Lying liars: Wakefield and Rose

[andygates]

I'm filled with smiles today to see that the BMA are heartily spanking Andrew Wakefield, the doctor whose bogus - knowingly bogus - research started the whole stupid false MMR flap and gave credibility to a whole generation of vaccine-phobic woo-mongers telling people that a shot will turn their kids into Rain Man, (here, buy this crochet spiral chicken liver instead, it'll purge toxins and align your native reiki chakras).  Wakefield, you are a lying liar. 

And I'm filled with weary to see that the latest Final Nail in the coffin of global warming, yes, there are so many final nails that you have to wonder whether there's any wood at all or, for that matter, room for a body (alas, it aten't ded and aten't dying: eppur si riscalda no matter what the lying liars write) -- *breathe* that this latest Final Nail, Rose's piece in the Daily Mail about Himalaya glaciers, is a big fat lying lie.  The boffin at the heart of the story, Murari Lal, was heinously misquoted and fibbed over; the story pretty much made up out of whole cloth.  Rose, you are a lying liar.

Comments

[carldem.livejournal.com]

With the ups and downs of Climate change (which is really a bit more accurate if not so well known as global warming) I don't know which way things will get proven.

Things I do know:
(1) If one shits up their own nest then that is bad. Doesn't matter if it's CO2, environmentally expensive energy, or MOOP (matter out of place, ie rubbish/effluent, Exxon chemicals) it's still bad if it makes a dent.

(2) Putting the shit in your neighbours (or in the wild) isn't going to be any better. As (a) someone else will be doing it back to you, and (b) sooner or latter you'll need to deal with neighbours/wilds. Chances are it's going to go a lot better if we haven't been pooping on them for years already.

(3) Experts will sit and debate endlessly while the Titanic sinks. Thats what they do. Debate.
It doesn't matter if it was the icebergs fault or not, or whether there should be more lifeboats, or even if their is such a thing as a unsinkable ship, they'll argue about whose right and why rather than find workable solutions. Problems don't matter, workable solutions do.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

"I don't know which way things will get proven."

Do pay attention, it was mostly sorted out a century ago. Your agnostic position is equivalent to saying "I don't know which way evolution/creation will go" or "That heliocentrism is complicated, I don't know...".

3 is meaningless. What are you trying to say? I can't parse that.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

3 says. I can find proofs to support which ever position I want, if I'm willing to be myopic enough.
But that won't do anything useful in the short term.

But those who "sorted it out a century ago" are still being debated. But since it's not actually sorted out because there are no practical solutions devised.

We here are currently waiting on the debate about methane control in ruminants. The boffins (and thus those on that side of the argument) declare they have a solution. But. It's theoretical, under a dozen lab runs, and so far proved to be unusable on herds bigger than about 20 animals because of the handling required, and for those without a few million in cash lying around, because the cost of the per animal usage. But they insist it should be taxable as "there's now a solution".
The parallel is equivalent to saying we have police and laws so we must be able to catch and jail all criminals.
At this point, on the ground, it's an unwinnable battle. So if the current position is untenuable (as pointed out in 1 or 2, as agnosticism is fine if the argument is conclusive) and change is neccessary, and moderate immediate reaction in the right direction* earlier in the piece is more likely to get needed progress than continued sophistry - especially when the sophistry will boil down to "who pays" (which of course should be the end consumer, since that's why companys and producers exist.....**)

* again 1 & 2 vs "increase production & profits" (as example)

** of course you could argue that too but it still won't get progress you need, so whose holding up the motion at that point?

[andygates.livejournal.com]

They're being 'debated' by people like Watts, who frankly don't count. They use techniques of debate as tools in science, and they are not valid.

It's an unwinnable battle because it's not a battle at all. The science clearly says X with refinement coming along all the time. Refinement, not revolution. On the street, the science is not the sole player, and so it gets dragged into silly scraps with politics, ideology and so on, many of whom don a white coat to appear as science to the audience. The audience, uneducated in the difference, don't care and assume equal value in paired opponents.

The idiocy of the whole thing is beneath my regard.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Ah but you aren't applying your science right... so you can keep debating such things. But the things I mentioned aren't oftern debateable

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Either I'm having trouble thinking tonight or you're missing some nouns. Better things to do than debate about debate, for feck's sake.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Do you think my agnostic position is a wrong conclusion, regardless of how I got to it?

