Antifa conundrum

[Crazyhole]

I've got a couple of friends on Facebook that are avowed antifa members. They go to rallies and wear masks, etc. Its a bit ironic, and I've pointed it out to them, that they now trust anything the government tells them to believe and do.

I dont think I've ever seen someone get so angry so quickly when I point it out, lol.

"We believe in science, not the government"

"Where are you getting your science?"

"The CDC and WHO"

"................"

"YOU JUST WANT PEOPLE TO DIE!"

 

[fried-chicken]

Science is undefeated. It's the ever evolving accumulation of knowledge of the human race. The scientific method when used correctly is perfect. There will always be new things that we learn but the facts are the facts. Government scientist, university scientist, company scientist, doesnt matter. All of them should eventually arrive at the same conclusion if they are using the scientific method correctly.

The issues arise when the data is manipulated, or short cuts are taken, that's not the scientific method. The people who do that are either bad scientists or politicians. Ideally we would have a scientific community free of government influence but as we know, with this admin image is everything and reality can be changed to fit your desired outcome.

I still trust the CDC and NIH because old habits are hard to break and even though some have fallen in line with Trump, most are doing what they have known for their whole careers, looking for and broadcasting the truth.

 

[fried-chicken]

You trust the CDC and WHO that has been wrong the entire way. Seems logical

I trust that organizations made up of individual scientists will do their best to follow the scientific method as a whole and resist political interference.

 

[Crazyhole]

Science is undefeated. It's the ever evolving accumulation of knowledge of the human race. The scientific method when used correctly is perfect. There will always be new things that we learn but the facts are the facts. Government scientist, university scientist, company scientist, doesnt matter. All of them should eventually arrive at the same conclusion if they are using the scientific method correctly.

The issues arise when the data is manipulated, or short cuts are taken, that's not the scientific method. The people who do that are either bad scientists or politicians. Ideally we would have a scientific community free of government influence but as we know, with this admin image is everything and reality can be changed to fit your desired outcome.

I still trust the CDC and NIH because old habits are hard to break and even though some have fallen in line with Trump, most are doing what they have known for their whole careers, looking for and broadcasting the truth.

Do you think that science is being manipulated for political purposes right now?

 

[fried-chicken]

Do you think that science is being manipulated for political purposes right now?

No, science cannot be manipulated. If it's manipulated it's not science.

 

[Crazyhole]

No, science cannot be manipulated. If it's manipulated it's not science.

So we really aren't getting any science then.

 

[fried-chicken]

A lot of science is theory. Then you have science that has been completely wrong on covid. The problem is creating a single voice. It was early saying no risk in late January to overreaction in April. Then not looking at the data to pivot. We created idiotic logic that going to a supermarket or super store is safe and a clothing store isn't. Then not analyzing the health risks of shutting down the economy. Violence, child abuse, etc. Then we are furloughing doctors and nurses because they hospitals don't have patients. Some of the scientists predicted 465,000 folks hospitalized in Florida.

They were wrong. It happens but pivot and not double down on stupidity.

This idiot thinks science is about being right. Hahaha

 

[Crazyhole]

What are you rambling about? Your saying science can't be manipulated. Clearly that is wrong.

He's confusing math with science.

 

[fried-chicken]

You can certainly have your hypothesis be wrong in science. That's part of the process you dimwits. Science cannot be manipulated, only data can be and manipulating data isn't part of the scientific process.

If people are manipulating data it's not the scientists doing it.

 

[Crazyhole]

You can certainly have your hypothesis be wrong in science. That's part of the process you dimwits. Science cannot be manipulated, only data can be and manipulating data isn't part of the scientific process.

If people are manipulating data it's not the scientists doing it.

What do you think computer models are doing? Any model is the manipulation of data.

 

[fried-chicken]

What do you think computer models are doing? Any model is the manipulation of data.

Why am I not surprised that you guys don't understand 7th grade science class basics?

It's not manipulation, it's projection, and like I said, it's normal to be wrong. If the models are wrong you can adjust your hypothesis. Science is trying to explain what we can't explain.

If you allow your incorrect models to become less and less accurate to protect your desired result I would call that manipulation.

If you are projecting with a result in mind that's manipulation.

 

[Crazyhole]

Why am I not surprised that you guys don't understand 7th grade science class basics?

It's not manipulation, it's projection, and like I said, it's normal to be wrong. If the models are wrong you can adjust your hypothesis. Science is trying to explain what we can't explain.

If you allow your incorrect models to become less and less accurate to protect your desired result I would call that manipulation.

If you are projecting with a result in mind that's manipulation.

So why are we not adjusting our hypothesis based strictly on observable data? Your hypothesis that we have reduced the impact of this virus is based on 1. A faulty model and 2. A bias towards wanting to believe that model so you include an unknown variable.

We have large control groups to compare and contrast and they are statistically insignificant. We also have clear outliers that need to be dismissed because they are significantly outside the mean.