Funny (political, religious) pictures
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
This makes me sad.
Most of the comments on the video were either exactly this or else "When can I move there?"
--Patrick
Traditionally, Scientists and Engineers are less likely to be beholden to an ideology, they pursue science and engineering for science and engineering's sake.
--Patrick
Your own James Madison said it well: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. " Apply this to just about any place where PEOPLE have something to gain from bias, and you get the current state of just about anything. Are the people on both sides biased? Why? What do each have to gain and why? Is there decent evidence on multiple sides of an issue, and if so, how can similar data be interpreted so widely differently? Who is being MOST shady?
Science is hardly immune from this. Just look at how it took 15 YEARS for extremely clear evidence to get even a bit of treatments changed on Ulcers, and that article doesn't even go over how the two main authors had to infect themselves to prove that bacteria (not stress) was the cause of the vast majority of ulcers. So it's not hard at all to believe something even slightly less clear-cut could have people on both sides of it.
Reminder: I'm Belgian.
Fair enough, I'm Canadian. I meant it more towards all in this thread, but I quoted you, so being indignant is fully justified.Reminder: I'm Belgian.
That might be true in many cases, but I'll put my own experience out there for Engineers: It's a combination of "born with it" and "I'm in it for the money." If money were no object, I think I'd try the High School Science teacher route. But there's NO WAY IN HELL I'd even consider doing that when I can work less hours, and make double/triple (or more) as an engineer.
OTOH I've been called a prototypical Engineer by a number of people in various circumstances based on how I comment on things, see the world, analyze things, etc. So there's likely at least some of that acting there too. But you get invested in whatever you're doing, just like anyone else. We're all still human, and treating scientists, engineers, or anybody as different than human gets much much more dangerous. Most "pure" scientists (researchers) are constantly chasing grant money. Hell, a significant number of the comics on PHD are about just that. Similarly, engineers get "into" whatever they're employed and/or have experience with. So bias occurs quite easily, even taking out emotional attachment completely.
I would call you an archetypal Engineer just based on what I've seen of your posts here.
And also the fact that you chose to use the word "prototype" instead of "stereotype."
In fact, sometimes it's tough to respond to your posts, because I have to devote more cycles than usual to tailoring it to you in order to minimize misunderstanding.
--Patrick
Last edited:
Ya, "prototype" is the wrong word.
I find it sad that you feel you need to tailor around me, but at the same time I know I do that for a few posters here and there as well (you're not one of them Patrick... I think), but I also find you pretty easy to understand most of the time, so I guess that could go either way.
Oh for fucks sakes... a fallacious argument isn't false... stop using concepts you fail to grasp. On the same note, a perfectly valid argument doesn't mean shit if your premise if false.
And secondly, it's not an appeal to authority to refer to the research of experts. Just because you don't understand how Einsein proved e=mc2 doesn't mean you can't use him proving it as an argument, whithout having to prove it yourself.
Sure sounds better then "i think over 90% of them are either lying or wrong about something that they've been studying for decades, and already has had noticeable effects on the world, and has been acknowledged by fucking Exxon".
Straw sure burns easy.
figmentPez
Staff member
And, yet, for nearly 50 years the sugar industry successfully shifted the blame for heart disease from sugar to fat.
Clarke’s third law, and all that.
In a study funded by the sugar industry, reviewed by the sugar industry, and no doubt conducted under the watchful eye of the sugar industry.
And hand sanitizer “kills 99% of germs including the virus that causes the common cold,” but we both know all that means is that it was 99% successful once, and we don’t know how many times they had to run that test before they finally got a 99% result.
I’m not saying that scientists are incorruptible, I’m just saying that story about the engineer and the guillotine is funny to us because has some actual basis in reality.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
You don't seem to get it. That one study didn't just sit there, a lone falsehood. It influenced the mainstream medical opinion for decades. Snackwells cookies and the low fat craze of the 80s owes their existence to not only the original Harvard study that the sugar industry bought and paid for in the 1960s, but many other medical and scientific research that followed. That study influenced other studies. Doctors told their patients that they needed to cut out fat, and said nothing of sugar's relation to heart disease, for decades because of corporate manipulation.
No, I get it. In the 50’s, science was king, and marketing people took advantage of it, and later studies didn’t question 50’s studies too deeply because again, it was a time when scientists were held in high respect. And because this was found out, now we are suffering the “How do we know that ANY science is true?” backlash.
—Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
Okay, you get it better than I would have expected from your other posts. It sucks that we have to ask that question, but I also think that scientists are doing a really shitty job of answering it, because a lot of them fall back to "You know it's true because we're scientists" and that's an non-answer.
