Reply to MAGA- please explain…

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "MAGA- please explain…"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"The scientific method is a systematic process used to acquire knowledge through observation, experimentation, and analysis. It typically involves forming a hypothesis, conducting experiments to test that hypothesis, and refining it based on the results."

That's not what is going on.  Lifers in government are studying ways to push forward their democrat  ideologies.  HTH

[/quote]

No, they’re not. I’ve offered just as much evidence for my claim as you have for yours. Now prove me wrong.[/quote]

You haven't provided any specifics, so I am curious: is it just SOME science you claim is politicized, or all of it? If not all of it, can you tell me what science is politicized?

Here is an example of politicized science. Anthony Mawson is the lead author of a study cited by RFK during his confirmation hearings; he concluded that vaccines are associated with increased risk of neurodevelopment disorders including autism.

Mawson published his article in an open-source online journal but it was quickly retracted after preliminary review. A year later he published it in a second online journal with a different title and it was quickly retracted again. Subsequently he published it as a Wordpress blog. The study was funded by an anti-vaccine advocacy group, whose president sued (and lost in summary judgment) Wired magazine after a Philadelphia physician commented in an interview about his frustration with movements spreading disinformation and said, "she lies."

But the article is deeply flawed from a scientific standpoint. Mawson used Medicaid billing records and self-reported outcomes from homeschool parents, comparing those who vaccinated and those who did not vaccinate their children. Among the results was that parents whose children were not vaccinated according to billing records were less likely to take their children to the doctor. Among the flaws was the assumption that kids of families in the study had only received vaccinations through Medicaid, since there are other vaccination programs. Another is the likelihood that parents who avoid vaccinations are less likely to take their children to the doctor, period, let alone receive a diagnosis. I know some of these people. If the child has a sniffle they reach for the colloidal silver. They also avoid doctors out of fear they could be reporter to CPS (these include mothers who refuse vitamin K shots for their newborns (for the rare but real risk of intracranial bleeding leading to brain damage or death, and I know at least one who refuses to have her dog vaccinated for rabies because of potential vaccine side effects). The author did not have access to actual medical records, relying instead of parents' self reports of their children's medical conditions.

You can read the rest of the study's problems here: https://theunbiasedscipod.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-failure-why-this-latest

So, you're right--there is a lot of politicization of science these days, mostly not where (I suspect) you think it is. Climate science? MNRA vaccines?

When you say there is politicization of science, you're saying there's stuff labeled as science that is not following scientific principles. Seems to me that this actually does you require to provide evidence. We don't, for example, have to provide that people generally obey traffic laws; we focus on those who do not. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics