Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Goodness you people. I make a statement and you turn it into huge blanket statements

You do seem to be saying economics is inherently anti-poor

No, it is only because the example I gave involved the poor to show the sheer disconnect between economic understanding and qualitative life. What is "economical"/"Productive" isn't always "what is best". It would be a bad idea to use nothing but economics as a way to improve people's lives unless you overcome this hurdle.

That and there would probably be more examples using the poor. If only because the poor... are poor... People taking advantage of the poor and the poor not being able to fight back due to being poor? yeah.

Though I will say one economist DID argue on the basis of economics that strip mining a mountain would quantitatively hurt the lives of all the people who live around said mountain. She did this by changing qualitative things into quantitative qualities... Basically by putting a dollar on how much clean air, clean water, gorgeous view, and quiet serene pastures are worth. Yet she is a pioneer in economics whose life's work was dedicated to trying to improve economics in that way.

Basically her work was trying to work things that typically didn't have "value" into economics.

upon closer reading you've doubled down and gone for a PhD in one subject = LESS trustworthy in that field than an average person

See now this is what I mean about turning my general statement into a blanket one. My point was more that just because you have a PHD it doesn't mean you are particularly smart (or even intelligent in your own dang field... as we keep finding out).

The reason why I'm typing this out is that even though you seem quite liberal, the strain of 'can't trust the experts' thinking that lead to Brexit and the like is quite strong in your posts.

Typically in MOST cases of an expert being a "moron" it is because they haven't engaged in honest study. Typically by guessing and treating their guesses as absolute fact and going from there.

Or rather... When science becomes pseudoscience.

This isn't a rag on experts. This is a rag on a system that will often give someone a pass because they are an "expert" whether or not they have performed like an expert... AND a system that allows certain fields of study to stagnate and quagmire to the point where even a PHD is lacking.
-Then again I can't blame the doctors who came up with the source of Anti-vaxxer or SBS... They didn't do a study true, but their statements were only a hypothesis. It wasn't meant to be taken as scientific fact.
--THEN THEN AGAIN!!! it is endemic of the same situation isn't it? Because "Expert = always right" that means even their hypothesis must be scientifically grounded.

You do know how PHDs are earned right?

[ChairmanPoo]

Then again I can't blame the doctors who came up with the source of Anti-vaxxer o

You can't? I can. The man kmew perfectly well anti-vaxx was BS. The only reason he did what he did was that he was trying to drum up fear against MMR so that he could swoop down later with his own vaccine candidate.  Fraud through and through.

[wierd]

No. Emphatically NO.  He did not "KNOW" it was BS.  He had a hypothesis that a commonly performed prophylactic treatment might have previously undocumented consequences, and wanted to verify that the treatment was safe as well as effective. That is good science.

What is at fault, is people taking that question, twisting it from a question like "Are there unforseen consequences like XYZ?", and into "PhD says Unforseen consequences like XYZ happen! OMG!"

Want an example in real life?

Fluoridated water.

Are there consequences to public health that are serious enough to negate the health benefits of improved dental enamel strength? Are municipal supplies being given inappropriate levels of fluoride ion, given other kinds of fluoride exposure?

The answer to both, can very well be a resounding YES.

Fluorosis is a condition caused by high levels of systemic fluoride ion exposure, which actually makes tooth enamel WEAKER-- in addition to causing a powerful predisposition to serious bone deformities and cancers. You most certainly CAN be exposed to too much fluoride as a child/poor person. In addition to that, people who are not disadvantaged will be exposed to other sources of fluoride, such as via mouth washes, tooth pastes, and some brands of flossing aids. Combined with systemic fluoridation, this can cause these people to be over-fluoridated, and develop signs of fluorosis.

But dont you *know*!? Questioning the efficacy of fluoride in preventing cavities, and in improving public health is bunk science from crackpots! /s

Nevermind that questioning what we "know", to make sure it is definately true, especially as tools and methods improve, is how we keep quality objective science, and that bowing to authority is how you end up with not-science.  That PhD totally KNEW that questioning the health impact of vaccination was bullshit! /s

So NO. NO, HELL NO, you are wrong, and should feel about about saying it.

[ChairmanPoo]

... before I lash out: are you being sarcastic?

