Conspiracy theorists... are they all just a bit thick?

[Blown2CV]

RemarkLima said:

Ken_Code said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientists can be rented to say what isn't true for not a lot of money, no different to all other professions. And of course, some of the worst humans to have walked the Earth were scientists. The existence of these 5p rent-a-liars and the full blown wronguns gives ammunition to discredit them all for some.

Which is why we read scientists papers and look at their data, methodology and conclusions.

We don’t just listed to their pronouncements and treat it like the word of god.

This means that your claim is close to meaningless.

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 horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

Scientists read each others papers for one... it's kind of part of the job. Anyway the point is that the whole approach, design, data etc are all open for all to see. Just because a person's level of reading doesn't stretch past penguin books doesn't mean others can't consume it just fine.

Classic CT centric view, "because I don't understand it, this means no one understands it" and "just because I didn't read it, no one has"

Like... listen to yourself

[Ken_Code]

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 horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

I do. Don’t you?

[RemarkLima]

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat.

Not sure why I'm being classed as a CT, but I'll read and study in detail things to which I'm paid to do, and generally have some level of expertise in that field, or something that I have a genuine interest or intellectual curiosity about - the latter I profess no expertise in so is purely for personal interest. There's clearly little point in my reading of a paper on advanced avionics, or molecular biology as I'm neither an aerodynamic specialist, nor a molecular biologist.

Now, I could be snide and passive aggressive (as per the internet norm) and say clearly your superior intellects allow you to understand many years of learning put into a paper or study, and digest and fully comprehend detailed data and analysis on subjects that you have no knowledge or experience of... But hopefully, you can understand my point, and you understand the term Man on the Clapham Omnibus so shouldn't require a detailed dissection. You average joe will not read the detail, will see a meme and run with that as verbatim truth.

Not sure why the defensive stance from both replies, hopefully this helps explain my point.

[Ken_Code]

RemarkLima said:

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat…

…Now, I could be snide.

You were being snide, and were being snide about the fact that you’re incapable of or don’t bother going to primary sources.

It should be something to feel shame over, not smug about.

[RemarkLima]

Ken_Code said:

RemarkLima said:

OK, so you both sit at night reading scientific papers unrelated to your areas of expertise?

Whatever floats your boat…

…Now, I could be snide.

You were being snide, and were being snide about the fact that you’re incapable of or don’t bother going to primary sources.

It should be something to feel shame over, not smug about.

OK, I'll bite... What do you read that requires going to primary sources that isn't related to your work or hobbies? Concrete examples or links.

[Ken_Code]

RemarkLima said:

OK, I'll bite... What do you read that requires going to primary sources that isn't related to your work or hobbies? Concrete examples or links.

I recently read the Cass review, a research paper on reallocating housing rather than building more, some work on whether the acceleration of the universe is slowing and a summary of the data on the new generation of appetite suppressants.

If you aren’t going to primary sources or high-quality research or summations then where are you getting your information from?

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publicatio...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87174...

[RemarkLima]

Ken_Code said:

I recently read the Cass review, a research paper on reallocating housing rather than building more, some work on whether the acceleration of the universe is slowing and a summary of the data on the new generation of appetite suppressants.

If you aren’t going to primary sources or high-quality research or summations then where are you getting your information from?

https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publicatio...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC87174...

Thank you.

Sadly, with a young family, my time is work, family and anything left over for cars. A number of my family are in the medical industry so there's conversations around those subject - so I'd heard a lot about the appetite suppressants and how they have been transformative.

I recently attended the top 50 innovators conference in London for 2 of the 3 days, so lots of high level information - those trying to fundamentally change the microbiome, those manufacturing pharmaceuticals in microgravity, blood pumps that can fit into a heart, and large physics model (similar to LLMs) to massively speed up CFD processes (to almost real time in some situations). All incredibly interesting, but I'm cognisant to know that I'd never know more than the pub talk soundbites about most of these subjects.

My work requires constant learning, so much of the research efforts go into this. Otherwise, for news, generally the FT, Economist and New Scientist when times allows. But even publications like those are very much surface level information, requiring little expertise to get something from them.

I'll read the Cass one, as it's certainly a real issue with the UK at the moment!

As a case in point, Brexit - economists, financial experts, and most of the intelligentsia said it would be bad, yet you can listen to experts in their fields, or you can listen to Farage with a line of immigrants to the UK or Boris in front of a bus with a big number on it... So at least 51% of the UK didn't listen to experts

[Brother D]

captain_cynic said:

STe_rsv4 said:

captain_cynic said:

STe_rsv4 said:

Seriously?

There are literally dozens of videos out there where the "powers that be" i.e. president of the US claiming that "if you don't get your vaccine you will be dead in a year" and you should get it to "protect yourself and others"

Or are you just gaslighting?

No there aren't.... And you're proving the thread title yet again.

Ok.
I guess the dozens of videos I have saved on my phone showing these exact events are either deepfakes or I imagined having them at all.

Just checked.
Theyre still there

LOL...

Loads of videos of the US President and others claiming "you'll be dead in a year if your not get the vaccine"...

Never actually happened. You've made it up or more likely the videos you've been watching made it up and you swallowed it whole.

Thanks for demonstrating the thread title yet again but we didn't need you to.

Now flounce off back to your safe space where you can keep sharing your fantasy videos amongst yourselves.

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...

[captain_cynic]

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.

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.

[Slagathore]

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 horsest, you get your headlines and social media feeding frenzy - job's a carrot.

I do. Don’t you?

I would imagine you are in a tiny minority.

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 st to spread.

And that is quite well known now and heavily exploited.

[Blown2CV]

if you're going to rally against anything then rally against the media's persistent and widespread mis-representation of scientific research, not the science itself.

You'll be moaning next that science is rubbish because they "keep bluddy changin it"

[MBBlat]

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.

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.

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.

[Notch 8]

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.

[Chromegrill]

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.

[GeneralBanter]

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.

[Byker28i]

I'll just leave this here

[740EVTORQUES]

Byker28i said:

I'll just leave this here

That’s really offensive.

Pointless boot spoilers should be banned IMHO.

[DonkeyApple]

740EVTORQUES said:

Byker28i said:

I'll just leave this here

That’s really offensive.

Pointless boot spoilers should be banned IMHO.

We shouldn't go around banning stuff. Especially mechanisms that serve to constantly remind us that the low IQ, mentally ill, molested as a child, ill educated or whatever these scummers are, always exist and are always being sought after to be the foot soldiers, financiers, cannon fodder of evil. Never ban. Be offended and be reminded.

Besides, the chap is clearly a fan of the Dukes of Hazzard so can't be all bad.

[coldel]

Byker28i said:

I'll just leave this here

What a horrible rear wing

[coldel]

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.

Its actually an oblate spheroid

As an aethiest once said, if I died and found myself in heaven, I might be open to changing my mind.