The witchhunt continues...

[icehorse]

Bad experiences?

As I said, even Creationists manage to scrape togather a handful of biologists to state evolution isn't real.
21 isn't a large enough sample, especially when they ignore transyouth are treated in other countries, not just America.

You have mentioned how the system mishandled your case?

As for the US vs. other countries, what position are you holding? Is it fair for me to infer from this post that you think we should include how other countries are treating trans people?

 

[Father Heathen]

Woke is about the Left trying to make new self serving customs, main stream. That of itself is not bad, but they crossed the line, when they started to censor the current mainstream. The censor tells us it is not organic, but contrived; doctrinarian. Organic will grow even among the current mainstream. Contrived needed to bull dose the land or it will die not take root. This dearth of contrived is what is happening, even with a little push back. It was more like an evasion weed, than a wild flower, that first needed stripe mining to start.

Whenever conservatives use the term "woke", they're usually referring to things they either don't like or understand. In most cases, that includes efforts to ensure people's rights, freedoms, livelihoods, equality, the environment, health, education, etc. It's empathetic rather than self-serving.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

Whenever conservatives use the term "woke", they're usually referring to things they either don't like or understand. In most cases, that includes efforts to ensure people's rights, freedoms, livelihoods, equality, the environment, health, education, etc. It's empathetic rather than self-serving.

To be fair, sometimes conservative refer to "cancel culture" too when they say "woke". However, accusations of cancel culture on one side are largely meaningless any more with the side accusing people of "cancel culture" engaging in it.

 

[Father Heathen]

To be fair, sometimes conservative refer to "cancel culture" too when they say "woke". However, accusations of cancel culture on one side are largely meaningless any more with the side accusing people of "cancel culture" engaging in it.

They've no place to whine about "cancel culture" considering their boycott of Bud Light, Target, Barbie, Disney, drag shows, etc.

 

[F1fan]

this is non-responsive

How is a response "non-responsive"? I critiqued Your explanation of science and you replied with something someone else said about something unrelated. It's not hard to get science right. When we see people misrepresent it there is an underlying motive, and that tends to be a political agenda that wants to cast suspicion on certain results in science and medicine. It's happening in anti-evolution agenda, in the climate change denialism, in anti-vaxxers, and in the culture war against homosexuality and trans folks.

Just get your science right.

 

[icehorse]

How is a response "non-responsive"? I critiqued Your explanation of science and you replied with something someone else said about something unrelated. It's not hard to get science right. When we see people misrepresent it there is an underlying motive, and that tends to be a political agenda that wants to cast suspicion on certain results in science and medicine. It's happening in anti-evolution agenda, in the climate change denialism, in anti-vaxxers, and in the culture war against homosexuality and trans folks.

Just get your science right.

To review:

I made a summary of science that you criticized.

I asked you a specific question about the nature of your criticism.

You did NOT respond to my specific question, you went back to generalities.

That's when I said you were being non-responsive. You have yet to answer my specific question concerning your criticism.

 

[icehorse]

They've no place to whine about "cancel culture" considering their boycott of Bud Light, Target, Barbie, Disney, drag shows, etc.

I would say cancel culture is a problem regardless of who's doing it, correct?

 

[F1fan]

To review:

I made a summary of science that you criticized.

I asked you a specific question about the nature of your criticism.

You did NOT respond to my specific question, you went back to generalities.

That's when I said you were being non-responsive. You have yet to answer my specific question concerning your criticism.

Your question was this:

So of course I simplified the topic, but are your corrections more than distinctions without a difference - for the purposes of this debate?

What is there to respond to? You simplified a definition of science to a point where it was inaccurate. What purpose is there to not offer a correct definition? Define science correctly if that is crucial to your point.

Your definition was this:

Let's review how science works:

1 - Using existing evidence, a new idea is proposed.
2 - People attack the idea and if ANY counter evidence is found, the idea must be revised or abandoned

Do people attack the idea in science? When? This is closer to defining debate or politics rather than science.

The only attacks against science are those who have political agendas that aim to cause distrust in poorly educated citizens. There is no counter evidence in science because the scientific method requires ALL facts and data be accounted for. You didn't mention that.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Einstein was just one guy, and he broke consensus.

Electroshock treatments used to be the consensus. Thalidomide used to be the consensus...

