Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?
Discussion
Ken_Code said:
RemarkLima said:
Seriously, who reads the scientific papers, or pours over the data?
A headline and maybe a paragraph for the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about as far as it goes... And social media has made any analysis even less likely when a pithy meme can do the heavy lifting for you.
So, you pay a scientist to say some horses
t, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.
I do. Don’t you?A headline and maybe a paragraph for the man on the Clapham Omnibus is about as far as it goes... And social media has made any analysis even less likely when a pithy meme can do the heavy lifting for you.
So, you pay a scientist to say some horses
t, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.He's absolutely correct about the effect of social media and how it is used to shape opinions/push narratives. And how powerful stuff like tiktok, viral marketing, repetitive messaging etc can be.
And, unfortunately, that is where a lot of people get their news and information. so it doesn't take a lot for complete and utter s
t to spread.And that is quite well known now and heavily exploited.
captain_cynic said:
Brother D said:
I don't have too much in this - but Biden kinda did say that, and this report is from a pro-democrat news outlet:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-biden-...
And he did say he gurantees that those vaccinated will be completely protected by infection:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-heal...
He didn't say you'd die within a year without them. That was the assertion that was made. https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/16/politics/joe-biden-...
And he did say he gurantees that those vaccinated will be completely protected by infection:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-business-heal...
The second assetions he made was that multiple world leaders said it. We have a very tenuous statement from Biden taken out of context.
The CTers on this thread are doing what they usually do and throwing links out there and claiming they say something they dont, hoping no one actually reads them.
So flat out lies as per usual from the CT crowd.
MBBlat said:
On the other side plenty of anti-vaxers were saying that anyone who had the jab would be dead within 3 months. When that failed to happen it was extended to 6 months, then a year and then 2 years and is now some unspecified date in the future. CT predictions failing to come true shocker.
I was told to ‘go f#ck yourself’ and blocked by a rabid AV a couple of weeks ago for daring to bring this up.isaldiri said:
And while it might be a little difficult to know what to make of a researcher who likes to argue most medical research is flawed, it's also a little difficult to know what to make of someone who likes to argue most medical research is sound but who also chooses to ignore or dismiss any studies or results that might have outcomes that conflict with what they believe in.
Synthesis of evidence is a bit like putting a jigsaw puzzle together in which you don't know what the final picture will look like (that would be like waiting for complete 100% clear picture, which in reality will never happen) and you're missing some of the pieces. If you get a piece that doesn't seem to fit, you don't ignore it without first critiquing it to understand why it doesn't seem to fit. It might force you to change your impression of the entire picture, but on the other hand it might turn out to be poorly conducted or simply not relevant enough to take much note of. That's a bit easier to manage than the alternative of changing your mind every five minutes when something comes along that is a bit different to the last thing you read about.Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.
In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.
Chromegrill said:
Synthesis of evidence is a bit like putting a jigsaw puzzle together in which you don't know what the final picture will look like (that would be like waiting for complete 100% clear picture, which in reality will never happen) and you're missing some of the pieces. If you get a piece that doesn't seem to fit, you don't ignore it without first critiquing it to understand why it doesn't seem to fit. It might force you to change your impression of the entire picture, but on the other hand it might turn out to be poorly conducted or simply not relevant enough to take much note of. That's a bit easier to manage than the alternative of changing your mind every five minutes when something comes along that is a bit different to the last thing you read about.
Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.
In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.
Circular is a very strange way to describe a sphere. Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.
In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.
740EVTORQUES said:
Byker28i said:
I'll just leave this here 
That’s really offensive.Pointless boot spoilers should be banned IMHO.
Besides, the chap is clearly a fan of the Dukes of Hazzard so can't be all bad.
GeneralBanter said:
Chromegrill said:
Synthesis of evidence is a bit like putting a jigsaw puzzle together in which you don't know what the final picture will look like (that would be like waiting for complete 100% clear picture, which in reality will never happen) and you're missing some of the pieces. If you get a piece that doesn't seem to fit, you don't ignore it without first critiquing it to understand why it doesn't seem to fit. It might force you to change your impression of the entire picture, but on the other hand it might turn out to be poorly conducted or simply not relevant enough to take much note of. That's a bit easier to manage than the alternative of changing your mind every five minutes when something comes along that is a bit different to the last thing you read about.
Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.
In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.
Circular is a very strange way to describe a sphere. Case in point - a recent paper in an obscure medical journal argued that because not many COVID tests were undertaken in the UK during the first wave of the pandemic, the number of deaths at the time was disproportionate to the number of tests and according to the author, this proved there had been a brief and covered-up policy of intentional mass euthanasia. Sure, that doesn't square with my understanding of what actually happened, and I find the paper grotesquely offensive. But its findings can safely be dismissed because it demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the context and made extraordinary and demonstrably false claims that anyone familiar with the subject would see through a mile off. Interestingly however, it seems to have completely taken in a certain retired nurse educator with a sizeable following on Youtube, which raises wider questions about his credibility.
In common with many people, I have a fairly confident belief that the world is not flat but is circular (OK it's splitting hairs but I don't think it's perfectly round but probably a bit squished at the poles and bulges in the middle). Consequently when studies come along that suggest the world is flat I tend not to take them too seriously, and I expect I could find fairly significant reasons to doubt their legitimacy if I reviewed them. So yes, I would dismiss them and that might well look to you like I was doing so because they conflicted with my pre-existing world view. If a piece of copper-bottomed, gold-plated evidence came along that proved beyond any possible doubt that the world was flat I hope I'd be persuaded to change my mind about it.
As an aethiest once said, if I died and found myself in heaven, I might be open to changing my mind.
Al Gorithum said:
coldel said:
Byker28i said:
I'll just leave this here
What a horrible rear wingI think the ‘diffuser’ is a dash reflection, look how it overlies the exhaust pipes?
740EVTORQUES said:
Spoiler or wing, now you’ve opened a can of worms! (I think you’re technically correct by the way.)
I think the ‘diffuser’ is a dash reflection, look how it overlies the exhaust pipes?
To be honest, growing up, I called them spoilers as well lolI think the ‘diffuser’ is a dash reflection, look how it overlies the exhaust pipes?
And good spot, yes its a reflection that just happens to sit almost perfectly on the car in front!
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff