What is "Bad" Science?

[Ebionite]

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses.
It wasn't covid-19 virus. It was another corona virus.

OK

 

[shunyadragon]

Coronaviruses are a large family of viruses.
It wasn't covid-19 virus. It was another corona virus.

First human coronavirus isolated at U. Of Chicago more than 50 years ago.

First human coronavirus isolated at UChicago more than 50 years ago

How a study of medical students with upper respiratory infections in 1962 helped lay the groundwork for research on coronaviruses, including the virus that causes COVID-19.

www.uchicagomedicine.org

​

The most important point is the the first Corona virus isolated was a common cold corona virus,

 

[shunyadragon]

It really doesn't surprise me that you can't figure out why ethics are relevant.

Ethics are most important, and the lies of David Martin's sensationalist conspiracy theories are unbelievably unethical.

He was not a scientist, but educated to the point he would know they were lies.

 

[shunyadragon]

Why would anyone believe you?

Because my posts are based on actual scientific factual knowledge, and David Martin's (unqualified non-scientist) conspiracy claims are not based on science and down right lies,

I am also a scientist with over fifty years experience. I use academic references in my posts to document my conclusions.

I also lived in China when the SARS epidemic took place, and was probably the earliest to conclude that the extent of the epidemic was limited. It is well documented that the virus originated from a wild animal sold in a local Market.

Genetic research has conclusively demonstrated that the SARS and Covid-19 virus is very closely related to wild animal viruses in China including bats.

Epidemiologic Clues to SARS Origin in China - PMC

An epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in Foshan municipality, Guangdong Province, China, in November 2002. We studied SARS case reports through April 30, 2003, including data from case investigations and a case series ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

An epidemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) began in Foshan municipality, Guangdong Province, China, in November 2002. We studied SARS case reports through April 30, 2003, including data from case investigations and a case series analysis of index cases. A total of 1,454 clinically confirmed cases (and 55 deaths) occurred; the epidemic peak was in the first week of February 2003. Healthcare workers accounted for 24% of cases. Clinical signs and symptoms differed between children (<18 years) and older persons (>65 years). Several observations support the hypothesis of a wild animal origin for SARS. Cases apparently occurred independently in at least five different municipalities; early case-patients were more likely than later patients to report living near a produce market (odds ratio undefined; lower 95% confidence interval 2.39) but not near a farm; and 9 (39%) of 23 early patients, including 6 who lived or worked in Foshan, were food handlers with probable animal contact.

 

[Ebionite]

Because my posts are based on actual scientific factual knowledge, and David Martin's (unqualified non-scientist) conspiracy claims are not based on science and down right lies,

Who needs facts when hubris is sufficient? /lol

 

[shunyadragon]

Who needs facts when hubris is sufficient? /lol

Correct, your hubris and accepting down right lies is grossly insufficient to justify an argument.

Facts and Ethics are most important, both are lacking in David Martin's claims.

I was also friends of medical scientists and doctors in China teaching medical English that had first hand experience involving SARS.

Qualifications in science is not hubris. Claiming expertise without qualification is hubris.

 

[blü 2]

Everyone knows that a "conclusion" is FINAL.

How many times have you been told that science does NOT make absolute statements? That its conclusions are derived from empiricism and induction, the limitations of which are freely acknowledged, as eg by peer review and repeatable experiment and the requirement of publication ? That the history of science is largely a dialectic of ideas?

And that the validation of science in reality is that it works, and makes medicines, computers, new kinds of materials, seeks to explain the universe and the Planck length, constantly questions the past, debates views of the present?

A whole lot of things that make modern civilization possible, whether you're religious or you're not.

Why are you incapable of hearing this?

 

[sayak83]

This is why scientism is 'cult'. It's adherents are absolutely blind to any possibility of being wrong. And if anyone dares to contradict their scacred cow of science-as-truth-oracle, they must fight it to the death no matter how silly their arguments are. And it's always the same cult members whining and crying that their sacred cow has been contradicted.

