Now that is hilarious. You run a man down because you think that he has done something wrong but do not have any proof. Reminds me of a great quote.
** “Always remember… Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots.”
― Ziad K. Abdelnour, Economic Warfare: Secrets of Wealth Creation in the Age of Welfare Politics**
Hey Fools,
Can’t we all just get along? It’s the Holiday Season!!!
'38Packard
It’s also the season for surges in Covid, flu and RSV. How much of that do you think might be due to a dodgy grasp of the appropriate science.
Did Fauci make the vaccines himself? Amazing!
I heard a self-verified genius say that ingesting bleach might work.
Who should we believe, then?
What should we believe, then?
Maybe rain or melted snow can’t freeze on the sidewalks and roads in the winter after all! I am not buying anymore of that salt! Water probably doesn’t even really freeze!
Dreamer
In tangentially related news, after weeks of the media screaming 'OTC medication shortage", driving the lemmings to hoard, there is, now, an actual shortage, with drug stores putting caps on purchase quantity.
Steve…carry on with the hype and hysteria parade
Right about what specifically? Fauci was the point man for the US government pandemic response. His team had to make decisions about what to do about Covid before there was much known about the disease, other than it was overwhelming hospitals in various hot spots with global infections rising exponentially.
What would you have done differently? If you are going to call the man a clown you should at least specify what he did wrong and what a non-clown, non-expert would have done better.
Why do you have a mechanic fix your car rather than the homeless guy down the street? It’s called expertise. You trust the person who has received an education in the particular task you want done over someone who hasn’t. That’s a rational way to behave.
Yet now we live in an era that rejects experts. The better the education and training you have the more elitist you are, and elites are of course not to be trusted. And we now treat science as just another POV, a philosophy rather than an objective way of looking at reality. Science based on experiments are now no more valid than belief founded on religious texts (creation science) or what goes these days as “common sense” (“it was cold today so obviously global warming is fake news”).
One can’t always believe experts, as they have the same human fallibilities as the rest of the species. And science is often wrong. But life is about probabilities. People with expertise are more likely to be right than people without. Scientists are more likely to be right about issues of science than nonscientists. If a mycologist tells you to not eat that mushroom odds are you shouldn’t regardless of how many Facebook friends say it’s okay.
So sure, be skeptical and yes, you can’t know anything with complete certainty. And the world is becoming increasingly complex so one can’t help but depend on expert opinion that is often in disagreement. But that doesn’t mean one cannot make an intelligent assessment of the most likely answer based on what the experts are saying and who those experts are.
You wrote an awful lot of words just to agree with me in the end. Thanx
I think you are misquoting him. As far as I can tell, this is what he said:
> “So it’s easy to criticize, but they’re really criticizing science because I represent science. That’s dangerous. To me, that’s more dangerous than the slings and the arrows that get thrown at me. I’m not going to be around here forever, but science is going to be here forever. And if you damage science, you are doing something very detrimental to society long after I leave. And that’s what I worry about.”
If you read this objectively in context, Fauci is essentially saying he is a representative of the scientific position, which he was for Covid. He is not saying he is science, and that is evident by his statement that science will be here even after he is gone.
When Fauci is testifying to Congress, he was not speaking for himself but rather as the representative of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which he headed at the time and is the government agency designated to do scientific research on infectious diseases. As such he can be said to be representing science.
If TMF turns into a haven for absurdly ridiculous and ignorant conspiracy theories, it will not be a pleasant place to hang around.
Let’s dissect the above. What does ‘criticizing science’ mean?
a. Criticizing the scientific method, or
b. Criticizing the current understanding of covid
No one is criticizing the scientific method so that only leaves b. But it’s perfectly OK to criticize any scientific deduction or hypothesis. That’s the essence of the scientific method.
For me that only leaves a third meaning. ‘Don’t criticize the representatives of science. I’m right so don’t bug me! Do as you’re told.’
Sounds like Xi!
The Captain
I have noticed that a lot of people have opinions but they rarely have substance. They make lots of statement that have nothing to back them up. The problem is they run up against people that are skeptical and then when they can’t rationalize their thoughts they drift off to places like Qanon where they can hang with people that do not need proof to verify their beliefs.