It's better than the real answer, which is "See? The data speak for themselves!" except that of course in order to make any sense of those data, you have to have the extra years of study required to draw your own conclusions from the data...which would make you a scientist. So really "because we're scientists" is often the condensed version of "We would explain it to you but because you don't have our years of study you wouldn't understand it anyway and if I tried to explain it you would just glaze over and tune out so you should probably just take our word for it."
I've already mentioned that I consider myself a scientist, so I believe I grok what really motivates a (true) scientist: the desire to know more, to uncover new things, to divine an object's function and place in the Universe. BUT scientists are people, and people have needs, and so scientists are preyed upon by those who would use their credibility to bolster their own agenda, much like they would use celebrities to lend their fame.
I'm still horribly bitter about all the obstacles I would need to overcome in order to science, and this means I have absolutely NO tolerance for those who have lucked into the means, but then deliberately falsify data/research/results in order to fit a desired result. Falsifying research and therefore generating bad data points for future researchers is nothing but casual sabotage, in my opinion, and is social irresponsibility of the highest order.
--Patrick
figmentPez
Staff member
You've completely left out peer review, among many other vital steps in the scientific method. And not just peer review to deal with lying, but just peer review to deal with error. Which is why I hate "because we're scientists". It leaves out so much that you just assume, and it goes along with the lack of self-examination that led to turning a blind eye to the link between sugar and heart disease for so long. It's not just that scientists were paid off and lied, errors like that creep into science even with the best of intentions, and a lack of critical re-examination leads to huge problems. If A -> B -> C -> D (oversimplying the actual web of conflusions) that's fine, but people forget to recheck D if A is disproven somewhere down the line, because they may not even realize that A led to D, if it's actuallly N we're talking about and A only indrectly influenced D3, H17, and L4.
The data can't speak for itself, beyond that data point. There's a lot of science that can't be interpreted by any one person directly from the data. Some, sure, but not something like "____ is a cause of heart disease". Even to understand that study takes education that was based on other studies, which were based on understandings of anatomy, which was based on other data, which was based on studies whose assumptions may or may not have been disproven since they were done, and that may or may not have any impact at all on the understandings of anatomy they led to, which may or may not... etc, etc. etc.
It's a huge complex system, and it works amazingly well, all things considered, but I find very few people are willing to admit just how complex it is, and why it works the way it does, or that people are actively working to make sure that it keeps working. They just want blind trust, just like that video. "Believe us because we're scientists". Not "Believe us because we can show you what we're doing to prove to ourselves, and to you, that we're right." Not "believe us because the system is set up to be self correcting, and we eventually discover errors and falsehoods" Not even "believe us because you, too, can learn how to do science." Just "believe us because we're authorities."
To be fair, this part of the process would be a lot easier if all these studies didn't get locked up behind paywalls or other exclusionary situations. There are plenty of studies that even an armchair scientist such as myself could easily find discrepancies or make new connections (or even just educate myself on the subjects!), but with the need for membership in certain groups and payment of an access fee before you even get to look 'em over, the "review" process ends up being done by too few people, and only on an as-needed basis due to the expense of time and money.
--Patrick
I had to calm down for a minute there before answering... i know you';re smarter then this Gas.
Yes it is, and people can always be wrong, but using that to dismiss things you don't agree with IS YOU DOING THE SAME THING as the people "using" scientism (which apparently includes Exxon under Tillerson).
You might as well say "scientist X made a mistake about Y, TVs must be magic!"
Had he made an actual good argument it would have been something, but he was using a fallacy wrong...
It's only a strawman is no one was making those arguments at all... and you can't honestly claim that, can you.
And if those where not the arguments you personally use, then congrats, the video wasn't about you...
I'm not one of the people targeted with the video, I'm a strong believer in the scientific method. But, as others here have said, I believe in science because of the scientific method. That's not "I believe them because they're scientists, and all things science should just be left to them".
That video could *easily*be made into "I don't know anything about war our fighting, so I'll just leave those decisions to the soldiers, 'cause they're soldiers and they know about that stuff".
Not even to mention that "scientists" aren't one big group. There's been an open letter in the media a few weeks ago around here from professors calling their colleagues to try and weigh on the public debate more, also outside of their own expertise, because they have a moral duty to use their intellect.
I think your average virologist's opinion on, say, immigration reform, is about as intelligent and sound as my own.
Science is big, important and should be objective. Scientists aren't necessarily any of those.
That video could *easily*be made into "I don't know anything about war our fighting, so I'll just leave those decisions to the soldiers, 'cause they're soldiers and they know about that stuff".