What I am seeing is a person who cannot even accept a simple correction regarding word usage in science and society and instead goes on accusing the entire world as stupid and all of science as cult for not using one's personal word preference! Talk about whining and crying....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How many times have you been told that science does NOT make absolute statements? That its conclusions are derived from empiricism and induction, the limitations of which are freely acknowledged, as eg by peer review and repeatable experiment and the requirement of publication ? That the history of science is largely a dialectic of ideas?

And that the validation of science in reality is that it works, and makes medicines, computers, new kinds of materials, seeks to explain the universe and the Planck length, constantly questions the past, debates views of the present?

A whole lot of things that make modern civilization possible, whether you're religious or you're not.

Why are you incapable of hearing this?

If scientists don't draw conclusions, why is there a conclusion section in theses, dissertations and scientific papers?

 

[blü 2]

If scientists don't draw conclusions, why is there a conclusion section in theses, dissertations and scientific papers?

Because that's what the author or authors are asserting they've found, no?

And what anyone who disagrees can get their teeth into.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Because that's what the author or authors are asserting they've found, no?

And what anyone who disagrees can get their teeth into.

I recall from actually writing these things, that it was an extension of the findings to broader conditions at a higher level. Others could argue that such conclusions are correct, wrong, don't go far enough or go to far.'

I spent several years studying the seasonal impact on nontarget soil insects to soil-applied insecticides and herbicides with an eye to determining synergistic effects. What I found was that initial applications reduced non-target populations as you would expect, but these would rebound significantly through the season. Synergism occurred, but was not sustained across years, was inconsistent among timepoints within the same year and among combinations of the various applied compounds. Overall impact on non-target soil insects was under greater selection due to season and year than from the applications.

This was on two different bottomland soybean fields in the Mississippi Delta, but I could draw the conclusion that it would apply across the range of the Delta or even form a basis to predict the impact on non-target insects in other cropping systems or upland cropping systems for those chemicals applied. That conclusion was based on the evidence, but may not hold as valid with wider testing over a greater range of geographies and crops.

 

[blü 2]

I recall from actually writing these things, that it was an extension of the findings to broader conditions at a higher level. Others could argue that such conclusions are correct, wrong, don't go far enough or go to far.'

I spent several years studying the seasonal impact on nontarget soil insects to soil-applied insecticides and herbicides with an eye to determining synergistic effects. What I found was that initial applications reduced non-target populations as you would expect, but these would rebound significantly through the season. Synergism occurred, but was not sustained across years, was inconsistent among timepoints within the same year and among combinations of the various applied compounds. Overall impact on non-target soil insects was under greater selection due to season and year than from the applications.

This was on two different bottomland soybean fields in the Mississippi Delta, but I could draw the conclusion that it would apply across the range of the Delta or even form a basis to predict the impact on non-target insects in other cropping systems or upland cropping systems for those chemicals applied. That conclusion was based on the evidence, but may not hold as valid with wider testing over a greater range of geographies and crops.

As a matter of interest, were your conclusions challenged? Acted on? Opposed? (I take it from your post that they weren't ignored.)

 

[Ebionite]

Correct, your hubris and accepting down right lies is grossly insufficient to justify an argument.

What lies, specifically? You have made false accusations about dishonesty before.

 

[PureX]

If scientists don't draw conclusions, why is there a conclusion section in theses, dissertations and scientific papers?

Bad habits are hard to break. And there is a lot of bad science just like there us a lot of bad religion, bad politics, bad philosophy, bad art, and bad commerce. Science is not the sacred oracle of truth that the scientism cultists here believe it to be. And you can tell who they are by their complete inability to recognize that fact.

What you're referring to are essentially speculative conclusions which is a contradiction in terms. And is why the term "conclusion" should not be used when the term "hypothesis" is the actual appropriate term to use in this instance.

 

[PureX]

I recall from actually writing these things, that it was an extension of the findings to broader conditions at a higher level. Others could argue that such conclusions are correct, wrong, don't go far enough or go to far.'

Because they were not, in fact, conclusive. They were speculative. Hypothetical. And everyone else understood this.