Andy
You say that a lot. But I don’t think you really understand what it means.
And this is why you don’t seem to understand your “settled science” statements.
Yes, science can always be criticized. But the scientific method requires that criticism to be with evidence that supports an alternative to the current understanding. Criticism without evidence is just whining and moaning. Whinging. Kvetching. And until you bring evidence, the current understanding of science IS the settled science. And it remains the settled science until new evidence (not opinion) is demonstrated to provide a better explanation.
In this thread, you’ve called Fauci a clown. But you have presented no evidence. In many other threads, you’ve questioned his handling of the Covid pandemic in the US. But you only present opinions, not evidence.
Right here, just a couple of posts up, someone presented evidence that your “clown” statement was factually incorrect. But rather than accept new evidence that would upset your personal “settled opinion”, you deflect and distract. A scientist would look at new evidence and admit that their previous understanding was wrong.
So why can’t you admit that you were wrong to call Fauci a clown based solely on something that has been proven to be factually incorrect?
–Peter
Criticism without evidence is just whining and moaning. Whinging. Kvetching.
No. Criticism (real criticism, not that annoying trait some have to go around criticizing things.) can be in merely asking the questions. If there is a counter-argument, then that requires something to hang it on.
And until you bring evidence, the current understanding of science IS the settled science. And it remains the settled science until new evidence (not opinion) is demonstrated to provide a better explanation.
So, we are agreed that settled science may or may not be true but as it is “settled” we shouldn’t ask questions unless we have an entire body work to support any skepticism…?
I think it comes from the conspiracy theorists’ playbook…along with a misunderstanding of “scientific consensus”. I’ve read it frequently when folk are unwilling to accept/don’t understand currently accepted facts and try to create a smokescreen of “out of the box” thinking…little realising that scientists themselves are more aware than anyone that there’s no such animal as settled science. That any appearance of being settled is contingent upon currently available evidence…and may be subject to revision should new evidence come along.
Fair play…I’m reasonably confident that it’s pretty much settled that the Earth is NOT flat but then, I’m not an astrophysicist or whatever discipline understands this best, so I could be wrong.
That’s not what I said. Science can and should be questioned. But the questioning needs to come from evidence. Skepticism is fine, but it doesn’t upset the current state of science until you have some evidence.
Let’s apply that to the theory that Fauci is a clown. What evidence is there showing the theory is correct? So far, the only evidence I’ve seen presented is an easily debunked misunderstanding of a single statement by Fauci. While I’m open to the possibility that the theory is correct, that evidence is far from convincing. Frankly, it’s not evidence at all. So I reject the theory for now based on a lack of evidence.
–Peter
Please, stop posting irrelevant conspiracy nonsense.
Personally, I actually don’t care if people call Fauci a clown; it makes themselves look stupid, not him.
I also don’t care if his handling of covid is questioned; as a public servant in a role that affected hundreds of millions of lives, it should be open to question, though the bad faith manner in which it is so often done is distasteful.
What I absolutely object to is people using public forums to spread
outright lies, totally absurd junk about Fauci.
People who use TMF to transmit obvious, ridiculous lies about other people should be banned from the site for a few days, then longer as necessary, imho.
Thank you. That is the alternative phrase I was looking for.
There is no such thing as “settled science.” It is a straw man created by conspiracy theorists. What we have is the current scientific consensus. That consensus can - and does - change as additional evidence is developed.
–Peter
I agree with your first claim, and with the idea ‘scientific consensus is correct’.
I believe you are mistaken about the idea of ‘settled science’ being a ‘straw man created by conspiracy theorists’.
The term ‘settled science’ was invented by some in the man-made global warming scientific community as a marketing tool to try and make anti-climate change people & the public not question their models.
As a PhD holding scientist I believe the AGW scientist’s models were/are ‘good enough to act upon’, I think AGW is real, and I believe they had good intentions, but I found it wrong and ethically distasteful that they tried to silence any questioning of their models/conclusion with the creation of this political terminology.
They also unleashed a monster by putting this idea out there that science can be decided in such a way it can never be questioned.