Belief Versus The Scientific Method

Ok, boss. But I just want you to know you are not being any fun at all.

People who shout that we should question the science tend to be those that do not understand the science. Do you really think a layman at their computer at home has the capability to question the VAST majority of scientific authorities on a subject? Most people at home can not even conceive what they do not know.
Promoting the idea that every day people should question the scientific consensus is one of the stupidest arguments I have heard. People can question the scientific consensus when they present a scientific argument against the consensus and have experts in the field agree with them. Until then they have nothing.

opinion noted

Who cares what your link was about? It represents opinions of some people on one side of the issue. The virologists, Drs and medical professionals do not agree. That is the point.

quote:

---

Every real scientist understands bias in the collection and analysis of data. That is why the protocols of real, actual, scientific study are so strict on methodology. And since we know humans are fallible and (as you show with your sources) dumb as a bag of rocks there is the requirement for a scientist to open the kimono and show all, the methods, the raw data, the analysis and the conclusions.

---

So anyone you agree with is a 'true' scientist!? I guess all we need from you is the list of true and false scientists.A former adviser to a drug company suddenly becomes a false scientist if he grows a conscience?Update Your Browser | Facebook

Hey Theo, we haven't seen you for a while. I hope you are staying well! I would expand on that a bit and say tend to be those that do not understand any science.The recent posts in this thread show a complete lack of understanding of some of the key aspects of the Scientific Method that have been refined over the last couple of centuries.In school, some of us learned the basic steps of the scientific method that were similar to these:

quote:

---

a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

---

or

quote:

---

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. Wikipedia

---

That part about rigorous skepticism is often misunderstood or completely lost by the anti-science crowd.Over the centuries it was obvious that bias during the observation, experimentation or conclusion processes would make the results untrustworthy. Good scientists learned to look for and correct the flaws in their own work, always, every single time. When they didn't do that, when they let their beliefs cloud their judgement, their mistakes were found and exposed by others and if they were not corrected eventually no one in their field will trust any of their work.In my experience, I ask my friends to find the flaws in my hypotheses, and in my methodology and in my results. Then after we think we have found all my mistakes I present the study for peer review and make more corrections. I may have to explain and revise my reasoning for the methodology and conclusions. All of this includes searching through all the references to past studies that may refute parts or all of my study.The anti-science crowd thinks scientists are trying to prove their conclusions, when in reality good scientists are doing everything they can think of to anticipate what would falsify their conclusions.I would expect and welcome my best friend to point out any mistake or flawed reasoning in one of my papers. People who double down on their mistakes or repeat flawed arguments over and over are flawed scientists and should not expect any of their work to be seriously considered.In most cases the research that the anti-science crowd claims is rejected by reputable scientific journals, have never even been submitted for review. The people who produced them knew their papers were bullshit and would be exposed and so they went to the fringe press where absolutely anything can be published.

So where does that leave the willing people who died because of the vax they took, and the million plus who had bad effects? Some experts suggest that the actual number may be 20 times higher since true stats are not kept or available. Other estimates are that the numbers are at least 5 times higher.

The willing people who died because of the vax they took are a tragedy but an insignificant number of cases.The rest of your post is simply nonsense or just plain lies.AbE: ALL of the actual data shows that since I'm fully vaccinated and have also had the first booster shot and since I will continue to get vaccinated when it is available that iv I am exposed to covid-19 I will have a relatively mild case and no end up hospitalized.That is the reality.The actual data as shown in the reports I presented to you shows that the unvaccinated will suffer far more than I will.Their pain and possible death are quite frankly, not my problem.Edited by jar, : see AbE

From your link -

quote:

---

we need to compare the rates of death between vaccinated and unvaccinated

---

The main point seems to be that rates must be compared. That is impossible because there are no stats on how many actual deaths and serious reactions to the vaccine. I say actual because it is commonly reported that the forms are not filled out, since they are time consuming and cumbersome. No one has time for them basically. Any stats we do have therefore are not serious numbers. The stats about how people were declared a covid death are also hopelessly skewed. The deaths are those that supposedly tested positive with the virus, not those who died from it generally.Then there is the issue of what organization or country the stats are from. We have widely different numbers saying the opposite from different countries. In some places it is admitted the majority of hospitalized are vaccinated. In other places they claim it is a small minority. That is not science! That is bias and greed and belief and etc.All that aside, playing with numbers is something anyone can do. That just goes to evidence that the issue does involve opinion, bias and belief rather than science and data.

Present the actual studies that support that assertion. Present the actual studies that support that assertion.So far you have present not one single study that supports any of your assertions.I'm not sure you even have a clue what evidence is.

Your study was from the summer of 2021. We also know that the vaccines drop in effectiveness over a fairly short time! The issue for many people who choose not to partake in the great experimental agenda is often not that they doubt a vaccine would in the short term be quite effective! So that is a strawman. The issues are a lack of trust in the Dr Mengelas of the world who are trying to shove it on all people including little children! The issue is that they would rather hope for natural immunity, and have concerns over effects of the vaccine such as on the reproductive system and etc etc. The concerns are the plethora of young atheletes dropping dead or having heart attacks mid game after having been vaccinated. They also may note that there are endless booster shots being mandated and prepared, so that we know they basically don't really do much good. I think the Dr in charge in the US even said the name was changing from fully vaxxed, to something like currently up to date on vaxxes!There are many aspects to the science, and there are people of science on both sides of the issue. You don't get to wave them all away and declare only those with your belief as 'true'.

Who says the admitted over one million by the CDC with reactions and the over 21,000 dead as a doornail are insignificant? As mentioned many claim the stats are at LEAST 5 times higher, and probably even much much much higher than that. Going with an estimate that the actual stats are even just 5 times higer, that means over 5 million adverse effects, and well over 100,000 deaths. That is very significant.Here I see the former HEAD of a vax taskfoorce say the whole thing is basically a joke"mass vaccinations of the population in the UK must stop.”Former UK Vax Taskforce Chief Says Mass Vaccination ‘Pointless’, Time to Stop Counting Case Numbers
WATCH: Vax Taskforce Chief Says Mass Vaccination 'Pointless', Time to Stop Counting Case Numbers.Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Edited by drlove, : No reason given.

Once again, you simply fail to present either evidence or even reasoned argument to support your assertions.You are free to be as willfully stupid as you like but that does no change the fact that the data ALL shows you are simply wrong.

That correctly sums up everything you have written here. Everything you have written here in Message 338 is completely bogus, unsubstantiated bullshit. You just made it up.Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

Appeal to blind faith in 'science' and to disregard thousands of qualified people from science as wrong for no real reason and without looking at the facts. Got it.

There does seem to be data suggesting that vaccines are not the only wayVAXXINES - THE AMISH COVID FULL MEASURE WITH SHARYL ATTKISSON
Vaxxines - The Amish Covid Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson