How Science lost the Publics Trust

Author: Dr.Franklin

Posts

Total: 84
#61
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
I see... so now you've move the goalpost from "Dr. Fauci said X" to "some guy on twitter said X" and as long you can find somebody on twitter that said it then Dr. Fauci must have also said it?

This is not an honest argument.
#62
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
seriously why do you guys pretend like every media source was not echoing the exact same line. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278340/protestors-coronavirus-spread-police-violence-health-racism
#63
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
see... so now you've move the goalpost from "Dr. Fauci said X" to "some guy on twitter said X" and as long you can find somebody on twitter that said it then Dr. Fauci must have also said it?

Interviews with him around the time, he did soften his stance during peak riots. It's not an attack on him personally though, but on the elites he works with that all gather around certain narratives, for the purposes of social engineering. 


#64
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
stAdded07.31.21 05:09PM
-->@oromagi
seriously why do you guys pretend like every media source was not echoing the exact same line. https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/3/21278340/protestors-coronavirus-spread-police-violence-health-racism
Seriously, why don't you engage in debate honestly?

You started out telling a lie, knowing it was a lie but telling it anyway:
people also lost trust in science when people like fauci came out and said that BLM protests could not spread covid19. 
  • The truth is people have not lost trust in science, and
  • The truth is Fauci never said that shit that Jim Jordon tried to trick him into saying.
Instead of admitting that you are compulsively unable to tell the truth you just move on, "oh, well, I can find some other asshole who said something kind of similar to what I lied about Fauci saying so there!"  Nobody is pretending that some asshole didn't tweet last summer that BLM was more important than social distancing, but we are denying that SCIENCE said that and that therefore SCIENCE is responsible for losing people's trust.  Tellingly, you couldn't even come up with a different asshole than Dr.Franklin, both of you use Dr. Abraar Karan's tweets from last summer.  He is a public health expert but mostly he's a writer trying to keep his columns interesting.  He is not a government official and he is certainly not SCIENCE as you are here trying to hold him up to be.

I'd encourage you to debate topics more honestly in future.

#65
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Wylted
Interviews with him around the time, he did soften his stance during peak riots. It's not an attack on him personally though, but on the elites he works with that all gather around certain narratives, for the purposes of social engineering. 
You believe that because FOX News brainwashed you into believing that - not because you have any evidence.
Topic's author
#66
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
idk about fauci but the media certainly lied for this
Topic's author
#67
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
Well, science has to stay on the side of the facts whether the public divides over those facts or not.  When Copernicus showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe, the people were divided but science had no obligation to modify the truth to preserve unity.  When science said that black people were just as human as whites, people divided violently and died by the hundreds of thousands on both sides of the issue but science had not obligation except to the observable facts and repeatable results.   People divide over the efficacy of vaccines but science is not divided on that question and has no obligation to treat the skeptics as rational because they are not rational, by and large.

There is no supposed to be about Science- science just follows that facts.
indeed that is true, and science can be divided and debated but is it supposed to be that 36% of people straight up dont trust it?

but today, the science is not based on facts, its a buzz word used by proponents of scientism to try and smear their enemies, never before has science served this purpose.
Topic's author
#68
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
We in the non-suicidal community refer to this as a bad idea.

Boys and girls... please don't drink cleaning chemicals.
donald trump
  • said that they were experimenting with ideas
  • mentioned other treatments
  • broadly mentioned UV lights
if i wanted people to use UV lights i wouldnt say that, I would go and direclty say use the uv lights, but he didnt, you lied about what he said and your stupid jokes arent cutting it pal

#69
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin

-->@oromagi
idk about fauci but the media certainly lied for this
OK, but the subject of your topic is SCIENCE- how SCIENCE lost the public's trust.  If we're all on the same page now about how that statement is total bullshit, then shouldn't we shut this topic down and then you could start a new topic where you can try to blame the media for your discontents?
Topic's author
#70
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@FLRW
It is important to note that it is very dangerous to try to use this method to disinfect surfaces inside homes. To be fully effective, a system must be designed so that a person is not directly exposed to the light.
do you get that trump never recommended people to do it directly, right? it was a scientific thing.

yes, directly exposing one self will be bad but trump NEVER encouraged that, it was supposed to be a scientific experiment he was involved with
#71
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin

There is no supposed to be about Science- science just follows that facts.
indeed that is true, and science can be divided and debated but
is it supposed to be that 36% of people straight up dont trust it?

