If you claim to be the party of science

[TexasTiger 12,847]

You need to actually look at the science and call folks out when they respond to factual discussion by ridiculously claiming that any debate or discussion is tantamount to genocide. Most “progressives” have done little thoughtful inquiry into this complex issue beyond parroting talking points pushed by a massive marketing campaign (repeating “the science is settled” as a command to disregard any science that disputes the mantra)— I say that as one who was guilty of the same thing. In between the polarized shouting match between most conservatives who don’t give a damn about trans or gay folks and most progressives who mistakenly think they are reliving the fight for gay rights when they favor medicalizing minors in ways that do lasting damage, is a largely reasonable group of folks that don’t identify with either hyper polarized side of that debate. 
 

Great thread with links to data in western countries where the medical establishment isn’t largely co-opted by capitalism & politics:

 

 

[TexasTiger 12,847]

Ichy, reliably reads nothing, responds like he knows everything. Then bemoans climate deniers. ICHY, your fundamentalist indifference to science is harming people. But thanks for proving my point. 

[SaltyTiger 7,795]

Do you agree with the demands ICHY?

https://www.glaad.org/new-york-times-sign-on-letter-from-lgtbq-allied-leaders-and-organizations

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by SaltyTiger

[AURex 1,995]

As an information scientist myself, in regards to the OP, the quoted verbiage did not specify one, single, not NOE, instance in which anyone outside the Qanon-right wing nutcase-conspiracy theorist camp is incorrect. Tell us which so-called "scientific" info you (and the outlander habitants) consider incorrect?

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by AURex

[TexasTiger 12,847]

7 minutes ago, AURex said:

As an information scientist myself, in regards to the OP, the quoted verbiage did not specify one, single, not NOE, instance in which anyone outside the Qanon-right wing nutcase-conspiracy theorist camp is incorrect. Tell us which so-called "scientific" info you (and the outlander habitants) consider incorrect?

 

Can you restate in English?

[Son of A Tiger 561]

1 minute ago, TexasTiger said:

Can you restate in English?

I think he said you were full of crap🙂

[TexasTiger 12,847]

For additional context, the tweet thread I linked to with numerous statements from the medical establishments of several progressive Western European countries showing the science regarding the medicalization of children was anything but “settled” was in response to protests about the NYT publishing a balanced piece of journalism that didn’t promote ideology over facts. In response to these tactics to shut down opposing views, even those supported by evidence, the Times said this:

 

[TexasTiger 12,847]

5 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

I think he said you were full of crap🙂

If that’s what he’s saying, he’s as bad at writing as he is at reading.

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 2/16/2023 at 4:59 PM, TexasTiger said:

You need to actually look at the science and call folks out when they respond to factual discussion by ridiculously claiming that any debate or discussion is tantamount to genocide. Most “progressives” have done little thoughtful inquiry into this complex issue beyond parroting talking points pushed by a massive marketing campaign (repeating “the science is settled” as a command to disregard any science that disputes the mantra)— I say that as one who was guilty of the same thing. In between the polarized shouting match between most conservatives who don’t give a damn about trans or gay folks and most progressives who mistakenly think they are reliving the fight for gay rights when they favor medicalizing minors in ways that do lasting damage, is a largely reasonable group of folks that don’t identify with either hyper polarized side of that debate. 
 

Great thread with links to data in western countries where the medical establishment isn’t largely co-opted by capitalism & politics:

 

 

Tex, POST OF THE DAY.

I am shocked everyday by people that have long since quit using their brains and engage the world with politics instead of facts.

Look, all that Favale pointed out here is totally true and factual...BUT GOES AGAINST THE NARRATIVE. So there are factions, RED AND BLUE, that deny reality. 

If Maher, Rogan, Peterson, etc, or even Favale point out that facts dont support your narrative, they are immediately shouted down and dismissed JUST LIKE GLAAD is doing to the NYT now. This is where we are in America today.