I spent several years studying the seasonal impact on nontarget soil insects to soil-applied insecticides and herbicides with an eye to determining synergistic effects. What I found was that initial applications reduced non-target populations as you would expect, but these would rebound significantly through the season. Synergism occurred, but was not sustained across years, was inconsistent among timepoints within the same year and among combinations of the various applied compounds. Overall impact on non-target soil insects was under greater selection due to season and year than from the applications.

This was on two different bottomland soybean fields in the Mississippi Delta, but I could draw the conclusion that it would apply across the range of the Delta or even form a basis to predict the impact on non-target insects in other cropping systems or upland cropping systems for those chemicals applied. That conclusion was based on the evidence, but may not hold as valid with wider testing over a greater range of geographies and crops.

 

[shunyadragon]

What lies, specifically? You have made false accusations about dishonesty before.

Biggest lies: (1) Covid-19 or a model(?) of Covid-19 was isolated in 1965, There is no such thing as a model(?) of Covid-19. (2) This was used by pharma to Create and spread virus for the pandemic. It is impossible to create Covid-19 from a common cold coronavirus. (3) Pharma created the SARS coronavirus and caused that epidemic.

The origin of the Covid-19 and SARS coronavirus are documented to originate from wild animals such as bats. It is possible that version of this wild animal coronavirus was from a Chinese lab, but that has not been documented. The most likely source is eild animals butchered in local markets.

David Martin has absolutely no qualifications in the sciences involved in viruses or medicine, but he has enough education to know he is lying.

My accusations of lies have been demonstrated with references,

 

[YoursTrue]

Bad habits are hard to break. And there is a lot of bad science just like there us a lot of bad religion, bad politics, bad philosophy, bad art, and bad commerce. Science is not the sacred oracle of truth that the scientism cultists here believe it to be. And you can tell who they are by their complete inability to recognize thatS fact.

What you're referring to are essentially speculative conclusions which is a contradiction in terms. And is why the term "conclusion" should not be used when the term "hypothesis" is the actual appropriate term to use in this instance.

Makes sense. And that is why people often take sides even though they should know they could be wrong. Or prejudiced. Or moving (sliding?) to erroneous conclusions and will not admit it. You got it.

 

[YoursTrue]

Correct, your hubris and accepting down right lies is grossly insufficient to justify an argument.

Facts and Ethics are most important, both are lacking in David Martin's claims.

I was also friends of medical scientists and doctors in China teaching medical English that had first hand experience involving SARS.

Qualifications in science is not hubris. Claiming expertise without qualification is hubris.

Sorry, but some things like testing medications or giving stents to people can be based on questionable tendencies or inclinations of doctors. Same with vitamins. Big business. Or just do it. For instance -- "The knowledge gap is especially large for medical procedures, as opposed to drugs, since there is no FDA for surgery. Doctors learn about new procedures from colleagues, specialty society meetings, and information provided by medical device companies — a potentially arbitrary and unscientific process." Why American doctors keep doing expensive procedures that don’t work
I've read about this in more than one publication. I'm sure you know about it, having worked with doctors.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry, but some things like testing medications or giving stents to people can be based on questionable tendencies or inclinations of doctors. Same with vitamins. Big business. Or just do it. For instance -- "The knowledge gap is especially large for medical procedures, as opposed to drugs, since there is no FDA for surgery. Doctors learn about new procedures from colleagues, specialty society meetings, and information provided by medical device companies — a potentially arbitrary and unscientific process." Why American doctors keep doing expensive procedures that don’t work
I've read about this in more than one publication. I'm sure you know about it, having worked with doctors.

Negative Nellie, nobody is claiming anything is perfect except you who seem unable to discuss what is. Try actually interacting by discussing the topics instead of pointing out the truism that it is human knowledge and thus necessarily incomplete. Whether it is ultimately the result of a god or not is not even really part of the discussion. Beware however that as with your last link, material written by those with a bias toward reinforcing their belief structure often post material that is easily debunked and often outright false.

 

[Ebionite]

Biggest lies: (1) Covid-19 or a model(?) of Covid-19 was isolated in 1965,

AFAIK nobody said that.