If you claim to be the party of science

[homersapien 11,366]

On 2/26/2023 at 8:43 AM, DKW 86 said:

Because we have all learned that there is nothing you wont weasel away from with your lies. It is who you are man. Again look up at what you wrote above. You are finally agreeing with me that "science" is used daily in the media BY POILITICALLY MOTIVATED SCIENTISTS AND MEDIA PEOPLE to lie to the American People. At the same time calling me a liar for saying almost word for word what you just said. You call me an iconoclast because I take the time to look at both sides of an issue. You run off half cocked daily around here. We have too many homeys and not enough of the "wait and see" types around here.

Last thought, you are again restating what I said and telling me at the same time I am lying about it. You do see that right?

If you want to quote me specifically, do so and I will try to clarify your misunderstanding.

That is the funniest s*** you have ever posted. We have all gone round and round with you denying what you say all the time. I am just doing Rob and the Mods here a favor and not wasting anymore server space. 

You are a clueless.  Your total misunderstanding of my points does not constitute lying on my part.

I have never said people people don't misquote or misunderstand science. I have explained why they are wrong.  There are plenty of people who are all too willing to reject actual scientific opinion because they don't understand that science is a methodology and not a body of rulings.

I have been trying to explain what science is and how it works to those people most inclined to casually associate - or disassociate - science with whatever political agenda they are pushing.  (See AGW as the classic example.)

Again, I am not interesting in ad hominem poo flinging which obviously forms the basis of your posts, as the above post clearly demonstrates.  Or to put it in terms you can relate to, I am not interested in trading personal insults with an egocentric, snowflake, iconoclastic wanna-be, nihilist.

Get back to me when you have something to discuss. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

 

 

Edited February 27, 2023 by homersapien

[TexasTiger 12,831]

From England’s systematic review of treatment:

https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/

[DKW 86 7,419]

On 2/27/2023 at 11:44 AM, homersapien said:

On 2/27/2023 at 11:44 AM, homersapien said:

You are a clueless.  Your total misunderstanding of my points does not constitute lying on my part.

I have never said people people don't misquote or misunderstand science. I have explained why they are wrong.  There are plenty of people who are all too willing to reject actual scientific opinion because they don't understand that science is a methodology and not a body of rulings.

I have been trying to explain what science is and how it works to those people most inclined to casually associate - or disassociate - science with whatever political agenda they are pushing.  (See AGW as the classic example.)

Again, I am not interesting in ad hominem poo flinging which obviously forms the basis of your posts, as the above post clearly demonstrates.  Or to put it in terms you can relate to, I am not interested in trading personal insults with an egocentric, snowflake, iconoclastic wanna-be, nihilist.

Get back to me when you have something to discuss. Otherwise, you're wasting my time.

 

 

Are scientists not people? Rest my case. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by DKW 86

[TitanTiger 20,472]

Latest news from the Land of "What Even is a Woman ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ?"

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/us/wellesley-college-trans-nonbinary.html

[homersapien 11,366]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:33 PM, DKW 86 said:

Are scientists not people? Rest my case. 

I don't understand your "case".  And I doubt you can even explain it.

[DKW 86 7,419]

17 hours ago, homersapien said:

I don't understand your "case".  And I doubt you can even explain it.

I can explain it but I cannot comprehend it for you.

1) Scientists are all humans.

2) All humans are subject to biases and political, religious, and secular beliefs.

3) Therefore it is logical to assume that all but the rarest of all humans will be influenced by their personal beliefs. 

Case closed. Ipso facto, Humans are all flawed. It's what makes us humans.

[homersapien 11,366]

2 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I can explain it but I cannot comprehend it for you.

1) Scientists are all humans.

2) All humans are subject to biases and political, religious, and secular beliefs.

3) Therefore it is logical to assume that all but the rarest of all humans will be influenced by their personal beliefs. 

Case closed. Ipso facto, Humans are all flawed. It's what makes us humans.

Science is a methodology or process that is ultimately self-correcting. 

The only scientific opinion one that has been established through a consensus of many scientists as expressed by established scientific organizations/societies.  That's part of the methodology or process.

(To your point, a given opinion by a given scientist does not necessarily represent the scientific consensus or opinion.)  

Humans are flawed.  But science is not.

You don't seem to understand or appreciate that.  You certainly didn't comprehend my point.

Edited March 18, 2023 by homersapien

[johnnyAU 3,630]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

I can explain it but I cannot comprehend it for you.

1) Scientists are all humans.

2) All humans are subject to biases and political, religious, and secular beliefs.

3) Therefore it is logical to assume that all but the rarest of all humans will be influenced by their personal beliefs. 

Case closed. Ipso facto, Humans are all flawed. It's what makes us humans.

