Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Yeah, that’s the thing.
There are pockets of people who are clued in and take the time / have the time to process what they read/see & hear. Those people seem to be fewer and harder to find.
I don’t think people are generally just plain dumb (I know unpopular opinion), but I think a good majority of us are in sensory and informational overload and human understanding of the world has likely never been so complex nor moved so quickly.
This is all happening during a modern renaissance period for malicious misrepresentation (i.e. convincing lies). And even if people are too “dumb” to tell truth from lies, they do recognize that the lies are coming in rapid fire and from every direction. Easier just to tune out and not think too much about all that, otherwise it’s depressing.
Don’t forget that older folks are aging into cognitive issues, younger people have only known this as their reality, poor people are struggling to make ends meet with no time to stop and think, and so many of the ones who’ve “made it” are doing their best to keep it all conveniently compartmentalized away and out of sight.
So, yes, sometimes you do have to be direct and spell otherwise obvious things out for people. The struggle is real.
This is a case where it’s obvious there’s no direct causation, but so often it’s not this clear, and even the really smart people sometimes mess that part up – intentionally or otherwise.
Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.
The real reason though, those scientist trained hacks are signing on to what they are paid to, to design studies to work backwards from poisoning the population is actually totally safe.
The other month in our field some random team published a paper where they surveyed people sick with a chronic illness and people who had recovered from that illness. They found the recovered people had better mental health than those who were ill.
The authors in all their wisdom decided that means mental health causes the illness. It apparently didn’t cross their mind that being chronically ill is not fun so you have worse mental health and being recovered is comparatively great so you have better mental health.
Now some right wing chuds are citing this silly study to try and paint the illness as fake.
The amount of shit science being published today is appalling. It’s always been a significant issue, but it has gotten worse with time. I have read articles published in the top journals who’s methodology should have made a 1st year graduate student cringe. I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.
I really agree. The decline in methodology and proper hedging (not overstating) is really appalling. It feels like science publishing has become about marketing your paper not trying to uncover the “truth”…
I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.
The authors aren’t the only ones getting paid off.
I suspect, at some point, it will slip and become a major scandal that reviewers at major scientific journals have been accepting “gifts” from interested parties to help ensure that specific articles get approved and published.
Your argument may be better received with less hostility. People are going to criticise your ideas throughout life, however this reaction could be seen as a distraction to your focus on the subject. Everyone is at dismay at a topic, and many topics have the capability to become heated, yet you will be amongst greater levels of respectability for future interactions if you consider refraining from attacks today (even if you feel as though this is being done to you).
Just trying to help, not scold. There’s always a better way to get your point across without making people dislike your comments, is what I’m essentially trying to get at.
First of all, I don’t give a fuck how I’m received, until I am satisfied my comment is in the common good. And I stand by this comment entirely. I am proud of my preceding comment, and if you don’t like it, I don’t care. Not one little bit. Other than caring enough to argue a bit obviously.
Everyone that isn’t a tool already realizes the differences between causation and correlation.
Granted those that realize this already are not perhaps even a majority now int eh US.
Yeah, that’s the thing.
There are pockets of people who are clued in and take the time / have the time to process what they read/see & hear. Those people seem to be fewer and harder to find.
I don’t think people are generally just plain dumb (I know unpopular opinion), but I think a good majority of us are in sensory and informational overload and human understanding of the world has likely never been so complex nor moved so quickly.
This is all happening during a modern renaissance period for malicious misrepresentation (i.e. convincing lies). And even if people are too “dumb” to tell truth from lies, they do recognize that the lies are coming in rapid fire and from every direction. Easier just to tune out and not think too much about all that, otherwise it’s depressing.
Don’t forget that older folks are aging into cognitive issues, younger people have only known this as their reality, poor people are struggling to make ends meet with no time to stop and think, and so many of the ones who’ve “made it” are doing their best to keep it all conveniently compartmentalized away and out of sight.
So, yes, sometimes you do have to be direct and spell otherwise obvious things out for people. The struggle is real.
This is a case where it’s obvious there’s no direct causation, but so often it’s not this clear, and even the really smart people sometimes mess that part up – intentionally or otherwise.
Many literal scientists assume the correlations they find are causative without much thought. Definitely a pervasive problem the assumption of correlations as causations.
they will pay for it. every single person who mistakes causation and correlation will die!
The real reason though, those scientist trained hacks are signing on to what they are paid to, to design studies to work backwards from poisoning the population is actually totally safe.
But yes.
The other month in our field some random team published a paper where they surveyed people sick with a chronic illness and people who had recovered from that illness. They found the recovered people had better mental health than those who were ill.
The authors in all their wisdom decided that means mental health causes the illness. It apparently didn’t cross their mind that being chronically ill is not fun so you have worse mental health and being recovered is comparatively great so you have better mental health.
Now some right wing chuds are citing this silly study to try and paint the illness as fake.
The amount of shit science being published today is appalling. It’s always been a significant issue, but it has gotten worse with time. I have read articles published in the top journals who’s methodology should have made a 1st year graduate student cringe. I have no idea how they made it past peer review and were published.
I really agree. The decline in methodology and proper hedging (not overstating) is really appalling. It feels like science publishing has become about marketing your paper not trying to uncover the “truth”…
The authors aren’t the only ones getting paid off.
I suspect, at some point, it will slip and become a major scandal that reviewers at major scientific journals have been accepting “gifts” from interested parties to help ensure that specific articles get approved and published.
“Guys! It’s the scientists who are bad!” said the smartest person in the room
A point which he arrived at through correlation, without citing any causation.
Curious.
Gtfo of here, we should all know trade groups hire agencies to construct studies from it’s cool to reach that conclustion.
You are either ignorant and given to trolling people you think (often incorrectly,) have made some offense, or a fucking moron.
Now piss off.
“Some studies are done with funding contingent on a certain result, therefore all science is junk and science as an institution is untrustworthy”
Your argument may be better received with less hostility. People are going to criticise your ideas throughout life, however this reaction could be seen as a distraction to your focus on the subject. Everyone is at dismay at a topic, and many topics have the capability to become heated, yet you will be amongst greater levels of respectability for future interactions if you consider refraining from attacks today (even if you feel as though this is being done to you).
Just trying to help, not scold. There’s always a better way to get your point across without making people dislike your comments, is what I’m essentially trying to get at.
First of all, I don’t give a fuck how I’m received, until I am satisfied my comment is in the common good. And I stand by this comment entirely. I am proud of my preceding comment, and if you don’t like it, I don’t care. Not one little bit. Other than caring enough to argue a bit obviously.
lol fair enough, big man.