Why Are Scientists Overwhelmingly on The Left?

Author: Reece101

Posts

Total: 207
#61
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
If doctors were always right, malpractice insurance wouldn't exist.

When they are wrong, how does a person know if they don't exercise their personal agency?

Second opinions do exist for this very reason.

Imagine 4 out of 5 doctors say there's no treatment for a certain cancer or other illness. Are you going to stick to your guns about that "consensus opinion" even if it means certain death? It's absolute bullshit to live and operate with no agency, not to mention usually fatal. Nobody rational and sane who has the means to evaluate personal risk would do that.
#62
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
How is 9 doctors telling you that you need surgery indistinguishable from 9 friends telling you that you won’t be harmed if you stab yourself in the eye?

Are you saying its better to self-diagnose when it comes to serious health problems? Let’s run your logic to its conclusion. 
No. I'm stating that the number of doctors does not at all qualify the veracity of their prescriptions. The one doctor could be correct, and the other nine, wrong. The consensus of nine doctors doesn't qualify the prescription of the one doctor.

Topic's author
#63
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
If doctors were always right, malpractice insurance wouldn't exist.
we’ve talked about 9/10 doctors telling you the same thing about how it would be best to get surgery.
How about a million doctors? How many doctors would there have to be for you to drop this stupid logic?

When they are wrong, how does a person know if they don't exercise their personal agency?
If you want to ignore 9/10 doctors suggesting for you to get surgery, then go for it.

Second opinions do exist for this very reason.
And you think that’s bad?

Imagine 4 out of 5 doctors say there's no treatment for a certain cancer or other illness. Are you going to stick to your guns about that "consensus opinion" even if it means certain death? It's absolute bullshit to live and operate with no agency, not to mention usually fatal. Nobody rational and sane who has the means to evaluate personal risk would do that.
Don’t move the goalpost. you’re moving from 9/10 doctors prescribing surgery to treat someone, to doctors not knowing if there is a treatment.

Topic's author
#64
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
No. I'm stating that the number of doctors does not at all qualify the veracity of their prescriptions.
Okay Dunning Kruger, what does?

The one doctor could be correct, and the other nine, wrong. The consensus of nine doctors doesn't qualify the prescription of the one doctor. 
What would be the chances though? If we’re talking about in general, I would say very slim. 
#65
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Reece101
How is 9 doctors telling you that you need surgery indistinguishable from 9 friends telling you that you won’t be harmed if you stab yourself in the eye?

Are you saying its better to self-diagnose when it comes to serious health problems? Let’s run your logic to its conclusion. 
What if it’s 9 doctors from the poorest regions of Africa vs 1 Board Certified American Doctor?

The point is that you have to look into who the authority is even if quantity is present because quantity =/= quality.
Topic's author
#66
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m not playing the ‘what if’ game.

Read what I said to Athias. In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality. 
#67
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,167
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
-->
@Reece101
I’m not playing the ‘what if’ game.

Read what I said to Athias. In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality. 
Then you my friend need to utilize your critical thinking skills more.

Cause quantity isn’t always better than quality. If it were Copernicus and people like him wouldn’t have done research.


Topic's author
#68
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@ILikePie5
Oh yeah, we’re all Copernicus aren’t we.
#69
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Don’t move the goalpost. you’re moving from 9/10 doctors prescribing surgery to treat someone, to doctors not knowing if there is a treatment.

You're right. Surgery often has far greater risks associated with than doing nothing in a great many cases. I have no clue what you're trying to prove with personal risk-assessment other than trying to reduce it to robotic authoritative consensus void of ANY agency in EVERY case. Usually mothers tell their children the ridiculously simple story about consensus and a bridge, but you must have missed that learning experience.
Topic's author
#70
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Let’s just get straight to the point. You think you’re more intelligent than most doctors, correct?

#71
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
I think a robotic person follows consensus in every case with no skepticism.  

