The corona virus COVID-19

 
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Sadly, DirtyBallast, I think you just demonstrated again that you don’t get it.

The point is that there is no correct or acceptable answer to the question “who can say?”.  As soon as you give some specific person or group the power to silence opposing views, they are no longer exercising expertise, they are exercising power.

This is the case with science just as much as any other claims.

Science works by challenging existing ideas. Without debate, there is no science. Without science, there are no scientists. Scientists are only experts if and only to the extent that their ideas are subject to challenge and have survived all such challenges. There is no such thing as “the science”. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, always up for debate. As soon as this is not the case, it is no longer science.

A scientist who wants to silence opposing views ceases to be a scientist, and has become an activist and a political player. They are wielding power, not expertise.

Even if you disagree with that, then you have to tell us which scientists get to decide what views are misinformation, and therefore should be silenced?  

If your answer is scientific consensus, then who gets to decide what that is, and whether it is achieved?  By definition, we are talking about situations where at least someone disagrees. What exactly is a consensus?  90%?  50%?  What if the minority turn out to be right?  As soon as you stifle debate, you close off the very process that produces scientific progress.

The same goes for just about any other claim or attempt to gain or exercise power or influence.

Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe?  Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.

Yes. The gullible audience. That is who decides.
Sonofagunzel
Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct. I have never seen such an illogical argument and poor understanding of science - EVER!

Don’t tell us you’re not a scientist, we already know.

I mean really, ‘without debate there is no science’, if you don’t know what science is, that okay, just tell us and we’ll explain it to you, no need to create some weird word salad trying show you know, we can see you do not.

‘Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe?  Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.’ Wow! I just don’t have anything kind to say to you in regard to this.

So you think that without debate there is no science? Because I know about entropy and can validate physical possibilities in respect to the second law of thermodynamics that because you could come along and tell me that you have built a machine that violates the first law of thermodynamics that this makes you a part of science? You’re going to be making ‘the debate’ and I am going to look at you with distain and probably walk off laughing, absolutely not partaking in anything that vaguely resembles a debate on this.

Debate is not essential to science; science is the very precise opposite of that. It is fundamental and anyone that knows anything about science knows it. Science is science because we have testable, and importantly fallible, hypothesis that are VALIDATED and confirmed by experiment and observation and then PEER REVIEWED, to confirm the results. Validation and peer review are not about debate (unless either are not found, in which case the testable, fallible, hypothesis at the origin is NOT a fact in science), validation and review are about finding concurrence.

There is no rational debate on gravitation, it’s existence or function, do you think this is not science? I am not aware of anyone sanely debating the photoelectric effect - do you think Einstein’s work was not science?

‘Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe?  Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.’ It’s trivial, the real scientists who validate data and undertake peer review - absolutely obvious if you actually know what science is.

‘The gullible audience. That is who decides.’ - absolutely not, this is actually the most likely route to the beginnings of religion, not science.

Sponsored advertisement

  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Those conspiracy theorists also said the vaccine contains microchips, make you magnetic, mind control substances, or the most hilarious one was everyone who had it would be dead in 3 months yet here I am.
GT46C-ACe
You forgot that they would ruin your 5G reception…

‘The vaccine is being made by Bill Gates to depopulate the world’ - err, no, that is what the virus is trying to do… And Bill, and every other person in business wants to keep you alive, because there are almost exactly zero cases ever, in which a corpse has been known to purchase a product.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
I used to think the same about the vaccines being leaky until told off site what portion of new cases in New South Wales in late December were in fully vaccinated people. There is now work on vaccines that will provide a general immune response rather than relying on the spike protein.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct.
I guess Galileo was wrong, then.  And Voltaire.

How fortunate we are to have Aaron to set us all straight!

Thanks Aaron!
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct.
I guess Galileo was wrong, then.  And Voltaire.

How fortunate we are to have Aaron to set us all straight!

Thanks Aaron!
Sonofagunzel
I am not sure what your point is; not sure what you think Voltaire contributed to science - he wrote some about it, but I am not sure he is remembered for being a great scientist, have you read any of his works?
  billybaxter Chief Commissioner

Location: Bosnia Park, Fairfield
Ha! Sonofagunzel gets pantsed by Aaron again! When in comes to science, Aaron is mighty impressive.
  justapassenger Minister for Railways

And Bill, and every other person in business wants to keep you alive, because there are almost exactly zero cases ever, in which a corpse has been known to purchase a product.
Aaron
But they have been known to vote, which may explain the lack of interest in keeping people alive from, for example, the state government of Florida.
  doyle Chief Commissioner

Well both our kids had Covid last week.  Both unvaxxed.  Both had it very mild.  No worse than a typical cold.  Symptoms perhaps lasted a day or two longer than a normal cold.

