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

[Kawasicki]

Al Gorithum said:

Depends on what DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH consists of.

But it was such a nice put-down statement!

Never blindly trust anyone, scientists included.

Do yOur oWn ReSeArCH.

[Al Gorithum]

Kawasicki said:

You are deluded if you trust scientists without DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH.

Is it better to be...

A) Thick and Doubting/Questioning

or

B) Clever and Believing/Unquestioning.

Tough choice.... the best course of action is to be...

C) Clever and Doubting/Questioning



Simple example of how it's important to question.

Is glyphosate weedkiller cancerous?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10...

From the Forbes article (which should also be subject to questioning)

"In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern. Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment. But the two sides in the debate are not equal. Evidence, no matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat. In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply does not have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.

A closely related point is that the prevailing view of conflicts-of-interest is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like glyphosate. To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account. In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking. Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side. Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations – or equally importantly -- by ideological and professional agendas. We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists (including academic and government researchers) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests."

From your bio I see you're chassis development engineer (a highly respected profession IMO) which I do have some (small) knowledge of (many moons ago I was trained at Optimum G) although that's not my day-job nowadays.

If someone such as Adrian Newey, Claude Ruelle, Damien Harty etc gave you their professional opinion on Chassis Dynamics, would you give that equal weight to anyone else with an opinion?

[andyeds1234]

Kawasicki said:

andyeds1234 said:

Kawasicki said:

Zumbruk said:

Gadgetmac said:

If your belief in something stems from what you've gleaned from people entirely unqualified to pontificate on the matter when evidence is available from those who are qualified and with expertise in the field or subject then that just makes you an idiot.

Yep. This.

100% agree, Though... who decides what "qualified" means?

Err, qualifications do.
You know, like recognised exams passed, years of experience etc etc.
Not sitting on the toilet, googling.
It’s not difficult.

What happens when two highly qualified scientists make diametrically opposing interpretations of the available data?
Which one do you listen to?

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

Here’s a clue, a “Peer” in this context is an expert in their field, is not any idiot with 10 mins of research done on YouTube.

For fks sake do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:42

[LF5335]

Al Gorithum said:

From your bio I see you're chassis development engineer (a highly respected profession IMO) which I do have some (small) knowledge of (many moons ago I was trained at Optimum G) although that's not my day-job nowadays.

If someone such as Adrian Newey, Claude Ruelle, Damien Harty etc gave you their professional opinion on Chassis Dynamics, would you give that equal weight to anyone else with an opinion?

I can give an opinion. As a self employed property manager, I have watched a few YouTube videos and have decided that all the above people are wrong. I would build mine differently. I’m not saying how, or why, just I think their designs are flawed because some cars designed by them have crashed and all are therefore badly designed and part of a global plot by all car manufacturers to control world population through nefarious means. All new cars have failure built into the chassis designed to kill all occupants.

[LF5335]

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

For fks sale do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:38

Nope. Let’s see if he rises to my challenge or just ignores it and bangs on about some other CT nonsense.

[andyeds1234]

Al Gorithum said:

Kawasicki said:

You are deluded if you trust scientists without DoiNg yOur oWn ReSeArCH.

Is it better to be...

A) Thick and Doubting/Questioning

or

B) Clever and Believing/Unquestioning.

Tough choice.... the best course of action is to be...

C) Clever and Doubting/Questioning



Simple example of how it's important to question.

Is glyphosate weedkiller cancerous?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffreykabat/2017/10...

From the Forbes article (which should also be subject to questioning)

"In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern. Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment. But the two sides in the debate are not equal. Evidence, no matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat. In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply does not have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.

A closely related point is that the prevailing view of conflicts-of-interest is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like glyphosate. To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account. In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking. Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side. Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations – or equally importantly -- by ideological and professional agendas. We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists (including academic and government researchers) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests."

From your bio I see you're chassis development engineer (a highly respected profession IMO) which I do have some (small) knowledge of (many moons ago I was trained at Optimum G) although that's not my day-job nowadays.

If someone such as Adrian Newey, Claude Ruelle, Damien Harty etc gave you their professional opinion on Chassis Dynamics, would you give that equal weight to anyone else with an opinion?

I’ve heard chassis development engineers are responsible for more deaths than Malaria. Chassis is also an anagram of encephaloses. You can’t tell me that’s a coincidence.

What, prove it? No, the facts are all out there.

[Al Gorithum]

LF5335 said:

I can give an opinion.

Agreed.

As per the old saying "opinions are like bum-holes; everybody has one".

Actually I disagree. Don't remember who coined it, but to paraphrase a wise person; "it's not necessary to have an opinion on everything". That's my motto nowadays

[Kawasicki]

Both scientist opinions are peer reviewed.

[LF5335]

Kawasicki said:

Both scientist opinions are peer reviewed.

Come on, prove it. Take up my challenge. Let’s have some fun (probably at your expense)

[Al Gorithum]

An imbecile will probably be along shortly to point out some irony (that's only obvious to himself and other imbeciles).

