When Consensus Group Thinking is Useless

[rational experiences]

Experiment.

I the expert meant it. To force change.

So you ask science what is science?

Men say discussing theisms philosophising about everything just because you can.

Science.

Then he quotes I want to be a designer. And invent. Which rationally is no longer science.

If you were to give a subject one status only by applications relating to human choice.

Science is not a designer.

An inventor is.

Builds a machine as a human not anywhere else but on earth. Takes earths products. Forces the product natural into an unnatural form.

Which rationally is not science.

Then he takes natural any product forces it to change.

The word explanation is now artificial causes.

So he says I want a reaction inside of my machine when I push the buttons.

So he has to put inside the machine the substance.

Experiment control.

Yet everyday he has been applying non machine converting atmospheric experiments.

On the ground is Multi varied substances nothing like any energetic machine one of converting state.

So if he applies and gives self permission to atmosphere experiment multi ground bodies get attacked.

As the force of his intent is massive.
As most substances are nothing like his energetic metal or stone particles. We get hurt.

Pretty basic philosophical science advice to a liar not a scientist actually.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
IMO you´re a victim of the medical bias which claims to rescue your health.

My opinions about the ability of the current vaccines to protect those willing and able to take them don't come from anybody else's opinions.

And then you refer to the statistics made on basis of the standing biased ideas of vira influences.

Apparently you´re unaware that the medical and virologic science is a very narrow scientific branch with all its embedded biases which again are disconnected from all other scientific branches.

Their standing bias is that everything shall be cured by vaccines - despite 100 of years failure to cure any vira connected disease. This narrowminded virology branch have only 1 option to survive together with the medical industry, and this is to recommend further new vaccines years in and years out. Which they already are recommending.

All as the obvious result of a having a huge narrowminded bias in this branch to which you and millions others becomes simple victims of scientific group thinking biases.

 

[Native]

That is why experiment is the basis of science.

Yet another "religious" claim of the "scientific method". Try your instrumental experiments on the strange Big Bang formation.

 

[Native]

The only correct source of knowledge I understand, is pristine secure and truthful Word of God/Allah/YHVH, if correctly understood, please.
Right?

Excuse me, but obviously you´re heavily affected by the Abrahamic religious biases in which only a male God govern. In almost every else ancient cultural religions, they also have the female Goddess to count for the truth.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

My opinions about the ability of the current vaccines to protect those willing and able to take them don't come from anybody else's opinions. They come from the data telling us how the vaccinated and unvaccinated are faring. So far, the instances of severe disease, some leading to death, are overwhelmingly more likely to occur to the unvaccinated.

And then you refer to the statistics made on basis of the standing biased ideas of vira influences.

Statistics are not opinions.

It is actually possible to consistently be able to recognize the difference between news and editorial. People complain about CNN's liberal bias. These are the people who call any reporting of facts uncomplimentary to Trump or the Republicans liberal media.

But I don't care what Jake Tapper or Chris Cuomo or Don Lemon think. I only care about the facts they report. My conclusions are my own. If these people agree with them, great. If not, I don't care. I only defer to the opinions of experts in areas I'm not qualified to judge, as in law or engineering. If my architect says that my ideas won't fly because I'm not taking load-bearing walls and columns into account, I let him tell me what works. But in areas like the news, there is no expert counsel, just other opinions.

This idea comes to mind when the conservatives accuse people like me of being indoctrinated for watching what they call the liberal media, meaning not Fox, Newsmax, or OANN. Sorry, but is really is possible to transcend that. It really is possible to recognize unsupported opinion and filter it out. It really is possible to not allow oneself to remain intellectual plankton, the marine creatures that can't swim or walk on the ocean floor, and go wherever the prevailing current takes them. Incidentally, the creatures that choose where they will be or go are called nekton. One needn't be plankton for Fox or any other indoctrination media.

Apparently you´re unaware that the medical and virologic science is a very narrow scientific branch with all its embedded biases which again are disconnected from all other scientific branches.

I'm a retired physician with a career in internal medicine behind him. I've treated patients with infectious diseases. I've inserted endotracheal tubes into people in respiratory failure and managed the ventilator. There is no bias involved in any of that. When your respiratory rate is 28 and your O2 saturation 80%, you get a tube Where's the bias there?