Nearly all of my daughter's Primary School class including her teacher got it.  Most now back and keen to learn.  Done and dusted....

And neither my wife and I caught it despite being in the same house for a week.  Lots of Vitamin C, Zinc, and time in the backyard.
Carnot

Same for my grand daughter 5 years old, was prem baby was quite unwell for two days tested positive Friday last week but today has woken up dark eyes and congested and saying her bones are sore (body aches) not so done and dusted
my daughter her husband and 3 year old boy still negative

*Update*
My grand son 3 year old Reuben tested positive today
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Ha! Sonofagunzel gets pantsed by Aaron again! When in comes to science, Aaron is mighty impressive.
billybaxter
Wow, I never thought that I would ever have a groupie.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
And Bill, and every other person in business wants to keep you alive, because there are almost exactly zero cases ever, in which a corpse has been known to purchase a product.
But they have been known to vote, which may explain the lack of interest in keeping people alive from, for example, the state government of Florida.
justapassenger
Florida is a state of mind, which I am afraid to say, I just don’t understand.

EDIT: Do I work with you? I was having a conversation at work last week on nearly the exact same topic.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Well both our kids had Covid last week.  Both unvaxxed.  Both had it very mild.  No worse than a typical cold.  Symptoms perhaps lasted a day or two longer than a normal cold.

Nearly all of my daughter's Primary School class including her teacher got it.  Most now back and keen to learn.  Done and dusted....

And neither my wife and I caught it despite being in the same house for a week.  Lots of Vitamin C, Zinc, and time in the backyard.
Carnot
You and your wife didn’t catch it because you’re either vaccinated - which should give you some evidence of efficacy, or luck. Increasing the cost of your urine sure didn’t have anything to do with it.
  Myrtone Chief Commissioner

Location: North Carlton, Melbourne, Victoria
But they have been known to vote, which may explain the lack of interest in keeping people alive from, for example, the state government of Florida.
justapassenger
Florida's governor, Ron DeSantis, has also banned proof-of-COVID-19 vaccine requirements in his state.
  doyle Chief Commissioner

"Wow, I never thought that I would ever have a groupie.
Aaron

Do you sing are you in a band a motivational speaker..... tickets
  Carnot Minister for Railways

An interesting study out of Imperial College in London which was mentioned in today's Fairfax papers.

Some people have T-cells from previous common colds that can offer some level of protection from getting Covid:



We also kept windows open much of the time. Kids have a lower viral load which helps too.

Meanwhile, the Danish are right:
  doyle Chief Commissioner

Fairfax is long gone its Nine Entertainment Co.
  Carnot Minister for Railways

So a mainstream Imperial College study being mentioned in Fairfax media is 'beyond the pale' and must be ignored.

Good grief.
  doyle Chief Commissioner

If you are replying to me Carnot that was a very interesting read thank you
Fairfax is now called and owned by nine entertainment company https://www.nineforbrands.com.au/
  Carnot Minister for Railways

No worries.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Ha! Sonofagunzel gets pantsed by Aaron again! When in comes to science, Aaron is mighty impressive.
Wow, I never thought that I would ever have a groupie.
Aaron
Me neither.  He seems to be having recurring fantasies about me with my pants off.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct.
I guess Galileo was wrong, then.  And Voltaire.

How fortunate we are to have Aaron to set us all straight!

Thanks Aaron!
I am not sure what your point is
Aaron
That is something we can agree on.

not sure what you think Voltaire contributed to science - he wrote some about it, but I am not sure he is remembered for being a great scientist, have you read any of his works?
Aaron
Perhaps you might have a think why I specifically chose to refer to Galileo and Voltaire.

You are missing the point.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Let me help you understand.  I've underlined some words you seem to have missed.

Sadly, DirtyBallast, I think you just demonstrated again that you don’t get it.

The point is that there is no correct or acceptable answer to the question “who can say?”.  As soon as you give some specific person or group the power to silence opposing views, they are no longer exercising expertise, they are exercising power.

This is the case with science just as much as any other claims.

Science works by challenging existing ideas. Without debate, there is no science. Without science, there are no scientists. Scientists are only experts if and only to the extent that their ideas are subject to challenge and have survived all such challenges. There is no such thing as “the science”. Scientific knowledge is always provisional, always up for debate. As soon as this is not the case, it is no longer science.

A scientist who wants to silence opposing views ceases to be a scientist, and has become an activist and a political player. They are wielding power, not expertise.

Even if you disagree with that, then you have to tell us which scientists get to decide what views are misinformation, and therefore should be silenced?  

