There’s an old saying that I’ve grown quite fond of recently: you can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into. When most of us “research” an issue, what we are actually doing is:
formulating an initial opinion the first time we hear about something,
evaluating everything we encounter after that through that lens of our gut instinct,
finding reasons to think positively about the portions of the narrative that support or justify our initial opinion,
and finding reasons to discount or otherwise dismiss the portions that detract from it.
while failing to see that writer himself does exact this
Do the people who write this stuff actually believe it?
Could a person not do some digging without the burden of emotion and confirmation bias?
If this was not possible how in the actual fuck did America get to the moon? Or make possible the billions of other human achievements throughout history?
Likely purpose of the story is to reinforce the idea that everything in the realm of government and science is well beyond the meager mental capabilities of a lowly peon like you or I. No no, these important decisions should be left to our betters, free of outside influence and emotional reasoning, better people than you or I. I know this because they tell me so every day on the television.
Obviously well educated authority figures did all those things. Not us stupid plebs.
And yes I think the people writing this stuff actually believe it because most things are beyond their meager mental capabilities. The typical journalist could NOT hope to understand any scientific paper. Science is magic to them.
And yes, the archived link title says "Meteor Shower Tonight?", but it redirects you to the correct page...
Odd. Maybe they either redacted the article from being linked to externally (if someone can explain that better, I would appreciate it), or they have some way of interfering with the archiving...
But anyway, it'll take you to the correct page/article, as per what I wrote above, which is definitely still there and active, at least on my end...
Let’s start with a simple, low-stakes example: fluoridated drinking water. On the one hand, fluoride is a simple ion that shows up in various concentrations, including naturally through calcium fluoride, in bodies of water all across the world. When humans ingest too little of it, particularly at a young age, it leads to weakened tooth enamel and greater rates of cavities; when humans ingest too much of it, it leads to tooth discoloration and various severities of dental fluorosis. In extreme cases, significantly too much or too little fluoride can also lead to other problems, such as osteoporosis (with too little) or skeletal fluorosis (with too much).
In most places in the United States and Canada, our drinking water is fluoridated at a specific level that’s safe and effective for humans of all ages ... And yet, there are major cities in the world, like Portland, OR or Calgary, Alberta, where the public or city council, respectively, has voted (in the case of Portland, repeatedly) to not add fluoride to their drinking water. As expected, the typical cavity rates in children — when controlled for socioeconomic demographics — are about 40% higher. The idea that “our water is natural” and “adding fluoride isn’t” has proven more powerful in swaying public opinion in these locations than the science supporting fluoride’s safety and effectiveness. To the voting public, a fear of chemicals and an affinity for what feels natural was more compelling than the dental health of poor children, despite near-universal support from dental health professionals.
Even his own fucking example doesn't demonstrate the harm of looking into the data yourself.
It's just pointing and jeering at someone who's beliefs are not based on the provided data at all, and baselessly smearing anyone who looks for the data themselves to be somehow equivalent.
There is no excuse, with all the wonderful scientists and science communicators telling the truth about a whole slew of issues in our world.
Hahaha science communicators always tell the truth, science communicators said so and they always tell the truth!
The best scientists in the world — even the ones who hold contrarian beliefs of their own — all agree that we should base our policies on the scientific consensus that we’ve achieved.
No they fucking don't, if they did they wouldn't hold beliefs that could be labeled 'contrarian'. By holding to those beliefs they demonstrate a belief that at least sometimes the scientific consensus can fail to settle on or lagg behind the truth. Some of them might still broadly believe in the accuracy of the publicly presented scientific consensus outside of their specific topics of dissent. But IMO at this point that probably means they just haven't interacted with enough new editors and science communicators yet, and come to terms how many corrupt and intellectually bankrupt gatekeepers currently shepherd that 'consensus'.
But that requires a kind of transformation within yourself. It means that you need to be humble, and admit that you, yourself, lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the science before you. It means that you need to be brave enough to turn to the consensus of scientific experts and ask, legitimately, what we know at the present stage. And it means you need to be open-minded enough to understand that your preconceptions are quite likely to be wrong in some, many, or possibly even all ways.