I am 1000% shocked AUDUB hasnt come on here and dismissed every report cited by Favale for some point made by the authors 100 years ago that may be viewed in a negative way and is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I am sure as soon as I sign off, he will be here to dismiss the entire thread and everyone that posted to it. It is his schtick. Remember: THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. 😎

Edited February 18, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,370]

You folks have no idea - none - what "settled science" actually means.

It seems as if your perspective of science is that it exists of a (current), formal body of opinion instead of the continuing debate it actually is. 

And the only thing that counts is such a debate is data.  Data is the only thing that ultimately leads to scientific consensus.  Meanwhile, until that data becomes compelling, everything else is just ongoing noise in that debate.

Obviously, advocacy groups are not participates in that scientific debate, by definition.

The only thing regarding sexuality that could be considered "settled" is - like virtually everything else in the cosmos - sexuality in all it's forms undoubtedly exists on a continuum. 

That's pretty much the only thing that any (true) scientist should agree with regarding sexuality.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,419]

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

You folks have no idea - none - what "settled science" actually means.

It seems as if your perspective of science is that it exists of a (current), formal body of opinion instead of the continuing debate it actually is. 

And the only thing that counts is such a debate is data.  Data is the only thing that ultimately leads to scientific consensus.  Meanwhile, until that data becomes compelling, everything else is just ongoing noise in that debate.

Obviously, advocacy groups are not participates in that scientific debate, by definition. No, but members of those advocacy groups certainly are in the debate.

The only thing regarding sexuality that could be considered "settled" is - like virtually everything else in the cosmos - sexuality in all it's forms undoubtedly exists on a continuum. 

That's pretty much the only thing that any (true) scientist should agree with regarding sexuality.

There must be a continuing gathering of data and reflection on that data. The on going debate and gathering of Data says that the Science is not settled. If the Science is Settled then there is zero need for any debate. The entire SIS debate is made to shutdown any debate or further gathering of data or even discussion of data that may have been overlooked. SIS is not science at all. It is just a word salad to shut down debate from any entities or persons that dare challenge a real or imagined POV on any subject. SIS is a mere rhetorical device, nothing more.

[homersapien 11,370]

35 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

51 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Obviously, advocacy groups are not participates in that scientific debate, by definition. No, but members of those advocacy groups certainly are in the debate.
 

I was referring to the ongoing scientific debate that characterizes the ultimate scientific as well as the nature of science itself.

So, no, "advocacy groups" aren't participates in the scientific debate.  Cultural or political debate maybe, but not scientific.

(Now, if there is a scientist in one of those advocacy groups, he or she may be participating in the scientific debate, but only as a scientists among many who present data. (And whatever data they present will be subject to extreme scrutiny - and verification - because of their inherent bias.)

Finally, science - as a whole - tends to question hypothesis until they are replicated - many times in order to arrive at the proverbial "consensus". 

(And in the case of such a biased submission by a scientist who participates in advocacy, it would take a lot of replication before the general scientific community would accept it.

 

Edited February 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,370]

33 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

49 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 

1) There must be a continuing gathering of data and reflection on that data. The on going debate and gathering of Data says that the Science is not settled.

2) If the Science is Settled then there is zero need for any debate.

1) Isn't that pretty much what I said? (But, I'd like to know the exact thesis is we are talking about.  I am talking in principle here.)

2) There really is no such state - of "settled science" -in which there is "zero need" for any (further) debate (defined as presenting a alternative thesis).  There is no mechanism in science that determine such a lack of need.

Any scientific theory is always subject to retesting - and typically is.

So, any scientist is free to continuing testing whatever theory he/she wants so. But trying to prove an alternative theory in the face of overwhelming evidence (data) to the contrary is likely a fool's errand.

Edited February 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,370]

26 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

42 minutes ago, homersapien said:

 SIS is not science at all. It is just a word salad to shut down debate from any entities or persons that dare challenge a real or imagined POV on any subject. SIS is a mere rhetorical device, nothing more.

What is "SIS"?  Never heard of it.

[homersapien 11,370]

Can someone explain why links to a Twitter thread simply disappear when I click on them?

