2020 Post Election MEGAthread

[FatherSioux]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Trump Derangement Syndrome is defending Trump. The fact that you're so blase about fact checking Trump "if" he lies -- if -- Proves you're afflicted.

Also, the John's Hopkins thing is a hoax. It's an update of a March/April bogus article that was misattributed to John's Hopkins researchers. In this case, the update is that a new study was published and censored. It wasn't. It does match your worldview, so I can see why you fell for it. It's the same reason you're a "liberal" that supports Donald Trump. /eyeroll

Also, Genevieve Brand, is assistant program director and senior lecturer for the Applied Economics degree at John's Hopkins with a PhD from Washington State U.

Also there is a video here of a webinar she did. Tell me again about your theory...Not fake news...

[hobart]

Originally Posted by FatherSioux [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Also, Genevieve Brand, is assistant program director and senior lecturer for the Applied Economics degree at John's Hopkins with a PhD from Washington State U.

Also there is a video here of a webinar she did. Tell me again about your theory...Not fake news...

My "theory" was referencing another article that went around in April of this year which was a hoax. This, instead, is a non-story.

Ms. Brand's article was originally published in the school student newspaper -- not a peer reviewed scientific work. And it was taken down by the students who publish it.

From the students themselves: "Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media."

Nothing to see.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

My "theory" was referencing another article that went around in April of this year which was a hoax. This, instead, is a non-story.

Ms. Brand's article was originally published in the school student newspaper -- not a peer reviewed scientific work. And it was taken down by the students who publish it.

From the students themselves: "Editor’s Note: After The News-Letter published this article on Nov. 22, it was brought to our attention that our coverage of Genevieve Briand’s presentation “COVID-19 Deaths: A Look at U.S. Data” has been used to support dangerous inaccuracies that minimize the impact of the pandemic.

We decided on Nov. 26 to retract this article to stop the spread of misinformation, as we noted on social media."

Nothing to see.

"It was brought to our attention". By who? Are you so incurious you don't care who brought it to their attention, and why? And based on what? People are so enamored and infatuated with scientific jargon. A doofus idiot with no peer review can still be right about something. There are also serious issues with the peer review process, in that a group of people who already have conclusions they want to be true and all agree with eachother peer review eachother's papers. So even if it had the pedigree of peer review, that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful.

Why not actually engage with what is said in the paper, rather than saying "well because of this, I don't have to contend with it at all." while plugging your ears? Give it the benefit of the doubt and actually read what she said. It "has been used" to support "dangerous misinformation". So, other people who are not the author have used it to spread "dangerous misinformation". No specifics at all about what is dangerous or inaccurate, and their gripe isn't even about the paper or the author, but that other people are using it wrongly. Science will never move forward with this kind of paranoid censoring. The vast majority of scientific theories are wrong, the whole point is that they should all be consumed and considered and the right answer eventually teases itself out. Their conclusion that it "spreads dangerous disinformation" could itself be wrong. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's right. She has serious credentials, it should be seriously considered.

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

"It was brought to our attention". By who? Are you so incurious you don't care who brought it to their attention, and why? And based on what? People are so enamored and infatuated with scientific jargon. A doofus idiot with no peer review can still be right about something. There are also serious issues with the peer review process, in that a group of people who already have conclusions they want to be true and all agree with eachother peer review eachother's papers. So even if it had the pedigree of peer review, that wouldn't necessarily be meaningful.

Why not actually engage with what is said in the paper, rather than saying "well because of this, I don't have to contend with it at all." while plugging your ears? Give it the benefit of the doubt and actually read what she said. It "has been used" to support "dangerous misinformation". So, other people who are not the author have used it to spread "dangerous misinformation". No specifics at all about what is dangerous or inaccurate, and their gripe isn't even about the paper or the author, but that other people are using it wrongly. Science will never move forward with this kind of paranoid censoring. The vast majority of scientific theories are wrong, the whole point is that they should all be consumed and considered and the right answer eventually teases itself out. Their conclusion that it "spreads dangerous disinformation" could itself be wrong. Maybe it doesn't, maybe it's right. She has serious credentials, it should be seriously considered.

Perhaps it was brought to their attention by someone with more expertise? I assume someone on the faculty?

