• 0 Posts
  • 8 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 4th, 2023

help-circle
  • Unless you’re a raw milk TB-chaser type the milk you drink is probably processed too. Being processed doesn’t make something inherently worse, and “no nutritional value” is a daft claim. OK if you consume milk as your only source of protein or fat, you probably want to choose your milk substitute tailored to whichever the rest of your diet is deficient in, but better or worse for us is a fairly arbitrary concept.

    Livestock for dairy production are unarguably bad for the planet though.


  • Some states do use their own definitions of terrorism to explain why it’s bad when other people do it but OK when they do it, but that’s definitely not a uniform definition.

    the calculated use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

    - Britannica

    The use of violence or the threat of violence, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political goals.

    - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

    the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants.

    - Wiki

    (Government, Politics & Diplomacy) systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal

    - Collins English Dictionary

    the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes… government or resistance to government by means of terror.

    - Webster’s






  • Scientists can just make stuff up, but in this case Paul’s complaint appears to be more to do with the article than any underlying research as he is trying to draw information that the article doesn’t pretend to intend to provide.

    A lot of the problems with publicly visible scientific research are to do with media communication and the way that journalists will interpret or spice up results in their coverage.

    There are also problems with the incentive to publish surprising results more than confirmation of existing information, as well as with the incentives for research funding, and scientists can bring their own biases into research consciously or unconsciously.

    For things like company sponsored research, it is not uncommon for multiple trials to be run and only the ones with positive results to be published. I’d recommend Ben Goldacre’s pop sci industry journalism books Bad Science or the even better sequel Bad Pharma for more discussion of this.

    Then there are journals which function more like vanity press, with insufficient peer review processes and that just charge people to publish their papers.

    But there are also scientists who just wholesale make things up, whether for obvious financial gain like Andrew Wakefield making up the autism from vaccines MMR scare because he had competing vaccines he wanted to sell, or just for easy prestige like Jonathan Pruitt just copy and pasting underlying data samples to boost trends.

    It is not unthinkable for researchers to invent information, although my gut will always be to trust the researchers not the international megacorporation with an obvious financial incentive and the idea of suing researchers like this without substantial proof of fraud could have devastating effects on scientific research should J&J manage to push it through.

    (YT video essay about Pruitt)