Sticking just with puberty blockers for now, "gender affirming care" says that puberty blockers save lives by reducing suicides. If so, that's an important, consequential claim. But puberty blockers come with a cost that should not be dismissed. Puberty blockers are NOT benign.

So it's abundantly scientific to rigorously re-examine the evidence underlying the "saves lives" claim, correct? And if the evidence is shaky, the claim must be revised or abandoned, correct?

No medical treatment is without possibility of risks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You have mentioned how the system mishandled your case?

It was insurance issues and doctors changing networks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

As for the US vs. other countries, what position are you holding? Is it fair for me to infer from this post that you think we should include how other c

That does help to make better informed decisions and metastudies.

 

[icehorse]

You simplified a definition of science to a point where it was inaccurate.

In what substantial way was it inaccurate?

Do people attack the idea in science? When? This is closer to defining debate or politics rather than science.

The only attacks against science are those who have political agendas that aim to cause distrust in poorly educated citizens. There is no counter evidence in science because the scientific method requires ALL facts and data be accounted for.

Professionals and scientists attack ideas in science all the time. Every new proposal made by professionals working in science areas or by scientists themselves comes under harsh peer review. Correct?

Of course politicians and non-professionals also attack new ideas in science, but that's a tangent.

Fundamental to science is the idea that scientists ALWAYS attack each other's ideas.

 

[icehorse]

No medical treatment is without possibility of risks.

A few might be, but for now I'll largely agree. But we always have to weigh the risks against the rewards. The "21" are saying that they're not convinced that the studies supporting puberty blockers for trans youth correctly assess the risk vs. reward.

 

[icehorse]

It was insurance issues and doctors changing networks.

Got it, thanks. So how old were you when you had these insurance issues?

I'm asking because if you were over 21, then I have no issues.

 

[icehorse]

That does help to make better informed decisions and metastudies.

Agreed. So if other European countries with healthcare systems better than the US's are rethinking the use of puberty blockers for trans youth, should we take that into our considerations?

 

[F1fan]

In what substantial way was it inaccurate?

I did a web search to cut and paste. This is what you should have done:

​

What is the scientific method simple definition?​

​

​

The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.​

Professionals and scientists attack ideas in science all the time. Every new proposal made by professionals working in science areas or by scientists themselves comes under harsh peer review. Correct?

Generally criticisms are flawed methods. And scientists know there is peer review which is why they are very careful to not make mistakes. Mistakes do get made, but it is usually a methodological issue, and variables that are not controlled. It doesn't mean the hypothesis is incorrect, but that methods need to be redesigned. Remember the statistical minimum is 99.95%, so that leaves little room for error.

 

[icehorse]

I did a web search to cut and paste. This is what you should have done:

​

What is the scientific method simple definition?​

​

​

The scientific method is the process of objectively establishing facts through testing and experimentation. The basic process involves making an observation, forming a hypothesis, making a prediction, conducting an experiment and finally analyzing the results.​

Generally criticisms are flawed methods. And scientists know there is peer review which is why they are very careful to not make mistakes. Mistakes do get made, but it is usually a methodological issue, and variables that are not controlled. It doesn't mean the hypothesis is incorrect, but that methods need to be redesigned. Remember the statistical minimum is 99.95%, so that leaves little room for error.

With all sincerity, I think you're nit picking here. You just acknowledged that peer review is standard practice. That was the key aspect of science I was summarizing.

The last phrase in YOUR definition is "analyzing the results". Isn't peer review a part of that analysis?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

With all sincerity, I think you're nit picking here. You just acknowledged that peer review is standard practice. That was the key aspect of science I was summarizing.

The last phrase in YOUR definition is "analyzing the results". Isn't peer review a part of that analysis?

I would hope that you don't consider peer review like the opposing side in a debate, as that seems to be an oversimplication and also a bit of a caricature of it.

 

[icehorse]

I would hope that you don't consider peer review like the opposing side in a debate, as that seems to be an oversimplication and also a bit of a caricature of it.

Hmmm..

I would say that RF is a much better than average debating forum. And I would say that a LOT of what happens on RF is informal peer review.

But I would certainly agree that in the context of scientific or professional peer review, we're not doing that here.

 

[fantome profane]

But we always have to weigh the risks against the rewards.

The patient has to weigh the risks. "We", whoever we are, should not appoint ourselves to weight those risks for someone else.

I would say that a LOT of what happens on RF is informal peer review.

That is utterly absurd.