Over the past few years, "Follow the Science" has been a phrase that has been used to try to get people to do various things or behave certain ways. But, is that really a great plan.
Just remember that following the science resulted in eugenics, and lobotomies.
56 comments:
Absolutely! Science can run the risk of being short-sighted when it comes to moral and human rights concerns. Just as is true for religions and other fields.
I think this is why the notion of basic human rights... the Golden Rule... is a good measure for scientists, religionists, politicians and all of us... if your system is advocating or supporting something contrary to human rights and/or the Golden Rule, it's time to reevaluate your system.
Science and religion both need a basic values system to be their best selves. Seems to me.
Dan
Wow, this from someone who repeatedly tells everyone that we must follow the science. Remember when y'all told us that Ivermectin was not efficacious against COVID, because "The Science"? Remember when y'all told us that "The Science" told us that wearing masks would stop the spread of COVID?
?
1. I agreed with the point of your post. All fields should be aware of moral concerns, science included. so not sure what to make of your response.
2. Ivermectin is. STILL not encouraged to be used for Covid, according to latest science news.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/miscellaneous-drugs/ivermectin/
3. I don't think "science " said masks would stop the spread of Covid.
So... what exactly is your point?
We SHOULD heed expert, scientific data. Period.
We should NOT blindly follow science if some policy advocates harm.
Dan
I'm sure you're not.
I must have been mistaken that you were one of the advocates of masking, and the "vaccine", and that you'd dismissed Chloroquine and Ivermectin as efficacious.
Clearly you've never advocated following the science.
??
THIS IS SO WEIRD.
YES! YES!!! GOOD GOD IN HEAVEN, YESS!!!
Follow the science and the data. Yes! We should do that.
And, YES, the science said that wearing masks helps reduce risk.
Yes, the science advocates against ivermectin.
What am I missing?
I support listening to expert opinion based on data
AND
I support not doing so if there is a human rights, moral problem with doing so.
Do you think otherwise?
Dan
"Clearly you've never advocated following the science."
Are you advocating NOT following the science (ie, be informed by the data and expert opinion?
Dan
It's interesting that, we now know that masks weren't particularly effective, and we now know that Ivermectin and Doxycyclone do seem to be effective in treating COVID.
But hey, you do you.
FYI, I'm an advocate of following anything that is effective, and acknowledging when things are proven to be ineffective.
"we now know that masks weren't particularly effective, and we now know that Ivermectin and Doxycyclone do seem to be effective in treating COVID."
No, we don't know that. Again, listening to and UNDERSTANDING what the data is and ISN'T saying is important.
Do masks 100% PREVENT the spread of covid? No, but the science didn't say that. Does it help? Yes.
Are medical experts now promoting Ivermectin for Covid?
No, they're not.
You have bad data, it appears.
GIGO.
Dan
Oh, Dan has spoken.
I guess the NIH is a fount of bad information.
???
This is so deeply weird.
From the NIH link I provided above...
"Trials have
failed to find a clinical benefit from the use of ivermectin
for the treatment of COVID-19 in outpatients."
What are you talking about?
Dan
Or are you talking about the mask issue? Again, from NIH...
"Do face masks even protect against COVID-19?
“Yes, absolutely,” says Dr. Adriaan Bax, a biophysicist at NIH. He has been testing how well different types of masks work. Masks, he explains, can help stop the spread of COVID-19 for a few reasons."
SO, I don't know what it is you think you know, but I don't think you are understanding something correctly.
Dan
So, finally, to the point of your post:
FOLLOW THE SCIENCE, if we mean:
Look at the data
Consider the research
Where we're not expert enough to understand the data or research, listen to the experts
And really, listening to the experts, period...
It is my reasonable opinion that EACH one of these is a rational thing to do. We SHOULD do these things, every time and in every case. Period. We should train our children and citizens to do these things. Period.
It is also my reasonable opinion that when people DON'T do these things, we should recognize it as a problem for any society.
Data matter. Facts matter. Experts ARE experts.
Now, having said that, while experts are experts, they certainly are not infallible, any more than theologians are. Part of the reason that "following the science" is wise advice is because part of the scientific method is to have an expert do their research and post their data. AND THEN, other experts in the same fields can see if that data holds up. This method is a sound one and should also be encouraged. When there are outliers, that doesn't mean they are wrong, but it DOES mean that they are outliers (and it would depend on why they are outliers).
