Covid-19, Part XIII

[757690]

Yikes

Exactly.

Don't let em catch you "going against what is considered to be true at the time"...

This has been a common misunderstanding of science since the beginning of the pandemic.

Science is not static, it’s ever changing, as new events happen, as the world changes, as new data comes in. Science never says, “this is the way things are.” It says, “this is what the data is telling us currently.”

This doesn’t make it less credible, it makes it more credible.

[Bob Sheed]

This has been a common misunderstanding of science since the beginning of the pandemic.

Science is not static, it’s ever changing, as new events happen, as the world changes, as new data comes in. Science never says, “this is the way things are.” It says, “this is what the data is telling us currently.”

This doesn’t make it less credible, it makes it more credible.

I have no issue with science, or the scientific method. The concern is, what social media platforms (and others) are doing in the name of science.

Strange that I would even need to clarify that.

[kaldaniels]

This has been a common misunderstanding of science since the beginning of the pandemic.

Science is not static, it’s ever changing, as new events happen, as the world changes, as new data comes in. Science never says, “this is the way things are.” It says, “this is what the data is telling us currently.”

This doesn’t make it less credible, it makes it more credible.

Never?

Put me down of on the side that believes sometimes science does indeed say, “this is the way things are.”

[757690]

Never?

Put me down of on the side that believes sometimes science does indeed say, “this is the way things are.”

Not to get too deep into ontology or epistemology but…

A basic tenant of physics is that the universe is in a constant state of change. The only constant is change.

[757690]

I have no issue with science, or the scientific method. The concern is, what social media platforms (and others) are doing in the name of science.

Strange that I would even need to clarify that.

First, I agree that no one should have blind trust in science, for the very reason that I explained above. However, it has proved to be the most trusted source available, by a lot.

The media, including social media, when determine the truth, needs to appeal to some authority. I mean, do we want Mark Zukerberg and Jack Dorsey deciding what is true on their own? So the media when determaming the truth about medical issue, should appeal to the authority of the scientific community. When the scientific community changes it’s mind, they need to adjust along with them.

That’s the best option I can think of. If you can think of a better one, I’ll be glad to discuss it.

[Boston Red]

This has been a common misunderstanding of science since the beginning of the pandemic.

Science is not static, it’s ever changing, as new events happen, as the world changes, as new data comes in. Science never says, “this is the way things are.” It says, “this is what the data is telling us currently.”

This doesn’t make it less credible, it makes it more credible.

I can't even...

[kaldaniels]

I can't even...

Yeah, the only thing I think that can beat that is to just concede we are living in a simulation and therefore nothing matters at all.

[757690]

Yeah, the only thing I think that can beat that is to just concede we are living in a simulation and therefore nothing matters at all.

Everything I wrote is just basic understanding of basic science. As I posted, it’s a common misunderstanding of science that it is static. It’s constantly changing, by definition.

If it was static, we would just stop doing it. But we are constantly doing new scientific investigations, even into areas we think we have a solid understanding. As I posted, one of the most basic tenants of physics is that the universe is constantly in a state of change. That requires constant scientific inquiries and investigations. Think about where we were in science when you were a kid and how much it has changed since then.

I really don’t know what else to say, nothing I am posting is even remotely controversial.

[Strikes Out Looking]

My periodic post - everyone eligible should get vaccinated as soon as possible. Argue about science all you want, the overwhelming majority of deaths and hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated, so SABRmetrics says get vaccinated.

[Bob Sheed]

First, I agree that no one should have blind trust in science, for the very reason that I explained above. However, it has proved to be the most trusted source available, by a lot.

The media, including social media, when determine the truth, needs to appeal to some authority. I mean, do we want Mark Zukerberg and Jack Dorsey deciding what is true on their own? So the media when determaming the truth about medical issue, should appeal to the authority of the scientific community. When the scientific community changes it’s mind, they need to adjust along with them.

That’s the best option I can think of. If you can think of a better one, I’ll be glad to discuss it.

Therein lies the problem. Sometimes what was once thought of as wrong, turns out to be right. Can you see how silencing what we currently understand to be wrong could be problematic?

I mean, think of what you are saying.

"Good news everyone... social media says it's ok to talk about ___ again!" Yeah... not dystopian at all!

[757690]

Therein lies the problem. Sometimes what was once thought of as wrong, turns out to be right. Can you see how silencing what we currently understand to be wrong could be problematic?

I mean, think of what you are saying.

"Good news everyone... social media says it's ok to talk about ___ again!" Yeah... not dystopian at all!

Present a better option. Again, do you want Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey themselves deciding what that “the truth” is? They need to appeal to some authority, and every authority, in every field, changes over time.

I mean look at baseball. We used to think batting average and RBI’s were the best stats, and now you get dismissed immediately if that is all you rely on. The only constant is change.

What would be truly dystopian is for Twitter or Facebook to stick to old views of what is “true” and continue to ban people according to outdated information, to stay true to dogma or a specific political view instead of what data, the constant changing data, tells us. That is exactly what happens in North Korea, Putin’s Russia and China.

Again, present a better option.

Edit: To be honest, what I think is clear, is that the problem social media is having is not that they ban or censor too much, but that they ban and censor too little. It’s obvious that they, especially Facebook, not just allow, but amplify knowingly dangerous posts because they make more money that way. We really need to focus on getting them to crack down more on dangerous lies that are being spread that literallly are killing people.

[Bob Sheed]

Present a better option. Again, do you want Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey themselves deciding what that “the truth” is? They need to appeal to some authority, and every authority, in every field, changes over time.

I mean look at baseball. We used to think batting average and RBI’s were the best stats, and now you get dismissed immediately if that is all you rely on. The only constant is change.

What would be truly dystopian is for Twitter or Facebook to stick to old views of what is “true” and continue to ban people according to outdated information, to stay true to dogma or a specific political view instead of what data, the constant changing data, tells us. That is exactly what happens in North Korea, Putin’s Russia and China.

Again, present a better option.

The better option is not censoring at all.

For example, if someone wants to say the Earth is flat, let them do so and let people respond accordingly.
Or, if you want to go back to 500BC, let Pythagoras say the Earth is round and let people respond accordingly.

If we are entering a world where dissenting opinions are silenced, we are entering a world of darkness. I can't put it any more plainly than that.

[757690]

The better option is not censoring at all.

For example, if someone wants to say the Earth is flat, let them do so and let people respond accordingly.
Or, if you want to go back to 500BC, let Pythagoras say the Earth is round and let people respond accordingly.

If we are entering a world where dissenting opinions are silenced, we are entering a world of darkness. I can't put it any more plainly than that.

We have people spreading lies right now that are literally killing people, that are leading to insurrections to overthrow this US government. That has to be stopped.

That is far more important than whether or not someone can post about a lab leak theory. Banning over that really just hurts people’s feelings, makes them mad, but it really doesn’t affect anything.

[BernieCarbo]

We have people spreading lies right now that are literally killing people, that are leading to insurrections to overthrow this US government. That has to be stopped.

No, absolutely not. That reasoning will be abused over and over.

[757690]

No, absolutely not. That reasoning will be abused over and over.

What is being abused right now it their ability to lie, and spread lies using these social media algorithms to millions with just a click of a mouse. It is a main cause of vaccine hestitency, a main cause of the January 6th insurrection, and so much more.

These lies are leading to deaths, to a dismantling of our democracy. They absolutely need to be stopped.

And as long as social media sticks to guildlines that it follows, guidelines that are based on the scientific community for instance, then there really is little chance for abuse.