4 ms·

Do you know what the scientific method is, when you have no idea what to do? You try things until something sticks. I fully agree this is not palatable when you

by soco 4y ago

Do you know what the scientific method is, when you have no idea what to do? You try things until something sticks. I fully agree this is not palatable when your life depends on it, but as with this pandemic, people didn't know much at the beginning so they tried things. Some didn't work, indeed, but what was the alternative? Wait and let God sort them out? You had to "move fast and break things" because there was simply no alternative approach.

miguelazo 4y ago
I agree to some extent, but Fauci et al telling people they don’t need masks, when the Chinese had figured that one out months before seems particularly egregious (and arrogant).
- ted_dunning 4y ago
  Provide an actual quote in context. What I remember is Fauci saying that to be fully effective, protective needs to be fitted and fit-tested and that due to limited supplies, PPE supplies with high levels of protection (i.e. N95 and above) should be reserved for medical staff in order to keep hospitals functioning. There were also numerous experimental studies testing how much reuse of N95 masks was viable. As supplies became more available, he moderated this position and recommended protective equipment for anybody likely to be exposed.
  - miguelazo 4y ago
    >Provide an actual quote in context. On March 8, 2020, Fauci said "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask," according to Reuters https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703 https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effecti... Spare me the excuses about PPE supplies-- even cloth masks would have helped, especially for original SARS-COV-2. Even if he had been concerned about supply issues (the popular excuse you suggest), he could have not lied to the public about effectiveness and asked (not to mention have the President order) for medical grade masks to be reserved for healthcare workers.
mshake2 4y ago
Volumes could be said about what we deliberately didn't try and what we deliberately didn't study. We shouldn't pretend that the venture into the unknown wasn't steered by the deep pockets of Big Pharma.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago
  Why don’t you give us a 3 paragraph except of those “volumes,” then?
  - mshake2 4y ago
    If you're really asking in good faith, write me 3 paragraphs on whether or not you agree with my statement.
    - actually_a_dog 4y ago
      Great answer. Your point is now clear.
      - Chris2048 4y ago
        out of interest, what do you believe the point was?
        actually_a_dog 4y ago
        They were trolling.
        mshake2 4y ago
        Proof of trolling is asking of you that which you asked of me? That's surprisingly revealing.
        actually_a_dog 4y ago
gonehome 4y ago
I don’t think that’s what OP is talking about. For me an example would be the early “masks don’t work” rhetoric, but then simultaneously also telling the public not to buy masks because healthcare workers need them. The early recode article mocking Silicon Valley for avoiding contact early on and “panicking” because it was “just the flu” and concern was anti-China racism. Later on the repeated stories pushed by MSM about the lab leak hypothesis being a “conspiracy theory” when it remains if not the most likely source, still a probable one. Science is about testing a hypothesis, updating, and discussing tradeoffs honestly - often “believe in science” types are not about science at all, but about authority and political partisanship/cognitive bias. The tragedy is this erodes trust. Then when something important is actually true like the vaccines are very effective and people should take them they lie about that too (zero risks, 100% effective, etc.) vs. being honest about it (very effective, but not 100%, risks are rare and better on net than contracting disease etc.) The dishonesty makes it easy for more harmful conspiracy to arise because they’ve lost trust of the public (for good reason imo). Most people that think independently outside of consensus will do it poorly.
- pjc50 4y ago
  Possibly, but there's a horrible elision going on there; you've listed a bunch of individual actions which range between simple error to negligence, taken by various governmental and media individuals and organisations, but then attributed them to "science" as a whole?
  - gonehome 4y ago
    I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scientific method and following evidence where it takes you. It’s being used as a proxy for authority. “Believe in science” was used to defend the (wrong) stuff in my comment, it’s a proxy for believe authority or believe media. If we want people to understand the value of science we should share the evidence and explain what the hypothesis is with the nuance and uncertainty present rather than patronizingly play 3D-chess because we assume the public is too dumb to know what’s good for them. Some people and institutions did this, but most did not. Science as an institution is no stranger to this kind of bullshit either: radical mastectomy and halsted’s “theories” of cancer, skinner and behaviorism (really all of psychology due to the replication crisis), mendel’s peas being ignored for 40yrs, phrenology, etc. When it becomes believe the authority instead of about the evidence bad things happen.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

by soco 4y ago

miguelazo 4y ago

I agree to some extent, but Fauci et al telling people they don’t need masks, when the Chinese had figured that one out months before seems particularly egregious (and arrogant).

ted_dunning 4y ago
Provide an actual quote in context. What I remember is Fauci saying that to be fully effective, protective needs to be fitted and fit-tested and that due to limited supplies, PPE supplies with high levels of protection (i.e. N95 and above) should be reserved for medical staff in order to keep hospitals functioning. There were also numerous experimental studies testing how much reuse of N95 masks was viable. As supplies became more available, he moderated this position and recommended protective equipment for anybody likely to be exposed.
- miguelazo 4y ago
  >Provide an actual quote in context. On March 8, 2020, Fauci said "there's no reason to be walking around with a mask," according to Reuters https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703 https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effecti... Spare me the excuses about PPE supplies-- even cloth masks would have helped, especially for original SARS-COV-2. Even if he had been concerned about supply issues (the popular excuse you suggest), he could have not lied to the public about effectiveness and asked (not to mention have the President order) for medical grade masks to be reserved for healthcare workers.

mshake2 4y ago

Volumes could be said about what we deliberately didn't try and what we deliberately didn't study. We shouldn't pretend that the venture into the unknown wasn't steered by the deep pockets of Big Pharma.

actually_a_dog 4y ago
Why don’t you give us a 3 paragraph except of those “volumes,” then?
- mshake2 4y ago
  If you're really asking in good faith, write me 3 paragraphs on whether or not you agree with my statement.
  - actually_a_dog 4y ago
    Great answer. Your point is now clear.
    - Chris2048 4y ago
      out of interest, what do you believe the point was?
      - actually_a_dog 4y ago
        They were trolling.
        mshake2 4y ago
        Proof of trolling is asking of you that which you asked of me? That's surprisingly revealing.
        actually_a_dog 4y ago

gonehome 4y ago

I don’t think that’s what OP is talking about. For me an example would be the early “masks don’t work” rhetoric, but then simultaneously also telling the public not to buy masks because healthcare workers need them. The early recode article mocking Silicon Valley for avoiding contact early on and “panicking” because it was “just the flu” and concern was anti-China racism. Later on the repeated stories pushed by MSM about the lab leak hypothesis being a “conspiracy theory” when it remains if not the most likely source, still a probable one. Science is about testing a hypothesis, updating, and discussing tradeoffs honestly - often “believe in science” types are not about science at all, but about authority and political partisanship/cognitive bias. The tragedy is this erodes trust. Then when something important is actually true like the vaccines are very effective and people should take them they lie about that too (zero risks, 100% effective, etc.) vs. being honest about it (very effective, but not 100%, risks are rare and better on net than contracting disease etc.) The dishonesty makes it easy for more harmful conspiracy to arise because they’ve lost trust of the public (for good reason imo). Most people that think independently outside of consensus will do it poorly.

pjc50 4y ago
Possibly, but there's a horrible elision going on there; you've listed a bunch of individual actions which range between simple error to negligence, taken by various governmental and media individuals and organisations, but then attributed them to "science" as a whole?
- gonehome 4y ago
  I’m not attributing it to little-s science, I’m attributing it to “believe in science” - people are using “science” to mean something different than the scientific method and following evidence where it takes you. It’s being used as a proxy for authority. “Believe in science” was used to defend the (wrong) stuff in my comment, it’s a proxy for believe authority or believe media. If we want people to understand the value of science we should share the evidence and explain what the hypothesis is with the nuance and uncertainty present rather than patronizingly play 3D-chess because we assume the public is too dumb to know what’s good for them. Some people and institutions did this, but most did not. Science as an institution is no stranger to this kind of bullshit either: radical mastectomy and halsted’s “theories” of cancer, skinner and behaviorism (really all of psychology due to the replication crisis), mendel’s peas being ignored for 40yrs, phrenology, etc. When it becomes believe the authority instead of about the evidence bad things happen.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]