Blissful ignorance is a thing.
#72
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
Let’s just get straight to the point. You think you’re more intelligent than most doctors, correct?

Let's put it this way. Pretend you are a robot that follows consensus 100% of the time.

So say 6 doctors have one position and 4 have another position. As a robot, you agree with the 6 doctors without hesitation or thought, basically believing without any critical thought process that they are more intelligent than the other 4 doctors, and as an extension, You are smarter than the other 4 doctors. 

Outrageous.

To think a person is more intelligent than some doctors that don't follow the popular crowd. Never looking at one iota of science or data. Just declaring by fiat and mob rule.

So much for the enlightenment era, we can go back to chanting  accepting mantras to the majority authority like the middle ages. Who needs science anyway when we have google?
Topic's author
#73
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
I think a robotic person follows consensus in every case with no skepticism.  

Blissful ignorance is a thing.
We’re still specifically talking about professional medical advice, correct? Or do you have really bad ADHD?
#74
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
We’re still specifically talking about professional medical advice, correct? 

No I am calling out your ridiculous praxis in disregarding the minority 4 out of 10 doctors in a robotic fashion.
#75
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
I remember Wylted's answer to the majority doctor question as thus: it's likely that the minority thought out of a group of professionals is more likely to be closer to truth as the malus of being in the minority necessitates a more rigorous proof to counter. It's far easier to agree with the majority where factual proof wouldn't be scrutinized as much.

That's a compelling enough observation to be skeptical and take a hard critical look at the data before trusting the majority blindly.
Topic's author
#76
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Let's put it this way. Pretend you are a robot that follows consensus 100% of the time.

So say 6 doctors have one position and 4 have another position. As a robot, you agree with the 6 doctors without hesitation or thought, basically believing without any critical thought process that they are more intelligent than the other 4 doctors, and as an extension, You are smarter than the other 4 doctors. 
You can’t directly argue against the original argument, so you have to make your own odds which aren’t as black and white. This is called a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

Outrageous.
If you want to express yourself in that light.


To think a person is more intelligent than some doctors that don't follow the popular crowd. Never looking at one iota of science or data. Just declaring by fiat and mob rule.
If there’s 9/10 doctors agreeing with a course of action, chances are the alt-doctor is wrong. But go ahead, do your own research. 

So much for the enlightenment era, we can go back to chanting  accepting mantras to the majority authority like the middle ages. Who needs science anyway when we have google?
It’s called division of labour. It’s when people are specialised in certain fields. 
#77
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,983
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Reece101
You can’t directly argue against the original argument, so you have to make your own odds which aren’t as black and white.

I just want to see if there is a line you would draw and actually look at data and question the majority.

From your response it seems you aren't as committed to your original axiom.
Topic's author
#78
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Greyparrot
Me personally, I’d do a deep dive if there’s 3/10 doctors referring the same course of action for a complicated issue. 
But I don’t see how any of this has to do with likelihood.

What’s my original axiom? 


#79
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R


show me the equivalent on the left of a Donald Trump.
Well since he's among the most unique figures in American political history, having neither served in politics or the military before becoming President, I really can't. There are plenty of left wing politicians that are dishonest even by politician standards, though, Adam Schiff would be a good example. There are plenty of bombastic left wing politicians, such as "The Squad." Worry not...the Democrat establishment is incredibly grey, and they do steer the ship relatively well when it comes to reigning in the excesses of the base. You'll get your Trump before all is said and done, once millennials finally take power things are going to be very interesting 

But despite his terrible personnel choices and his embarrassing antics, Trump's term of office was a peaceful and prosperous one, seeing unprecedent economic gains for the working class (https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/files/scf20.pdf) and a steady but non chaotic drawdown of US military presence abroad, prior to the arrival of a virus that rocked the entire world. I'm happy to defend his policies if not his personality and staffing choices. 

Show me the equivalent on the left of “the election was stolen”. 
I already did, 2/3rds of Democrats believed that Russia changed the vote tallies in 2016.