Narrow, as in one among many subdivisions of science? So is guidance control in spacecraft. Did you have a point?

Disconnected from all other branches of science? Where do you get your ideas from? My training borrowed from dozens of branches of science outside of medicine, including anatomy, physiology, biochemistry (my undergrad major), chemistry, pharmacology, microbiology (including virology), immunology, genetics, epidemiology, embryology, and others.

Their standing bias is that everything shall be cured by vaccines

Who says that but the scientifically unsophisiticated attacking the science they don't understand? You don't seem to understand what a cure is, or how it differs from a preventative measure.

You also don't seem to understand what the claim regarding what the vaccine can do is, so what value would your opinion on how they should be viewed have? What does Bill Cosby say? Or Kaitlyn Jenner? Has Britney Spears weighed in on the vaccine controversy yet? They probably also know no medical science, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't value their opinions on the vaccine, right?

You're the biased one here. Your opinions are based in emotion, not science. You don't know the science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why is it that two time vaccinated persons still are affected by virus?

Because vaccines aren't 100% effective.
And neither do vaccines protect you from getting infected. You still get infected. The point of a vaccine is to build up your immune system so that it can fight the infection quickly and effectively, preventing it to break out and make you severely ill.

And as it isn't 100% effective (no vaccine is), there will be those cases with breakthrough infections.

If somebody told you something different, then either they were lying or just mistaken.

How is it now that a third vaccination now is recommended in several countries?

Because the effects of the vaccine don't last a lifetime / diminish over time.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It´s not that difficult when for instants a group thinking medical science claim to have the only cure for a pandemic incidence. This is the very basics for every narrow minded general incompetence which spreads out because of a public exaggerated believe in "authorities" who have lost their natural way of thinking.

Or... maybe, just maybe, all the evidence and data points to vaccination being the best and safest course of action moving forward and that's why there is consensus among experts in the field that that is the best and safest course moving forward?

You seem to think that this "group thinking", as you call it, is merely just a bunch of people's ignorant opinions / beliefs that they just happen to agree upon for not other reason then them believing it to.

It's quite sad and intellectually dishonest of you to ommit the part for WHY they believe and accept such... that reason being the actual evidence.

 

[paarsurrey]

Excuse me, but obviously you´re heavily affected by the Abrahamic religious biases in which only a male God govern. In almost every else ancient cultural religions, they also have the female Goddess to count for the truth.

Gender is not relative to God/Allah/YHVH. One's understanding is wrong, please.
Regards

 

[cladking]

That is why experiment is the basis of science.

If only it were this simple.

Of course experiment is always supposed to be the basis of science but whole branches of science can lack one single experiment. But even legitimate experiment that forms the basis of theory is subject to interpretation. It's interpretation is dependent on definitions and the correct understanding of existing models. Even where this is solid there is still the fact that people "color in" between knowns and this will be part of their understanding. Every stage of experiment depends on axioms and definitions.

In some fields theory is simply dependent chiefly on the opinions of great scientists of the past and interpretation not of experiment but of "evidence".

I believe most of what is being taught in schools today will be overwritten within a century. But far worse is that most of some fields is simply wrong. It is these fields that generate the fundamental beliefs of what it means to be human or alive and are key to proper interpretation of all experiment. These errors play a fundamental role in the very way in which we think.

Experiment and observation are the basis of modern science but observation is very much dependent on beliefs just as is the interpretation of experiment.

I believe these problems can be mitigated in numerous ways but the last step of the scientific method should be "metaphysical implications".


Not even good experimental results can prevent one from being wrong.

 

[cladking]

So you choose to respond to, "All you offer are unsupported claims" with yet another unsupported claim. I don't believe this one, either.

People usually can't see the support for things they don't believe. Everything they see supports their beliefs.

I've offered countless support for the ancient science understanding of change in species in the form of modern scientific knowledge and even supported it with experiment but no one can seem to see it.

People and human consciousness exists within a belief structure. The more fundamental the beliefs the less easily we can question them.

