4 ms·

Making 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

by loopz 6y ago

Making 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Here'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 ago
    Are 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?
    - loopz 6y ago
      Is there a solution there in your mind. Why would anti-science people listen to scientists in the first place? There are many ways people think, the minority think like you do. I'm just showing how such statements can be tweaked. You'll always fight an uphill battle trying to convince people with "logic", especially when people subscribe to religion, superstition, fear and conspiracy theories. This no matter the "scorn". The other side can muster up much more of that anyways. Unfortunate yes, but it's a call for much needed creativity also. Condemnation has already been thoroughly tried now.

by loopz 6y ago

Jabbles 6y ago

The 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 ago
Here'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 ago
  Are 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?
  - loopz 6y ago
    Is there a solution there in your mind. Why would anti-science people listen to scientists in the first place? There are many ways people think, the minority think like you do. I'm just showing how such statements can be tweaked. You'll always fight an uphill battle trying to convince people with "logic", especially when people subscribe to religion, superstition, fear and conspiracy theories. This no matter the "scorn". The other side can muster up much more of that anyways. Unfortunate yes, but it's a call for much needed creativity also. Condemnation has already been thoroughly tried now.