What?  You agree that science is just following the facts but then you want to  fault science for the 36% who don't want the facts?  Why aren't the 36% to blame for preferring lies?

Isn't that 36% pretty much exactly the 36% in Donald Trump's approval rating?  who think the election was fraud and that white supremacists trying to assassinate the Vice President is just politics as usual?  I don't think that it's SCIENCE's fault that 36% of people can't allow themselves the freedom to follow the facts- it's the 36% who have to believe Trump secretly did a good job with the pandemic and that Trump secretly won the election that can't afford to let facts creep in.

but today, the science is not based on facts
Wait, what happened to "indeed it is true" from last sentence?  Science is hardly perfect but there's no human tradition that tries harder to base itself in facts than science.  
, its a buzz word used by
I've already disproved BUZZ WORD.  Either counter my argument or stop repeating your disproved argument.

proponents of scientism
Please define "scientism." 

to try and smear their enemies,
Can you name some of these "enemies of science?"

never before has science served this purpose.
disproving false beliefs?  I'll point you back to Galileo.
#72
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@SkepticalOne
...if it were science, the "skeptical" would not be necessary. 
I'll give you one example of why that is a fallacy.

So science is a body of knowledge of testable theories with repeatable and reliable results. I find holes in that definition, but I'll agree in principle.

I see a designed experiment to test the effect of a tsunami on a beachfront coastal village. A doable test, in theory, by miniaturization is possible, but the actual test design has a long, narrow steel, rectangular tank filled with ocean water with a big paddle at one end and a beach at the other end. The "tsunami" is created by the big paddle. Reliable test? Nope.

Show me the ocean bound by flat, vertical sides, an d a flat bottom. Show me the ocean with a paddle. Ive been in four of the five Earth oceans; never saw one fitting those features.

That's supposed to be science? Hogwash. That's a high school science fair project. What happened to attempting to duplicate real conditions? You bet science should be skeptical. Why is a new, infant science, climatology [it's barely 200 years old] so lacking in skepticism? Because it is not yet science.
#73
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
Shouldn't it be, How Science Lost the Trust of People with Numerous Brain Lesions?
Topic's author
#74
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
What?  You agree that science is just following the facts but then you want to  fault science for the 36% who don't want the facts?  Why aren't the 36% to blame for preferring lies?

Isn't that 36% pretty much exactly the 36% in Donald Trump's approval rating?  who think the election was fraud and that white supremacists trying to assassinate the Vice President is just politics as usual?  I don't think that it's SCIENCE's fault that 36% of people can't allow themselves the freedom to follow the facts- it's the 36% who have to believe Trump secretly did a good job with the pandemic and that Trump secretly won the election that can't afford to let facts creep in.
the 36% are perfectly accepting of facts, one problem though- science, as an institution is being used against them. biden, democrats, and others are constantly creaming "believe in science" and other bullshit that would alienate the 36% and would lead them away from science as an institution.

another problem, many times the science is against the democrat agenda and yet they still spam the lie. Gender science and the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine is two examples of the scientific facts going against the democratic agenda. however, this science is ignored and ridiculed by the INSTITUTION of science, BUT IF THE INSTITUITON of science followed the principle of "facts rule", this science would not get ignored.

Wait, what happened to "indeed it is true" from last sentence?  Science is hardly perfect but there's no human tradition that tries harder to base itself in facts than science.  
as an institution, science is not based on the facts, as demonstrated many times before

've already disproved BUZZ WORD.  Either counter my argument or stop repeating your disproved argument.
buzzword:a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.

slogans such as "believe in science" is
  • an item of jargon as it promoted by one group of people 
  • it is used to smear political opponents in a particular context
yes science is a buzzword, and it shouldnt be

lease define "scientism."
Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.


