5 ms·
One thing that has annoyed me this year is the inability of (some) scientists to pour scorn where it is deserved. Instead they cower behind technically accurate
by Jabbles 6y ago
One thing that has annoyed me this year is the inability of (some) scientists to pour scorn where it is deserved. Instead they cower behind technically accurate phrases like "there's no evidence 5G can cause Covid".
We would have to throw out vast amounts of science to make that true. It's basically magic, but scientists and the media tend to be so cautious that to some people it may seem that there is genuine doubt.
I understand that we don't want scientists and the media being overconfident - saying "there's no evidence the covid vaccines have any significant side-effects" is fine, you couldn't say "there is no conceivable way this vaccine could cause a problem". But I do think the distinction between science and fantasy should be made clearer.
- tinus_hn 6y agoWhat is the distinction? There’s not a whole lot of science about the effects of radiation on life and there’s not a lot of science about factors that influence how bad a corona case turns out. Of course its far fetched to say 5G causes corona, but I would say it’s only unlikely it influences it. There is no proof either way. Ignoring that uncertainty is not science.
- purplecats 6y ago> Of course its far fetched to say 5G causes corona, but I would say it’s only unlikely it influences it. That's a popular strawman or a fake argument. People weren't saying that 5G causes corona. It was more about how corona is used as a distraction while 5G towers were being put up illegally (while people weren't allowed to be outside to notice), and how it is powerful enough to track chips in humans.
- Jabbles 6y agohttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-53285610 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/stories-53285610
- purplecats 6y agoSorry, but your implications are ambiguous.
- Jabbles 6y agoThe distinction is that one is unlikely given the evidence and caveats, and one would require completely rethinking the knowledge we have of how viruses work and how radiation works. It's the difference between 1e-2 and 1e-10. I would trust my life to one, but not the other. Scientists (and the media) should be able to explain the difference.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSo, does the fact that eating too much fat gives a person less chance of surviving a coronavirus infection, or the fact that receiving radiation therapy does the same, require a different rethinking of that ‘knowledge’?
- Jabbles 6y agoNo. That sounds entirely in agreement with the research that obesity or radiation therapy weakens the immune system.
- tinus_hn 6y agoSimilarly there’s research that indicates that purportedly safe levels of radiation from power lines cause disease. Why is it beyond doubt different radiation can’t do this?
- loopz 6y agoMaking unsubstantiated claims would go against science and be anti-scientific. That can and will be abused. It's almost impossible to validate a negative, while it only takes one good sample to start questioning a positive. The problem isn't media or science not being open or not mostly telling it as it is. While there's always some bias, the problem is people overstuffed with information overload and seeking quick-fixes in social media and authority-based sources claiming fantastical mythodology. It's a House of Cards, and also inspired by that very series by those seeking to take advantage for own gains.
- Jabbles 6y agoThe claims would not be unsubstantiated. Science allows you to make predictions about the world. Here we can "predict" that 5G does not cause Covid with near-certainty. We have a vast amount of evidence that it is true. Reducing this confidence to "there is no evidence to the contrary" is an appalling failure of communication, as it lumps this conspiracy theory into the same category of many other more-plausible-but-uninvestigated theories.
- loopz 6y agoHere's evidence that such claims are being communicated though: https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g+does+not+cause+covid&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?t=lm&q=5g+does+not+cause+covid&ia=we... So it seems your claims are false. That people seeking lies as their information source would somehow listen to statements of scientists and doctors, doesn't seem plausible. The incentives for specialists and experts to become public targets for statements that later could be falsified, also seems dubious and unprofessional. Unfortunately such populist moves could remove one from "good company" in a profession.
- Jabbles 6y agoAre you trolling me? My claim is that "inability of (some) scientists" - the "some" is in the original. You then separately say that "It's almost impossible to validate a negative" (in relation to something else). You then say that some scientists do in fact pour scorn, therefore my original claim is false?