Because the man was clearly a fraud, was shown time and again to be so, and in the end he was struck off the record because of it. Do you know how hard is to manage that? Yet this sleazy piece of shit managed it by being throughly crooked at every turn.

The only real question is why isn't he in jail.

[wierd]

His being a fraud, does not negate the scientific value of questioning the established doctrine. He may well deserve to be in jail by engineering a false scandal, but a consequence of his shakeup was increased studies being done to verify the safety of MMR, and improve the confidence that getting it is statistically beneficial to human society. However unlikely it may have been, that testing might have found an actual health concern, which would never have been found had his allegation not been investigated.

Now, I *WILL* stand with you on this though:  Continuing to spout anti-vaxx hysteria, AFTER extensive testing has shown that there is no causal link with the disorders questioned, is straight up maliciousness and or stupidity, depending on the education level of the person spouting it.

[Reelya]

You can use that argument to justify lying about literally anything.

Call "fire" in a crowded theater, mass panic ensues, people get trampled to death (verifiable numbers of children died or were permanently disfigured because of Wakefield). But there might have been a fire, so it's ok.

Or I could publish a fake study that condoms cause prostate cancer. People stop using condoms, then aids spreads, but until we did the research we couldn't be 100% sure that condoms don't cause cancer, so it was justified, right?

No it isn't justified for one basic reason, you can guesstimate the possible scale of an effect from previous data, e.g. the number of autism cases caused by all causes can't be more than the number of autistic people, so even without studies we have strict upper limits on how bad it could be in the worst-possible-case scenario. But there are concrete effects of not vaccinating kids, death and permanent disfigurement, and we can measure how likely those things are, and they're a way stronger signal than a hypothetical vaccine->autism link.

It's like if you don't vaccinate you avoid a 1 in a million chance of something bad, but you get a 1 in 10 chance of something else equally bad. Similarly if say condoms have a 1 in a million cancer-causing rate, but protect you against aids a much higher percentage of the time. You're better off forgeting about it and risking "rubber rot". The chance of the theater fire happening when you randomly yell "fire" is also much lower in chance of killing you than the trampling to get out.

It's a case where even if he was right he'd still be wrong. The rate of autism from MMR would have to have been massive to make up for the deaths of all unvaccinated children he caused.

[ChairmanPoo]

His being a fraud, does not negate the scientific value of questioning the established doctrine. He may well deserve to be in jail by engineering a false scandal, but a consequence of his shakeup was increased studies being done to verify the safety of MMR, and improve the confidence that getting it is statistically beneficial to human society. However unlikely it may have been, that testing might have found an actual health concern, which would never have been found had his allegation not been investigated.

OR... a lot of time and resources were diverted to prove something that was already proven, namely that the vaccine was safe. Plus in the interim, many people believed his hogwash and didn't vaccinate their children, leading to an increased incidence of diseases. Not every fringe theory is worth burning money and resources on it, let alone presented to the public as "fact".  And this guy fabricated evidence to ensure that his pet project got all three

[wierd]

Reelya-- the point is that asking the question itself does not constitute the public harm. Jumping the gun, and taking a preliminary and or fraudulent claim, and going public with it immediately to cause a sensation is what constitutes that.

Take for instance, the now infamous "superluminal neutrinos" event.  CERN says "Hey, fellow particle physicists? We have some irregular dat that we strongly think is wrong, but we cannot conclusively state that. We are getting [Whoah! Batshit superluminal neutrino travel times! WTF!] from our apparatus, can you please confirm or refute?"

The media picks that up, and immediately jumps to "WOW! SUPERLUMINAL MASSIVE PARTICLES! EINSTIEN WRONG!"

That is most certainly NOT what the cern scientists said-- even though their data suggested this. Really, they said "We cannot confirm our data is bad-- can you please help us do so? If you cant, we need to rethink this."

Any reasonable study that found a positive link between a vaccination and a systemic developmental disorder like autism, would approach it this way-- "Hey, guys-- we found this trend in our data, can you confirm or refute with more trials? Thnks, bai."

The questioning is what causes them to perform the trial in the first place. Reporting a finding that goes against conventional wisdom is not wrong, it just needs to be done appropriately.  However, the medial just fucking LOVES sensationalism, and will latch onto the contrarian finding as if it were handed down by god himself, and stir up a shitstorm.  The one shouting fire in the theater is the press.