Most people tend to equate scientific knowledge with reality and then see everything in terms of this "knowledge" even though it rarely applies.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

People usually can't see the support for things they don't believe. Everything they see supports their beliefs.

Yes. That describes the person saddled with a faith-based confirmation bias, which exists to protect the faith-based belief from contradictory evidence by filtering it out. You can read about it here in an essay anthropomorphizing the bias as a demon, written by old earth creationist and geologist Glenn Morton, formerly a young earth creationist:

Spoiler: Morton's demon

Maxwell suggested a famous demon which could violate the laws of thermodynamics. The demon, sitting between two rooms, controls a gate between the two rooms. When the demon sees a speedy molecule coming his way (from room A), he opens the gate and lets the speedy molecule leave the room and when he sees a slow molecule coming at the gate (from room A), he holds it closed.

Thus was born the realization that there is a dangerous demon on the loose. When I was a YEC, I had a demon that did similar things for me that Maxwell's demon did for thermodynamics. Morton's demon was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data. Fortunately, I eventually realized that the demon was there and began to open the gate when he wasn't looking.

The demon makes its victim feel very comfortable as there is no contradictory data in view. The demon is better than a set of rose colored glasses. The demon's victim does not understand why everyone else doesn't fall down and accept the victim's views. After all, the world is thought to be as the victim sees it and the demon doesn't let through the gate the knowledge that others don't see the same thing. Because of this, the victim assumes that everyone else is biased, or holding those views so that they can keep their job, or, in an even more devious attack by my demon, they think that their opponents are actually demon possessed themselves or sons of Satan. This is a devious demon!

He can make people think that the geologic column doesn't exist even if one posts examples on the internet. He can make people believe that radioactive dating doesn't work even if you show them comparisons of tree rings compared to radiocarbon dating. He can make people ignore layer after layer of footprints and burrows in the geologic column (see http://home.entouch.net/dmd/burrow.jpg ) and believe that burrowing can occur and animals can walk around unimpeded during a global flood. He can make people think that the sun is shrinking, that the stars are all within 6000 light years of the earth, or that God made pictures in that light of events which never happened. He can make people believe that fossils aren't the remains of animals and are 'petrifactions' placed there by the devil. He can make people ignore modern measurements of continental motion, stellar formation, or biological speciation. He can make people believe that 75,000 feet of sediment over an area 200 by 100 miles can be deposited in a few hundred years, and he can make people believe that Noah trained animals to poop into buckets on command. He can make people deny transitional forms which have traits clearly halfway between two groups. This is a dangerous demon.

But one thing that those unaffected by this demon don't understand is that the victim is not lying about the data. The demon only lets his victim see what the demon wants him to see and thus the victim, whose sensory input is horribly askew, feels that he is totally honest about the data. The victim doesn't know that he is the host to an evil parasite and indeed many of their opponents don't know that as well since the demon is smart enough to be too small to be seen.

But unlike Maxwell's demon, Morton's demon doesn't expend any energy—he gets his victim to expend it for him. He can get his victim to expend massive amounts of intellectual energy figuring out how to convince the world that they are wrong. The victim will spend hours reading supportive books or searching through scientific literature noting only those portions which support the YEC position. And the victim will spend lots of energy trying to convince others to come see things the way they do. Thus, the demon gets its victims to spend energy to help it spread the infection.

Those who try to help the poor victims escape the ravages of Morton's demon wear themselves out typing e-mails explaining data and facts which never get through the demon's gate. After years of weariness, the philanthropic individual dies of fatigue. This is oh so devilish a situation!

I've offered countless support for the ancient science understanding of change in species in the form of modern scientific knowledge and even supported it with experiment but no one can seem to see it.

Then you are either wrong or not articulating your position in a comprehensible manner. If you have a good argument, experienced critical thinkers will recognize it as such and say so. There are many on RF.

Most people tend to equate scientific knowledge with reality and then see everything in terms of this "knowledge" even though it rarely applies.

