Listen to the science

Author: cristo71

Posts

Total: 66
Topic's author
#1
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
Sounds reasonable at first… science is as close to objective investigation as we can get, and it would behoove us humans to heed its lessons. As time goes on in the COVID era, however, it is starting to sound more and more like “Obey the science,” or worse, “Obey me.”

Science is a tool. Tools do not issue commands, make tough decisions, make prescriptions, make moral arguments, weigh all the pros and cons, account for unintended consequences, etc. People— leaders in particular— do (or should do) those things. You never hear anyone admonish anyone else to listen to any other tools. That would be absurd, wouldn’t it? You might conceivably be advised to “listen to the computer,” but that would take on a disturbing tone if taken to the lengths that “listen to the science” has taken. I can tell you that in my work, we back up the computer’s directions with our own cross checks.

The problem is that the people who say “listen to the science” or “follow the science” often have an underlying ideological agenda. They tend to cherry pick the available data. Science doesn’t create or side with ideologies; people do. So, in effect, these people are saying “listen to the science (obey me), because I, too, follow the science.” That just leads to authoritarianism with an effective tool as the presumably unquestionable justification— the person in question may not even be using science in the most optimal way, and the results of scientific studies should never be implied as being unquestionable.

I would much prefer “Use the science” be the admonishment. Use the tool… to your advantage. What a concept! Just don’t confuse using science as constituting effective leadership.
#2
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->
@cristo71
  • disagree
    • "Listen to the Science" is not an admonishment, per se.  The phrase just asdvises  folks to "pay attention to the body of collected data regarding this subject."
      • That you are misinterpreting the phrase as an admonishment or an imperative to obey is not supported semantically.  Therefore, the problem lies in your misinterpretation.
      • Almost every use of human language brings with it some underlying ideological agenda- that's just human nature and no reason to change the usage  of ordinary phrases.
        • Let's hold people accountable for the actual semantic meaning of the words and phrases they use, rather than any non-standard interpretation by any individuals.
    • "Use the Science" is far more  imperative semantically than "Listen to the Science."  Listening happens before decision-making and doesn't necessarily influence the decision whereas "Use the Science" implies a specific course of action.  Therefore, "Use the Science" is far closer in meaning to "Obey the Science" than "Listen to the Science."

Topic's author
#3
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@oromagi
  • "Listen to the Science" is not an admonishment, per se.  The phrase just asdvises  folks to "pay attention to the body of collected data regarding this subject."
I might agree insofar as it does not have to be an admonishment technically, but that aspect is actually beside my point. What single word might you use to label such a direction? Ha, “direction” might be an alternative descriptor! You can substitute “direction” in my OP for admonishment, if you like.

"Use the Science" is far more  imperative semantically than "Listen to the Science."  Listening happens before decision-making and doesn't necessarily influence the decision whereas "Use the Science" implies a specific course of action.  Therefore, "Use the Science" is far closer in meaning to "Obey the Science" than "Listen to the Science.”
Seems like a distinction without a difference to me. However, now that you bring it to my attention, I realize that I wouldn’t like it if people of influence said “Use the science,” either. It would still come off as superior, preachy, and being beyond question.

I will now say that I would prefer it if people just present good ideas and strategies. Don’t tell me (to listen to the science); show me (how you yourself are using all the available data, weighing the pros and cons, managing risk, unintended consequences, etc) in other words…



#4
oromagi
oromagi's avatar
Debates: 117
Posts: 8,696
8
10
11
oromagi's avatar
oromagi
8
10
11
-->@oromagi

. What single word might you use to label such a direction?
I already used the word- "advice."


Seems like a distinction without a difference to me.
Not to me.  It's the distinction between telling somebody to listen to their Math teacher and to use long division.  The former is advice, the latter is instruction.
#5
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@cristo71
#6
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 15,162
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
Dr. Fauci is the science 
#7
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,071
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@cristo71
A Zedku for cristo71.


Science is as science does.

And if one doesn't like listening to science,

One can always go live in a remote cave somewhere,

And dispense with everything evolved of human science.


You know what? 

I'm content sitting here,

In my warm kitchen,

Drinking my largely pre-processed breakfast.