If the position is correct then it can be used for a basis of action.

Otherwise yes everyone just ends up debating, then debating about debating, then debating about who is paying. And nothing gets actually done. Better that the reason is ignored if some action is useful.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

I think an agnostic position on this is about as daft as an agnostic position on creation vs evolution. The only way to hold such a position - other than facile universal agnosticism, which is surely a mental illness - is to be under-educated.

So either you can't be bothered to look up the fight, or you're fundamentally incapable of decision, or your decision has nothing to do with the issue.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Exactly.
For me there is no climate change issue yet. Just a bunch of people arguing about who's right.

I know it doesn't matter who wins, climate change or retarded self protectionists; or chrisitans vs other christians; or Israelis or Palestinians. Getting _into_ the fight is a lose situation!

If I find some evolutionary winners, that are adaptable and energy (ie cost) cheap to impliment. Then there's a good chance that's the correct decision to start with, and being cheaper can be acted on.
Once that's being implemented then one can measure the effects and test the causes of those effects. Because until the cost vs benefit of effect is known and tested for -each- instance of application, then the science is still lab theory, and everything is still going to hell in either direction.

I find education quite a poor tool BTW. I know many highly educated people, yet for all their education they become extremely specialised and seem to have poor adaption qualities. They often seem to flourish within a stratified and artifical environment, yet when face with real world forces seldom seem to impliment what they've been taught. It's not that the education is bad...just evolutionarily expensive, and as resources are forced tighter (by population) then they are not so useful/adaptable. This is further linked in some way to the way that certain topics become socially taboo - like the fact that most of the issue is related to population density and size, but like genetics and race, it's a very hot potato. The final result being a constant supply of patches for the symptom, a seldom a solution for the issue which is the same type of operation the pharmaceutical companies have. Why sell cures, when symptom relief is so much more profitable!

The beauty of the agnostic position is it requires no investment, it is evolutionarily cheap. Not that "reality of god can't be known" but "gods existance is gods problem" leaving the entity to ponder theirm own existance and how to express it. The latter being a far more useful and functional process, and one which amusingly enough leads to the eventual proofs that god does exist.
Which is similiar to the climate issue. It doesn't matter if there's a problem, it matters about the size of effect/impact our individual efforts have. If we can control those effectively (and cheapily/competitively) then the bigger problem is not much of a outside threat. If we can't control them effectively then we have a bigger and more immediate problem on our hands than climate change! Although debating about climate change and truths will mask that symptom.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

You're confusing agnosticism with not caring.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

No I'm not. Have you ever known me to do so?

I have got one or both of the agnostic positions (or variants thereof) that has been decided. Why invest more into a situation which does not require further proof?

The "There can be no proof for 'God'" or the "I am not sure 'God' exists" both show a logic value of "X" (vs 1 or 0).

In an argument of "There is no such being/thing as 'God'" (atheist) vsor "There is such a thing as 'God'" - the agnostic position is very much a fencing sitting, low energy requirement. It does not need to prove -or- disprove 'God'. The actual existance of God being pretty much immaterial to the agnostic point of view!
Hence the importance of knowing what you're actually arguing about. What would be the point of an agnostic arguing for -or- against the existance of God, as the agnostic position has already rendered such an argument as redundant. Why invest effort into a redundant waste? Hardly economically, or environmental useful!

Better to find something useful and go from there.

[despaer.livejournal.com]

Amen to the doctor comment. He should be up for manslaughter rather than malpractise. People have died from measles and statistically, some (most) of those deaths were down to his 'work'.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

agreed!!

[erlf.livejournal.com]

Perhaps the editorial board of the medical journal that published the 'findings' should bear some of the responsibility too? They have since retracted the paper, but this seems like a drop in the ocean.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Don't forget the gushings of celebrity idiots like Jim Carrey...

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Thing with celebraty idiots is that they are just that celebrity idiots. They have an opinion and get to tell everyone, but they've got nothing more to stand on than popularity. ... Unless some quack gives them real ammo, but then unless the celebrity is expert enough to know the fault then how would they know any better than anyone else. And a celeb's function/duty is not to get things right, only to be popular and entertaining or at least visiable/contraversial.
People following celebrities (as proofs) without doing their own homework deserve what they get.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

That'll be a significant tranche of society, then. Dismissing them as idiots who get what they deserve might satisfy your inner Rand, but it doesn't help their children who will get sick through no fault of their own, or the rest of the kids who have a greater chance of getting sick through loss of herd immunity.