And consensus is human opinion, not science

[DKW 86 7,419]

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Science is a methodology or process that is ultimately self-correcting. 

Yes, but that self-correcting thingy can sometimes take years, decades, or more.

Edited March 19, 2023 by DKW 86

[homersapien 11,366]

20 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

And consensus is human opinion, not science

Nonsense.  Scientific consensus is based on scientific research that has been extensively replicated and/or corroborated.  

I suppose one could say it's "opinion", but it is really more like a professional conclusion that is based on scientific evidence.. 

Edited March 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

9 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

Yes, but that self-correcting thingy can sometimes take years, decades, or more.

True. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

True. 

And until it is done, "science" or "Scientists" are nothing more than flawed, biased people.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

54 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Nonsense.  Scientific consensus is based on scientific research.  

Verifiable experiments are science. Consensus, especially mythical consensus, is speculation and conjecture even if the cult refuses to listen to reason and labels everyone who doesn't follow the narrative to be heathens, non-believers and deniers. 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

...and any consensus based on flawed science, is meaningless.

[homersapien 11,366]

On 3/19/2023 at 9:22 AM, DKW 86 said:

And until it is done, "science" or "Scientists" are nothing more than flawed, biased people.

No, that assumes a current scientific thesis - which has been tested by experimentation - necessarily needs correction.  That's rarely the case.  It can be true if that body of supporting work is inadequate or flawed.  (That's why replication is important, as well as the peer review process required by respected scientific journals.)

A given scientific hypothesis or conclusion doesn't rely on the opinions of scientists, it resides solely on the body of experimental work and testing that supports it.   

It's quite possible that some of the supporting work may be faulty but if so, it will not survive the subsequent ongoing replication and verification process of science.  That's exactly what makes science self-correcting. 

Again, science is a process not a person or persons.  All scientists worldwide must follow that process, by definition. Undoubtedly, some scientists are incompetent or even dishonest, but the process - if properly adhered to - will always prevail in the end.  

 

Edited March 30, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

...and any consensus based on flawed science, is meaningless.

That's logically true.

But it's highly unlikely for a scientific consensus to form around a thesis based on "flawed" science. Consensus is formed on scientific theses that have been extensively - if not exhaustively - tested and corroborated. 

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

Verifiable experiments are science. Consensus, especially mythical consensus, is speculation and conjecture even if the cult refuses to listen to reason and labels everyone who doesn't follow the narrative to be heathens, non-believers and deniers. 

That's just ignorant, opinionated, political BS.  

The consensus on AGW (for example) is based on literally thousands of experiments that have been replicated and corroborated by experiments done worldwide in various scientific fields.

Edited March 19, 2023 by homersapien

[DKW 86 7,419]

12 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, that assumes a current scientific thesis - which has been tested by experimentation - necessarily needs correction.  That's rarely the case.  It can be true if that body of supporting work is inadequate or flawed.  (That's why replication is important, as well as the peer review process required by respected scientific journals.)

A given scientific hypothesis or conclusion doesn't rely on the opinions of scientists, it resides solely on the body of experimental work and testing that supports it.   

It's quite possible that supporting work may be itself faulty but if so, it will not survive the subsequent ongoing replication and verification process of science.  That's exactly what makes science self-correcting. 

Again, science is a process not a person or persons.  All scientists worldwide must follow that process, by definition. Undoubtedly, some scientists are incompetent or even dishonest, but the process - if properly adhered to - will always prevail in the end.  

 

We have money, politics, and biases all working against this 24-7-365. We have think tanks that manufacture "Consensus-based" BS by the ton. See the natural causation of COVID. We now have two different govt bodies that have concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. Of course, the Chinese are hiding everything and no one is even asking the obvious question of why?

[homersapien 11,366]

15 minutes ago, DKW 86 said:

1) We have money, politics, and biases all working against this 24-7-365.

2) We have think tanks that manufacture "Consensus-based" BS by the ton. See the natural causation of COVID.

3) We now have two different govt bodies that have concluded that a lab leak was the most likely cause. Of course, the Chinese are hiding everything and no one is even asking the obvious question of why?

1. Definately true.

2. There is no scientific "consensus" regarding the origin of Covid 19.   It is still very much open to debate. The most recent thing I have heard supports a natural origin: COVID-19 animal origin scientists now point toward raccoon dogs as lab leak hypothesis grows (msn.com)

Of course, I suppose it's possible a Whuhan lab isolated it from said animal. I have no opinion on the matter. Too early. 

3. Oh, I think there are plenty of people who are questioning the Chinese and their motivations.

 

What's your point?

 

 

Edited March 19, 2023 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,366]

4 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

And until it is done, "science" or "Scientists" are nothing more than flawed, biased people.

"Until it's done"?  Until what is done?  

 

[DKW 86 7,419]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Until it's done"?  Until what is done?  

