3 ms·

>evidence (ie, science) An abrupt leap. I would move away from a passing vehicle without peer-reviewing its existence. If international and inter-city travel

>evidence (ie, science) An abrupt leap. I would move away from a passing vehicle without peer-reviewing its existence. If international and inter-city travel had been shut down in early February some nations would have remained fully functional today. Not to say I agree with current quarantines, but you have to admit there are thresholds for action. I'd like to know your stance on climate change, btw.

Retric 6y ago
Science generalizes into engineering etc, so not everything needs to be peer reviewed. Without the germ model of disease aka science, we would be thinking about Coronavirus very differently. Thousands of years of human history and massive epidemics show how bad following common wisdom based on incorrect models can be.
cycomanic 6y ago
>>evidence (ie, science) >An abrupt leap. Not at all, it seems more that you have a wrong conception what science means. Science is all about evidence, the scientific method is to make observations, then inductive hypotheses that are then tested. All this relies on using evidence. Peer review is one process how evidence can be evaluated, but definitely not the only one. Science is much older than peer review.
- EmilioMartinez 6y ago
  We agree on what science means, and my point stands. Swift decisions needed to be made in February.
roenxi 6y ago
cycomanic says it better than I; science is not much more than the systematic creation and review of evidence. It isn't easy but it isn't usually very exciting. There would be a scientific consensus that you should get out of the way of a passing vehicle without any need for peer review. > I'd like to know your stance on climate change, btw. * Never seen an explanation that convinced me I, my descendants or anyone I know could be at risk from climate change. Particularly after calibrating expectations on the huge amount of background risk over 100 years. Climate change is less threatening than other alternatives over the century (eg, WWIII US/China for economic reasons, peak oil/returning to a pre-fossil-fuel standard of living, maybe it turns out some sort of 1:100 year solar storm takes out the communications grid, plain overpopulation). * Society could have gone nuclear at any point from around 1970 and solved the coal part of the fossil fuel problem. I've never seen a push for that in a climate demonstration. I don't think the activists are serious about solving problems; they are more interested in making people respect their opinions. It doesn't look to me like they really perceive a threat - they havn't seen anything that scares them enough to try working with their opponents to find compromise solutions. Fukushima vs. the more far out predictions on the climate front are not even remotely comparable levels of risk. * We're much more likely to be able to solve problems if we embrace cheap energy than trying to preemptively guess at and mitigate uncertain threats.
- EmilioMartinez 6y ago
  I just mentioned peer-review as an absurd example. I never equated it to science in general, and it amazes me that it comes across that way. I still stand by my saying that equating evidence to science is an abrupt leap.

Retric 6y ago

Science generalizes into engineering etc, so not everything needs to be peer reviewed. Without the germ model of disease aka science, we would be thinking about Coronavirus very differently. Thousands of years of human history and massive epidemics show how bad following common wisdom based on incorrect models can be.

cycomanic 6y ago

>>evidence (ie, science) >An abrupt leap. Not at all, it seems more that you have a wrong conception what science means. Science is all about evidence, the scientific method is to make observations, then inductive hypotheses that are then tested. All this relies on using evidence. Peer review is one process how evidence can be evaluated, but definitely not the only one. Science is much older than peer review.

EmilioMartinez 6y ago
We agree on what science means, and my point stands. Swift decisions needed to be made in February.

roenxi 6y ago

cycomanic says it better than I; science is not much more than the systematic creation and review of evidence. It isn't easy but it isn't usually very exciting. There would be a scientific consensus that you should get out of the way of a passing vehicle without any need for peer review. > I'd like to know your stance on climate change, btw. * Never seen an explanation that convinced me I, my descendants or anyone I know could be at risk from climate change. Particularly after calibrating expectations on the huge amount of background risk over 100 years. Climate change is less threatening than other alternatives over the century (eg, WWIII US/China for economic reasons, peak oil/returning to a pre-fossil-fuel standard of living, maybe it turns out some sort of 1:100 year solar storm takes out the communications grid, plain overpopulation). * Society could have gone nuclear at any point from around 1970 and solved the coal part of the fossil fuel problem. I've never seen a push for that in a climate demonstration. I don't think the activists are serious about solving problems; they are more interested in making people respect their opinions. It doesn't look to me like they really perceive a threat - they havn't seen anything that scares them enough to try working with their opponents to find compromise solutions. Fukushima vs. the more far out predictions on the climate front are not even remotely comparable levels of risk. * We're much more likely to be able to solve problems if we embrace cheap energy than trying to preemptively guess at and mitigate uncertain threats.

EmilioMartinez 6y ago
I just mentioned peer-review as an absurd example. I never equated it to science in general, and it amazes me that it comes across that way. I still stand by my saying that equating evidence to science is an abrupt leap.