| WARNING vile Covid opinions within 19:54 - Jul 24 with 13499 views | Mullet |
I think this is a tipping point where this sort of hate speech needs a very serious investigation and conviction. This isn’t the YouTube have a go science lot getting uppity, it’s clear incitement.
If we really value our NHS then this sort of rhetoric needs to meet the full force of the law and public opinion. |  |
| |  |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 19:00 - Jul 26 with 793 views | BlueBadger |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 18:57 - Jul 26 by lowhouseblue |
only if you were prone to hysterical hyperbole. |
Well, they DO have Very Real Concerns that the left in this country would do well to listen to. |  |
| |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:03 - Jul 26 with 719 views | Swansea_Blue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 18:26 - Jul 26 by Enigma_Blue |
Science isn't fact, that is a common misconception.
Science is not fact nor is it based on factual evidence. Science is very simply the act of interpreting an observation of our environment and is limited by the tools we have available for observing. Then scientific fact as a result is only the most supported interpretation of scientific observation, or in other words, the most favored opinion of the things being observed. |
Close. It’s not a favoured opinion; anyone can have those irrespective of evidence. Science is the constant evaluation of evidence (facts) through testing, validation, consensus, etc. So interpretations and conclusions may change as new information becomes available or methods improve, but it’s underpinned by a rigorous approach. Science certainly involves discussion (they’ve got that right), but not by untrained nubends who want to hang nurses and think Covid vaccines carry homing devices. There’s no value in discussing anything with them. |  |
| |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:05 - Jul 26 with 714 views | PhilTWTD |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:03 - Jul 26 by Swansea_Blue |
Close. It’s not a favoured opinion; anyone can have those irrespective of evidence. Science is the constant evaluation of evidence (facts) through testing, validation, consensus, etc. So interpretations and conclusions may change as new information becomes available or methods improve, but it’s underpinned by a rigorous approach. Science certainly involves discussion (they’ve got that right), but not by untrained nubends who want to hang nurses and think Covid vaccines carry homing devices. There’s no value in discussing anything with them. |
Consensus is an important aspect which is often overlooked, certainly by those who cherry pick one outlying finding which 'proves' whatever spurious case they're trying to make. |  | | |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:23 - Jul 26 with 676 views | Enigma_Blue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:03 - Jul 26 by Swansea_Blue |
Close. It’s not a favoured opinion; anyone can have those irrespective of evidence. Science is the constant evaluation of evidence (facts) through testing, validation, consensus, etc. So interpretations and conclusions may change as new information becomes available or methods improve, but it’s underpinned by a rigorous approach. Science certainly involves discussion (they’ve got that right), but not by untrained nubends who want to hang nurses and think Covid vaccines carry homing devices. There’s no value in discussing anything with them. |
Yes I mean favoured as in what the majority of the scientific world favours in terms of a particular theory. Not what a particular scientist or individual favours. [Post edited 26 Jul 2021 20:24]
|  | | |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:39 - Jul 26 with 636 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:23 - Jul 26 by Enigma_Blue |
Yes I mean favoured as in what the majority of the scientific world favours in terms of a particular theory. Not what a particular scientist or individual favours. [Post edited 26 Jul 2021 20:24]
|
The majority of the scientific community accepting it doesn't actually make it true. The definition of science is tricky to entirely pin down. However, it does involve observation of data and interpreting facts in the most logical way.
As Phil has pointed out, bad science involves cherry picking individual pieces of data in order to validate pre-conceived views. |  |
| |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:40 - Jul 26 with 631 views | Seablu |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 18:43 - Jul 26 by PhilTWTD |
Isn't that the point which was being made initially that you argued against? |
You’re reasoning with a thought process that earlier declared the mad ex-nurse a massive MILF.
We can only guess at the mind-altering potions Chico indulges in. |  | | |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 21:01 - Jul 26 with 588 views | Swansea_Blue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 20:23 - Jul 26 by Enigma_Blue |
Yes I mean favoured as in what the majority of the scientific world favours in terms of a particular theory. Not what a particular scientist or individual favours. [Post edited 26 Jul 2021 20:24]
|
Ah ok, that’s fair enough. And it’s an important distinction. You get scientists with all sort of crackpot ideas, so it’s important we understand the distinction between the opinions of a scientist versus scientific consensus. Very easy to find scientists (or any experts) who go against the grain; that’s what expert whiteness relies on for example. Also why people like Patrick Minford (of Brexit infamy) can be wheeled out to support positions opposite to the widely accepted norm. | |
| |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 21:20 - Jul 26 with 566 views | Nthsuffolkblue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 21:01 - Jul 26 by Swansea_Blue |
Ah ok, that’s fair enough. And it’s an important distinction. You get scientists with all sort of crackpot ideas, so it’s important we understand the distinction between the opinions of a scientist versus scientific consensus. Very easy to find scientists (or any experts) who go against the grain; that’s what expert whiteness relies on for example. Also why people like Patrick Minford (of Brexit infamy) can be wheeled out to support positions opposite to the widely accepted norm. |
Don't forget scientists who went against the grain would include some of those who made great breakthroughs with their discoveries.
The important thing is that it is science backed up by good interpretation of data rather than what popular belief insists is true.
These crackpots are not using data correctly, though. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 22:07 - Jul 26 with 533 views | Swansea_Blue |
| WARNING vile Covid opinions within on 21:20 - Jul 26 by Nthsuffolkblue |
Don't forget scientists who went against the grain would include some of those who made great breakthroughs with their discoveries.
The important thing is that it is science backed up by good interpretation of data rather than what popular belief insists is true.
These crackpots are not using data correctly, though. |
I nearly added that to my last post, but thought it would make it unwieldy. Someone at sometime is always likely to challenge convention and shift the paradigm. I think you’re right that we can probably distinguish those who are doing so from the crackpots by seeing who adheres to correct methods, including how they handle data.
This seems to be something jumped on by the deniers; it can be a persuasive argument as views do change over the years and people can be wrong. As you said earlier in this thread, science doesn’t necessarily mean truth, just our best understanding at this point in time (although some elements of science are grounded in absolute certainty, such as mathematical theorems). Mind you, that best understanding is normally underpinned by extensive testing and repeatability, so is very different from someone putting forward a whacky unproven opinion. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