Like the t-shirt says, "it's more complicated than that"...

[carldem.livejournal.com]

No Andy.

You don't seem to understand what the argument is actually about. You seem to think it's about science or something.

The real argument is that the religion of science, subsection "climate change" think the world is ending. Well just like any other religion and their world ending, that's fine. You fellas can panic all you like.

But where it does get tricky is when any bunch of believers don't want to pay the bill for their beliefs. And expect everyone else to pay as well.
I know that's pretty standard stuff though and pretty much every group of religious folks and believers feel the same about their own "end of the world". Whether it's building a Tower to reach Heaven, or everyone drinking the Cool Aid. It's not enough for them to foot their own bill.

The proof of this is striking. And rather undeniable. If those proposing this scenairo decide to pay for their own ark/whatever end of world avoidence criteria _and_ their cheque/credi was good then there wouldn't be an argument would there.......!
If the believers were front with the cash to do the stuff they claim needs to be done, and to pay for the process changes _they_ _want_ - just like all the other customers and their wants and needs. Then the producers wouldn't _be_ arguing it would be "would you like that in gren or blue", "when shall we start the process for you". But nope, those broke people for some reason think others should pay for their theories.

Well that might be the religious beliefs of the climate changers. But the religious belief of the merchants and manufactures is (1) You want it then you pay for it, (2) I can provide it to you at your reasonable cost. This has been around for longer than "science" and is a well working model. Remember these guys will make and sell you anything (at your cost); you want cookies the shape of Michael Jacksons original nose, done; you want bumper stickers saying "God does it with Virgins", fine; you want a fine ark to fix the end of the world, did you have plans already or should we bring in a boat designer?
As usual, the question is simply "Who pays?" and if you haven't realised that yet, theny it is a matter of brain damage.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Apologies, got two replies at same time didn't realise they were off different threads. Thought they were both off the environmental one.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

"the religion of science"

Fail.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

And yes the other faiths say the same thing when atheists question the nature of their religion.

Don't let the blindness of your beliefs mask what is going on. Is that not the first step in critical thinking ... an your absolute position on it a symptom, under your own scriptures, that you have moved from critical science, to "science-ism"

[andygates.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what you're babbling about now.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

I'm not surprised.

I'm even less surprised at the unneccessary emotive put-down. "Babbling".

You are in possession, or perhaps more accurately statement, "being possessed by", a belief system.
It has well documented rules and these are written down (in many places). This process is known as "doctrine". There are those that follow the written rules, "orthodoxy", and those who break them (like the immunisation guy).

Like most laypeople you are operating out of a subset of those rules adapted for your situation. You aren't peer reviewing what you've been told. You don't have the resources to check the science holds true for you applications/situations. Proper "science" only provides hypothesis and theory, which are then tested locally by engineers and technicians. The purview of the scientific study is very narrow as they can only test a few things at a time, and even then only in certain locations and conditions. The result isn't "Truth" but a Theory, something often lost on the layperson.

In common with other belief systems, many of the experts get together and discuss and analyse the "Truth" and application in the world of their belief system. Are the old experts/cardinals of the RC Church any less regarded by their peers than the scientific experts of today? Are the Imman any less qualified in their system?
You happen to think your "science" is the thing which is "Real" and "Accurate", and they believe theirs is. And they have their criterias, and you have yours. But at the end of the day you're all just playing within a belief system.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

I think you're confusing a method with a dogma.

And if a method came along that was more useful still - more predictive, able to integrate subjective and objective experience, say - I'd jump. Of course, so would the scientific community, which would mean you'd carry on saying that it was just the same old thing anyway.

I suspect you've got a dogmatic position that science is no different from religion. They're not even the same class of phenomenon.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

So religion doesn't attempt to describe the world, measure phenomena and come up with better ways for mankind to live?

If you don't understand that's what it comes from then there is no point continuing this discussion.