But another vital part of science is that we know what we know, UNTIL we know better. We may have these 100 research efforts that consistently (across data and research) resulted in these 10 conclusions and that should be important to us. We should follow the science.
But in science, more and better data and measurements may come along. We may learn that shooting ten gallons of Ivermectin up our butts is a good thing and WHEN the data shows that, we could consider its benefit. But until such time as we have more, better data, we should follow the data we have now.
That, as opposed to some non-expert saying, "Well, in spite of the data, I know my granny took ivermectin up her butt and it helped her, therefore, it should be public policy to shoot ivermectin up our butts!" THAT anecdotal, non-expert opinion should not be given the same weight as expert opinion.
And we should teach that to our children and citizens, as well.
But also, when listening to experts, some times they have in the past recommended policies and actions that were an offense to human rights. We should NOT, therefore, listen to Science OR religion blindly. We should always weigh actions with an eye towards human rights and morality, as best we can.
So, if "science" were saying we should force abortions on some oppressed population and then use those aborted fetuses to make even better Ivermectin, well, no, we can reasonably draw a line ANY time that science or religion is advocating something immoral.
Is that something you can agree with?
I'm speaking of the NIH link that was clear that there is a benefit to Ivermectin and Doxycyclene.
"Conclusions: Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33983065/
Ohhhhhh, one guy from the NIH with one out of context snippet.
Yes, I've seen data that leads me to question the narrative, but obviously if the data doesn't come from you it's worthless and wrong.
Hah!
That you don't understand the expert opinion only means that you don't understand the expert opinion.
Dan
"So, finally, to the point of your post:"
Well, this says it all. Finally you decide to get to "the point".
FYI, "the point" is that following "The Science" can lead to some pretty nasty places, and those nasty places are all places that "The Experts" told us were based on "The Science". That simply, blindly, following "The Science" wherever you're told to might not be the best default position.
I'll close by noting that you have no foundation to declare anything to be "immoral" in an objective or universal sense. If you're just blowing some opinion out your ass, then I don't care. When you announce that something is (objectively) "immoral", then you lose credibility.
Just to clarify, is it your contention that there are only two options-moral or immoral? Or are you suggesting that morality is a continuum with a virtually unlimited number of gradations?
That I don't trust your ability to accurately or correctly communicate "The Expert" opinion is the greater issue.
But hey, if you want your default position to be follow "The Science", and don't question what "The Experts" tell you that's fine with me.
It's interesting that "The Science" around COVID told us that the elderly were the highest risk group, yet we saw the State of NY intentionally placing the elderly in higher risk situations and the death toll rise accordingly.
What's going to be interesting is how y'all in the follow "The Science" crowd will deal with things if we continue to see more evidence of links between the "vaccine" and other health problems, as well as an increase in the number of "trans" people with negative outcomes.
You know what. It's not going to be interesting at all. You've already told us what your excuse will be.
You'll play the "We didn't know any better, we followed The Science and The Experts, until we realized that they were wrong.".
"if you want your default position to be follow "The Science", and don't question what "The Experts" tell you that's fine with me."
So, the data would make me think you are an intelligent man and, given that, WHY would you make such a stupidly false claim?
You can't be so stupid as to think I'm really saying Don't question scientists ever, right?
You tell me. The facts are, I'm of course NOT saying that at all. The fact is, that's a stupid presumption.
Do you recognize the facts?
Dan
"What's going to be interesting is how y'all in the follow "The Science" crowd..."
You know, maybe it would help if YOU define what you're trying to say. Because, as far as I know, there is ONLY ONE group, and it's the Follow the science, facts and data crowd.
It sounds like you're defining yourself out of it into some weird flat earth crowd, but that's hard to believe. So, please, define what you mean.
Dan
"FYI, "the point" is that following "The Science" can lead to some pretty nasty places, and those nasty places are all places that "The Experts" told us were based on "The Science". That simply, blindly, following "The Science" wherever you're told to might not be the best default position."
Which I clearly agreed to in my first word.
("Absolutely!", in case you missed it. )
As I made clear, blindly following science, religion, dentistry! ANY philosophy without regard to reason, morality or human rights is a problem. Agreed?
