Science and Stupidity:When Opinon replaces facts

[Stavros]

Maybe what your clever American engineers could do to save Florida from rising sea levels is to dig a series of deep holes around the coast of the state, so the water can flow into them and the state will be saved--??

[buttslinger]

Maybe what your clever American engineers could do to save Florida from rising sea levels is to dig a series of deep holes around the coast of the state, so the water can flow into them and the state will be saved--??

Was that dry British humour?
If this were a hundred years ago and they didn't have air conditioning yet, I kid you not, I couldn't survive. And if I had to pick lettuce in 100 degree heat, I couldn't do that either.

[filghy2]

Maybe what your clever American engineers could do to save Florida from rising sea levels is to dig a series of deep holes around the coast of the state, so the water can flow into them and the state will be saved--??

No, we just need to tilt the flat earth and tip the excess sea water into space.

Just wait till the worthy Rep Brooks finds out about plate tectonics and the new earth's crust that is being continually pushed up at mid-oceanic ridges. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seafloor_spreading

[filghy2]

If this were a hundred years ago and they didn't have air conditioning yet, I kid you not, I couldn't survive. And if I had to pick lettuce in 100 degree heat, I couldn't do that either.

You are such a wimp. Primitive men didn't complain about a little bit of climate change. They just got on with life, didn't they? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal

Why isn't RedVex here to point these things out?

[DaphneCruz]

I have a question. A serious one. What would it take for a "pro-vaxxor" to admit that vaccines are bad?

Every time I see this topic, the pro vaxxor says 'show me the proof' .. what proof? How much?

Im just curious.

[filghy2]

I have a question. A serious one. What would it take for a "pro-vaxxor" to admit that vaccines are bad?

Every time I see this topic, the pro vaxxor says 'show me the proof' .. what proof? How much?

Im just curious.

The same as for all scientific knowledge - when there is sufficient weight of evidence from research articles that satisfy accepted scientific standards.

Basically, in order to demonstrate that vaccination increased the risk of autism a researcher would need to show that there was a statistically significant effect after accounting for all other factors that could affect the risk of autism. Statistically significant means there must be less than a 1 in 20 chance that the results are actually consistent with zero effect. Articles also have to be peer-reviewed before they are published, which means that an independent expert looks at it to verify that it was done properly.

A single paper that found a significant effect would not necessarily be 'proof' because there are already other papers that found no significant effect. In order for the medical profession to change it's mind similar results would need to be found by enough independent researchers to convince them that the previous results were no longer valid.

[DaphneCruz]

So basically you want some magical group of people to conduct research at their own expense and at no profit to themselves on testing the chemicals in somebody else's vaccines to some how conclusively "prove" that vaccines "cause autism" and then somehow have this research publicly known to the world to where it becomes "common knowledge".... Got it. lol

[DaphneCruz]

This is why the general public is so stupid. They dont understand the logistics on how incredibly difficult some things can be. Or how things work.

[broncofan]

So basically you want some magical group of people to conduct research at their own expense and at no profit to themselves on testing the chemicals in somebody else's vaccines to some how conclusively "prove" that vaccines "cause autism" and then somehow have this research publicly known to the world to where it becomes "common knowledge".... Got it. lol

Why a magical group of people? And what is wrong with scientists, many of whom have a significant personal interest in conclusively identifying the cause of autism, which at this point is thought to involve many genes and a whole host of environmental factors.

Do you honestly think there are not a sufficient number scientists and doctors who would not want to show that the causes of autism are entirely iatrogenic if they were? If an individual or group of individuals could demonstrate this, both by showing an increased incidence of autism among people who have been vaccinated, and positing a reasonable theory to explain why vaccinations would cause autism, would they not be strong candidates for a Nobel Prize in Medicine?

If the general public is stupid, this does not demonstrate why. You on the other hand....

[trish]

If you are impressed with how incredibly difficult the scientific standards of proof are, then you should be very unimpressed by the “evidence” and arguments that attempt to establish a link a between autism and vaccines. These are the same standards used in all areas of scientific endeavor. It’s why we are reasonably certain that smoking increases the risk of cancer, mass and energy are conserved under physical all transformations, in a closed system entropy never decreases and the current climate change isn’t caused by increased solar activity. If you think the standard is too stringent to accommodate your belief system that’s fine, you don’t have to abide by it. You are free to be a crank.