Opinions on Evidence Based Scientific Tests

[MCN]

If 'there are two sides to every story' does it follow that there are two conclusions or more to evidence based research/investigation?

Our current pandemic and it's ramifications highlights the wealth of shite that surrounds almost all subjects.
Lay-people, charlatans and hoaxters et al and cetera can weave warped facts among the garbage that they proffer without fear of reprimand.

Should spouting bullshite lead to heavier handed punishment by societies than simple ridicule by peers?
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.

[jackw72]

Scientific testing only tells you the probability of an occurrence of a certain event. That probability might be 99.999% but it still leaves room for that 0.001%. It is also impossible to say that there is a perfect test due to all the limitations and uncontrollable factors.

The problem comes when people manipulate that data to suit a certain bias and it goes without being checked by the reader. Critical thinking is absolutely the cure for this but the general populace are likely a little short on sense for that to be a suitable solution
____________________
08/11/2007 A2 Passed.
Suzuki GSXR 1000 K3
Rapid Training passed

[MCN]

This is where t' Internet implodes on it's self.

It was devised as a tool to facilitate 'real' research by reasoned individuals who we 'trust' with the sense and intellect to manage the information.

Since it went WWW and everyone and anyone was and is permitted almost full access it's been hijacked.

Instead of government getting all fired up about porn and copyright they perhaps would be better off to police the whankers manipulating the web.
Fcuking FaceBollocks are not the ones who should be policing web content.
Since FaceBollocks have been fully complicit in spreading shite info.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.

[Ste]

Research, investigations and evidence are all open to interpretation so whatever conclusion someone reaches is their simply opinion.

Should spouting bullshite lead to heavier handed punishment by societies than simple ridicule by peers?

Maybe but some people are just stupid and there is no cure for that. You can't punish the stupid out of them and they'll just start bawwwwwing about something else because it's all one big conspiracy against them.

They don't get ridiculed by their peers because anti vaxxer 5g hating chemtrail enthusiasts are only interested in listening to people who're as stupid as they are.

[MCN]

So what could be a solution?
If we cannot fix stupid perhaps we can try to limit stupid's exposure to the wrong information?

In the olden days we controlled literature or only the very well-off could read and maybe understand something of it.
But the great unwashed kept poor and illiterate were blissfully unaware and in their place.

Mass poverty may bring about a calm in society.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.

[Diggs]

Science produces statistics which can then be manipulated to 'prove' things beyond the scope of the research.
____________________
Now - Speed Triple, old ratty GS550, GSXR750M
Gone (in order of ownership) - Raleigh Runabout, AP50, KH125, GP125, KH250, CBX550, Z400, CB750FII, 250LC, GS550, ZXR750H1, Guzzi Targa, GSX750F, KH250 x2, Bimota SB6R and counting...

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

Part of the problem is extrapolation:

[Diggs]

[chickenstrip]

[Easy-X]

[Hetzer]

My missus is into all the science-based nutrition research and it does my head in. One (perfect) example, sugar was the big bad one and indisputably so, until last night she told me the latest research is that even white processed sugar is good for you. That was it for me, I no longer entertain any of her suggestions/dictates unless it's something I've decided for myself, based on the best common sense I can muster (general rules of thumb mostly, such as 'if it's not found in nature it's probably at least not good for you').

Fucking science-based my arse, it's all nothing but BS based on some money-grubbing scumbag's agenda.
____________________
"There's the horizon! Ride hard, ride fast and cut down all who stand in your way!"

[hellkat]

Oh FFS, Mrs Hetzer.

I decided to look into this low carb bollocks because your bloody husband bent my bloody ear about [this and that], and now he tells me you're talking waffle.

I hadn't *quite* got round to knocking the white sugar on the head, as it goes, but I had lopped a considerable percentage of my carbs/TFs on the head in the last two weeks based on that chat



(possibly also MCW-Margaret might have been equally as influential, I decided I wanted to see what all the fuss was about )

Still, pretty sure it hasn't done me any harm, having knocked off all that rice, pasta, bread, etc., with just the occasional lapse, rather than reverting to all those traditional comfort foods.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[hellkat]

Mind you, I was already of the notion that the whole "evidence-based science" industry is rigged.

It was the butter/margarine argument that finally put the nail in the coffin for me. I've never stopped eating butter, and have always hated margarine, more for the aesthetics (it always makes toast soggy, whereas butter just makes it crispy) than anything else. Its not just that, but its probably made out of somebody's recycled tights

But the changes of mind regarding red wine and olive oil is what set me on a suspicious turn of mind, years ago.

I'd still expect for other research to be justified, i.e., surgical techniques or the effect of pharmacological, for which the research results have to be very longstanding and clearly beneficial before I would undergo some of that stuff.

I'm only now just thinking about laser eye treatment, and am still several decades worth of research away from going with the idea of gastric banding surgery.

Rather follow the dieting suggestions of some madman off the internet.
____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

When it comes to diet and obesity I think there's a lot to be said for the influence of gut bacteria, and specifically the distribution of different types of bacteria. It's a burgeoning area of research. Fecal transplants are the future.


https://www.mynetdiary.com/gut-bacteria-a-new-twist-on-weight-loss-guest.html

[hellkat]

Ya ... reckon I might put that on hold for quite a while longer, innit.
I'm already full of shit.
Don't need any more


____________________
Not nearly as interesting in real life.

[MCN]

Nutrition and Nutritionists can be a kind-of dirty bertie when it gets down to evidence based medicine.
It requires a great deal of insider knowledge to interpret the findings.
There are a few respected (impartial) journals who publish things medical.
Where people get their 'facts' from is important.
Was it from the Lancet or Jack down the pub?

There's lots of ££€€$$$ involved in pharm and med so one needs to beware of other interests or whoever is paying for the research too.
It's not just the science that needs to stand up.

I think all the shite that goes on in the world always goes on. With a few variations.
News about things that happen reach more people. Some can work out what's what and some get it wrong.
____________________
Disclaimer: The comments above may be predicted text and not necessarily the opinion of MCN.

[chickenstrip]

[Rebel]

[Easy-X]

[Rebel]

It is the nature of consciousness to evolve, consequently the right to hold an opinion free from interference is now enshrined in the UN declaration of basic human rights.
Lucky for us, what with group think zealots down their daily bowl of fake news promoting fake big pharma research.

[Kawasaki Jimbo]

[Rebel]

Contracted for a tour of duty during the Terran ascension.
You may thank me later.

[stinkwheel]

[Easy-X]

[MCN]