If you agree and recognize I've already been clear on blindly following any human endeavor, then why would you ask a hypothetical question you knew the answer to?
"I'll close by noting that you have no foundation to declare anything to be "immoral" in an objective or universal sense"
Nor do you. So, what of it?
That is part of the problem of blindly following a human religion is that such religionists start acting as if THEY are the humans with objective moral answers... you start having inquisition and slavery and denying rights to women and others.
Do agree that great atrocities have been done by blindly following religion?
Dan
"is it your contention that there are only two options-moral or immoral? Or are you suggesting that morality is a continuum with a virtually unlimited number of gradations?"
Depends on the question. Generally speaking, I think morality is best understood on a continuum and conditional.
Is it immoral (unhealthy, irrational, bad policy...) for a person to drive a car?
No, I don't think so.
Is it immoral (unhealthy, irrational, bad policy...) for a person to drive a car at 100 miles an hour down a residential street? While drunk?
Yes!
What if you're the ONLY person in this abandoned city and you're rushing a dying child to a hospital?
No!
Setting, conditions, circumstances matter.
On the other hand, is it ALWAYS wrong to enslave another human being or rape someone?
Yes!
Ultimately, I think it's wisest to think about what is healthy and promoting of human rights, rather than some list of rules or laws.
For one thing, we HAVE NO one set of rules and laws that are objectively provable as moral.
For another thing, those who try to live by a legalized rule list have often ended up promoting terribly harmful, oppressive rules.
As biblical authors rightly note, legalism can be so deadly!
Agree? Disagree?
Dan
"Just to clarify, is it your contention that there are only two options-moral or immoral? Or are you suggesting that morality is a continuum with a virtually unlimited number of gradations?"
And your answer to your questions?
"I'll close by noting that you have no foundation to declare anything to be "immoral" in an objective or universal sense..."
Is it the case that you have no foundation to declare anything objectively immoral? Are you a moral anarchist?
If you DO have an objectively provable moral system, where and why do you keep it hidden, brother?
Dan
"You'll play the "We didn't know any better, we followed The Science and The Experts, until we realized that they were wrong.".
Um... yes. Because why wouldn't we?
Think about it: we discover a new deadly and disabling disease and scientists research it for 1, 2, 3 years. And the research suggests a vaccine or treatment and that treatment is tested for another year or two. At that point, they say, This treatment has been shown in our tests to be effective in saving lives. There IS no data saying otherwise. Isn't it rational that citizens would take the treatment as the best known option?
AND, if some citizens don't trust that five year process... EVEN though they have NO data to show it's not reliable, well, they don't have to take it.
But why is it NOT rational to use the best science that we have at that moment?
Dan
"So, the data would make me think you are an intelligent man and, given that, WHY would you make such a stupidly false claim?"
Oh I don't know. Perhaps because I've never seen you not make the "follow the science" argument in support of any of your "sciency" positions. I've certainly never seen you alter your positions based on new or contrary science.
"You can't be so stupid as to think I'm really saying Don't question scientists ever, right?"
Not exactly. It's more that you'll parrot "follow the science" when you find "science" that aligns with your preconceptions, biases, or politics regardless of any contrary "science" that might exist. It's almost like you use "follow the science" as a shield to hide behind when people disagree with you.
"Do you recognize the facts?"
I recognize what I see when I look at the entire scope of your words and actions.
"Agreed?"
I agree that you've said that, yet I see a disconnect between what you've said here and whet you've said elsewhere.
"If you agree and recognize I've already been clear on blindly following any human endeavor, then why would you ask a hypothetical question you knew the answer to?"
Because you tend to avoid taking specific, positions and being nailed down.
"Nor do you. So, what of it?"
If you acknowledge that you have no grounding to declare things to be "moral/immoral" in any sort of universal/objective way, then why would you continue to engage in something you admit you have no grounding for?
"That is part of the problem of blindly following a human religion is that such religionists start acting as if THEY are the humans with objective moral answers... you start having inquisition and slavery and denying rights to women and others."
Irrelevant.
"Do agree that great atrocities have been done by blindly following religion?"
I'd agree that blindly following religions has led to negative things being done, but to single out religion is at best disingenuous.