Tapping away on my keyboard,

Remotely interacting with others, thousands of miles away.

And listening to science in my headphones.


Science is f**king amazing.

And probably an inevitability.

So I listened to science and got vaccinated too.

What about you.

Or are you a conspiracy theorist,

Who tends to listen to alternative science

Either way,

Can't get away,

From the sound of science.


And in the naked light I saw,

Ten thousand people maybe more.

People talking without speaking...............



Topic's author
#8
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@zedvictor4
You miss my point, I’m afraid. It is right there in straightforward prose, but let me know if you need me to clarify anything further.
#9
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
I'm not so sure you have a point. You made some little mention of ideological agenda and maybe the person isn't using the science properly. But what's your point? If scientists overwhelmingly agree that we should all get vaccinated, and of course neither you nor I is a virologist or chemist or whoever the fuck cooks this shit up, why shouldn't I say listen to the science? Scientists are effective leadership in things scientific. It's next to obey me, so what? They've got PhD's, they can speak authoritatively. 
Topic's author
#10
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@badger
Thanks for asking.

My point is that authority figures who say “Listen to the science” are in danger of using a catchphrase in place of actual leadership. They are in danger of implying “Obey me without question because… science.”

You bring up the vaccine as an example. Ok— should a person who just had COVID get the vaccine right away? The data show otherwise, yet people of influence insist “Everyone get the vaccine asap! It’s science!”

How about prioritizing who gets the vaccine first? What does the data say about who the highest risk groups are? Did policymakers “follow the science”  when prioritizing vaccine recipients?

Science is a great tool, but it does not make decisions, automatically generate practical solutions, weigh pros and cons, consider unintended consequences, etc. Merely saying the word should not be confused for leadership nor should one assume that mentioning science = the person mentioning it must be doing all the right things.

#11
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
My point is that authority figures who say “Listen to the science” are in danger of using a catchphrase in place of actual leadership. They are in danger of implying “Obey me without question because… science.”
They'll tyrannise us with right course of action then. If a thing is assailable, it's assailable. 

We have a lot bigger and realer problems in science denial than dreams of tyrants you're having. 

#12
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
I'm not so sure you have a point. You made some little mention of ideological agenda and maybe the person isn't using the science properly. But what's your point? If scientists overwhelmingly agree that we should all get vaccinated, and of course neither you nor I is a virologist or chemist or whoever the fuck cooks this shit up, why shouldn't I say listen to the science? Scientists are effective leadership in things scientific. It's next to obey me, so what? They've got PhD's, they can speak authoritatively. 
vaccines do nothing except TRIGGER YOUR OWN IMMUNE SYSTEM

this is how vaccines have ALWAYS WORKED

even the mRNA "therapy" works this way

nothing in the shot "attacks" teh covidz

vaccines merely trick your body into reacting AS IF it is being attacked by some dangerous pathogen

THEREFORE

MANDATORY VACCINES FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INFECTED (AND RECOVERED) FROM TEH COVIDZ IS IDIOTIC

I AM NOW

AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN

EXTREMELY PRO-VOLUNTARY-VAXX
#13
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't even really want to argue this with you tbh. I have a lot of dumb friends who follow all sorts of stupid shit on Instagram and Facebook. I've had plumbers harassing me about spike proteins and whatever other shit as if either of us knows what the fuck any of this is. The point of the vaccine was twofold: to protect you from covid and to stop the spread of covid.  

MANDATORY VACCINES FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN INFECTED (AND RECOVERED) FROM TEH COVIDZ IS IDIOTIC
Now I don't know much about this, but every fucking person should have gotten vaccinated. There was a whole world of scientists and regulatory bodies behind this thing. There might have been a billion years of education between them. But we're here dealing with clowns waving about random shit they found on Facebook, never read a book in their lives. Give me a break. 
Topic's author
#14
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@badger
We have a lot bigger and realer problems in science denial

That’s just it— the issue I am highlighting here contributes to, rather than mitigates science denial.

I guess one either gets this, or one doesn’t…

Topic's author
#15
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@badger
They'll tyrannise us with right course of action then.
You are assuming it is the “right course of action” because the person of influence merely utters the word “science.”