You see that RC church thing? You've heard of Protestants? The Reformation? The various councils? The invent of Islam?
These are all "more useful" in the eyes of their believers, thus splinter groups pick up and run with them. And occasionally they will change their own position, for example whether or not to burn heretics at the stake, or to accept a limited about of "scientific" exploration. There is little difference in the belief system that takes "Jesus Christ, Man or God?" and "Atomic Nuclei, Pudding or Orbitals?". In both cases it is tested by the same types of minds using the tools their experts think is relevant, and the models updated appropriately.

Their is little difference between dogma and currently accepted methodology. Re-labelling it doesn't make it into something different.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Now I'm on the webpage and not going through email...

It's only complicated if you want to make it like that.

Celebrity == Popular person who appears on mass media.
Skills for Celebrity: Appears noticable on media, catches attention, .... that's about it.

I suppose you could ask your cat for advice, there's the likelihood it's as informed as the celebrity. Sure some celebrities make the effort but that does justify them, and they're not responsible for your arse. You are. At the end of the day, you are the only one truly responsible and having a full share of interest in your butt/life. It sucks perhaps. It's not part of the group happy, which can be hard for some people to handle.
And at the final count, it's who you're willing to believe and how well you want to test it. And if that's Doctor Jo's snake oil because Doctor Jo has doctor in his name, or you trust some TV personality cause they're on TV, or you trust politicians because they lead the country and they're there to represent the people and the peoples' interests aren't they... (yeah right)

Of course you can disbelieve me, take stuff from experts on faith. And then watch me smile as they're later proved wrong, change their minds or just turn out to be cashing in on their popularity (or building that popularity).

Of course "the herd" do like to make other people, in fact, anyone else, responsible for their desires/needs...

[carldem.livejournal.com]

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult_science


You _have_ re-tested the phenomena in you local instance, haven't you.... Not just taking it on "faith" and "popular scholarship" (albeit popular scientific scholarship)

[andygates.livejournal.com]

Straw man! Or do you think it's pixies in a box that make your computer work?

[carldem.livejournal.com]

Not straw man.

That is what science is about, or are you renaming what you're doing as "science".

You of course realise just blankly throwing up a claim of "strawman" without identifying the falacy is a "Strawman" falacy. As it is not relevant to the discussion and although easily disproveable, it doesn't add anything to your point.

Which brings us to the cirrect application of the ad homein. As such silly strawman attempts, when you should know better, point to the likelihood that you are personally standing on shakey ground in your analysis of the topic, leading to a high probability of a similiar loose analysis of the original topic.

[andygates.livejournal.com]

It's a perfect straw man: you're suggesting that nothing can be known outside that which can be known personally. It's a tempting position to take but, as out technological culture shows, it's untrue.

And it's always been untrue: biologists don't have to re-trace the voyage of the Beagle and dig ammonites out of Lyme Bay to have valid skills. Astronomers don't have to dig wells at the equator. The whole point of the scientific method is that you can reliably stand on the shoulders of giants.

That's why the scientific method has made more progress in the last 350 years than all the woo in the world before it, after all.

[carldem.livejournal.com]

"Stands on the shoulders of ..."

Each scientific theory may stand on the shoulders, but if you go look up the detail of proper scientific process (aka applying the technology) you'll notice that each investigation results on in a theory. The more times the theory is tested then the higher probably, the higher confidence level that said result _might_ apply in a similiar situation (for no two events can be exactly the same).
To deny this is to a kind of "lay-faith" about the scientific principles. And yes the increase of probablity does mean that a naturalistic religion (ie process) based on interative testing should give a model that we can take at faith value. (which is why the people wanted to people the anti-immune doctor).

But there's where the speculatioin comes in. We haven't been able to test some of these things, only give levels of confidence. If a hypothesis says the global warming will change by 2 degrees in the next year and it moves by 5 then the scientific theory is wrong. It doesn't prove it "more right" just because went in the right direction, and they can't do as I have seen so many PhD students do and rebuild the results values from their data just qualify their funding/paper!!!! If it's out of window of the results then their model is incorrect, and that means when it gets put into application elsewhere, in the field, it's confidence level is way off. But to back such theories then is a "denial faith" no different from Moonies, or proponents of the guys on anti-immunisation (or early cold fusion)

[carldem.livejournal.com]

...people wanted to people the anti-immune...
=
...people wanted to believe the anti-immune...

Sorry error in the first editing.