It's interesting that you're trying to make it sound like my pointing out your lack of grounding for your morality claims, must indicate that I am "blindly following" religion. Yet, I've not ever positively asserted this to be the case. My point is only that you (and much of society) has no grounding to assert any sort of universal moral code based on your own definitions of morality.
"Agree? Disagree?"
I'm merely trying to gain understanding of your position. My agreement or disagreement is irrelevant. It seems that, if one strips away the convoluted, absurd examples", that you believe that morality is measured on a continuum and that the same act under different circumstances can be either "moral" or "immoral" depending on the circumstances not on the act.
"And your answer to your questions?"
As I'm merely trying to gain understanding of your position, my answers are irrelevant.
"Is it the case that you have no foundation to declare anything objectively immoral? Are you a moral anarchist?"
The problem is that I don't continually refer to things or people with a moral binary (moral or immoral). I don't try to impose my personal, subjective moral code on others who have a different moral code. I am merely trying to understand how you, using your construct, can simultaneously regard something as universally/objectively "immoral" while advocating for a subjective, moral code based on circumstances rather than on actions.
"If you DO have an objectively provable moral system, where and why do you keep it hidden, brother?"
I've never made any claims about "my" moral system. I'm trying to understand yours.
"Um... yes. Because why wouldn't we?"
You're right, why wouldn't we.
"Think about it: we discover a new deadly and disabling disease and scientists research it for 1, 2, 3 years. And the research suggests a vaccine or treatment and that treatment is tested for another year or two. At that point, they say, This treatment has been shown in our tests to be effective in saving lives. There IS no data saying otherwise. Isn't it rational that citizens would take the treatment as the best known option?"
Of course, in the case of COVID, we did none of those things. We short circuited the usual process for approving a "vaccine", we rushed it through, we ignored the potential source of the virus, and the government and big eva pushed it on people. Now we're seeing evidence that the "vaccine" might have significant side effects yet the feds still keep running ads urging people to tale more and more doses. Not only did we completely short circuit the normal process, but we also gave the drug companies a complete and total pass on any liability for negative consequences and gave them a blank check with little or no accountability. That's what y'all claim was "The Science".
"AND, if some citizens don't trust that five year process... EVEN though they have NO data to show it's not reliable, well, they don't have to take it."
Again, with COVID, let's look at the coercive measures applied to force people to take the jab. Even to the point of making people with natural immunity get the "vaccine" anyway.
"But why is it NOT rational to use the best science that we have at that moment?"
Well, that's exactly what happened with eugenics, lobotomies, and the Tuskegee experiment, so yeah we should definitely blindly follow "The Science" and not ask questions or explore alternatives.
Alternatives to science, data and research? Like, what? Voodoo? Gut feelings?
Come on.
Dan
yeah we should definitely blindly follow "The Science" and not ask questions or explore alternatives.
Why do you keep saying this when I've been abundantly clear that I am NOT advocating "blindly" following science. THAT IS THE POINT OF SCIENCE. We go where the data leads, we don't blindly follow anything.
That's one thing that science has over way too many religionists.
That you keep bringing this up AS IF it's anything that anyone in the whole wide world is advocating, or as if it's something that I'm advocating, makes me wonder if your blind allegiance to your religious partisanship has made you blind to the false innuendos you keep passing on.
Last time: DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER I, NOR ANY RATIONAL ADULT IS ADVOCATING "BLINDLY FOLLOWING SCIENCE?"
Good Lord, even when I AGREE with your post, you find ways to try to divide and slander.
What is it that Paul said about such people?
Not so much alternatives to "science, data, and research", as alternatives to the mainstream narrative. Looking at all possible solutions, not just the ones that fit certain worldviews.
"What is it that Paul said about such people?"
Nothing. I don't think Paul mentioned people who spout "follow the science" as a mantra.
Look, it's not so much that y'all "follow the science", it's that y'all are so selective about the "science" you follow. It's that (as with COVID) y'all just accepted everything that "science" told you and insisted that everyone must do the things y'all said, while ignoring those that raised questions.
There's a reason why "science" has led to the long and arduous process to approve new drugs in the US, but y'all just threw that out the window because Fauci told you to.
it's that y'all are so selective about the "science" you follow.
So you're suggesting that there is this big conspiracy amongst liberals, progressives and many in middle and even some conservatives to "select" only the science that appeals to us.