Show me the equivalent on the left of “the president wasn’t born in the United States”.
Donald Trump being a Russian asset since 1987 is a cool conspiracy theory https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/07/trump-putin-russia-collusion.html


I’m not asking for things the left says that make you feel upset or facts you cherry picked that most liberals never even heard of or don’t give a crap about, I am asking for examples of issues driving left wing politics that flat out ignore reality and/or create a new one out of political convenience.
I gave you several examples, including the left being completely wrong on their assessment of COVID hospitalization risks and their assessment of police shooting demographics. COVID and Racial Justice were the two most important issues to Biden voters in 2020, and yet their understanding of these issues had incredibly serious flaws: https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/exit-polls/president/national-results Climate change is also a big issue on the left, and while they might be "right" in the sense that they believe in it, belief that the end of the human race is imminent is a common sentiment which is not true, and they are more likely to oppose the only way out of fossil fuels, nuclear power. It is far from a scientific mindset. If I'm supposed to be impressed by a group of people not understanding the potential impact of an issue and recommending the wrong policies to fight it, I'm not.

I have been unable to find statistics on it, but I would bet anything that leftists also believe that white people commit more crimes against black people than the other way around (in reality, whites are the victims 90% of the time.) The left wing narrative on race, which is dear to their hearts, is hilariously backwards. 

I also showed you extremely powerful, all but overwhelming evidence that forcing children in schools to wear masks, for which the efficacy is questionable, or forcing people to wear masks outside are bad policies supported by large majorities of Democrats, but you refuse to talk about this because an authority figure disagrees. How do you like your steak, btw? 


#80
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 2,064
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
-->
@Double_R
Hypothetical scenario; You are having serious chest pains. You go to 10 doctors to get looked at. 9 of them tell you that you need surgery. 1 of them tells you it’s not serious and prescribes you medication.

Question: What do you think is most reasonable to believe?
Bad example, because if you have chest pains and might need surgery the threat tends to be imminent. 

A closer analogy is you have a disease, and 9 out of 10 doctors recommend one treatment, while 1 doctor recommends something different. You have time to make your decision. Do you research it at all, or just go with what most doctors say?

Also Doctors deal with so many patients that they are essentially just human flow charts when it comes to any chronic disease. The consensus is right most of the time, so their advice is typically correct. But when the consensus is wrong, their advice is usually wrong too. There is a long history of bad medical decisions from a critical mass of doctors, see the opiod epidemic, lobotomies, Vioxx, etc. If you are ever hospitalized you MUST be your own advocate 
#81
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Question: What do you think is most reasonable to believe?
Whoever is right.
Duh

The question being asked here is… how do you go about determining who to believe is right?

Do you self diagnose and then conclude that you know better that the overwhelming majority of doctors who told you the opposite?

Do you default to the idea that the majority of doctors must be trying to deceive you for nefarious purposes?

Do you assume that the one doctor must be more qualified than everyone else because he told you what you wanted to hear?

I’m all ears

#82
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ILikePie5
What if it’s 9 doctors from the poorest regions of Africa vs 1 Board Certified American Doctor?
That wasn’t part of the hypothetical. I always find it telling when someone cannot answer a hypothetical without concocting new factors to suit their position and then bootstrapping them onto the original question.

The point is that you have to look into who the authority is even if quantity is present because quantity =/= quality.
You understand full well that this hypothetical was intended to be as simple as possible in order to focus in on a very simple idea which you are not trying to obfuscate, so this is just dishonest.

As far as you can tell, all doctors are of equal qualifications. Now what?



#83
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
When you put your own personal risk assessment in the hands of authority consensus, you won't be likely to pass your genes on. That's nature.
So to be clear, you believe that anytime you follow what a majority of experts in a given field conclude, you are more likely to be wrong and subsequently suffer the consequences for it. Is that correct?
#84
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Okay Dunning Kruger, what does?
Evidentiary rigor.

