against COVID or other airborne pathogens? If so, why? I don't have time for idiots who accuse me of "spewing" bullshit when they clearly don't understand how viruses are "spewed" and blocked.
No I didn't say they were totally ineffective. I said there is not proof that they significantly reduce transmission of the virus due to the fact that the virions DO NOT NEED droplets of moisture to travel and actually float in the air much longer without the weight of it.
Those masks DO NOT block the virus in any way shape or form or people would suffocate trying.
Please show me your non peer reviewed evidence that is mostly government issued and think tank funded.
I'd love to shred it for all to see.
* https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/
To expand on and clarify my reply below, masks ALSO trap a lot of the virus particle containing moisture that someone exhales or inhales. So even if SOME virus containing moisture DOES get through, the viral load will be MUCH lower and therefore the immune system has a better chance of fighting it off before it becomes an infection.
And then what happens to the moisture that's trapped on the mask?
Hint: It evaporates.
Here's a good summation.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/15/facebook-posts/claim-n95-masks-cant-stop-covid-19-particles-due-s/
"The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.
"There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people," said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.
The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.
"Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency," said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.
Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since "there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19," said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Size matters, but not how you think
But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim.
The N95 filter is indeed physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. It works well for particles above that size, and actually snares particles below that size better than those at exactly the 0.3 level.
"N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3," Marr said. "If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander and small ones don’t get through."
N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.
Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:
The first is something called "Brownian motion," the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.
The second is the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.
"Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck," said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. "When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks."
This article was from June of 2020. Since that time it's become accepted that aerosols ARE a means of COVID transmission, so this sentence is not accurate *anymore*...
"Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since "there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19..."
But it DOES also spread via droplets, which is exactly what I've been saying throughout the discussion with Skutch.
Yes, exactly. And when the moisture evaporates, any particulate matter in the moisture gets trapped in the mask. That's why masks are disposable. Furthermore, better N-95 masks have electrostatic properties that make them even more effective at trapping moisture and whatever is in it.
https://intellectualnomad.blog/science-behind-n-95-masks-explained-simply/
Until you exhale and send that virion sailing into the air everyone else around you is breathing.
How much ? How much does it take to get infected ? Once again you are employing random particle tests to say something might reduce the viral load without ever stating how much ? Is it .05% or 50% ??
Oh, seriously? Do bother yourself to read. Or you're just trolling for the lulz