That's quite a charge!
Where is the proof?
Or, amongst modern conservatives, is "proof" no longer cared about and it's all about the allegations?
Do you think it's the case that we "ignored" those who raised questions? Or that we considered the data on hand and went with what made most sense and had the most support behind it?
If you think we're deliberately choosing to ignore some data purely for political reasons, well, you're going to have to prove that allegation for those amongst the adults who still care about facts and data.
Last time:
DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER I, NOR ANY RATIONAL ADULT IS ADVOCATING
"BLINDLY FOLLOWING SCIENCE?"
Not so much alternatives to "science, data, and research", as alternatives to the mainstream narrative.
By "Mainstream narrative," do you simply mean, the vast majority of experts in a given field?
If so, well, you DO recognize that those in the "mainstream narrative" (ie, the majority of experts) HAVE considered alternative ideas?
Do you think that science works like this:
Here's a problem.
Here's ONE possible set of reasons for the problem and one set of answers.
We REFUSE to consider any other alternative ideas...
? Is THAT what you're talking about? Because, if so, that's literally not how science works. At all. That's anti-science. That's more of the mark of the Trump's of the world, who stupidly try to find data that they find appealing, then promote THAT because they find it appealing.
That's not science. That's not what the majority of experts in a given field do.
OR, if you have data to back up that claim, please do.
But an empty and unsupported allegation of malfeasance just won't be taken seriously. This is part of the problem with modern Trumpian "conservatism."
Data. It's always about the data.
First, some clarifications:
Looking at all possible solutions, not just the ones that fit certain worldviews.
This is, of course, true for me and mine. My scientist daughter and economist son are very much looking at data points and research that work, not work according to a worldview. I in my work with those with disabilities, and my wife who works with the homeless and other marginalized groups, are looking for the best solutions, NOT just those that fit "certain worldviews."
Do you think that those who disagree with you on partisan issues are really so corrupt or blind as to intentionally block out one set of data for "worldview" reasons?
If so, why? Based on what? Do you realize that you can't support such a claim, across the whole of those who disagree with you?
Caveat: No doubt, there are those scattered here and there (left, right and otherwise) who may well indeed only look for "partisan" data, but I see NO data to support the notion that this is widespread. At least on the side of the progressives and moderates I read and am aware of.
Do you suspect that this is widespread true on the conservative side of things? If so, I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of those on your side. I mean, looking at these inane "stolen election" claims and the many acolytes of Trump, we can certainly see that it's clearly true in MAGA land. But do you suspect that it's spread beyond just those conservatives?
Another question along these lines:
There has not been any real doubt about the age of the earth (roughly speaking) in decades if not centuries. This is true across all fields of expertise except one: conservative Christian belief systems. There, to this day, there is not only fairly widespread belief in a "young earth," but open hostility towards those who don't think the data supports a "young earth," at all.
Do you suggest that those YEC conservatives are only looking for solutions that fit within their pre-existing YEC/conservative worldview? Do you have the level of hostility for them for a MUCH more settled matter than you do for the many experts who agree with Fauci?
If so, is that an indication that you are looking for data (and "foes") along worldview lines, rather than just where the data leads?
Of course, there's always the "science" behind the LGBTQ+ agenda. Dan has constantly appealed to "experts" who have promoted that agenda, while rejecting other experts who contradict the pro-agenda "science" as "outliars", "religious extremists", etc. for noting the many and varied flaws of the pro-agenda research used to legitimize the agenda.
OR, Dan will do as much with regard to the current, fallacious "climate change" narrative and the experts who contradict that.
These are two examples of Dan's "follow the science" mantra in action, both of which suggests he does indeed blindly follow the science which serves his preferred narrative.
Then again, is he truly "blindly" following bad science, or dishonestly using it to further the false narratives he favors? My money's on the latter. The acceptance or compliance with his favored false narratives is far more the point than following, blindly or not, any science regardless of its quality.
"Where is the proof?"
All around. I've pointed out to you for years multiple problems with "The Science" around origins, life, and the like including the insistence from those who are "experts" in "The Science", yet somehow you continue to deny what "The Experts" are and have said.
"Or, amongst modern conservatives, is "proof" no longer cared about and it's all about the allegations?"
