4 ms·

But then why flex and try to pull the study? Don't interrupt your opponent while they're making a mistake and then dunk on them. Surely the most transparent th

by Spivak 1y ago

But then why flex and try to pull the study? Don't interrupt your opponent while they're making a mistake and then dunk on them. Surely the most transparent thing is allowing this scientific discourse to happen out in the open and let the truth fall out, no? If Kennedy is right and these are dangerous then I want him proven right and the vaccines reformulated.

SilverElfin 1y ago
Isn’t the mistake already made? What would the ideal way be to address this?
- Spivak 1y ago
  Hold it up for all to see as an example of bad science. Make your case, back it up by data, publish your findings. Ya know, academic discourse. It's not like the man can't get funding for such a study. Realistically, if you're going to shout from the rooftops wouldn't you rather it be data that unequivocally proves you right than poking holes in studies that prove you wrong. The former is a victory.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    But why is “academic discourse” needed? The issue is that THIS study essentially falsified data. That can be discussed on its own, without some weird battle of studies each manipulating results to demonstrate a conclusion they’ve each decided on.
    - Spivak 1y ago
      That's a much stronger claim, stronger than the one made in Kennedy's criticism. If you or anyone can prove that they actually lied or fabricated data then yeah, nuke the paper from orbit. But if the criticism is that they're wrong—and that is the criticism here, then you tear it apart in the open. And if you want people to believe the opposite conclusion rather than simply ignoring the results then you need some data proving your new conclusion.
    - lovich 1y ago
      Where or how did you come across the belief that this study used falsified data?
- ranger_danger 1y ago
  > The only right way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions.
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    That seems arbitrary. Why can’t you simply point out problems with the current study? That seems valid enough to invalidate the study.
    - warkdarrior 1y ago
      Because an arguably flawed methodology does not necessarily lead to flawed results. You need another study with correct methodology to show that the results are flawed.
    - rpdillon 1y ago
      Science is a structured way of doing exactly that. It's designed to avoid a lot of the manipulation that is present in non-scientific discussions, like, exactly the kind of manipulation we're talking about here. It's not perfect, but at least it's trying.
    - ranger_danger 1y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

by Spivak 1y ago

SilverElfin 1y ago

Isn’t the mistake already made? What would the ideal way be to address this?

Spivak 1y ago
Hold it up for all to see as an example of bad science. Make your case, back it up by data, publish your findings. Ya know, academic discourse. It's not like the man can't get funding for such a study. Realistically, if you're going to shout from the rooftops wouldn't you rather it be data that unequivocally proves you right than poking holes in studies that prove you wrong. The former is a victory.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  But why is “academic discourse” needed? The issue is that THIS study essentially falsified data. That can be discussed on its own, without some weird battle of studies each manipulating results to demonstrate a conclusion they’ve each decided on.
  - Spivak 1y ago
    That's a much stronger claim, stronger than the one made in Kennedy's criticism. If you or anyone can prove that they actually lied or fabricated data then yeah, nuke the paper from orbit. But if the criticism is that they're wrong—and that is the criticism here, then you tear it apart in the open. And if you want people to believe the opposite conclusion rather than simply ignoring the results then you need some data proving your new conclusion.
  - lovich 1y ago
    Where or how did you come across the belief that this study used falsified data?
ranger_danger 1y ago
> The only right way to contest a scientific study is to provide a new scientific investigation that reaches different conclusions.
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  That seems arbitrary. Why can’t you simply point out problems with the current study? That seems valid enough to invalidate the study.
  - warkdarrior 1y ago
    Because an arguably flawed methodology does not necessarily lead to flawed results. You need another study with correct methodology to show that the results are flawed.
  - rpdillon 1y ago
    Science is a structured way of doing exactly that. It's designed to avoid a lot of the manipulation that is present in non-scientific discussions, like, exactly the kind of manipulation we're talking about here. It's not perfect, but at least it's trying.
  - ranger_danger 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method