Can you name some of these "enemies of science?"
as an institution, science hates right wingers and anybody who has dissenting opinions

disproving false beliefs?  I'll point you back to Galileo.
thats part of science ok, therefore it is part of science's job to debunk transgender nonsense
Topic's author
#75
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@oromagi
OK, but the subject of your topic is SCIENCE- how SCIENCE lost the public's trust.  If we're all on the same page now about how that statement is total bullshit, then shouldn't we shut this topic down and then you could start a new topic where you can try to blame the media for your discontents
no this is perfectly acceptable for this thread

1."sceince" says to stay home for covid
2."science" says that not staying home will increase covid cases
3."science" doesnt say this for the mass protests from BLM
4."science" lies and the media reports that the protests didnt cause covid cases

Therefore, science loses the publics trust

#76
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Skepticism is part of science. Saying 'skeptical science' is like saying 'salty salt'...its redundant. But, hey, you do you. :-)
Topic's author
#77
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@SkepticalOne
ok i guess
#78
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
Added08.01.21 09:01PM
-->@oromagi
What?  You agree that science is just following the facts but then you want to  fault science for the 36% who don't want the facts?  Why aren't the 36% to blame for preferring lies?

Isn't that 36% pretty much exactly the 36% in Donald Trump's approval rating?  who think the election was fraud and that white supremacists trying to assassinate the Vice President is just politics as usual?  I don't think that it's SCIENCE's fault that 36% of people can't allow themselves the freedom to follow the facts- it's the 36% who have to believe Trump secretly did a good job with the pandemic and that Trump secretly won the election that can't afford to let facts creep in.
the 36% are perfectly accepting of facts, one problem though- science, as an institution is being used against them. biden, democrats, and others are constantly creaming "believe in science" and other bullshit that would alienate the 36% and would lead them away from science as an institution.
  • I'll take that as your concession that the people who distrust science are generally also the people who trust Trump when he claims that he won the election.
  • Your Orwellian thought process is on display here:  You are saying that because Democrats embrace facts, they are forcing Republicans to deny facts.  Republicans need to re-learn how to discover facts absent any political bias.
another problem, many times the science is against the democrat agenda and yet they still spam the lie. Gender science and the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine is two examples of the scientific facts going against the democratic agenda.