Everything I know that helps me navigate life - to identify and exploit opportunities while identifying and avoiding pitfalls - was learned by experience, that is empirically. We can call this informal science. It's the same process of testing hypothesis against reality. It doesn't require test tubes or telescopes, just normal human sensory input (evidence), and the application of reason to the evidence they offer. A typical example is trying out a new restaurant, enjoying the experience, inducing a general rule: eating at this restaurant will lead to good dining experiences, and testing it against reality by going there again and again until some new experience (empiricism) suggests that a new narrative is required: don't eat there on weekends, because it's too crowded.

Using this expanded definition of science, no there are no other methods for determining useful ideas about reality that help one predict outcomes than science (empiricism). If you think otherwise, please suggest some useful ideas you've developed by a non-empirical method, and how they are useful to you in making decisions.

 

[Native]

I'm a retired physician with a career in internal medicine behind him. I've treated patients with infectious diseases. I've inserted endotracheal tubes into people in respiratory failure and managed the ventilator. There is no bias involved in any of that. When your respiratory rate is 28 and your O2 saturation 80%, you get a tube Where's the bias there?

Have you ever used alternate health systems in your works but the medical one? If not, are you sure you dont have any group thinking biases at all?

Statistics are not opinions.

Statistics based on how a narrow scientific group is looking at a specific problem will always be biased according to this specific branch.

Fatal cases can be ascribed to covid even when underlying health problems is the real cause. This assumption can then be used to promote vaccines in general.

Vaccinations can be taken as being effective, but in fact it is an optimized immune system which which really reject the covid virus.

Al these assumptions of course is mirrored in statistics and it is all based on biased group thinking in modern medicine and virology.

Statistics then become opinions and one have to dig deep into a specific branch and critical analyze what is up or down in their theories and if these are consistent with other scientific or natural thinking.

Personally I reject any vaccine which is based on the scientific fiddling's of the human RNA.

Who says that but the scientifically unsophisiticated attacking the science they don't understand? You don't seem to understand what a cure is, or how it differs from a preventative measure.

You also don't seem to understand what the claim regarding what the vaccine can do is, so what value would your opinion on how they should be viewed have? What does Bill Cosby say? Or Kaitlyn Jenner? Has Britney Spears weighed in on the vaccine controversy yet? They probably also know no medical science, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't value their opinions on the vaccine, right?

You're the biased one here. Your opinions are based in emotion, not science. You don't know the science.

You hardly cannot call me biased in this case as it is ME who attempt to think otherwise and outside the medical group thinking box. Maybe you should try to do the same in your own branch for once?

 

[Native]

Because vaccines aren't 100% effective.
And neither do vaccines protect you from getting infected. You still get infected. The point of a vaccine is to build up your immune system so that it can fight the infection quickly and effectively, preventing it to break out and make you severely ill.

And as it isn't 100% effective (no vaccine is), there will be those cases with breakthrough infections.

If somebody told you something different, then either they were lying or just mistaken.

Because the effects of the vaccine don't last a lifetime / diminish over time.

The naked fact is that no vaccines can help anyone unless the actual individual immune system still is working - and then it is unnecessary to be vaccinated. at all.

In the worst of cases vaccines even can kill a person when his/hers immune system is weakened.

One cannot boost a system by vaccines if the natural build in immune system is out of order.

 

[Native]

I believe most of what is being taught in schools today will be overwritten within a century.

Yes - Unless they keep on adding "dark thing"-assumptions to their former initial group thinking assumption.

 

[cladking]

Yes. That describes the person saddled with a faith-based confirmation bias, which exists to protect the faith-based belief from contradictory evidence by filtering it out. You can read about it here in an essay anthropomorphizing the bias as a demon, written by old earth creationist and geologist Glenn Morton, formerly a young earth creationist:

People with faith in God build models of religion or biblical writings etc. People with faith in science build models of their understanding of experiment.

The former sees all of reality in such terms and the latter see all of reality in their own terms.

When we see all of reality fits our beliefs it becomes exceedingly difficult to see anomalies at all and when we do we tend to write them off as coincidence or God's will or some other irrelevancy.

But we all still see what we expect. Things change one funeral at a time because people don't change and can't see any need to change or new evidence.