This sentiment exemplifies the problem I am pointing out here…


#16
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8

Emerging evidence shows that getting a COVID-19 vaccine after you recover from COVID-19 infection provides added protection to your immune system. One study showed that, for people who already had COVID-19, those who do not get vaccinated after their recovery are more than 2 times as likely to get COVID-19 again than those who get fully vaccinated after their recovery.
#17
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
If it is fake science, it is fake science. We'll have scientists and other learned people to say so.
Topic's author
#18
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@badger
Just make sure they say the magic words before you trust what they say.
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
Now I don't know much about this, but every fucking person should have gotten vaccinated. There was a whole world of scientists and regulatory bodies behind this thing. There might have been a billion years of education between them. But we're here dealing with clowns waving about random shit they found on Facebook, never read a book in their lives. Give me a break. 
inventor Of mRNA Vaccine Technology, Robert Malone

#20
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
after their recovery are more than 2 times as likely to get COV
do you know the difference between "relative risk" and "absolute risk" ?
#21
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@cristo71
That's such a nonsense response. Let me sit you down for 15 minutes and I'll get you up to speed with my 10 years in university studying this shit. 

If the science is fake, it's fake. We'll know. We'll be told by the people that have a clue. 
#22
badger
badger's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,243
3
3
3
badger's avatar
badger
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL
I am probably not going to watch that, but if you want to give me some key takeaways I'll hear them. 
#23
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@badger

See:  What Is Mass Formation Psychosis? Robert Malone Makes Unfounded Covid-19 Vaccine Claims On Joe Rogan Show
#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
I am probably not going to watch that, but if you want to give me some key takeaways I'll hear them. 
Robert Malone is, by any measure, an expert.

He points out, quite plainly that there is no medicine on earth that is "one-size-fits-all"

He also points out that the covidz vaccines have been reasonably shown to reduce extreme symptoms - specifically for those over 65 years of age

He also points out that it is irresponsible for politicians to suggest that vaccinated people won't spread covidz

the vaccine reduces extreme symptoms - it does not - prevent infection and spread

if you've already been infected and recovered from teh covidz - - your chances of being hospitalized upon a second infection are next to nil
#25
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
how do you plan on discrediting Robert Malone ?
#26
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@3RU7AL
On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@badger
If the science is fake, it's fake. We'll know. We'll be told by the people that have a clue. 
specific flaws in pfizer's corporate "science"

#28
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@FLRW
On his personal website, Twitter, and LinkedIn, Dr. Robert Malone has been promoting himself as the inventor of mRNA vaccines. This is misleading. In 1989, Malone published a paper titled "Cationic liposome-mediated RNA transfection." While this paper is an example of his important contribution to the then-emerging field, it does not make him the inventor of mRNA vaccines.
it also make him a qualified expert
#29
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
 Malone was a graduate student in biology in the late 1980s at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, he injected genetic material—DNA and RNA—into the cells of mice in hopes of creating a new kind of vaccine. He was the first author on a 1989 paper demonstrating how RNA could be delivered into cells using lipids, which are basically tiny globules of fat, and a co-author on a 1990 Science paper showing that if you inject pure RNA or DNA into mouse muscle cells, it can lead to the transcription of new proteins. If the same approach worked for human cells, the latter paper said in its conclusion, this technology “may provide alternative approaches to vaccine development.”  He dropped out of graduate school in 1988, just short of his Ph.D., and went to work at a pharmaceutical company called Vical. Now he claims that both the Salk Institute and Vical profited from his work and essentially prevented him from further pursuing his research. (A Salk Institute spokesperson said that nothing in the institute’s records substantiates Malone’s allegations. The biotech company into which Vical was merged, Brickell, did not respond to requests for comment.) To say that Malone remains bitter over this perceived mistreatment doesn’t do justice to his sense of aggrievement. He calls what happened to him “intellectual rape.”
Topic's author
#30
cristo71
cristo71's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,551
3
2
3
cristo71's avatar
cristo71
3
2
3
-->
@badger
I made no mention of “fake science.” You seem to insist on missing my point. I’m talking about virtue signaling with the word “science” being the virtue.