Interesting the authors were medical doctors!
Those guys had knowledge whereas most of our medical doctors today are just really good at memorising algorithms after somehow skating by through organic chemistry and stats for beginners.
@rastinza @Andre @ringo I think that depends on the subject you're debating. A term I think is annoying is "settled science". Even I, who can't argue the finer points of the covid vaccines or climate change know that "settled science" is bs. When you say "97% of scientists say that climate change in man's fault" people tend to then take that as fact & call it "settled science" while silencing the scientists who disagree with how the info collected is interpreted.
@rastinza @Andre @ringo Some scientist, unemotionally I might add, have even called the models used to collect the information faulty.
I like how this little article defines "settled science".
https://www.ecowho.com/defn/s/settled+science/2bd77
@pamby1
Never heard anyone talk about settled science.
Probably that's a thing that happens just in the US.
This said, scientific consensus is important in the scientific development; otherwise there would be no way to determine what to do.
While scientific knowledge does change over time, scientific consensus identifies theories that are useful to solve problems at hand and that work well at explaining observations.
I'm no expert about climate change models and the information they're based on.
I trust the scientific community to have studied the case deeply and thoroughly after all these years, and if the consensus is so strong I see no reason to believe climate change wasn't caused by men.
It is true that there might be problems somewhere in the research, and that is why it's important that people are trying to find them.
If publication about errors in data collection did not change the current stand on climate change, then evidence of these errors is not strong enough or methodological errors in these articles were probably made.
Anybody can publish an article, just saying that some scientists disagree is no way to discredit a theory.
Surely these papers have been read by other researchers in the field, if a proof of methodological errors was found this would probably have led to a large number of publications about it (because everyone wants to prove that the others are wrong while he came out with a better idea), this, however, didn't happen.
For all we know, modifying human behaviour that alters the biosphere is the best way to limit climate change.
Maybe some better solutions will be found in the future, but this one appears to be quite well grounded and supported by people working on the topic every day.
@Andre @ringo
@Andre
Some think that science is something that is somehow superior to humans and that a "truth" exists and it is identifiable through science; thus the scientists who don't strive all the time for finding such truth are not good scientists.
The only problem is that science is just a way to refer to human scientific knowledge.
The scientific consensus is part of the human scientific knowledge, and it is the best way we found until now to distinguish good theories from bad ones.
We could discuss on the existence of an objective truth, but it doesn't really matter, since the scientific method does not try to discover that at all.
If an objective truth exists, the methodologies to attain it are others, such as religion and philosophy.
Simplifying: science, as it is commonly conceived, does not exist.
@pamby1 @ringo
@pamby1
While it is true that often politicians and media incorrectly depict scientific knowledge and misunderstand what is the current state of affairs, I do believe it is correct to adopt measures according to the currently accepted scientific knowledge.
In the case of climate change the wide consensus among scientists makes me believe that political choices should be taken in order to diminish the causes of climate change, which are attributed to certain human activities.
Regarding covid19 on the other side I really don't know what you're referring to, frankly I'm not too interested. As far as I know there is large consensus that covid19 is a virus and that it killed a lot of people; saying that this is false would be impossible without revolutionising the whole fields of biology and medicine.
@Andre @ringo
"As far as I know there is large consensus that covid19 is a virus and that it killed a lot of people;"
This is a broad statement that lacks context, imo.
And my major beef is with the way covid is currently being treated- as if the vaccines are "the be all end all". Not a lot of talk about cheaper preventative measures with drugs that already have a proven history, according to doctors who've had success treating their covid patients with them. They may be "wrong"
@pamby1
I'm not extremely informed on the matter, so take what I'm writing with a grain of salt.
Indeed covid treatment might have been done in a different way.
Vaccines were pushed over other alternatives, but after all a solution was needed and it made sense to focus on only one solution in order to find it quickly.
What has been done with covid vaccines is impressive, it was unimaginable that a vaccine could be developed so quickly.
Single doctors with a few patient with whom a particular treatment worked mean nothing.
A larger study is required to ascertain the goodness of one treatment, that is why there is pharmacovigilance in place.
It doesn't look to me as if alternative opinions and cures have been censored: these are readily available everywhere and anyone can read them.
You're here talking about them despite not being one of the doctors who was using those cures.
I'm definitely not saying that the covid emergency was handled in the best way possible.
But emergency handling has nothing to do with the scientific method.
@Andre @ringo
It sounds to me like you do not understand how science or medicine works, nor are you aware of the literal criminal nature to big Pharma, especially Pfizer.
So many of your statements are factually and logically incorrect that I am not going to dissect your words here (little time this morning) but you need to go learn about the deep history of junk and faked trials that plague big Pharma. And how doctors use drugs off label based on limited data, when needed.
@Andre
Yes, there are reports of falsified data in certain trials; not a lot but still worrying.
Big Pharma is definitely paying a lot of money to sponsor their own drugs as opposed to the ones from their competitors.
They do some pretty disgusting stuff, such as prohibiting countries to gift unused vaccine doses to other countries and rather have them wasted.
I'm not certain what you mean by using drugs off label.
I work in the development of new drugs; I'm not working for a big pharmaceutical company, but I do know a thing or two.
Even with these things you said, I don't see where my statements are factually or logically incorrect.
@pamby1 @ringo
@Andre
This is an accepted practice, which can in some cases create big problems.
It's better when this is done during an investigation so that effects are documented and the validity of such treatment is explained.
I don't know much about the practice itself, not how common it is nor which problems it created in the past.
@pamby1 @ringo
@rastinza @Andre @ringo
"Some think that science is something that is somehow superior to humans and that a "truth" exists and it is identifiable through science; thus the scientists who don't strive all the time for finding such truth are not good scientists."
This is where we seem to be right now, or at least the "some" that you speak of have the loudest voices & are weaponizing science. Corrupt people in positions of power are demoralizing people & stripping them of freedom based on