If your answer is scientific consensus, then who gets to decide what that is, and whether it is achieved?  By definition, we are talking about situations where at least someone disagrees. What exactly is a consensus?  90%?  50%?  What if the minority turn out to be right?  As soon as you stifle debate, you close off the very process that produces scientific progress.

The same goes for just about any other claim or attempt to gain or exercise power or influence.

Who ultimately has the right to decide who we can listen to and what we believe?  Each one of us. That is ultimately the only acceptable answer.

Yes. The gullible audience. That is who decides.
SOAG


Hopefully, I won't need to do a point by point answer to your response.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

And Bill, and every other person in business wants to keep you alive, because there are almost exactly zero cases ever, in which a corpse has been known to purchase a product.
But they have been known to vote, which may explain the lack of interest in keeping people alive from, for example, the state government of Florida.
justapassenger


The age-adjusted death rate from COVID in Florida is similar to or better than a number of other states where there have been harder lockdowns and stricter mandates, such as California and New York.



Source: https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-adjusted-covid-deaths/
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
Wow, amazing, so many thoughts in one post and none of them are correct.
I guess Galileo was wrong, then.  And Voltaire.

How fortunate we are to have Aaron to set us all straight!

Thanks Aaron!
I am not sure what your point is
That is something we can agree on.

not sure what you think Voltaire contributed to science - he wrote some about it, but I am not sure he is remembered for being a great scientist, have you read any of his works?
Perhaps you might have a think why I specifically chose to refer to Galileo and Voltaire.

You are missing the point.
Voltaire was not a scientist, he contributed near nothing to science, his one scientific claim to fame was to take Newton’s thinking to France, he didn’t debate in science, he didn’t defend a thesis, I am not sure you know much about him.

Galileo was a scientist, one of the greats of his time, I happen to own an early copy (but sadly reprint) of Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo, in Italian language, which I cannot read, I do however also own a much more recent edition in English, on that I also own prints of Copernicus’ paper De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (which Google helpfully translates to ‘Copernicus’ for you) in Latin and Polish, which again I cannot sufficiently read, but also in English. I however digress.

Galileo, again, was not of meaningful debate within science, Copernicus’ work was relatively known at the time, and Galileo further advanced the heliocentric theory or model to describe our solar system (aka ‘the correct model’). His primary ‘debate’ on this was not with other scientists (of which, prior to Galileo there weren’t really any), as stated before, Copernicus’ work was well known and in what could be regarded as the ‘scientific minds’ there was not much question it seems that Copernicus and Galileo were correct.

The ‘debate’ you might be thinking of, and thank you for allowing me the segue to one of my favourite pastimes, came near strictly from the intellectual pygmies in/following the Catholic Church - people absolutely the antithesis of science. Seriously, if you claim your knowledge from the word of an all knowing, all powerful and supremely good god, you might want to make sure that you first have the obvious things like the relative motion of our star, planet, moon and rest of the solar system correctly understood. If your god is all knowing, it should know this smeg, if it’s all powerful it should be trivial to communicate this, and especially if it’s supremely good it shouldn’t allow its representatives on earth to effectively place the smartest person on the planet at the time under effective house arrest for that especially heinous crime of … being right …

You think ‘scientists’ who think a few seconds on Google or Doctors reading the abstract of a paper that was not reviewed and presenting it as hard fact whilst forgetting that correlation does not imply causation (which is what Peter McCullough did) getting spanked by real scientists is an abuse of power? - What do you make of Galileo’s treatment? The first real scientist, getting literally shut down by Urban VIII for actually presenting evidence that he had it right.

Security wouldn’t let you in, but if they would, you could walk into my lab and attempt to ‘debate’ with me and my colleagues that the energy of the first stationary state of Li2+ isn’t -44.1x10-18J atom-1 - you really could try and debate that, but you ‘being in that debate’ wouldn’t make you a scientist, it wouldn’t make your debated point ‘science’, it would just make you and your point wrong!

Further, us saying ‘security, take this person away, we don’t want them here’ isn’t about us having or exercising excessive power, it’s just about us having real smeg to do and you being in the bloody way - and likely to touch something you shouldn’t, probably issuing yourself a life altering dose of radiation.
  Aaron The Ghost of George Stephenson

Location: University of Adelaide SA
And Bill, and every other person in business wants to keep you alive, because there are almost exactly zero cases ever, in which a corpse has been known to purchase a product.
But they have been known to vote, which may explain the lack of interest in keeping people alive from, for example, the state government of Florida.


The age-adjusted death rate from COVID in Florida is similar to or better than a number of other states where there have been harder lockdowns and stricter mandates, such as California and New York.



Source: https://www.bioinformaticscro.com/blog/states-ranked-by-age-adjusted-covid-deaths/
Sonofagunzel
You’ve picked the wrong comparison point, you picked one to suit what you wanted to convey, not one that was sensible and going to give an understanding of what is actually being shown.