But let me get this straight... She has her M.A. (probably a policy application degree like mine) and since her point reflects your worldview it needs to be considered? And yet you're so dismissive of actual expertise when it conflicts with your world view.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Perhaps it was brought to their attention by someone with more expertise? I assume someone on the faculty?

But let me get this straight... She has her M.A. (probably a policy application degree like mine) and since her point reflects your worldview it needs to be considered? And yet you're so dismissive of actual expertise when it conflicts with your world view.

"Actual expertise" is just code word for the extant power structure that doesn't want to see their narrative assailed.

Seek Christ

Hope this helps.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Perhaps it was brought to their attention by someone with more expertise? I assume someone on the faculty?

But let me get this straight... She has her M.A. (probably a policy application degree like mine) and since her point reflects your worldview it needs to be considered? And yet you're so dismissive of actual expertise when it conflicts with your world view.

You completely evaded literally every point I raised. You have a blind faith in "expertise" as if experts can never be wrong, and dunces can never be right. I'm simply saying that it is worth consideration, this is how the scientific method works. Literally einstein wasn't taken seriously at first because he didn't have "expertise" and was a patent clerk. Then after about ten years, he turned out to be completely correct in his assertions.

Their beef with her conclusions was extremely nebulous and vague, they didn't even attempt to explain *how* it is spreading misinformation or why it is dangerous. They just shat out some scary words and called it a day. This is not science, or skepticism, it's partisan allegiance.

[Gwaihir]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You completely evaded literally every point I raised. You have a blind faith in "expertise" as if experts can never be wrong, and dunces can never be right. I'm simply saying that it is worth consideration, this is how the scientific method works. Literally einstein wasn't taken seriously at first because he didn't have "expertise" and was a patent clerk. Then after about ten years, he turned out to be completely correct in his assertions.

Their beef with her conclusions was extremely nebulous and vague, they didn't even attempt to explain *how* it is spreading misinformation or why it is dangerous. They just shat out some scary words and called it a day. This is not science, or skepticism, it's partisan allegiance.

....partisan

[hobart]

Originally Posted by douglas1999 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You completely evaded literally every point I raised. You have a blind faith in "expertise" as if experts can never be wrong, and dunces can never be right. I'm simply saying that it is worth consideration, this is how the scientific method works. Literally einstein wasn't taken seriously at first because he didn't have "expertise" and was a patent clerk. Then after about ten years, he turned out to be completely correct in his assertions.

Their beef with her conclusions was extremely nebulous and vague, they didn't even attempt to explain *how* it is spreading misinformation or why it is dangerous. They just shat out some scary words and called it a day. This is not science, or skepticism, it's partisan allegiance.

They are students running a student newspaper. Who do you think told them to retract? Do you think they can call out the faculty who told them to take it down? What do you expect them to do?

It apparently needs a second paragraph.. You get that, right? A student newspaper. An article that can only get published in a student newspaper. There's nothing that stops it from getting published elsewhere.

[cd288]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are students running a student newspaper. Who do you think told them to retract? Do you think they can call out the faculty who told them to take it down? What do you expect them to do?

It apparently needs a second paragraph.. You get that, right? A student newspaper. An article that can only get published in a student newspaper. There's nothing that stops it from getting published elsewhere.

I wouldn’t engage with that guy. He’s easily the most idiotic person on the forums.

[douglas1999]

Originally Posted by hobart [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

They are students running a student newspaper. Who do you think told them to retract? Do you think they can call out the faculty who told them to take it down? What do you expect them to do?

It apparently needs a second paragraph.. You get that, right? A student newspaper. An article that can only get published in a student newspaper. There's nothing that stops it from getting published elsewhere.

Student newspapers are not all created equal. Something published in a student newspaper at johns hopkins is kind of different, and warrants different consideration, than something published in a student newspaper at bumfuck community college #4526.

Claiming something is "spreading dangerous misinformation" without explaining how or why, is retarded. We don't treat any other disease this way, even much more dangerous diseases. It makes no sense. It is understandable why there is frustration and pushback.

Originally Posted by cd288 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I wouldn’t engage with that guy. He’s easily the most idiotic person on the forums.

Cool. Great post.