  • I don't know what scientific argument you intend when you say, "gender science" but
  • Hydroxychloroquine is an excellent example.  From March to May of 2020, we experimented with the use of hydroxychloroquine.  When large scale studies started completing in late May, Science objectively determined to recommend against the use of hydroxychloroquine because;
    • no benefit shown in speeding recovery, in fact
      • patients on hydroxychloroquine were more likely to need intensive care, intubation than patients on standard care
      • patients on hydroxychloroquine had longer hospital stays than standard care
    • no benefit shown in reducing mortality, in fact
      • patients on hydroxychloroquine died at higher rates than those receiving standard medical care.
    • plus, there were known significant potential side effects including s ventricular fibrillation,  low blood pressure, and blindness.
    • Therefore, the FDA, WHO, NIH, etc all issued warnings are revoked authorizations as a treatment for COVID-19 in June of last year.
  • So, the science is quite clear regarding the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine: the harms far outweigh the benefits and nobody should be taking hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for coronavirus.  Those are the fact.
    • The two major studies were both done outside of US, not as part of some Democrat agenda.
    • Nevertheless, Democrats follow the careful recommendations of science.  Republicans follow their dear leader.
  • What you're probably thinking of is a highly anecdotal pre-print that came out at the end of May that observed 255 patients at one hospital in the first weeks of the epidemic, looking only at patients who were intubated.  Out of these 255, 201 died.  The study concluded that survivors who received a relatively higher cumulative dose of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin survived at 2.9 the rate of those who received smaller doses.
    • Not peer reviewed.
    • Did not control against people who took no hydroxychloroquine (who let's remember  the had better survival rates than those who did in the much larger, controlled, peer reviewed international studies.
    • The people who received smaller cumulative doses were either to sick for the dose or died before receiving the cumulative dose. 
    • Most of these patients also received the normally effective treatments- steroids, convalescent plasma, etc.  Therefore, the observed effect tells us little more than the 20% who survived, lived long enough to receive a large cumulative dose.  I does not tell us whether that cumulative dose helped anyone survive and the studies that do tell us that tell us that hydroxychloroquine kills more people than it helps.
  • Importantly, Dr. Smith was and remains a frequent guest on FOX News.  Smith  failed to not the conflict of interest in his publication.
  • Nevertheless, Trump, entirely ignorant regarding the science and entirely uncaring about the health consequences of COVID disinformation, issued a statement saying he was right all along, that hydroxychloroquine works after all.  Trump hates science because science doesn't serve him and Trump hates everything that does not serve him.
    • Therefore, FOX felt obligated to spread Trump's disinformation and now you feel obligated to believe it without bothering to read the study or make an evaluation for yourself.  The only reason you believe that hydroxychloroquine has any therapeutic value against COVID is because Trump and FOX news have repeated that lie over and over until you believed it.  There has been absolutely zero change in the science.
however, this science is ignored and ridiculed by the INSTITUTION of science, BUT IF THE INSTITUITON of science followed the principle of "facts rule", this science would not get ignored.
  • Smith's study won't ever pass peer review but that's because it's not good science, not because it is ignored or ridiculed.  Yes, the fact checkers have all been quick to explain why Trump's claim is false and why Smith's study is not good science (the study itself admits as much) but that is not ignoring those falsehoods or ridiculing them.  It is taking disinformation seriously and correcting the record to reflect the facts.\
  • So yes, science, democrats and the rest of the world  and the facts are all one side of this debate.  On the other side is Trump, who doesn't give a shit about the science and just refuses to admit that his early recommendations of hydroxychloroquine were irresponsible and with him all the people who feel obligated to believe Trump, including FOX news and you, apparently.  There are zero facts supporting that side of the argument.
Wait, what happened to "indeed it is true" from last sentence?  Science is hardly perfect but there's no human tradition that tries harder to base itself in facts than science.  
as an institution, science is not based on the facts, as demonstrated many times before
  • Give me three examples, please
've already disproved BUZZ WORD.  Either counter my argument or stop repeating your disproved argument.
buzzword:a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context.

slogans such as "believe in science" is
  • an item of jargon as it promoted by one group of people 
False. The fact that Republicans feel threatened or uncomfortable about people saying they believe in science is revelatory.  Saying "I believe in science" is just basic profession of one' creed.  That such a creed makes for an effective political statement doesn't turn the creed into a buzzword, just like saying "Make America great again" isn't a buzzword.
  • it is used to smear political opponents in a particular context
Sorry, just stating the facts should never be viewed as a political smear.  If speaking the truth makes your political party look like a bunch of evil idiots (which it certainly does), that's on your party.  We're not going to change the facts just because Trump demands it or it makes you feel better about yourself.

lease define "scientism."
Scientism is the promotion of science as the best or only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

Well, there's a wide chasm between saying "I believe in science" and "I believe in science as the only objective political value"  I don't see any evidence that your accusation applies to the Democratic value.

Can you name some of these "enemies of science?"
as an institution, science hates right wingers and anybody who has dissenting opinions
Science is objective. A science that hates is not science.  The fact that science makes the right wing look foolish is because the right wing believes many objectively foolish things.  Science is certainly far better at listening to dissenting opinions than the right wing- LIz Cheney, for example.

disproving false beliefs?  I'll point you back to Galileo.
thats part of science ok, therefore it is part of science's job to debunk transgender nonsense
I don't know what you're talking about when you say "debunk transgender nonsense"  Seems to me, if anything, the science of transgenderism is pretty scarce because transgender people have only been trying to find a normal place in society in the last few years. 