The self-correcting phase.

[homersapien 11,366]

1 minute ago, DKW 86 said:

The self-correcting phase.

Even though that phase is also done by "flawed, biased people" ?  

[DKW 86 7,419]

Just now, homersapien said:

Even though that phase is also done by "flawed, biased people" ?  

Given enough time, even the troll in me can concede that at some point, a mature conclusion from fact, experimentation, and research can be reached AT SOME POINT. But that point may be completely different for different subjects etc. Maybe Day One for somethings and maybe year ten or more for others. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

This guy:

Professor Gordon Guyatt receives top international award

Distinguished University Professor Gordon Guyatt, who coined the phrase "evidence-based medicine" and established the gold standard for health research and its evaluation, is receiving the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research. 

---

BY FRAM DINSHAW, FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES

DECEMBER 1, 2022

 

 

 

Distinguished University Professor Gordon Guyatt, who established the gold standard for how health research should be done and evaluated, and who coined the phrase “evidence-based medicine” (EBM), will receive the Einstein Foundation Award for Promoting Quality in Research this week.

Guyatt, who is consistently named one of the world’s most-cited living scientists, helped pioneer the development of EBM at McMaster, publishing his first description of it in a 1991 paper. Now used worldwide, EBM is health care based on the best available, up-to-date evidence on medical options.

Guyatt was also lead editor of the Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, a guide for clinicians who wish to incorporate EBM principles into their practice.

The annual Einstein Foundation Award, worth €200,000, or $279,000,  recognizes initiatives that enhance the rigor, reliability, robustness, and transparency of research in natural sciences, social sciences and humanities.

Guyatt has published more than 1,500 peer-reviewed papers, which have been cited more than 340,000 times on Google Scholar and more than 180,000 times on the Web of Science.

“My goodness, somebody’s actually come up with an award that is right down my alley, because this is what I perceive as my biggest contribution, conducting research to inform clinicians of the relative merits of interventions,” said Guyatt, a Distinguished University Professor in McMaster’s department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact.

“My research in the field of clinical epidemiology is about laying the infrastructure for clinical practice reviews and provides a foundation upon which other researchers can make truly spectacular discoveries.”

“My role is more behind the scenes, but it feels good to gain this recognition from the Einstein Foundation.”

Making the GRADE 

One of Guyatt’s proudest achievements is playing a key role, along with McMaster professor Holger Schunemann and Andrew Oxman from the Norwegian Institute of Public Health, in the development and evolution of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to medical research.

GRADE is a framework for developing and presenting summaries of evidence and it provides a systematic approach for making clinical practice recommendations when treating patients.

GRADE has vastly improved patient care by allowing clinicians to access clear and concise recommendations about the treatment of a given condition, Guyatt says.

Clinicians previously struggled with unstructured and even misleading or contradictory evidence when seeking guidance on treating patients.

Guyatt’s GRADE research led to the implementation of formal practice guidelines to help clinicians navigate the best recommendations when caring for their patients.

GRADE principles are now being adapted to help clinicians when making diagnoses and prognoses, comparing multiple approaches in a network analysis. It has been adopted by more than 110 organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization, Guyatt said.

“I love the methodology. It is a love of exploring ideas and it is one way I explain this to people. I am very much a workaholic, but I couldn’t be that way unless it was such fun,” said Guyatt.

Guyatt will miss the Einstein Foundation’s Dec. 1 ceremony in Berlin because he’s in Maryland, helping to develop guidelines around blood transfusions.

Addicted to exploring new ideas

“Some people get addicted to video games or puzzles, I get the same experience with developing ideas, exploring methods and creating, in a sense, works of art, a desire to communicate as precisely as possible,” said Guyatt.

“I will say to my students and colleagues, ‘This is a beautiful paper,’ at the end of a research project.”

Guyatt has also been instrumental in reforming randomized clinical trials (RCTs), where he has proven the dangers of stopping trials early on the basis of large treatment effects. This has led to RCTs adopting stricter stopping rules.

He has also been instrumental in promoting health status measurements, which are studies addressing patients’ health status.

“I commend Dr. Guyatt on his receiving the Einstein Foundation Award, recognizing his decades-long research in in the field of clinical epidemiology,” said Paul O’Byrne, dean and vice-president of the Faculty of Health Sciences.

“There is no scientist, living or deceased, who has contributed as much to promoting the quality of clinical research in the health sciences as Gordon Guyatt. He is a researcher of the highest calibre who has been instrumental in putting McMaster University on the map as a hub for truly transformative health sciences research that directly benefits millions of people worldwide.”

Guyatt is an Officer of the Order of Canada and a member of the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame.

https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/professor-gordon-guyatt-receives-top-international-award/

 

Says this:

 

[TitanTiger 20,472]

But feelings.