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

[Slagathore]

MBBlat said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientistssalespeople 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.

Corrected that for you. Scientists as a rule tend to have a lot of integrity, if for no other reason than their reputation depends on it. That’s why the sales team try to keep the actual scientists as far away from the customer as possible.

That's a somewhat worryingly naïve statement to make.

Who creates the studies and data the sales people rely on to sell a product?

"Made to order" science is nothing new. A lot of institutes do what they need to guarantee grants and funding, integrity doesn't come in to it.

[GeneralBanter]

Slagathore said:

MBBlat said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientistssalespeople 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.

Corrected that for you. Scientists as a rule tend to have a lot of integrity, if for no other reason than their reputation depends on it. That’s why the sales team try to keep the actual scientists as far away from the customer as possible.

That's a somewhat worryingly naïve statement to make.

Who creates the studies and data the sales people rely on to sell a product?

"Made to order" science is nothing new. A lot of institutes do what they need to guarantee grants and funding, integrity doesn't come in to it.

He’s more right than you are on that

[bodhi]

GeneralBanter said:

Slagathore said:

MBBlat said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientistssalespeople 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.

Corrected that for you. Scientists as a rule tend to have a lot of integrity, if for no other reason than their reputation depends on it. That’s why the sales team try to keep the actual scientists as far away from the customer as possible.

That's a somewhat worryingly naïve statement to make.

Who creates the studies and data the sales people rely on to sell a product?

"Made to order" science is nothing new. A lot of institutes do what they need to guarantee grants and funding, integrity doesn't come in to it.

He’s more right than you are on that

Having spent more than a few years around scientists at uni he's a lot closer to the truth than you are - just remember, Mr Wakefield's nonsense about MMR vaccines causing autism was printed in the Lancet and stayed on their website a long time after it was proved to be absolute horsest.

Science is a brilliant process to help us understand what is going on in the world, but scientists themselves are just as human as the rest of us.

[DonkeyApple]

Slagathore said:

That's a somewhat worryingly naïve statement to make.

Who creates the studies and data the sales people rely on to sell a product?

"Made to order" science is nothing new. A lot of institutes do what they need to guarantee grants and funding, integrity doesn't come in to it.

Every university has someone who'll produce the research you've asked for. Every university has someone who will fabricate research in order to defraud investors. And they all have very many researchers who have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed so will have little choice but to take the money that is available and be at risk of being obliged to not upset the sugar daddy.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/...

Coping With Fraud. 1998

"It is 10 years, to the month, since Richard Lock, then editor of the BMJ, published the results of a personal survey, “Misconduct in medical research: does it exist in Britain?” Of 80 senior academics, “over half of the correspondents knew of some instance of medical misconduct—most encountered first hand, although a sizeable minority were well authenticated secondhand instances—and there were a few rumours as well”. Lock concluded that research fraud was flourishing in Britain and that action should be taken to tackle the problem by establishing an agency like the Office of Scientific Integrity in the USA “to allay professional and public alarm”.


And it's so much harder to commit a really good investment fraud without procuring the services of one of these:



Investors love to read great numbers supplied by someone with a doctorate and there really isn't any shortage of them when it comes to over 50s looking for easy money to get the lifestyle they believe they deserve or an under 30 desperate to be a techbro and be mentioned in social media.

[DonkeyApple]

bodhi said:

GeneralBanter said:

Slagathore said:

MBBlat said:

DonkeyApple said:

What really hasn't helped is that scientistssalespeople 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.

Corrected that for you. Scientists as a rule tend to have a lot of integrity, if for no other reason than their reputation depends on it. That’s why the sales team try to keep the actual scientists as far away from the customer as possible.

That's a somewhat worryingly naïve statement to make.

Who creates the studies and data the sales people rely on to sell a product?

"Made to order" science is nothing new. A lot of institutes do what they need to guarantee grants and funding, integrity doesn't come in to it.

He’s more right than you are on that

Having spent more than a few years around scientists at uni he's a lot closer to the truth than you are - just remember, Mr Wakefield's nonsense about MMR vaccines causing autism was printed in the Lancet and stayed on their website a long time after it was proved to be absolute horsest.

Science is a brilliant process to help us understand what is going on in the world, but scientists themselves are just as human as the rest of us.

Yup. A lifetime in finance and the one thing I can say for sure is that finding a doctor who will say what you want said is not remotely difficult and as easy as finding a bent accountant or solicitor. Rule 1 as an investor is to never, ever believe the house scientist and to send yours in ahead of your money.

[Who_Goes_Blue]

"Doctors" and MSM - the worst combination to team up ever.

[paulguitar]

There is a 'doctor' who is a big hero on the covid thread. He's a nurse I think, and got his doctorate in some other area.

[Blown2CV]

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

[DonkeyApple]

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

[Blown2CV]

DonkeyApple said:

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

'wronguns' exist everywhere. Everyone knows that. So what concrete action comes from being overtly aware that they exist in specific places such as science?