[andyeds1234]

Kawasicki said:

Both scientist opinions are peer reviewed.

…and the whole scientific community has simply stopped at that point. No further scientific study from that day onwards. All decided.

[Slagathore]

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

Here’s a clue, a “Peer” in this context is an expert in their field, is not any idiot with 10 mins of research done on YouTube.

For fks sake do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:42

it's not a perfect system. Go and have a look at papers that have been retracted etc. They pass peer review and then end up being retracted because they are wrong.

If you Google 'peer review fraud' you'll not be short of reading material.

To touch on what someone posted earlier - that we should simply yield to any expert or person with qualifications - that is madness. Being intelligent and educated has absolutely no bearing on someone's behavior or ethics.

A well-educated expert could have just as bad intentions as a thicko conspiracy theorist.

When you consider the money involved in academia/research, don't be surprised to find scientists and journals behaving favorably to those who fund them!

It has been a problem for a long time and most likely will continue.

[Kawasicki]

Al Gorithum said:

From your bio I see you're chassis development engineer (a highly respected profession IMO) which I do have some (small) knowledge of (many moons ago I was trained at Optimum G) although that's not my day-job nowadays.

If someone such as Adrian Newey, Claude Ruelle, Damien Harty etc gave you their professional opinion on Chassis Dynamics, would you give that equal weight to anyone else with an opinion?

No, I would give their opinion more weight than someone with no expertise. I would still question it, though… if it was counter to my understanding I would very much enjoy getting to the bottom of any difference of opinion. This happens a LOT by the way.

[Kawasicki]

LF5335 said:

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

For fks sale do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:38

Nope. Let’s see if he rises to my challenge or just ignores it and bangs on about some other CT nonsense.

What challenge?

[Kawasicki]

andyeds1234 said:

I’ve heard chassis development engineers are responsible for more deaths than Malaria. Chassis is also an anagram of encephaloses. You can’t tell me that’s a coincidence.

What, prove it? No, the facts are all out there.

If I can help you at anytime, just let me know.

[andyeds1234]

Slagathore said:

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

Here’s a clue, a “Peer” in this context is an expert in their field, is not any idiot with 10 mins of research done on YouTube.

For fks sake do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:42

it's not a perfect system. Go and have a look at papers that have been retracted etc. They pass peer review and then end up being retracted because they are wrong.

Dear lord.
Of course it’s not a perfect system, but does the simple fact that papers get retracted not tell you something about the scientific review process??

When a YouTube video gets “retracted” it’s cancel culture, the truth seekers are being shut down, the most flack arrives when you are over the target etc etc etc.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

[andyeds1234]

Kawasicki said:

andyeds1234 said:

I’ve heard chassis development engineers are responsible for more deaths than Malaria. Chassis is also an anagram of encephaloses. You can’t tell me that’s a coincidence.

What, prove it? No, the facts are all out there.

If I can help you at anytime, just let me know.

I’d rather get Bill Gates to do my chassis engineering thanks. Him or George Soros.

[Kawasicki]

andyeds1234 said:

I’d rather get Bill Gates to do my chassis engineering thanks. Him or George Soros.

Try to stay on topic.

[LF5335]

Kawasicki said:

LF5335 said:

andyeds1234 said:

That’s what peer review is all about.

Present the data, let equally qualified people oppose, or provide additional context, try to find a consensus.

For fks sale do we have to play this silly game forever?

Edited by andyeds1234 on Thursday 16th March 17:38

Nope. Let’s see if he rises to my challenge or just ignores it and bangs on about some other CT nonsense.

What challenge?

This one. It’s not difficult to find, it’s part of this discussion. Go on, feel free to take it up. I don’t think you will, because you know you’re backing a loser.

LF5335 said:

Kawasicki said:

What happens when two highly qualified scientists make diametrically opposing interpretations of the available data?
Which one do you listen to?

Feel free to give us an example.

Here’s my retort, before you even provide your initial reply.

The “highly qualified scientist” you’ve chosen to support your position, isn’t actually as highly qualified as you think, it’s even arguable whether they’re a scientist. They are certainly not a scientist in the area you need them to be to be able to make a viable argument. Also, there are literally dozens, probably hundreds of globally renowned experts in this specific area who hold the opposite (and the accepted correct) view that you are choosing to ignore to pretend it’s a 1 vs 1 debate.

Don’t let my reply put you off providing your example though.

[Slagathore]

andyeds1234 said:

Dear lord.
Of course it’s not a perfect system, but does the simple fact that papers get retracted not tell you something about the scientific review process??

When a YouTube video gets “retracted” it’s cancel culture, the truth seekers are being shut down, the most flack arrives when you are over the target etc etc etc.

You couldn’t make this stuff up.

Well, it makes me question who reviewed it in the first place that allowed it pass peer review. If they are experts in the field, why don't they spot the errors that, presumably, the other experts notice when it reaches a wider audience?

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/201...

I've no idea why you are likening it to Youtube or social media censoring, and your faux exasperation is not having the effect you think, it's just making you look desperate as opposed to trying to highlight I've said something terribly wrong.