Obviously we are not the only victims.
Member
Mark - bad science
Since there is so much disinformation from medical and fitness industry accredited professionals, to the point of blatant falsehood, do you think the same BS happens in other fields in life? I won't name examples I could think of, but what are some other areas you think that the public is grotesquely misinformed by professionals?
TMPHBITEU
Obviously we are not the only victims.
Member
Clearly we can't be trusted with the truth. Reputations and funding are at stake that are well above our pay grade.
Reading Taubes has been a real eye opener. The truth is out there... but you've really got to look.
✓ Member
Oh hell. I'll bite.
How about Global Warmng for starters??? Sheesh.
The longer I'm in the world of science and engineering the longer I shake my head. The incompetence in the world of CNC machining--by so called experts--is astounding.
Member
Interesting linguistic perspective: bad science can only be defined once good science is introduced. If all of it was "good", it would just be called science as none of it would be "bad". The dichotomy of good-bad and all the grey areas in between is easily one of the reasons why "experts" are bred, not born. And because science is performed by humans, there will always be both good and bad science. Neither expertise nor "goodness" is innate.
QED nothing matters or means anything because everything is relative. Jk lol
Member
Any time you see or hear the word 'economists forecast' your probably being fed some grade A BS.
Member
You may test the retardedness of any "scientist" or wannabe scientist or any guy thinking he knows how to think this question:
"How come we have seasons?"
or
The guy will answer an explanation X.
Then, you ask: "if X is true, then how to you explain that we have at the moment summer in Paris and winter in Perth? (or vice-versa)"
95% of the time, the X will be BS, irrespective of "education" level: "uneducated" to Phd...
And then, these guys will lecture you on how to do this and that...
Not sure who is the idiot there: the educated moron or the moron being educated...
Member
This is what passes for a ER note (no offense to the SS illustrious resident ER physician):
"...so not responding as usual and following instructions today she it's depth out to get something unit hotel 20 stay in the room out on her."
There's more, but it's the same.
Then, "...will admit to hospistalist service."
Actually the note is perfect since the admission is for expressive aphasia.
Member
Really? Not understanding the tilt of earths axis is uncommon?Originally Posted by Matthew_888
Member
Words that should always raise red flags.
- Cost estimate (why guarantee when you can merely estimate)
- Scientific consensus (why prove when you can more easily infer consensus)
- Preponderance of evidence (none of which is compelling enough to stand on its own)
Suspicious behavior.
- Personal attacks on people who decent (usually to some "claimed" consensus)
- When observations are discredited which conflict the "prevailing wisdom"
- Anyone quoting anything from the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) which creates "cost estimates" for the government
* The OMB track record on cost estimates is hilarious, full order of magnitude misses are not uncommon.
Start by knowing the funding of the research team and you magically know their conclusions. Coincidence I'm sure. But this is for established beliefs.
WELL INTENDED LIES
For those in formative stage... look to the most "politically correct". Example, when dietary guidance was in its formative stage, there was a great deal of "concern" about feeding the world and if we could push people to eat a higher carb diet in the US, it might save people from starving elsewhere. Certainly in some minds, pushing this agenda was more important than telling the truth.
The synthetic "truth" about dietary Fat causing heart disease, gained momentum and very powerful allies with deep pockets. People drawing the logical conclusions from the "actual research data" were marginalized as "fringe lunatics". Observations that did not comply with the AHA's central dogma were condemned as dangerous and unhealthy.
HANDLING OF CRITICS
The response to honest criticism and counter example is very telling. If these people are treated as heretics... then you are dealing with a religion. It is not science, period.
Posting Permissions