|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 14:41:25 GMT
This is the nature of news, hence the aphorism, "when a dog bites a man, that is not news. But if a man bites a dog? Now, that IS news!"...attributed to the editor of the New York Sun in 1929. Thus the news media have, perhaps for centuries, entrenched confirmation bias in the population and fuelled prejudice, bigotry and an erroneous belief in the veracity of stereotypes. Agreed, is it time for change. Interestingly we seem to be heading away from a scepticism of the news and towards a scepticism of scientists/ doctors and other experts. I find this very odd. No the scepticism on science arises from the scepticism as per news broadcasts and the general lack of countering by those whose message may have been misrepresented but are happy with the overegging. Over the last few years there have been some very high profile lies by 'scientists and experts' embedded in their reports are conclusions reached which are not evidenced in their report. Macpherson is one, the EHRC report on social housing is another, the hockey stick is another. Science has become almost cult like, perhaps it always was, but no longer can a scientist produce result that is accepted as a result without question and that situation is down to science and all others who misrepresent it. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 15:03:12 GMT
This is the nature of news, hence the aphorism, "when a dog bites a man, that is not news. But if a man bites a dog? Now, that IS news!"...attributed to the editor of the New York Sun in 1929. Thus the news media have, perhaps for centuries, entrenched confirmation bias in the population and fuelled prejudice, bigotry and an erroneous belief in the veracity of stereotypes. Interestingly we seem to be heading away from a scepticism of the news and towards a scepticism of scientists/ doctors and other experts. I find this very odd. and doubt are the parents of science. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 10, 2023 15:12:38 GMT
Interestingly we seem to be heading away from a scepticism of the news and towards a scepticism of scientists/ doctors and other experts. I find this very odd. and doubt are the parents of science. Science is great! It's a shame some people are turning into a religion for the totalitarian political types.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 15:34:01 GMT
Skepticism and doubt are the parents of science. Science is great! It's a shame some people are turning into a religion for the totalitarian political types.
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Sept 10, 2023 15:49:42 GMT
Science is great! It's a shame some people are turning into a religion for the totalitarian political types.
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth Where the mind zone turns into the mindless zone. So everybody accepts said mindless truths. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 10, 2023 17:05:08 GMT
This is the nature of news, hence the aphorism, "when a dog bites a man, that is not news. But if a man bites a dog? Now, that IS news!"...attributed to the editor of the New York Sun in 1929. Thus the news media have, perhaps for centuries, entrenched confirmation bias in the population and fuelled prejudice, bigotry and an erroneous belief in the veracity of stereotypes. Agreed, is it time for change. Interestingly we seem to be heading away from a scepticism of the news and towards a scepticism of scientists/ doctors and other experts. I find this very odd. Perhaps because recent events have shown that the 'experts' are not very expert... |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 17:09:43 GMT
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth Where the mind zone turns into the mindless zone. So everybody accepts said mindless truths. There is no official doctrine in the mind zone. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:27:40 GMT
Science is great! It's a shame some people are turning into a religion for the totalitarian political types.
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth I think its gone beyond that. Now a blogger calling into question accepted science is to be instantly believed without scepticism simply because they state the opposite to the accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 17:28:29 GMT
Agreed, is it time for change. Interestingly we seem to be heading away from a scepticism of the news and towards a scepticism of scientists/ doctors and other experts. I find this very odd. Perhaps because recent events have shown that the 'experts' are not very expert... I'll send you a link to Terry's do it my way brain cancer. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 17:56:21 GMT
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth I think its gone beyond that. Now a blogger calling into question accepted science is to be instantly believed without scepticism simply because they state the opposite to the accepted. Many bloggers are actually scientists and many bloggers receive information from science in the same way the IPCC receive information from science. It is just the IPCC are a very big blogger. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Sept 10, 2023 18:30:45 GMT
I see it as part of a broader pattern of 'officialising' everything. Science isn't an official function, or anything to do with government or the media. Science has vast persuasive power precisely because you can ask any question you want and still end up cornered (persuaded) into agreeing with it. As soon as you drop this for convenience, you have something that looks very similar to official doctrine. What I see is an increasing 'semanticising' of all these vital social activities - ie the bits of the western world that actually made it work. Once it falls into one of their semantic categories, they can trim the category to get rid of anything inconvenient The 'accepted science' emerges, curated by HR and the ministry of scientific truth I think its gone beyond that. Now a blogger calling into question accepted science is to be instantly believed without scepticism simply because they state the opposite to the accepted. I think you need to take more water with your blogs |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 18:33:14 GMT
I think its gone beyond that. Now a blogger calling into question accepted science is to be instantly believed without scepticism simply because they state the opposite to the accepted. Many bloggers are actually scientists and many bloggers receive information from science in the same way the IPCC receive information from science. It is just the IPCC are a very big blogger. I have asked you on a number of occasions to show the qualifications or peer reviewed articles by those on Whatsupwiththat. You have never responded. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Sept 10, 2023 18:33:38 GMT
I think its gone beyond that. Now a blogger calling into question accepted science is to be instantly believed without scepticism simply because they state the opposite to the accepted. I think you need to take more water with your blogs Ho ho |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 10, 2023 18:50:22 GMT
Many bloggers are actually scientists and many bloggers receive information from science in the same way the IPCC receive information from science. It is just the IPCC are a very big blogger. I have asked you on a number of occasions to show the qualifications or peer reviewed articles by those on Whatsupwiththat. You have never responded. I have consistently referred to articles and qualifications in response to your questions and not all comes from wattsupwiththat, they are broadly a point where science is reported and frequently science that the more 'discerning' publications do not wish to handle. That does not mean it is not science it just means it does not tie in with the narrative. I am afraid peer review although a largely good idea has now become a method of censorship as opposed to verifying procedures and conclusions. I shall make major efforts to list qualifications and articles with each comment. When you become tired let me know. EDIT One other point the data that is used is the official data in most instances. If the blogger says the US has not warmed that is drawn from the data referenced. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Sept 10, 2023 21:22:34 GMT
Perhaps because recent events have shown that the 'experts' are not very expert... I'll send you a link to Terry's do it my way brain cancer. So you believed the economic experts in the Treasury when they said that we would have an immediate recession, a house and share price crash and 500,00 extra unemployed if we voted for Brexit? Or don't you listen to experts? |
|