Now, this guy may well have falsified his study data to get more impact-- (there are all kinds of reasons a scientist would be willing to do this-- none of which involve good science, but the way academia works, there may well be good reasons he felt it was needful, and I acknowledge that even a fraudulent paper that causes a goose chase can lead to better science in the end through exhaustive falsification of the results that kicked it off.) but was he the one who was shouting it to the rooftops to sell eyeballs?

No, he was not.

Point that finger at the people it needs to be pointed at.

[ChairmanPoo]

Yes, yes he was. Check the events. He engineered the press conference, falsified data, performed unnecessary invasive tests on children, all while receiving money from third parties, and looking to develop and market his own MMR vaccine. He was crooked as hell and there is no excuse or bright side to what he did.

[wierd]

He himself lacked the resources (even with outside aid, if you presume there was conspiracy to sell a rival vaccine) to cause a shitstorm on the level that happened. 

I can say that I saw Jesus in the subway. I can try to organize a press conference on my "photographic evidence" of his appearance.
How the press treats my story is the lynch pin.

A proper investigative journalist will have read his claims, then investigated the existing body of evidence. They will give a critical review of the story, which given the particulars of this story, would have come out in favor of vaccination if they had been at all interested in accuracy and credibility in their reporting-- all while proper scientists would take his paper, and run it through the proper independent review needed to confirm or refute a claim of such nature. The press has an obligation to inform their readers of the truth of their story, as best they are able-- not to create needless controversy to sell advertisement impressions.

They should have even addressed the quid pro quo nature of the released study, and how those that funded it were tied directly to potential profit from the sale of the alternative vaccination.

But that did not happen, now did it?

[Loud Whispers]

Like I say, multiple paths would be the way to go. Military service, civil service, PhD completion etc etc. Giving something and getting voting rights back in return.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?

It'd turn into a very quick downward spiral into Imperial China, with the Academic, Military and Bureaucrat factions all vying with one another for superiority, each one seeking more government funding to increase their recruits to increase their voting base with which to secure more funding - to the detriment of their rivals, the nation and the long term ability of the country to innovate

The value of universal suffrage, if it comes at the cost of unity, is that in its disunity it can challenge stagnant orthodoxies

[ChairmanPoo]

Like I say, multiple paths would be the way to go. Military service, civil service, PhD completion etc etc. Giving something and getting voting rights back in return.
What, exactly, is wrong with that?

It'd turn into a very quick downward spiral into Imperial China, with the Academic, Military and Bureaucrat factions all vying with one another for superiority, each one seeking more government funding to increase their recruits to increase their voting base with which to secure more funding - to the detriment of their rivals, the nation and the long term ability of the country to innovate

[Azzuro]

You know what, Neo, you can just keep on thinking that experts aren't worth shit and you can get PhDs by treating guesses as fact. The rest of us will just continue assuming that experts are, in fact, worth consulting in their field. And two out of my three siblings have or are working on their PhD, so I think my knowledge of the process is greater than yours.

P.S. Look up environmental economics, your knowledge of economics seems to be stuck in the mid-20th century.

P.P.S OP please rename thread to Limited Autism: Should Vaccination be a Right?

[Neonivek]

You know what, Neo, you can just keep on thinking that experts aren't worth shit and you can get PhDs by treating guesses as fact!

Where the fudge is this coming from? O_O

I didn't even imply this!

[Azzuro]

Typically in MOST cases of an expert being a "moron" it is because they haven't engaged in honest study. Typically by guessing and treating their guesses as absolute fact and going from there.

Or rather... When science becomes pseudoscience.

This isn't a rag on experts. This is a rag on a system that will often give someone a pass because they are an "expert" whether or not they have performed like an expert... AND a system that allows certain fields of study to stagnate and quagmire to the point where even a PHD is lacking.
-Then again I can't blame the doctors who came up with the source of Anti-vaxxer or SBS... They didn't do a study true, but their statements were only a hypothesis. It wasn't meant to be taken as scientific fact.
--THEN THEN AGAIN!!! it is endemic of the same situation isn't it? Because "Expert = always right" that means even their hypothesis must be scientifically grounded.

Emphasis mine. Also please don't put exclamation marks in my quotes where there weren't any, thanks.