[TexasTiger 12,847]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

You folks have no idea - none - what "settled science" actually means.

It seems as if your perspective of science is that it exists of a (current), formal body of opinion instead of the continuing debate it actually is. 

And the only thing that counts is such a debate is data.  Data is the only thing that ultimately leads to scientific consensus.  Meanwhile, until that data becomes compelling, everything else is just ongoing noise in that debate.

Obviously, advocacy groups are not participates in that scientific debate, by definition.

The only thing regarding sexuality that could be considered "settled" is - like virtually everything else in the cosmos - sexuality in all it's forms undoubtedly exists on a continuum. 

That's pretty much the only thing that any (true) scientist should agree with regarding sexuality.

 

Not sure who you’re arguing with or exactly what views you are attributing to whom.

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

I was referring to the ongoing scientific debate that characterizes the ultimate scientific as well as the nature of science itself.

So, no, "advocacy groups" aren't participates in the scientific debate.  Cultural or political debate maybe, but not scientific.

 🤣🤣🤣Yea, just add the word Scientific and the entire population in the debate turn 100% righteous...NOT.

(Now, if there is a scientist in one of those advocacy groups, he or she may be participating in the scientific debate, but only as a scientists among many who present data. (And whatever data they present will be subject to extreme scrutiny - and verification - because of their inherent bias.) BULL s***

Finally, science - as a whole - tends to question hypothesis until they are replicated - many times in order to arrive at the proverbial "consensus".

Of course that is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

(And in the case of such a biased submission by a scientist who participates in advocacy, it would take a lot of replication before the general scientific community would accept it.

So, when the Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community tried to enforce the untested, unchallenged, unproven assertion that COVID 19 came from a wet market and only a wet market and not the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology next door the wet market that has had its ventilation system changed possibly twice since COVID came out. Now, the Chinese have completely denied the rest of the world access to its data, access to its lab, and refuses to be transparent about anything. The Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community accepted all this interference as totally okay without any pushback whatsoever, total of ZERO questions asked and and answered. Told us that the extremely strained and totally unproveable theory of cross species transmission that just happened to be in bats roughly 700 miles away actually happened in the Wuhan Wet Market and it was all just an odd coinky-dink that all this happened in Wuhan, where we all know those bats from 700 miles away happen to be in the WLV...

Well I will just let Jon Stewart speak intothe reality denied by the Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community...

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

1) Isn't that pretty much what I said? (But, I'd like to know the exact thesis is we are talking about.  I am talking in principle here.)

2) There really is no such state - of "settled science" -in which there is "zero need" for any (further) debate (defined as presenting a alternative thesis).  There is no mechanism in science that determine such a lack of need.

The term Science is Settled just yielded me About 238,000,000 results (0.38 seconds) So 238M Results for a term that we both think is pretty much BS. 
The problem is that the American Media peddle this NONSENSE Daily to the world. You know, these people that by and large have never had a STEM class try to redefine the meaning and work of the scientific community. 

Any scientific THEORY is always subject to retesting - and typically is. WHOA, Why is it only sometimes challenged? That would tend to prove the exact opposite of what you just said. Everything should be persistently tested  to verify the results were accurate, if not outright challenged, to refute the previous work. Verification and Chalenge should be a daily events in all Sciences.  

So, any scientist is free to continuing testing whatever theory he/she wants so. But trying to prove an alternative theory in the face of overwhelming evidence (data) to the contrary is likely a fool's errand.

Again, you dont have to prove an alternative theory to refute a theory that is bad. You must just generate reproduceable data that counters the original theory. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

11 hours ago, homersapien said:

What is "SIS"?  Never heard of it.

Science Is Settled....

[AURex 1,995]

On 2/16/2023 at 10:18 PM, TexasTiger said:

If that’s what he’s saying, he’s as bad at writing as he is at reading.

No, actually, it means you are illiterate.