Of Florida’s large populations, Jacksonville, Tampa, Orlando and Miami, Miami is the only city that is really compact and densely populated. Miami has about half a million people at about 13,000 per sq mile, Jacksonville is only about 10% of that, Tampa about 30% of that and Orlando 20% of that.

California is a rather large state, and a bit more spread, nearly four million in LA, one and a half million in San Diego, a million in San Jose, a little less than that in San Francisco, with Fresno, Sacramento and Long Beach all having somewhere near a half million. Of those, San Francisco is the highest population density near 19,000 per sq mile, Long Beach and LA both being about half that, with all the aforementioned locales being way higher density than Tampa, even Oakland is twice as population dense at Tampa.

New York, NYC well what’s to say 27,000 per sq mile.

If deaths are a function of infections and infections are a function of transmissivity and transmissivity is linked to close contact, it is, which is why ‘close contact tracing’ is a thing then New York is doing well to be as low as it is, and California being lower than Florida means that Florida isn’t doing well - it’s done the worse than the others.

Ergo, the lockdowns in New York in particular did well, and California’s lockdowns helped it gain a better result, despite having locales of greater population densities over Florida.

Here’s an interesting correlation - which states are in the Bible Belt?

Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Generally all pretty high on the death chart there, maybe prayer doesn’t work after all. Who am I kidding, we know it never did.
  Sonofagunzel Minister for Railways

Aaron, it seems that Italian isn’t the only language you cannot understand.

You are still missing the point.

Let me help you a little more.

You appear to be talking about how we decide what to believe. However, I am talking about who should be allowed to speak, and what we should be allowed to hear.

You say debate is not essential to science. Are you saying that scientific papers don’t refer to earlier findings and respond with with new evidence that tends to support or improve or question or even disprove the earlier findings? Are you saying that’s not a form of debate?  Do you think that process would still work if opposing views were silenced?

You say there’s no debate about gravity or the photoelectric effect. That’s only because the debate has already been had, and since then, no one has come up with an argument or evidence that disproves it.

But even that’s not completely true. Einstein built on Newton’s ideas, and later still those ideas were supported by evidence. And Einstein didn’t win by silencing opposition, he did so by having the better arguments that survived all challenges and when tested, his ideas were supported by the evidence. And no one is prevented from postulating a better hypothesis - it’s just that no one has done so. It’s still up for debate, even if there is no current debate.

And are you really saying that the orthodox views about COVID are as settled in science as gravity and the laws of thermodynamics?  That there is no uncertainty?  No gaps in the data? No evidence that may suggest that for some cohorts, the vax may be of little or no benefit? No rational disagreement as to the best way forward and how to balance the COVID risks against other risks and downsides that arise from government decisions?

Are you seriously saying that we, the great gullible unwashed who are being asked/required to inject stuff into ourselves, or are being asked/required to put our lives on hold, cannot even ask questions or hear the questions others are asking?  That those exercising power over us through vax mandates, lockdowns or de-platforming should just be trusted without question?

Again, I am not talking about how we decide who to believe and what to do. I am not even objecting to a requirement to disclose that opinions being discussed are not in accord with current official or expert advice. I am talking about what we are allowed to  say and what we are allowed to hear.  

And spare us the “I bought a book I can’t read (therefore I’m better than you)” shtick.   Spare us the content-less paragraphs that assert without any evidence or rational argument that others don’t know what science is. You seem to think you are demonstrating superior knowledge, but in fact you are demonstrating the opposite. As a scientist, you should know better how your profession works, how science can overcome human incompetence, self-interest, bias and fallibility - even among the scientists themselves.  You should know better what makes science the most credible way of studying reality. Clearly, you don’t.

And you still can't see the relevance of Galileo, and nor do you know the history as well as you think you do.  Scientific acceptance of the Copernican model was gradual, and resistance in the scientific community was based on evidentiary and theoretical objections, not just on theology.  The Copernican model was still competing with Brahe's model in scientific circles into the 18th century.  Scientists didn't try to silence Galileo, or if they did they weren't engaging in science as we now know it.  A good summary of the history from a scientific development perspective is here:
https://www.loc.gov/collections/finding-our-place-in-the-cosmos-with-carl-sagan/articles-and-essays/modeling-the-cosmos/

But in any case, the relevant point about Galileo is that silencing opposing views is bad for science.  You seem to agree but can't bring yourself to openly acknowledge the point.

And you still can't figure out why I referred to Voltaire. Apparently he’s irrelevant to you because he’s not a scientist.

Read my post again, with a little less aarrogance this time.

Sponsored advertisement

Display from: