7 ms·

And people wonder why others don't "trust the science".

by sparrish 2y ago

awnird 2y ago
You are confusing science with ad copy.
- adamc 2y ago
  No, but the post implies a belief that many people will confuse the two. And it might be right.
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  There was a lot of science paid by big tobacco (and big sugar and many others like hydrogenated fats), that then turned into ads.
exe34 2y ago
the antidote to bad science has always been more science by independent experts. what else would you suggest?
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  He was pointing out the hypocrisy in "trust the science" buzzwords used during the pandemic. Science is based on skepticism, not "trust", and being a skeptic back then was somehow considered censorship-worthy. edit: because i'm being rate-limited for some reason (thanks mods), i'm refering to stuff like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data. Hey, the media, the CDC, "the science" says that if you're vaccinated, you're safe, you won't infect your immunocompromised grandma, you won't get sick, you won't spread covid. I mean... don't be a skeptic, "trust" them. Or you can say "even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get covid and still infect grandma", and be censored from most platforms" (back then).
  - exe34 2y ago
    no, the skepticism is for people who understand what they are being skeptical about. if you have a degree in chemistry and you disagree with one other chemist, I'd have to listen to both of you and try to make up my own mind. if you disagree with 99% of chemists, then I'm not ingesting what you suggest nor avoiding what they recommend. you don't get to point to Facebook posts by uncle Rob who reposts crackpot ideas 24/7 and call that "a controversy". there is such a thing as being wrong.
  - wewtyflakes 2y ago
    There seemed to be a lot of loud, bad-faith, antagonists in that era that likely ended up killing a lot of people. Things like drinking bleach, using de-wormer, don't get vaccines, masks are bad for you, etc... It was exhausting to hear because it got a whole big group of people to cosplay domain experts and the rest of us had to deal with the fallout of millions dying.
    - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
      Sure, there are nutjobs everywhere, but contrary to principles of science, everyone was told to "trust the science". Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust".... you shouldn't have to blidndly trust science, that's reserved for nutjobs speaking to god by yelling into a hat, where there's no way to verify. Many people also got vaccinated because the science mentioned 94% (or whatever) effciveness against covid infections, about preventing spread, and guess what, trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too.
      - wewtyflakes 2y ago
        > trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too. This is the sort of stuff that I was referring to above. It sounds shocking and plausible, but at the end of the day, if you flatly ask someone "would you like a 10% chance to die from covid (being a grandma), or would you like (some lower %) chance to die to prevent it", then why not try?
        2y ago
mulmen 2y ago
Assertion: a tobacco company used misleading marketing practices. Conclusion: science is a lie.
- t0bia_s 2y ago
  Conclusion: People dying.
- weberer 2y ago
  The actual conclusion: what the media spoonfeeds you is not science.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago
Do you know why I only drink grain alcohol, Mandrake?
krapp 2y ago
Which science don't you trust, the science that once said smoking is harmless or the science which currently says smoking is harmful? Or do you cover all your bases and just not trust science regardless?
- janalsncm 2y ago
  It’s a category error. “Science” doesn’t have a pope. It isn’t whatever the latest scientist says. Science is a process for figuring things out.
- wahern 2y ago
  Was there ever any sustained science that claimed smoking was harmless? AFAIU, smoking was considered by the general population as not good for you health since at least the early 20th century, and before then as at least a vice (as was caffeine!). By mid century there was sustained scientific output showing clear links to cancer, solidifying cigarettes as an acute hazard to your health even if the scope and magnitude of the harms were less than we know today. Tobacco companies and their defenders countered this sentiment using the same tools used today--dissembling, whataboutism, and your basic FUD techniques. You can't look at ads promoting cigarettes and assume most people accepted what they're communicating at face value. Anyhow, almost everybody knows today that, for example, eating too much sugar is bad for you, but the majority of the population still does it. That's how humans behave. Often times people do something because it's bad, taboo, or dangerous. And not everybody centers their lifestyle around good health; some people are just trying to get through the day. Today we still have doctors who smoke, dentists who drink soda, etc, though those particular vices are less popular than they once were. And let's not forget, while cigarette smoking has been in free fall doctors have been happily handing out prescriptions to smoke marijuana, even though inhaling marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as cigarettes (most people smoke it less frequently, but that's beside the point). Just because something is accepted as normal doesn't mean the harms are being outright denied.
- jdietrich 2y ago
  "The science" never said that smoking is harmless. Concerns were being raised as early as the 1930s and epidemiological evidence had conclusively demonstrated the link between tobacco smoking, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease by the early 1950s. The tobacco industry pursued a relentless campaign to cast doubt on that science, which was so successful that even today people imagine that there was once an actual controversy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement
Eric_WVGG 2y ago
It’s kind of a “tell”, right? On the face of things, it would make just as much sense to say “More software devs smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” You wouldn’t call out “doctors” unless everyone knew this was unhealthy.