Not even to mention that "scientists" aren't one big group. There's been an open letter in the media a few weeks ago around here from professors calling their colleagues to try and weigh on the public debate more, also outside of their own expertise, because they have a moral duty to use their intellect.
I think your average virologist's opinion on, say, immigration reform, is about as intelligent and sound as my own.
Science is big, important and should be objective. Scientists aren't necessarily any of those.
GasBandit
Staff member
I didn't say any of that. I said Scientism is a thing. As in, yes, there ARE people who "believe" in science and scientists the same way people believed in God and priests 1000 years ago. Seems to me the people behind that video kinda come off that way. "Scientists know. You should be fucking thankful, you fucking idiot. Stop disagreeing or you'll go to science hell!"
None of the scientists I know would ever fall back on such a position.
I'll echo this; I know actual scientists in research and they are down to explain their research at the drop of a hat.
Translation: I can't get these guys to shut up about their damn research.
figmentPez
Staff member
Well, that's the primary position for a minority, so no fallback needed.
That aside, it is a somewhat hyperbolic statement, even though the video we're discussing is a perfect example of that message in action. It's rare for that statement to be made in that few a words, that directly, but there are many times I've seen scientists talking to the press, or writing articles, or otherwise speaking to the public and their statements can be boiled down to "if you disagree with what I'm saying in any way, you're disagreeing with science". It's a symptom of the polarized nature of politics, where there are two and only two sides, but that type of attitude even makes it into schools. My college biology professor got that way when talking about his political advising. When directly teaching us, he knew that science is not a monolithic being speaking from on high, and his words reflected that. When he spoke about advising the mayor, or some advisory board, his tone shifted to being about how people wouldn't listen, and the science was obvious, and how stupid it was where certain crops were grown. He shifted completely from "hey, I can teach you why this is right" to "This is right and the world should believe it, and you're really not listening if you don't". I doubt he was even aware of it.
About their own research, when it's a personal conversation, sure. When they're talking about the research of others, that they none-the-less believe, or when they're making statements to the press, or making political arguments.... Well, I don't know what they as individuals would do, but I know what the trend is in the world as a whole. The sad state of the world is that people fall back to saying "I'm right and that's that" far more often than we should, myself included. Scientists are not immune to this.
And, yes, I get that it's exahausting having to repeat the same points over and over. (We're in the Political sub-forum, how could I not?). It's completely understandable that my biology professor was fed up with having to deal with willfully ignorant politicians, but that doesn't change that the way he presented science on those issues changed, even when he was speaking to students again. And I've seen that with other teachers, even when it's not a personal annoyance for them. They get tired of arguing a certain point, or they pick up on the exasperation of others who have argued that point, and they close ranks. They forget that sometimes people ask questions out of honest ignorance, instead of the willful ignorance that abounds, and they treat every question like it's got a hidden barb. I know you've seen this happen, in forum debates, if not in actual scientific discussions. ("But wait, if net neutrality treats all traffic the same, how do we stop DDOS attacks? "OH MY GOD, that strawman again, I can't believe you. Net Neutrality is the best thing for everyone, and you're resorting that tired old tactic?!"). And this is further complicated by the fact such barbed questions, when asked out of malice, are effective precisely because some people would ask them out of honest ignorance, and when those people see "their" question shot down, it doesn't really matter that the answer given wasn't aimed at them.
Like an unintentionally abusive parent, who shifts between being helpful and being neglectful, the unpredictable shift causes a lot of harm to how they're perceived. The bad times get remembered far more easily than the good, and the uncertainty of how they're going to respond next time only inhibits future communication. It's broken system, that was made that way by other broken systems. How approachable do you think "SCIENCE" is when your average person has no idea if their honestly ignorant question will be met with "Oh, let me show you why this is", or "This is what science believes and only people who don't believe in science question it."
When I said "scientists are doing a really shitty job of answering it". I really should have said something more like "the system is broken in such a way that it's stacking the deck against scientists, and because of that their best efforts at educating the public quite often end up as distorted noise, or worse; and even those scientists and teachers who do know how to manipulate the system let their frustration with the system polarize their message to the point of their statements becoming a shitty answers." Or, more succinctly "Science has a major image problem." And a makeover ain't the solution. Trying to make science "cool" has been the main tactic for a long time. But that's not going to fix problems any more than a parent trying to be "cool" will fix a familial relationship.
And we get back to how education sucks in this country, and that if we really want to change the world, schools are one of the best bets.
And I'm exhausted, so go ahead and demonize me if you want. I'm too tired to explain that people sometimes fail. You can go ahead and give all scientists sainthoods for all I care. The system is broken, it's not anyone's fault, but we're going to have to own up to the fact that we're all broken people who fail sometimes, if we want to be able to press on with fixing things.
