4 ms·

It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite

It's sad to watch you completely dodge my questions. How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? I'm asking that to force you to admit that you are a hypocrite, engaging in exactly the kind of behavior you condemn. At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. Your argument is bad, and if you honestly answered my question, you might realize it.

teakettle42 4y ago
> At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. We fundamentally disagree as to what science is. I think it’s the recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and allows one to independently verify — and rely on independent verification — without having to trust scientists instead of science. If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. However, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand science, particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You are of course free to proselytize your religious sciencism and its faith-based orthodoxy, but it’s inaccurate to pretend to the trappings of actual science. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll never support anti-science ideology, including the suppression of viewpoints inconvenient to your orthodoxy.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Who will do that independent verification? And why should they bother? What's the point of doing science? Why does it matter if it's done well? Those are all human concerns, that you rely upon, to ensure the science is done well. > If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. You are absolutely 100% not trusting in the science. You are trusting that the scientists are ensuring they're not all making the same systemic error. They could all be ordering their instruments from the same faulty supplier. You rely on scientists to look for those unknown unknowns. Thank goodness a scientist didn't throw away that petri dish, when he realize that it had mold on it. Thank goodness a scientist was curious enough to realize he had made an enormous discovery. That's how we got penicillin. You rely on the curiosity of scientists to investigate not just new questions, but to revisit old answers. You rely on scientists to not laugh when they first hear of germ theory, but unfortunately the scientists we had in the real world did laugh about it, and did persecute and destroy proponents of it. You rely on human scientists to act ethically. > particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. I believe YOU are the one who misunderstands that. It's implemented by humans. You want to pretend that's not true. > The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You fundamentally do not understand my beliefs well enough to summarize them, and that summary is completely inaccurate. If you were honest, you would ask me questions, or somehow try harder to understand my beliefs, when I tell you explicitly that you are misstating them. You have absolutely not done that. And that's incredibly disappointing. You have closed your mind to the possibility you are wrong about my beliefs. From what I've seen, you would make a terrible scientist. Why are there ethics boards to approve various experiments? I mean, do you even acknowledge that those IRBs exist? What role do they play? How do you know they're doing a good job? Do you admit they have a huge impact on what gets explored and discovered? Science you're so proud of science, can you tell me if there was an ethical problem with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Should the scientists have known better than to research in that way? Why? Why should they have known better? Where in the scientific method is encoded the ethics of scientific research? Where in the scientific method is encoded the Hippocratic Oath? They're orthogonal. And we rely on scientists to make the right decisions.

teakettle42 4y ago

> At the core, you trust scientists. As you should. I trust science — not scientists — as a method for continually refining our knowledge of the truth. I also clearly don’t subscribe to your faith-based orthodoxy, because it’s anti-scientific. However, I’m not going to use words like “should”, or posit what you should do, because I’m not selling you a religion. > How do you know lead is unsafe to consume? The scientific method. I don’t have to trust scientists, just science. The lead toxicity hypothesis is falsifiable, and the empirical results in support of said hypothesis are extensively, independently reproduced.

VikingCoder 4y ago
Science is implemented by scientists, and you will literally never have the time or expertise to do more than trust what scientists are telling you, except possibly in an incredibly narrow field. You have not followed the scientific method to know lead is unsafe. You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. Science does not exist in a vacuum. It is implemented by scientists. And you have probably never advanced or refined our knowledge of the truth once in your entire life, unless you happen to have published some research. Have you? You benefit from scientists, but claim they are the flawed part of the duality. You have this platonic view of the algorithm, and it appears to me a complete lack of understanding of how scientists implement it. Or how you receive the benefits of science. Or of the flaws in how we currently implement science. It will take humans to improve how we practice science. I feel like that guy who's trying to explain fiat money to someone. That's great you believe in money. Money is meaningless. It only has value because we say it does. Science is almost meaningless. It's a way for scientists to think and approach questions and problems. It's the best method we know of, but that's only because scientists have done that work. And need to continue to improve it. Because science itself can be broken. Science isn't perfect, as you seem to think it is.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > You have to trust scientists to implement science properly. We fundamentally disagree as to what science is. I think it’s the recursive application of the scientific method in a way that admits falsifiability at every level, and allows one to independently verify — and rely on independent verification — without having to trust scientists instead of science. If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. However, you seem to fundamentally misunderstand science, particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You are of course free to proselytize your religious sciencism and its faith-based orthodoxy, but it’s inaccurate to pretend to the trappings of actual science. We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’ll never support anti-science ideology, including the suppression of viewpoints inconvenient to your orthodoxy.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    Who will do that independent verification? And why should they bother? What's the point of doing science? Why does it matter if it's done well? Those are all human concerns, that you rely upon, to ensure the science is done well. > If multiple independent scientists perform the same experiment and achieve the same results, I’m trusting in the science — the methodology — not the scientists. You are absolutely 100% not trusting in the science. You are trusting that the scientists are ensuring they're not all making the same systemic error. They could all be ordering their instruments from the same faulty supplier. You rely on scientists to look for those unknown unknowns. Thank goodness a scientist didn't throw away that petri dish, when he realize that it had mold on it. Thank goodness a scientist was curious enough to realize he had made an enormous discovery. That's how we got penicillin. You rely on the curiosity of scientists to investigate not just new questions, but to revisit old answers. You rely on scientists to not laugh when they first hear of germ theory, but unfortunately the scientists we had in the real world did laugh about it, and did persecute and destroy proponents of it. You rely on human scientists to act ethically. > particularly the fact that it exists as a continual and open process. I believe YOU are the one who misunderstands that. It's implemented by humans. You want to pretend that's not true. > The scientific process is incompatible with your faith-based system of belief, which admits the enforcement of orthodoxy as a necessity, despite that doing so eliminates falsifiability, and is thus inherently anti-scientific. You fundamentally do not understand my beliefs well enough to summarize them, and that summary is completely inaccurate. If you were honest, you would ask me questions, or somehow try harder to understand my beliefs, when I tell you explicitly that you are misstating them. You have absolutely not done that. And that's incredibly disappointing. You have closed your mind to the possibility you are wrong about my beliefs. From what I've seen, you would make a terrible scientist. Why are there ethics boards to approve various experiments? I mean, do you even acknowledge that those IRBs exist? What role do they play? How do you know they're doing a good job? Do you admit they have a huge impact on what gets explored and discovered? Science you're so proud of science, can you tell me if there was an ethical problem with the Tuskegee Syphilis Study? Should the scientists have known better than to research in that way? Why? Why should they have known better? Where in the scientific method is encoded the ethics of scientific research? Where in the scientific method is encoded the Hippocratic Oath? They're orthogonal. And we rely on scientists to make the right decisions.