"Doubt yourself more! Believe you are incapable of understanding literally anything on your own, I want limitless opportunity to gaslight people even harder."
Science can tell you how likely you are to die from COVID, Science can't tell you if you're willing to spend the rest of your life wearing a mask and remaining 6 feet from other people.
"I Made a Covid-19 Vaccine in my Kitchen and it Worked - Science Still Sucks"
I hate science. It's so elitist.
I have an internal dialogue going all the time trying to convince myself that I don't want my work to be called science. What I do is completely different, more sacred, honest and open and yes sometimes flawed. Sometimes I hide the fact that I have a Ph.D. because I don’t want it to be a symbol of authority or intelligence for myself. It also feels douchey to tell people I have a Ph.D. I want to be judged by my actions, not where I went to school, which can be primarily determined by your parents financial status and education level. I grew up on a farm in rural Indiana. We ate eggs from our chickens and drank dehydrated milk. Up until even high school my family was dirt poor. We had our electricity shut-off and had to take cold showers. When we couldn't afford the phone bill, I walked to 7-11 and used the payphone to call my friends. Violence, evictions, car repossessions — you name it, I’ve lived it. Starting undergrad at SIU I was homeless and lived out of my car and slept on the dorm room floors of people I knew.
When I was in graduate school, 99% of my peers did not come from a similar background. It was abundantly clear that the practice of science and medicine is only accessible to the upper crust. That’s an issue in itself, but the fucking humongous gigantic bigger problem is that cutting-edge medicines are also only available to the societal elite. Time and time again throughout this pandemic, we’ve watched as the wealthy and powerful get all the unapproved drugs to treat their covid, while all of us peasants sit back and do our best not to die without them. The 108 Regeneron antibody cocktails all went to Washington DC.
That’s why I left academia. Why I quit my job at NASA and started doing science as a biohacker. I want everyone to be able to do science without any gatekeepers. The single greatest impediment to diversity in science is access to knowledge and information that is being held tighter than Ric Flair’s Figure Four Leg Lock.
Biohackers are setting knowledge free.
In May 2020, an article came out in science magazine where researchers showed that by using a DNA vaccine that codes for the SARS-COV2 spike protein, they could create antibodies that provide protection from covid-19 in macaque monkeys without harmful side-effects. Getting good monkey data is basically the best pre-human data you can ever hope to get. Most people only have experimental data from mouse tests. When I see a paper like this the gears in my brain begin to spin because there is a good chance the FDA would approve this for human testing.
So, I decided to test it myself. The project perfectly fit a niche where biohackers have an experimental advantage over academia and industry. With enough knowledge and skill, we could perform quick but data-laden experiments to show whether the same DNA vaccine tested on monkeys would be promising in humans. And instead of taking months or years we could have results in as little as a few weeks.
[...]
funny how writer asserts that:
while failing to see that writer himself does exact this
Do the people who write this stuff actually believe it? Could a person not do some digging without the burden of emotion and confirmation bias? If this was not possible how in the actual fuck did America get to the moon? Or make possible the billions of other human achievements throughout history?
Likely purpose of the story is to reinforce the idea that everything in the realm of government and science is well beyond the meager mental capabilities of a lowly peon like you or I. No no, these important decisions should be left to our betters, free of outside influence and emotional reasoning, better people than you or I. I know this because they tell me so every day on the television.
Obviously well educated authority figures did all those things. Not us stupid plebs.
And yes I think the people writing this stuff actually believe it because most things are beyond their meager mental capabilities. The typical journalist could NOT hope to understand any scientific paper. Science is magic to them.
"Sniffing (their own) farts" and all that...
Has never been more true, honestly, lol. Depressingly...
Of course not, for it is written by the holy prophet Saint Fauci, "I am the lord The Science. Thou shalt not have any gods before me."
Don't think bruh
Just listen to the experts bruh
Why you thinking so hard bruh
(Sounds of slow mumbling half sentences)
And yes, the archived link title says "Meteor Shower Tonight?", but it redirects you to the correct page...
Odd. Maybe they either redacted the article from being linked to externally (if someone can explain that better, I would appreciate it), or they have some way of interfering with the archiving...
But anyway, it'll take you to the correct page/article, as per what I wrote above, which is definitely still there and active, at least on my end...
Even his own fucking example doesn't demonstrate the harm of looking into the data yourself.
It's just pointing and jeering at someone who's beliefs are not based on the provided data at all, and baselessly smearing anyone who looks for the data themselves to be somehow equivalent.
Hahaha science communicators always tell the truth, science communicators said so and they always tell the truth!
No they fucking don't, if they did they wouldn't hold beliefs that could be labeled 'contrarian'. By holding to those beliefs they demonstrate a belief that at least sometimes the scientific consensus can fail to settle on or lagg behind the truth. Some of them might still broadly believe in the accuracy of the publicly presented scientific consensus outside of their specific topics of dissent. But IMO at this point that probably means they just haven't interacted with enough new editors and science communicators yet, and come to terms how many corrupt and intellectually bankrupt gatekeepers currently shepherd that 'consensus'.
"Doubt yourself more! Believe you are incapable of understanding literally anything on your own, I want limitless opportunity to gaslight people even harder."
Science can tell you how likely you are to die from COVID, Science can't tell you if you're willing to spend the rest of your life wearing a mask and remaining 6 feet from other people.
From the early days of the pandemic: http://www.josiahzayner.com/2020/12/i-made-covid-19-vaccine-in-my-kitchen.html https://archive.is/mKx2Q
===everything after this is from those link:
"I Made a Covid-19 Vaccine in my Kitchen and it Worked - Science Still Sucks"
I hate science. It's so elitist.
I have an internal dialogue going all the time trying to convince myself that I don't want my work to be called science. What I do is completely different, more sacred, honest and open and yes sometimes flawed. Sometimes I hide the fact that I have a Ph.D. because I don’t want it to be a symbol of authority or intelligence for myself. It also feels douchey to tell people I have a Ph.D. I want to be judged by my actions, not where I went to school, which can be primarily determined by your parents financial status and education level. I grew up on a farm in rural Indiana. We ate eggs from our chickens and drank dehydrated milk. Up until even high school my family was dirt poor. We had our electricity shut-off and had to take cold showers. When we couldn't afford the phone bill, I walked to 7-11 and used the payphone to call my friends. Violence, evictions, car repossessions — you name it, I’ve lived it. Starting undergrad at SIU I was homeless and lived out of my car and slept on the dorm room floors of people I knew.
When I was in graduate school, 99% of my peers did not come from a similar background. It was abundantly clear that the practice of science and medicine is only accessible to the upper crust. That’s an issue in itself, but the fucking humongous gigantic bigger problem is that cutting-edge medicines are also only available to the societal elite. Time and time again throughout this pandemic, we’ve watched as the wealthy and powerful get all the unapproved drugs to treat their covid, while all of us peasants sit back and do our best not to die without them. The 108 Regeneron antibody cocktails all went to Washington DC.
That’s why I left academia. Why I quit my job at NASA and started doing science as a biohacker. I want everyone to be able to do science without any gatekeepers. The single greatest impediment to diversity in science is access to knowledge and information that is being held tighter than Ric Flair’s Figure Four Leg Lock.
Biohackers are setting knowledge free.
In May 2020, an article came out in science magazine where researchers showed that by using a DNA vaccine that codes for the SARS-COV2 spike protein, they could create antibodies that provide protection from covid-19 in macaque monkeys without harmful side-effects. Getting good monkey data is basically the best pre-human data you can ever hope to get. Most people only have experimental data from mouse tests. When I see a paper like this the gears in my brain begin to spin because there is a good chance the FDA would approve this for human testing.
So, I decided to test it myself. The project perfectly fit a niche where biohackers have an experimental advantage over academia and industry. With enough knowledge and skill, we could perform quick but data-laden experiments to show whether the same DNA vaccine tested on monkeys would be promising in humans. And instead of taking months or years we could have results in as little as a few weeks. [...]