- This topic has 82 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 1 year, 12 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Oscar, that’s an interesting reply that seems reasonable. However, the subjects you have composed it around are highly esoteric, and relevant reliable data about them is sparse.
There is a danger in your original distinction between science and “science”, because powerful bodies are trying to mislead both the public and politicians in order to influence how they vote, in public elections and votes internal to governments respectively. The subjects of these influence campaigns are not esoteric, and relevant data is copious and freely available to the public and politicians. To make matters worse, how we’d all like to behave, and how we all should behave in light of the data, are in direct opposition to each other.
Under these circumstances, the danger in your distinction is that the public and politicians may classify epidemiology and climate science among “science” rather than science, and therefore consider the propaganda of influence campaigns to be as valid as the scientific communities’ best genuine efforts. I have already seen that things have become seriously unbalanced at Wikispooks, with no critical thinking applied regarding covid, and I have indications that the same applies there about anthropogenic global heating.
Bad information often causes avoidable suffering and death.
“Mental health is the ongoing process of dedication to reality at all costs”
— M Scott Peck, US psychiatrist.Oscar, indeed, I have just checked your links and found a couple of bloopers in your second one – PCR has not been “misused to create a false pandemic”; simple critical thinking applied to the overall mortality figures blows this claim completely out of the water.
The covid PCR test positivity rate consistently predicted the hospital admission rate a week later, and the overall mortality rate (ie. death from all causes rate) a week after that. PCR could not have done that if it were as unreliable as claimed, unless all the statistical staff in local authorities and hospitals all over the world had been co-opted to produce false overall mortality rates to match the false PCR data.
Using PCR to sample infection rate among the population is NOT the same as using it for diagnosis, so the oft-repeated but quote-mined single sentence from one of PCR’s developers was clearly being misused.
—
[ Mod: For the record, the links to the Wikispooks articles on ‘Science/Problematic notions’, ‘Rigged Science’, and ‘Science’ were added by moderators to make the critique relevant to the Wikispooks topic, and as clarification (since ‘Oscar’ had referred obliquely to that content on Wikispooks). ]On the other hand, the same link contains two very relevant quotes about how the pharmaceutical companies warp efficacy data about their products.
It should be noted that big pharma have to put huge resources into achieving fairly modest distortions; they spend around twice as much on admin and marketing as they do on research, whereas marketing should have no place at all in pharmaceuticals; publicly verifiable efficacy should be the sole determining factor of their sales. What they actually achieve is getting some pill onto the marketplace and keeping it there for a few years despite it doing some harm or doing less good than they make out.
But extrapolating from this to claims of hoaxing an entire pandemic should ring warning bells and flash red lights – especially when the entire commercial system was losing profits due to lockdowns.
Clark, I have assumed that Wikispooks has dealt with issues like the pandemic in a rigorous and serious way – as I do. It is probably foolhardy to assume certain things and hold them up as an example.
I’m not going to go into my examples or any others I can think of because they are completely off-topic. I have not been very accurate with my examples, to be honest. Although I could provide a lot of data… but that’s not appropriate.
Thank you for your interesting reflection. Certainly in a postmodern era of post-truth, where words have more power than facts, the very word “science” can be instrumentalised by one or the other.
You have left me thoughtful… and very much so! Very well brought up the quote. Thank you. I hope that those who read them will benefit in the same way.
Best regards,
Oscar
I am frankly impressed by the high level of intellectual and social interaction on these forums, both from the users and the moderators.
It has been an honour and a pleasure to exchange words, symbols of symbols, here.
I will be reading more than writing for some time to come. Thanks to all of you.
I have a lot to learn.
Congratulations on the space you have built, here.
Fraternally,
Oscar
Oscar, thanks for the endorsement. I think Wikispooks has some very good material; critical thinking is in short supply everywhere, not just at Wikispooks. I’m forever recommending Bad Science by Ben Goldacre. The alternative healers think it’s an attack on alternative healers, the pharmaceutical companies think it’s an attack on the pharmaceutical companies; they’re all too self-obsessed to notice that it is in fact a book about how the corporatocratic (CRAP) media (with thanks to ET) has spent decades undermining public rationality and critical thinking.
And *** MODS ***, many thanks for the judiciously added links, which spurred productive debate.
Wikispooks is back to normal again, it would seem.
I had an email to say that apparently someone called Alhareth Albusani was attempting to take legal action against anyone who mentions the death of Tracy Twyman (ooops, I have just done so – sorry if you get a legal letter).
Something very dodgy going on, methinks.