And people wonder why others don't "trust the science".

awnird 2y ago

You are confusing science with ad copy.

adamc 2y ago
No, but the post implies a belief that many people will confuse the two. And it might be right.
ajsnigrutin 2y ago
There was a lot of science paid by big tobacco (and big sugar and many others like hydrogenated fats), that then turned into ads.

exe34 2y ago

the antidote to bad science has always been more science by independent experts. what else would you suggest?

ajsnigrutin 2y ago
He was pointing out the hypocrisy in "trust the science" buzzwords used during the pandemic. Science is based on skepticism, not "trust", and being a skeptic back then was somehow considered censorship-worthy. edit: because i'm being rate-limited for some reason (thanks mods), i'm refering to stuff like this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442 https://web.archive.org/web/20210402002315/https://www.msnbc... > And we have -- we can kind of almost see the end. We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data. Hey, the media, the CDC, "the science" says that if you're vaccinated, you're safe, you won't infect your immunocompromised grandma, you won't get sick, you won't spread covid. I mean... don't be a skeptic, "trust" them. Or you can say "even if you're vaccinated, you'll still get covid and still infect grandma", and be censored from most platforms" (back then).
- exe34 2y ago
  no, the skepticism is for people who understand what they are being skeptical about. if you have a degree in chemistry and you disagree with one other chemist, I'd have to listen to both of you and try to make up my own mind. if you disagree with 99% of chemists, then I'm not ingesting what you suggest nor avoiding what they recommend. you don't get to point to Facebook posts by uncle Rob who reposts crackpot ideas 24/7 and call that "a controversy". there is such a thing as being wrong.
- wewtyflakes 2y ago
  There seemed to be a lot of loud, bad-faith, antagonists in that era that likely ended up killing a lot of people. Things like drinking bleach, using de-wormer, don't get vaccines, masks are bad for you, etc... It was exhausting to hear because it got a whole big group of people to cosplay domain experts and the rest of us had to deal with the fallout of millions dying.
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    Sure, there are nutjobs everywhere, but contrary to principles of science, everyone was told to "trust the science". Not "be skeptical, verify, repeat, etc.", but "trust".... you shouldn't have to blidndly trust science, that's reserved for nutjobs speaking to god by yelling into a hat, where there's no way to verify. Many people also got vaccinated because the science mentioned 94% (or whatever) effciveness against covid infections, about preventing spread, and guess what, trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too.
    - wewtyflakes 2y ago
      > trusting that killed immunocompromised grandma too. This is the sort of stuff that I was referring to above. It sounds shocking and plausible, but at the end of the day, if you flatly ask someone "would you like a 10% chance to die from covid (being a grandma), or would you like (some lower %) chance to die to prevent it", then why not try?
      - 2y ago

mulmen 2y ago

Assertion: a tobacco company used misleading marketing practices. Conclusion: science is a lie.

t0bia_s 2y ago
Conclusion: People dying.
weberer 2y ago
The actual conclusion: what the media spoonfeeds you is not science.

01HNNWZ0MV43FF 2y ago

Do you know why I only drink grain alcohol, Mandrake?

krapp 2y ago

Which science don't you trust, the science that once said smoking is harmless or the science which currently says smoking is harmful? Or do you cover all your bases and just not trust science regardless?

janalsncm 2y ago
It’s a category error. “Science” doesn’t have a pope. It isn’t whatever the latest scientist says. Science is a process for figuring things out.
wahern 2y ago
Was there ever any sustained science that claimed smoking was harmless? AFAIU, smoking was considered by the general population as not good for you health since at least the early 20th century, and before then as at least a vice (as was caffeine!). By mid century there was sustained scientific output showing clear links to cancer, solidifying cigarettes as an acute hazard to your health even if the scope and magnitude of the harms were less than we know today. Tobacco companies and their defenders countered this sentiment using the same tools used today--dissembling, whataboutism, and your basic FUD techniques. You can't look at ads promoting cigarettes and assume most people accepted what they're communicating at face value. Anyhow, almost everybody knows today that, for example, eating too much sugar is bad for you, but the majority of the population still does it. That's how humans behave. Often times people do something because it's bad, taboo, or dangerous. And not everybody centers their lifestyle around good health; some people are just trying to get through the day. Today we still have doctors who smoke, dentists who drink soda, etc, though those particular vices are less popular than they once were. And let's not forget, while cigarette smoking has been in free fall doctors have been happily handing out prescriptions to smoke marijuana, even though inhaling marijuana smoke is at least as harmful as cigarettes (most people smoke it less frequently, but that's beside the point). Just because something is accepted as normal doesn't mean the harms are being outright denied.
jdietrich 2y ago
"The science" never said that smoking is harmless. Concerns were being raised as early as the 1930s and epidemiological evidence had conclusively demonstrated the link between tobacco smoking, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease by the early 1950s. The tobacco industry pursued a relentless campaign to cast doubt on that science, which was so successful that even today people imagine that there was once an actual controversy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2085438/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Frank_Statement

Eric_WVGG 2y ago

It’s kind of a “tell”, right? On the face of things, it would make just as much sense to say “More software devs smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” You wouldn’t call out “doctors” unless everyone knew this was unhealthy.