🇳🇱
@yaksha You do realize you are on a **STEM** instance? You literally need to be a professional scientist (or student) to have an account on this server... So either you arent a scientist or you think you profession is a scam?
Lol. Firstly, only 1 out of the 4 letters in STEM stands for science. Secondly, if you want to excommunicate people for heterodox views you are not doing science, you are doing ritualistic cult behavior.
Frankly, most science is a scam. Entire fields in replication crises, lunatic math illiterates engaging in ritualistic numerology they claim is "statistics", artificial "peer review" gatekeeping and a fully gleichgeschaltete complex of scientists.
Ahh Science is a scam, the battle cry of the moron.
When the day comes I meet one person who actually understands a scientific subject that is well established and makes that claim maybe ill reconsider. But its usually people spewing complete nonsense that is trivially debunked who keep saying that.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
Considering you and the other schmuck have repeatedly got very basic points wrong in the discussion I wouldn't describe either of you as well informed.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
I literally had to correct your misinterptiation of the data just one message back before you started claiming you were "well informed"
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
I was refering to Servant who said it was a scam.
A scientists invents a drug that is suppose to cure cancer.. if your wrong then "the product is subpar" (it wont cure cancer).. it doesnt require someone to replicate what you did per se to find this out. It only requires people to use the product you created as a scientist (the cure for cancer) before people find out its subpar... its not that different from engineering. Science produces things that are reusable, either by general consumers, or by other scientists when doing further research. When it gets used the quality of the research/conclusions show though. Peer review speeds that up by reviewing the "product" sooner, much like reviewers of engineering products.
@servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
I didn't. I said that a significant part of it are scams. Which (joke intended) is actually mainstream science, just look at the replication rates in psychology, medicine, ETD.
>It only requires people to use the product you created as a scientist
This is delusional. Say what you want about the FDA, but there is a good reason people don't use customer reviews as a basis for medical effectiveness...
>Peer review speeds that up by reviewing the "product" sooner, much like reviewers of engineering products.
I mean, that isn't even what peer review *claims* to be. Much less what it has the possibility to be...
The replication crisis is largely limited to psychology. It also makes sense as psychology is a very hard subject to control the variables in and thus perform the same study twice. Especially when social constructs change rapidly over the course of years.
Science isnt perfect as I said, but it accomplishes a hell of a lot more ground breaking things than people who reject science. Those people wind up muttering nonsensical conspiracies for the most part.. Even engineers tend to have a foundation in science, at least the good ones.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
No. I hate to cite Wikipedia, but please just gave a glance at their article on the subject if you are THIS uninformed.
I am well informed on it. Notice the word "largely", are you aware of what that word means and how it is distinctly different from "only"?
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
If you have no more than 5 minutes skim the Wikipedia article.
The issue isn't even that there is a certain amount of false statements, but that falsity propagates itself.
I have this argument with random plebs at least once a month. I've "skimmed" through the wikipedia article more times than I can count. Not to mention actual scholarly sources on the topic. Its not a new topic.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
And honestly, I don't think "low replication" is inherently bad, the issue arises when you have low replication, in combination with low replication attempts.
I never once claimed the issue didnt exist. In fact I had mentioned there are issues to be addressed in some areas of science before you even brought it up (and the replication crisis in psychology was what i was thinking of when I said it).
Dont put words in my mouth.
@SneedsterSpeedster @yaksha
But the replication crises are everywhere, maybe physics or chemistry are largely immune, but medicine certainly suffers from it as well. To me it as an issue of scientists (but also non-scientists) overvaluing the worth of scientific output to an enormous, unprecedented degree.
Reciting literally incorrect data, or having no clue how to actually crunch the data is not "approaching it from a scientific mind"... for that you have to actually be educated enough to know basic statistics and other facts about the subject, which has not been the case here. Worse yet their ego prevents them from learning or making any attempt to do so. They could easily be taking this oppertunity to learn why they are wrong and how to analyze this sort of thing statiscally from an expert.. but no, they care more about being uneducated and pretending like they have a clue. Its easier than the hard work involved in real learning and study.
Yup, pretty much. I tried providing useful response early on explaining why cherry picking israel will specifically get the results they saw, and should be expected. They did nothing to learn from what I said as an expert in the field, so they made it clear from the get go id be wasting energy on them as they actively are trying to remain ignorant.
They smell absolutely glorious, at least compared to this crowd.
>trust me I'm a doctor
>doctors and STEM researchers are smarter
>being on qoto somehow means my posturing and presumptuous reactions actually mean something
>did I mention I'm a doctor?
Every thread I've seen him in he reframes the argument and argues against the idea in his head of what you said. He's not going to respond meaningfully, I've seen him around for a long while and any discussion that involves deciding between "The True And Official Narrative" and the truth of the matter as the facts present themselves he will be on the wrong side. IIRC he was wrong about masks (he said only N95 will work, any mask will do because COVID isn't airborne), he was wrong about how early COVID appeared (I guessed October 2019 from the data, the previous CDC director said September or October 2019. I'm mostly right, but I was told I had no data to support that), he was wrong about the lab origin (He said he believed the natural-origin theory, I disagreed).
Just keep in mind while you read his responses that freemo probably didn't even fully understand what you said and it gets a little more bearable.
@freemo @SneedsterSpeedster @servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
Wait do you have evidence for a lab leak?
@kino @freemo @servant_of_the_anime_avatars @yaksha
This dude doesnt know a thing,, he just talks out of his ass.
>Google, NIH, Fauci funding gain of function research on bat coronaviruses since 2010 (well documented)
>people start dying in wuhan in September of a new infection (well documented)
>China covers it up (not well documented)
>spreads across the world unbeknownst to anyone but some chinese scientists
>chinese scientists find the virus
>GLOBAL PANIC MODE
>"can we look into Wuhan to find more out about this virus?"
>sends the same people who would be guilty of crimes against humanity
>"all clear, obviously came from nature"
>chinese virologist: "it came from a lab"
>dozens of experts: "it came from a lab"
>former CDC director: "lab leak"
>everyone except bought and paid for scientists: "lab leak is most likely"
>Google, the same people funding the research in Wuhan, censors all discussion aside from the natural origin theory in cooperation with other big tech oligarchs
>Fauci's own emails and the research documents themselves prove gain of function research was going on in wuhan
The only questions left: was it on purpose? and who did it and why? Did it actually originate in the Wuhan lab, which seems most likely based on all the defensive measures, or does it have another origin?
These questions will likely never be meaningfully answered because the first and to my knowledge only investigation into Wuhan was 200% steaming bullshit. It's almost been two years now, the evidence would be long gone if it was even there at all. And if this was a US attack on China I'd have a hard time believing it, it just doesn't have the telltale signs of US involvement, but the circumstantial stuff with google, zuckerberg, gates, fauci, epstein, and how it's all connected make it very murky to decipher who may be at fault....
But that's not what you asked, the short answer is this: the virus looks chimeric, doesn't have any commonality with the bat viruses we were told it originated/mutated from, it has an extra bit of DNA making the genetic sequence *longer* than any found in nature. Just these three things should be enough to trigger alarm bells in anyone that knows basic evolutionary biology or virology.
Who knows when you'll find flaw in your own recursive qualifiers.
>But its usually people spewing complete nonsense that is trivially debunked who keep saying that.
It should tell you something that morons are better informed than you...