[homersapien 11,370]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:02 AM, DKW 86 said:

So, when the Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community tried to enforce the untested, unchallenged, unproven assertion that COVID 19 came from a wet market and only a wet market and not the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology next door the wet market that has had its ventilation system changed possibly twice since COVID came out. Now, the Chinese have completely denied the rest of the world access to its data, access to its lab, and refuses to be transparent about anything. The Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community accepted all this interference as totally okay without any pushback whatsoever, total of ZERO questions asked and and answered. Told us that the extremely strained and totally unproveable theory of cross species transmission that just happened to be in bats roughly 700 miles away actually happened in the Wuhan Wet Market and it was all just an odd coinky-dink that all this happened in Wuhan, where we all know those bats from 700 miles away happen to be in the WLV...

Well I will just let Jon Stewart speak intothe reality denied by the Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community...

 

David, if you want to engage in a dialogue you are going to have to respond in such a way I can respond.

I cannot isolate and respond to your responses to my post if you keep imbedding them in formats that won't directly translate. The format of this forum makes it very that difficult, if not impossible.

For example you just said in the above post - which didn't translate over by "quoting" it:

 🤣🤣🤣Yea, just add the word Scientific and the entire population in the debate turn 100% righteous...NOT.

This makes no sense. I am not conflating the general (popular) debate on this subject with the "scientific" debate.  Just the opposite.  I am differentiating the scientific debate - which occurs in only in Journals (in the form of publications) or scientific conferences, period.  The debate is ultimately settled by evidence and a consensus on that evidence by the scientists involved.  Any other debate- which may or may not include scientists -  and that occurs in the popular spheres is popular debate by definition.  One cannot claim that a few scientist speaking their opinion or on the basis of limited work represents a scientific consensus.

You obviously don't understand what I am getting at.

To illustrate further, you say above (which did translate):

"So, when the Supposedly 100% Righteous Scientific Community tried to enforce the untested, unchallenged, unproven assertion that COVID 19 came from a wet market and only a wet market and not the Wuhan Laboratory of Virology next door the wet market that has had its ventilation system changed possibly twice since COVID came out.

That is a completely false premise that perfectly illustrates your misunderstanding of what "science" is and does.  The scientific community does not try to "enforce" assertions, much less ones that are unproven.

You clearly have an extremely biased predisposition to belittle or lie about views or opinions that are oppositional to your own.  With that attitude, it's impossible for me to explain how you are mistaken - in principle - about what the scientific position is on whatever we are supposed to be talking about.  Apparently that's just too subtle for you.

So I'll just stop trying.

I'll just restrict my comments to the specific errors you are  making without trying to actually educate you on why they are wrong conceptually or in principle.

[homersapien 11,370]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:18 AM, DKW 86 said:

Science Is Settled....

Well, that explains why I've never heard of it. 

It's a term invented by - and often misused by - folks who don't actually understand science. 

 

[homersapien 11,370]

On 2/20/2023 at 5:18 AM, DKW 86 said:

Again, you dont have to prove an alternative theory to refute a theory that is bad. You must just generate reproduceable data that counters the original theory. 

You never told me what the thesis is at issue?

Presumably, it has something to do with transgenderism?  What specifically?

[homersapien 11,370]

Any scientific THEORY is always subject to retesting - and typically is. WHOA, Why is it only sometimes challenged? That would tend to prove the exact opposite of what you just said. Everything should be persistently tested  to verify the results were accurate, if not outright challenged, to refute the previous work. Verification and Chalenge should be a daily events in all Sciences.  

 

There is no authority that can compel what any given scientist works on. Science is not an organization, it is a process.

Any scientist is free to work on whatever they want, be it testing a previously "established" theory or a new hypothesis.  This is most frequently done when new technologies are developed.

(You are probably aware of many recent confirmations of Einstein's theory of relativity that were made possible by technological developments such as lasers and space travel.)

So it is happening continuously.

 

Edited February 21, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,419]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Well, that explains why I've never heard of it. 

It's a term invented by - and often misused by - folks who don't actually understand science. 

Which was my whole point. It is used ad nauseum by media people and talking heads, many of whom I would doubt if they ever had one STEM course in their lives. They dont understand anything about science, which is where we get the "the science is settled" meme.