No. But I'm confused. You just used the argument that "The Science" is never really settled and changes with new information, and now appear to be trying to say that "The Science" is "proof".
"Do you think it's the case that we "ignored" those who raised questions? Or that we considered the data on hand and went with what made most sense and had the most support behind it?"
Yes. It depends what you mean by "support". In the case of COVID, the "support" was much more political, and from Big Eva types, than from any actual scientific "data". Given the fact that the virus was "new", the "vaccine" didn't go through a fraction of the testing normally done, and the increasing evidence that the virus was from a lab in China, yet folx like you are still wearing masks alone in their cars, I'd say yeah.
"f you think we're deliberately choosing to ignore some data purely for political reasons, well, you're going to have to prove that allegation for those amongst the adults who still care about facts and data."
Why, you'll just ignore anything I provide because your "Experts" somehow always convince you more than experts you don't agree with.
"DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT NEITHER I, NOR ANY RATIONAL ADULT IS ADVOCATING
"BLINDLY FOLLOWING SCIENCE?""
This must be True because you keep repeating it, and now you've used ALL CAPS.
Of course, this assumes that you and these other "ADULT"s you claim to speak for are actually "rational" in any objective sense.
"By "Mainstream narrative," do you simply mean, the vast majority of experts in a given field?"
No.
"If so, well, you DO recognize that those in the "mainstream narrative" (ie, the majority of experts) HAVE considered alternative ideas?"
That's quite a claim with absolutely zero evidence of "data" to prove this hunch.
"Is THAT what you're talking about? Because, if so, that's literally not how science works. At all. That's anti-science. That's more of the mark of the Trump's of the world, who stupidly try to find data that they find appealing, then promote THAT because they find it appealing."
It's strange. There is an entire worldview which is prevalent in "scientific" circles which unabashedly proclaims exactly this position. Anyone who presupposes "naturalism/materialism" or that the universe is a "closed system" or that humans are just "computers made of meat", has already philosophically committed to exclude ANY "data" that doesn't line up with their prior commitments.
"Do you think that those who disagree with you on partisan issues are really so corrupt or blind as to intentionally block out one set of data for "worldview" reasons?"
Yes, I do think that there are people who are so committed to certain worldviews or positions that they will ignore anything that does not fit their prior philosophical commitments. Unlike you, I'm not willing to broad brush everyone in a particular "group" based on the actions or beliefs of some.
"If so, why? Based on what?"
Because I've done the research, listened to what people say, what people write, and what people do.
"Do you realize that you can't support such a claim, across the whole of those who disagree with you?"
No, because I would never make a claim that encompasses every single person who doesn't "agree with me". I'd also never even begin to set my beliefs, opinions, or anything else as the standard of perfect correctness.
"Do you suspect that this is widespread true on the conservative side of things?"
No idea. But I'm sure this crosses ideological lines.
"If so, I'll defer to your more intimate knowledge of those on your side. I mean, looking at these inane "stolen election" claims and the many acolytes of Trump, we can certainly see that it's clearly true in MAGA land. But do you suspect that it's spread beyond just those conservatives?"
The problem with this bad example, is that we could easily find out exactly what happened in the 2020 elections, but the "winners' choose not to do so,
If you had an election where the following happened:
2,056 Felons voted
66,248 people under legal voting age voted
2,432 unregistered voters voted
1,043 didn't use proper addresses on their registrations
10,315 people who were dead prior to the election date voted
395 people voted at in at least 2 states
15,700 were no longer residents of the state they voted in
40,279 changed counties and didn't vote in their county of residence.
Let's say that this data existed and was accurate, but hasn't been looked at, wouldn't that trouble you?
It's interesting that you didn't seem to have a problem when Hillary (one example) spent years after she lost complaining about how the election was unfair.
"Do you suggest that those YEC conservatives are only looking for solutions that fit within their pre-existing YEC/conservative worldview?"
Again, I'm not going to make assumptions and broad brush people, but I'm sure some do.
"Do you have the level of hostility for them for a MUCH more settled matter than you do for the many experts who agree with Fauci?"
I don't have any hostility for either, so yes.
"If so, is that an indication that you are looking for data (and "foes") along worldview lines, rather than just where the data leads?"
No.