#79
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@Dr.Franklin
-->@oromagi
OK, but the subject of your topic is SCIENCE- how SCIENCE lost the public's trust.  If we're all on the same page now about how that statement is total bullshit, then shouldn't we shut this topic down and then you could start a new topic where you can try to blame the media for your discontents
no this is perfectly acceptable for this thread

1."sceince" says to stay home for covid
2."science" says that not staying home will increase covid cases
3."science" doesnt say this for the mass protests from BLM
This is a lie.  So far, you've taken one black doctor who writes a medical column and tweets a lot and pretended that he is "science"  Originally, you falsely accused 
Fauci of saying this and I disproved you.  Now, you've found one random dude and called him "science"  SCIENCE as an institution consistently said to stay home last summer and made it clear that included political protests.   You believe this lie because FOX news repeats it to you frequently, not because there is any truth to it.

4."science" lies and the media reports that the protests didnt cause covid cases
This is false.   SCIENCE as an institution found a statistically significant but relatively small increase in COVID cases due to the protests after George Floyd's murder.  The media generally reported this fact.  The fact that you believe otherwise is because FOX News writes your belief system for you, not because you have looked into the facts yourself.

Therefore, science loses the publics trust
We've already shown this to be false.  Trust in science increased during the pandemic, not decreased. Kings and churches and those loyal to Kings and churches have always hated science because science undermines their authority.  Science never lost the trust of those right-wingers because it never had their trust to begin with.





35 days later

#80
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Some people have lost faith with science because their worldview is undermined by its conclusions, and the dissonance that comes from that mismatch has been exploited by individuals and groups wanting power and money, who use faulty reasoning and generalized propoganda to push people’s dissonance to the side of dismissing the science they don’t like.

Scientific institutions do have issues, they are human in nature and are prone to error; but this simple fact, and many real world examples of it, are often dishonestly used to push people who don’t want to believe something into rejecting conclusions that are indisputable.


Arguments become the comfortable regurgitation of talking points, where the approach taken by one side is “if I am right about one thing, I am right about everything; if you are wrong about one thing, you are wrong about everything.”

11 days later

#81
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@oromagi
Does it not follow that if all human institutions are alike in imperfection, that Republicans have given up on all human institutions?  This would certainly explain their public policy choices of the last twenty years.
I believe we should create perfect institutions.  
#82
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
An interesting anecdote to add here.

From 1995 to 2015 if you went to any general forum in which politics, religion and science could discusses; arguably one of the biggest individual topics on such a forum was creationism/evolution (although perhaps 2nd to “god exists/doesn’t exist).

Creationists systematically rejected the authority of experts and science itself to maintain their religious beliefs.

Towards the end of 2015; the people who argued creationism/evolution almost exclusively stopped arguing it from every such site almost overnight; and instead began arguing in support of Trump.


The population - and mode specifically the right - has lost faith in science - because it was politically expedient to make rejection of science part of political identity on the right.




#83
Benjamin
Benjamin's avatar
Debates: 98
Posts: 827
4
7
10
Benjamin's avatar
Benjamin
4
7
10
-->
@Dr.Franklin
why is skeptical science instantly shut down
Science is by definition skeptical. Scientific theories first need to be mathematically and logically consistent, or in other words: they cannot be nonsensical. Then there is the rigorous protocol of comparing predictions with gathered data, not once, not twice, but all the time. Once an established theory is contradicted by new evidence it is quickly investigated and changed as needed -- or scraped completely.


Science is always skeptical. Scientific theories are always under intense scrutiny. The "skeptical science" you reffered to is just non-accepted science.
Topic's author
#84
Dr.Franklin
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Debates: 32
Posts: 10,673
4
7
11
Dr.Franklin's avatar
Dr.Franklin
4
7
11
-->
@Ramshutu
its interesting you point that out, Im glad im not the only one who saw the massive drop in Creationism vs evolution now. I dont think its attributed to trump only though