[isaldiri]

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Apart from the minor problem that it is exactly that which isn't happening.... and it's not just 'CTs' who are pointing it out.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/can-you-repeat-that/

DonkeyApple said:

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

Peer review has hardly turned out to be infallible either especially when one looks a bit closer at what it typically involves... (ie rather a lot of backscratching...)

[DonkeyApple]

Blown2CV said:

DonkeyApple said:

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

'wronguns' exist everywhere. Everyone knows that. So what concrete action comes from being overtly aware that they exist in specific places such as science?

You may have missed the multiple posts where I go to pains to say exactly that. As for what benefit stems from recognising the existence of wronguns well that's manifest isn't it? Especially when it comes to seeking to combat CTs or investment fraudsters.

[captain_cynic]

paulguitar said:

There is a 'doctor' who is a big hero on the covid thread. He's a nurse I think, and got his doctorate in some other area.

John Campbell.

Nurse trainer and got an honorary doctorate in Media Studies (meaning he didn't actually go to university to get the doctorate).

[pavarotti1980]

paulguitar said:

There is a 'doctor' who is a big hero on the covid thread. He's a nurse I think, and got his doctorate in some other area.

Dr Overhead Projector. Awful to watch but it has all topped up his pension pot so you have to admire his play on the gullible seals clapping along

[coldel]

Interesting conversation. I think most points have been covered nicely.

'Science' is an ever evolving tool. 'Scientists' are people that use that it. It doesn't mean the tool is broken, it is just being used the wrong way.

Peer reviewing is essential, checking sources is also. Even genuine well peer reviewed work is often misrepresented out of context (you see this often with conspiracies as they then quote it as being from a genuine source giving it credence). So yes, beware the evangelical doctor on YouTube.

[Tankrizzo]

pavarotti1980 said:

Dr Overhead Projector. Awful to watch but it has all topped up his pension pot so you have to admire his play on the gullible seals clapping along

Yeah if you go back in his upload history, there's an obvious point where he realised he could grift money out of gullible conspiracy theorists who now treat every word he spouts as gospel. Also the same people who have been saying on PH that viruses (not just Covid) don't exist and vaccines aren't real.

[Blown2CV]

isaldiri said:

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Apart from the minor problem that it is exactly that which isn't happening.... and it's not just 'CTs' who are pointing it out.

https://stanmed.stanford.edu/can-you-repeat-that/

DonkeyApple said:

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

Peer review has hardly turned out to be infallible either especially when one looks a bit closer at what it typically involves... (ie rather a lot of backscratching...)

you've missed the entire point. You don't need to trust a peer review if you don't want to. YOU can go and reproduce any study, if you wish.

[DonkeyApple]

coldel said:

Interesting conversation. I think most points have been covered nicely.

'Science' is an ever evolving tool. 'Scientists' are people that use that it. It doesn't mean the tool is broken, it is just being used the wrong way.

Peer reviewing is essential, checking sources is also. Even genuine well peer reviewed work is often misrepresented out of context (you see this often with conspiracies as they then quote it as being from a genuine source giving it credence). So yes, beware the evangelical doctor on YouTube.

And the doctor telling there's gold or oil under their caravan or they've just solved energy storage density conundrum so send all your money. In many ways CT leaders are just investment grifters and fraudsters playing on sheeples need to believe the leader is superior to them and to be followed and that their science is fact.

[isaldiri]

Blown2CV said:

you've missed the entire point. You don't need to trust a peer review if you don't want to. YOU can go and reproduce any study, if you wish.

Well you said earlier

"I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted."

My point was the that field has been shown to be churning out 'something bad' on a far from irregular basis given the lack of repeatability of results shown. Should someone go and attempt to reproduce said study, the results seem to be different rather a lot of the time.

Given that, perhaps you still think that trust in the field as mentioned above should still be taken as granted but I'd have to disagree.

[RemarkLima]

Blown2CV said:

DonkeyApple said:

Blown2CV said:

some researchers might be open to bribes etc but the whole point of the scientific approach is to have open methods and repeatable results. If you conduct your research in the same way as they did, you should absolutely get the same outcomes. This way, fraud is exposed.

I really dislike this whole general idea that just because something bad happened within a field therefore the whole field is not to be trusted.

Absolutely but that's not what is being said, rather the opposite that it's blind trust that isn't wise and exactly why we have the whole peer review process, regulators and laws. Nothing to do with not trusting the whole field at all just being overtly aware that errors and wronguns exist within a field.

'wronguns' exist everywhere. Everyone knows that. So what concrete action comes from being overtly aware that they exist in specific places such as science?

Makes me think of smoking... Well, the evidence that it's harmful is "inconclusive". A lot of bogus science there, with a lot of scientists on the payroll of BAT and Phillip Morris.

I'd think vaping will follow the exact same path and in a few decades of "maybe", "probably OK", "well, it's better than smoking", it'll be "yes, it's bad for you!".