The fact that you spin all of these fantasy theories about me, and what I think, based on my pointing out problems with other beliefs systems/worldviews seems problematic. The fact that you treat these fantasies you've concocted as if they represent reality, and actually expect me to defend your fantasies, is even more so. The notion that I am somehow obligated to you to provide a fully formed alternative to things I don't agree with, is simply insane.
Dan,
When it comes to scientific ability and access to data, do the countries in Western Europe or countries like Israel have the same access as we do in the US?
When it comes to countries setting policy in areas of health, or energy, do the countries above rely on the scientific data at least to some relatively high degree?
You know, sometimes, since I have a hard time... with my schedule...keeping up with the flow of the discussion, I simply look at what's going on and think "WTF???!!!" I'll give you three guesses as to who I think is responsible for this dismay, and the first two don't count.
Dan's argumentation is fallacious as usual. He can make assertions about the ethics, morality, and dedication to truth of his family members all he likes. Him making these assertions doesn't #1, stand as facts, #2, doesn't indicate Dan has a grasp of ethics, morality or truth (indeed, it's very questionable he does) and #3, wouldn't change the point one iota regarding Dan's own penchant for citing as "expert" and "fact" only that which supports that which he favors. While I've spent time actually reading his links from his "experts"...who almost without exception fail to prove the point at issue...he shows no evidence he ever reads, and certainly doesn't study, links provided to counter the claims he makes. He will trash-talk those I cite, so I guess that has to do.
Not surprisingly, Dan cites the valid claims of election fraud in the 2020 election. He's never done anything more than parrot "officials", who are often themselves suspect, as his "experts" on the subject of the claims. Craig's list of stats is not even complete. It doesn't include ballots mailed to addresses which couldn't possibly house residents...addresses like empty lots, convenience stores or laundromats, apartment buildings with no apartment numbers on the address label, and cases where an address where it is known is meant for a single family yet receives ballots for scores of people. There were ballots sent to college dormitories with "students" over 100 years old. And of course, Dan buys into the lie that courts rejected election irregularity concerns 60 times when the truth is the claims were never heard at all.
Be it science, politics, religion...Dan only regards as valid that which supports his agenda. This is common among leftists because the so badly want what they want to be regarded as legit, they'll reject anything which demonstrates it isn't, as Dan does constantly with evidence provided according to his demands...until he rejects them with an altered demand.
Craig...
If you had an election where the following happened:
2,056 Felons voted
66,248 people under legal voting age voted
2,432 unregistered voters voted
Yeah. IF.
If you shit out roses would they grow into baby unicorns?
If imagination stuff doesn't matter, does it. IF there WERE serious problems with the election, that WOULD be a problem.
But your data is almost certainly BS from conspiracy theorists. Your 66,248" number appears to be connected to yet another stupidly false claim from your con man pervert king who is getting you to believe his inanities.
Be a better, smarter human, fellas. Don't be easy marks for a stupid and entirely unclever con man. Conspiracy theories should not make you afraid.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2023/08/18/trump-lawyer-linked-to-false-claim-of-60000-kids-voting-georgia-2020-election-fact-check/70612986007/
IF don't mean nothing if the "IF" is entirely imaginary.
Your "66,248 people under legal voting age voted..." number?
"State officials say no underage people voted in the election. A lawyer for former President Donald Trump's 2020 campaign cited that number in a hearing with state lawmakers, and he now is charged with making false statements."
ANYBODY can make a stupidly false claim.
ANY IDIOT can believe it when it comes from a lying con man.
But none of that matters one bit, does it? Idiot claims from liars who want to make up stuff to actually try to steal an election just don't mean a thing. Not one damned thing.
But people BELIEVING an idiot con man? That does mean something:
That the GOP has lost its collective mind and conservatives have sold their souls to an overtly corrupt pervert king.
Look, Craig, I suspect that you're not unintelligent. WHY would you believe nonsense claims from a very stupid con man and his gang of corrupt idiots?
Lord, oh LORD, have mercy on these MAGA defenders. But only an appropriate amount of mercy.
Also, Craig:
10,315 people who were dead prior to the election date voted
[snicker, goodness!]
Reality:
Q: How many dead people actually 'voted'?
A: Only TWO.
https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/elections/fraud-claims-debunked/85-d0b5b303-3312-4f43-a6ba-43a3d7bdcaa7
Gullible idiots will believe what they want to believe, but oh Sweet God in heaven! what's wrong with these poor souls?!