What would be the chances though? If we’re talking about in general, I would say very slim. 
"Chances"? This is not a game of craps. It meets this standard of evidentiary rigor, or it doesn't.

Read what I said to Athias. In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality. 
If one needs surgery, why would that be an opinion?


Topic's author
#85
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
Evidentiary rigor.

"Chances"? This is not a game of craps. It meets this standard of evidentiary rigor, or it doesn't. 
Which you’ll be able to know how to fully interpret and understand, or will you still need doctors counsel?

If one needs surgery, why would that be an opinion? 
Well it’s up to you if you want to go through with it.
#86
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Duh

The question being asked here is… how do you go about determining who to believe is right?
"Believe is right?" What you think the field of medicine is?


Do you self diagnose and then conclude that you know better that the overwhelming majority of doctors who told you the opposite?

Do you default to the idea that the majority of doctors must be trying to deceive you for nefarious purposes?

Do you assume that the one doctor must be more qualified than everyone else because he told you what you wanted to hear?
What? How you came to these conclusions/inquiries is unknown to me. Let me explain to you the fallacy of argumentum ad populum.

(Reece if you're viewing this post, pay attention as well.)

Argumentum ad populum, which can also be described as argumentum ad numerum, or "consensus fallacy" is a fallacious mode of reasoning in which it is proposed that an argument's veracity is informed by the number of people who extend it. It proposes that mere number qualifies the truth of a conclusion. For example: 8 out 10 people maintain that Athias has never had sex. Because 8 out 10 people maintain this notion, argumentum ad populum would propose that it must therefore be true. Despite the two outliers, which coincidentally are myself and my sexual partner, maintaining otherwise, our testament, albeit true, would be diminished by the mere number of our opponents.

I have not argued in favor of self-diagnosis; I have not accused any doctor of anything nefarious; nor have I sought any doctor's prescription to "confirm my bias." If I am having chest pains, and 9 out of 10 doctors tell me I need surgery, but the other just prescribes medication, then the "reasonable" thing to do is to determine whose assessment is accurate. Determining accuracy based on the mere number of doctors is fallacious reasoning consistent with argumentum ad populum. It could very well be the case that the one doctor's assessment is accurate. Believing 9 out of 10 doctors, because it's 9 out 10 doctors has nothing to with Medicine.
#87
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Which you’ll be able to know how to fully interpret and understand, or will you still need doctors counsel?
And how does the number of doctors qualify this interpretation?

Well it’s up to you if you want to go through with it.
That does not answer the question. If one needed surgery, why would that be an opinion? By what metric was it determined that one needs surgery, and why would this metric allow for opinion?
Topic's author
#88
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
And how does the number of doctors qualify this interpretation? 
At this stage it’s about understanding literature/research in the medical community, which the average person clearly doesn’t.
Hence quantity of professional medical counsel, is quality. 

That does not answer the question. If one needed surgery, why would that be an opinion? By what metric was it determined that one needs surgery, and why would this metric allow for opinion? 
Due to your ignorance. 
#89
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Reece101
Hence quantity of professional medical counsel, is quality. 
Explain to me the reason quantity of professional medical counsel is quality. Make sure to also explain how each marginal increase in medical counsel informs the quality.

Due to your ignorance. 
We're not talking about "my ignorance." You qualified the doctors' prescription as "opinion." Why?



Topic's author
#90
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@Athias
Explain to me the reason quantity of professional medical counsel is quality. Make sure to also explain how each marginal increase in medical counsel informs the quality. 
First we’ll have to agree that most doctors will somewhat know what they’re talking about. Do you agree? If not, then this is a lost cause. 

We're not talking about "my ignorance." You qualified the doctors' prescription as "opinion." Why?
I wasn’t referring to you specifically.

My original statement: “In general, quantity of professional opinion is quality.”

Do you know the old saying, if in doubt, get a second opinion? It’s a saying for those too ignorant to know otherwise. 

I’m not using ignorant as an adjective.