Human progress is not as it seems and hasn't been for thousands of years. We are fooled into believing progress is fast because technology is catching up with theory and we believe technology represents understanding of all underlying principles.

 

[cladking]

Yes - Unless they keep on adding "dark thing"-assumptions to their former initial group thinking assumption.

I believe more effective ways to understand things will emerge. Knowledge > Understanding > Creation is dependent on not only knowledge but good understanding.

It's likely that our current science could add dark this and dark that and ever more constants to understand all of reality but the problem is there may be no path from here to there. All the spectra of reality disclosed by experiment might shed no light on the vast swathes of ignorance in between. There may be no means of seeing what's in between what is known. We've taken everything apart and there's no apparent way to put it back together to see why it works at all. Without understanding why it works there is probably no way forward.

I believe that to fix existing errors and find a way forward we must rethink how we took everything apart in the first place and what this means to experimental results and human knowledge. Perhaps we can even learn to study reality without taking it apart to get through the current impasse.

 

[paarsurrey]

Excuse me, but obviously you´re heavily affected by the Abrahamic religious biases in which only a male God govern. In almost every else ancient cultural religions, they also have the female Goddess to count for the truth.

One's understanding of peaceful Islam is not correct. It is a fact, I perceive, that Muhammad was from the line of Abraham through Ishmael but Islam is Universal. Please read first very short chapter of Fatihah consisting of only seven verses. It is often read by a practicing Muslim in Salat/Formal-prayer 36 times a day. It summarizes the whole Quran. There is no mention of any such thing in it. Right?

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you ever used alternate health systems in your works but the medical one? If not, are you sure you dont have any group thinking biases at all?

I have plenty of biases regarding health care. That's what a medical education does for one. For example, when both are options, I prefer an oral medication to an injectable or IV one. Much less chance of introducing infection.

You seem to be conflating rational bias with irrational bias. As bad as the latter is (superstitions, bigotry, etc.), the former is equally good (education). Rational biases are preferences based in experience (empiricism). For example, if after eating at two different restaurants I am able to conclude that I will have a better dining experience at one than the other, then I have formed a rational bias, also called learning, and it will a bias that helps me make decisions better decisions about where to eat than if I were to remain unbiased about the two and ended up at the lesser restaurant.

Fatal cases can be ascribed to covid even when underlying health problems is the real cause. This assumption can then be used to promote vaccines in general.

Fatal cases due to COVID can be ascribed to other diagnoses. This assumption can then be used to underestimate the effectiveness of vaccines in general. Yes, I realize that this is a pointless comment. I hope you realize the same about yours.

Vaccinations can be taken as being effective, but in fact it is an optimized immune system which which really reject the covid virus.

It's the vaccine that optimizes the immune system to cope with the COVID virus.

Personally I reject any vaccine which is based on the scientific fiddling's of the human RNA.

No vaccine modifies your RNA any more than a COVID infection. A COVID infection will eventually lead to the production of the same mRNA. In each case, the body acquires the mRNA necessary to produce the specific antibodies against a COVID virus antigen, such as the surface spike protein that allows the virus to attach to the host cell and through which it's own RNA is injected into your cells to begin producing more viruses using your cells. Wouldn't you rather have Pfizer or Moderna mRNA, that instructs your body how to generate the immune response to the virus, than the virus's RNA that can kill you? How's that for messing with your genetics? The manmade RNA can save you from the virus's RNA.

People with faith in God build models of religion or biblical writings etc. People with faith in science build models of their understanding of experiment. The former sees all of reality in such terms and the latter see all of reality in their own terms.

Not all models of reality are equal. The best one is the one that most represents that reality, in the same way that the best map is the one that most closely maps the terrain it represents. The test of a map is whether it gets you to your desired location. We actually had a faulty map of our region of Mexico in our car GPS that sent us to nowhere.

We're all navigating life using such maps, or models of reality, many using faulty maps and taking wrong turns (choices that result in undesirable outcomes). That's the only measure of a map or model - it's usefulness in helping one achieve desired outcomes. And if you're navigating life with a faulty map (false beliefs accepted by faith with no corresponding referent out there), you life will be erratic and you are much less likely to arrive at your desired destination (peace, happiness, security, self-respect, etc.).