Again, Trump is clearly an idiot con man and just not very clever about how he cons folks. Only THE MOST gullible people would believe him.
Why, oh WHY do you defend and believe this idiot pervert to such a degree?? You can't possibly be this gullible or naive? Are you not familiar with narcissists and con games? Please, son, educate yourself. This is just so embarrassing for our nation.
Oh, also: I sure don't know the details, but how much do you want to bet that at least TWO of those actual TWO instances of dead people voting were perpetrated by conservatives? Would you bet even a plug nickel on that bet?
Time and time again, the data has shown that our elections are remarkably free of fraud AND that when it happens, more often than not, it's a conservative/Republican doing the fraudulent voting. And the other times, it's more often that not a simple honest mistake (ie, the case of former prisoners having been told incorrectly they could vote and they voted in good faith based on what they were told, NOT as an elaborate attempt to rig an election.)
Craig:
15,700 were no longer residents of the state they voted in
Reality:
TRUMP, claiming thousands of voters moved out of Georgia, registered in another state, and then improperly cast ballots in Georgia: “They came back in, and they voted. That was a large number.”
THE FACTS: Not so. Trump supporters are working from a list of questionable accuracy, according to Ryan Germany, the general counsel for Raffensperger’s office. He told Trump during the call that the claims have been investigated and that in many cases, voters “moved back years ago. It’s not like it happened just before the election. There’s something about that data that it’s just not accurate.”
Craig, Craig, Craig... just because the My Pillow guy and this pervert king tells you something, you are not obliged to listen to idiots and conmen.
Come on. I'm just so embarrassed for you, passing on nonsensical conspiracy theories from an idiot. You're smarter than this. Don't be a useful idiot to bad people.
Really excellent job of missing my point.
I missed the point??
By all means, explain how. Enlighten me.
As a reminder, you asked me a question...
"If you had an election where the following happened:
2,056 Felons.... [followed by a bunch of stupidly false claims]
Let's say that this data existed and was accurate, but hasn't been looked at, wouldn't that trouble you?"
I directly answered your question...
"IF there WERE serious problems with the election, that WOULD be a problem...
IF don't mean nothing if the "IF" is entirely imaginary."
I rationally and directly answered your question. I also took the time and pointed out the reality behind your con man's schemes and lies. How is that missing the point?
Dan
"ANY IDIOT can believe it when it comes from a lying con man."
I give you Dan Trabue who believes what comes from Joe Biden and the Democrat Party.
Dan, Dan, Dan...you once again rely on the testimony of the very people who are suspect, either directly or by their unwillingness to do their jobs.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/individuals-lie-president-trumps-call-georgia-2020-election-sos-raffensperger-attorney-ryan-germany/
https://www.christianitydaily.com/news/evidence-shows-raffensberger-s-attorney-knew-about-election-fraud-but-hid-it-from-president-trump-and-america.html
https://nationalfile.com/raffensperger-admits-fulton-county-made-mistakes-in-2020-election-count/
Trump was working from Georgia records to ascertain how many voted out of district. So those who have "debunked" Trump's claims are those who have not actually done their jobs in investigating Trump's claims. It's easy to say, "Yeah...we looked. We found nothing." without having actually dug into the issue. But idiots like Dan are keen to believe whatever they need to believe to disparage Trump and bring on board a stellar mind of unprecedented intelligence like the moron Joe Biden.
"I missed the point??"
Yes, I believe that you did. It seems as though the best way to evaluate the claims that have been made would be in a court of law, with rules of evidence, and testimony under oath. You've simply done something similar to what you've accused me of doing.
Art,
It's interesting that Dan never went after Hillary and other DFL candidates for claiming that elections were stolen, nor did the apparent actual theft of the DFL primary from Biden seem to trouble him. Yet, he heaps disdain on Trump for trying to learn what happened.
I've always said that the problem is that there hasn't been a thorough third party investigation of the claims both from Hillary or Trump, which then seemingly leads to theories about what actually happened. Investigate and put the matter to rest.
Sunlight's the best disinfectant they say. Shed some on the claims of election fraud and be done with it. They haven't despite modern progressive claims to the contrary.
Post a Comment