you should stick to computer science or whatever you're supposedly an expert at. you're talking out your ass as usual
🇳🇱
Actually biology is one of the fields I have a degree in, and I worked on the human genome project and other projects in the field (most the genetics side).. though I would not really call myself a biologist either. But I do have more than enough credentials and professional expiernce in the field to understand the topic.
What were your credentials, I dont recall, like i said I dont even remember you saying anything in the past on this topic particularly insightful or meaningful so I dont recall much about your expertise.
I dont care about the letters after your name, I care about what skills you have proven yourself to have. That can be in the form of published scientic articles, peer-review, recognition of accomplishments by professionals, or involvement as a member of a project in the field... credentials are a lot more than some letters.
I am literally asking you "have you accomplished anything in your life to show you have expertise in this topic"... sounds like your answer is no then
Everyone wants to discover something new and unintuitive, so validating someone else's finding is a rare sight, and the confirmation bias is real.
Not to mention that intuition, being a product of millions of years of evolution, isn't often wrong, so when you see a study with some fantastic find that seems too good to be true... it isn't true.
The system isnt perfect and yes there are biases, its fine to be critical and not treat a published study as god and truth... no issues there.. But when you assume all studies are crap, even ones where there is complete consensus, and you do so with no evidence or expeirnce of your own, then your just foolish in the other direction.
As you said, its the best system we have so far, and while anti-science is coming up with nonsense like a 4000 year old earth, and the world being flat science is still right far more often than the alternative.
It really just comes down to understanding where the line is between reality and fringe science that **may** be true but has a lot of unknowns.
there really is a crisis of junk science in academia right now, it's a disaster. this is another famous case- amgen pharmaceuticals attempted to reproduce a large number of drug studies and found that most of them were not reproducible- particulary with cancer drugs, they could only reproduce a pathetic 11%
https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/house-of-cards-is-something-wrong-with-the-state-of-science/
we will look back on this pseudoscience of transgenderism as a dark age for science
People seem to forget that china and Russia also had departments full of junk science about Marxist studies. And if you said something that questioned Marxist principles in Russia, you quickly found it very hard to work as an academic, so people learned very fast not to publish inconvenient facts... While others became very prestigious by publishing desirable papers, true or no.
It's exactly the same now in the USA, just not for Marxism.
@meowski @SystemSock @crunklord420 @freemo
one of our main issues to overcome now is the failure to publish negative results. there is an extreme bias against publishing negative results both in the financial world and also in the academic prestige assocaite with a positive result vs a negative result
pharma companies take full advantage of this, they will do a study 10x with small sample sizes and publish the one anomalous result that fits their agenda, while burying the other 9.
there are all sorts of ways of manipulating the data by subsampling and buring what you don't want published
a lot of it is outright fraud. some of it is just the fact that publishing a negative result carries the risk of exposing your own mistakes
but anyway we do have some systemic biases to deal with
And it doesn't have to be sample size, there are plenty of ways to use slight of hand. If you follow current events, you're familiar with the handling of the remarkable Vitamin D results by Nogués et al[1], and the follow-up "debunking" from Brazil, where they used an inactivated form of it to purportedly debunk a result on the activated vitamin D. effectively burying what was one of the most promising and affordable treatments for covid for purposes we can only guess at.
1. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3771318#
"removed due to concerns"
like threatening vaccine profits and the global hoax lockdown narrative
no profit in telling people to supplement with vitamin d which is well known to support immune fuction, and many people are deficient in
@fluffy @SystemSock @crunklord420 @freemo
But telling anyone to take vitamins is wrongthink.
@SystemSock @fluffy @freemo @meowski
LOL your wasting your time on these people.. my 24 hour mute just expired and after seeing the load of complete trash and that they havent shut up for 24 hours (apparently even trying to talk to me when i clearly muted them) they just want attention. They are going right back on mute...
You are wasting your time even talking to them, you are a fair bit brighter you could spend that time on better pursuits, actually learning something rather than just getting dumber.
They arent worth your time, let them do their circle jerk, clearly they dont listen to or need anyone else to have their conversations anyway.
Funny, you've literally been tagging me and directly addressing me for 24 hours even when you knew i couldnt see it.. but now all of a sudden your going to act like you havent been swinging on my dick for 24 hours... HAHAHAHA have fun with that, at least someone is acknowledging you exist, must make you feel good... back to mute for you.
Of course not, there was never a point where I had a conversations with anyone where I was trying to assert a fact.
Literally the only time there was a disagreement in the thread it was a person who jumped in with "retard" and "homo" and immediately set the stage for me have no interest in engaging them. Why would I have have to present data or facts when I havent actually argued any points, the discussions I have have mostly been in agreement or about things neither side had data on so was speculative.
What discussion did I engage in in this thread that even needed data, cant recall one.
I dont particularly care if you call me one, it just means you have no value or worth in a discussion if you do. More your problem than mine.
alright whatever, but there was actually a topic in this thread. you just missed it cause you got defensive
Wouldnt be the first time I missed a topic. I'm ok missing the occasional topic if it means I'm not listening to people making noise and wasting my time thats find by me.
The thing about doing actual science/engineering is that I've got some pretty cool stuff to work onmost of the time. So im more likely to feel i missed out wasting time on some person making noise and saying nothing insightful or useful rather than actually **doing** science. a good conversation with value and some mutual respect (or atleast productivity and meaningful exchange) might be worth a few minutes away from my projects.
All about priorities. I'd rather be doing science than arguing with people with a low SNR (signal to noise ratio).
I'm not sure if your able to engage in a productive way on that discussion, but if you want to try I dont mind giving it a second go (I'm all for giving people or interactions a second chance).
It would be more accurately described as a bimodal continuous distribution with low variance where the male and female points would be at the two modes of the bimodal distribution.
Youll have to be specific about the article, I only recall one off topic one that was limited to only primary sex determination and not sex as a whole. Could have been muted when you shared it though.
As for calling it continuous.. sounds like you are thinking of uniform, a continuous function is not related to a uniform function.
continuous distrubution is just an elaborate way of saying it's not binary, aka the gender spectrum except you're even going so far as calling sex a spectrum. even most progressive don't go this far. it's polarized with birth defects of sex occurring at around .01% frequency so calling this a distribution is a stretch
mammals are not more or less male or female. that's not how sex works. it's either/or. nearly every one of 7 billion people on this planet including you are here because a male and female mated.
Your numbers arent in line at all with those given by medical doctors or experts, personal expiernce or anything else I know.. not even **close** to 0.01% even in the most conservative accepted numbers (which admitidly there is a range since there is no hard line where intersex starts)..
calling intersex a birth defect is fine and all but it really adds nothing to the conversation or to the fact that it is intersexed whether you want to call it a birth defect or not.
your mostly relying on word play by the looks of it to fabricate new numbers you like better.
Nah its just that doing an apostrophe isnt easy when im typing from my phone or tablet, nor is editing, You can usually tell if im at my computer or not based on if i use apostrophes or the correct version of your.. on my phone i will always use the shortened form and since it is never ambiguous see not need to inconvenience myself on my phone.
I do miss the days of slide out keyboards on phones though.
I actually could rock that shit! android and all!