It's also basically what defines a fact, which is a sentence that accurately maps a portion of reality and can be confirmed accurate by consulting reality (observation, testing). If my map says that there is a road from A to B, and I take it and end up in B, then I have confirmed a fact about reality using my map. It's all based in empiricism.

We are fooled into believing progress is fast because technology is catching up with theory and we believe technology represents understanding of all underlying principles.

Are you fooled? I think I can say with a great deal of accuracy how fast progress has been in my lifetime. Can't you? I remember a world without space travel or the Internet. I remember a world where air conditioning was scarce and air travel was rare.

And if the technology performs as hoped, it confirms the validity of whatever principles underlie its design. Did the manned moon missions successfully deliver men to the surface of the moon and then home again? If so, we can be pretty confident that that technology and success are based in correct ideas about reality, that is, an accurate map or model of that reality.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The naked fact is that no vaccines can help anyone

This is demonstrably bonkers.

The vast majority of people in the covid ICU today, and who end up in coffins, are unvaccinated people.
+95% of them, while a LOT more then just 5% of the populace is vaccinated.

So clearly, not only is your statement bonkers - in fact the exact opposite is true.
Clearly the vaccines are helping a GREAT MANY people and by now have saved countless lives.

unless the actual individual immune system still is working

Well, duh.
If your immune system isn't working, vaccination is likely going to be very bad for you.
In fact, you likely have bigger problems then covid at that point.

- and then it is unnecessary to be vaccinated. at all.

//facepalm

In the worst of cases vaccines even can kill a person when his/hers immune system is weakened.

Which is why not everyone is eligible for vaccination.
There's an extremely small minority with indeed such pre existing conditions for which vaccination isn't recommended. And not just against covid.

If you really think you are making any kind of valid argument against vaccination in general here, or if you really think you are telling people something they didn't already know, then you are just delusional.

One cannot boost a system by vaccines if the natural build in immune system is out of order.

And that accounts for like 0.0001% of the population.
For the other 99.9999%, the vaccine is just fine.

 

[cladking]

Not all models of reality are equal. The best one is the one that most represents that reality, in the same way that the best map is the one that most closely maps the terrain it represents.

No. We can never know what the reality is. The best model is the one that makes the best predictions.

Both ancient and modern science are for the purpose of making good prophesy so the best beliefs are those that either bring us happiness or the understanding required to create or predict.

The problem is every homo omnisciencis thinks he knows what is real by just looking. We now have Look and See Science and people willing to kill for their own versions of utopia.

We're all navigating life using such maps, or models of reality, many using faulty maps and taking wrong turns (choices that result in undesirable outcomes). That's the only measure of a map or model - it's usefulness in helping one achieve desired outcomes. And if you're navigating life with a faulty map (false beliefs accepted by faith with no corresponding referent out there), you life will be erratic and you are much less likely to arrive at your desired destination (peace, happiness, security, self-respect, etc.).

We're not always that far apart.

It's also basically what defines a fact, which is a sentence that accurately maps a portion of reality and can be confirmed accurate by consulting reality (observation, testing).

...And then you say something like this.

No sentence can be true or false because words have different definitions and connotations. Also almost every word has a level of abstraction and these have more complex effects on how a sentence is parsed. Using any modern language you can not fix this. Models are never a perfect representation of experiment. Even without the problems introduced by language it is impossible to know how experimental knowledge will manifest in the real world which lacks the controls of the lab.

You are merely assuming religions are founded in faith while I believe (not assumed) that religions are grounded in ancient science which in most real ways was exactly right by definition.

Are you fooled?

I believe there has been very little real progress in science in my lifetime other than disproving bad hypotheses. In many fields they are actually sliding backward.

And if the technology performs as hoped, it confirms the validity of whatever principles underlie its design.

No!!!

The stinky footed sun addled bumpkins even before 2000 BC used counterweights without even understanding what causes gravity or its speed. We landed a man on the moon without knowing and without knowing how gravity is related to the other basic forces.

Technology fools us into believing that our beliefs must be sound and accurate. There is no justification for such beliefs.