Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry

No need to say anything further, that speaks volumes.

I read in the weekend papers that the Lab Escape theory is being re-considered. If that turns out to be the case, then so be it, although presumably it might have serious ramifications for China.

Counterpunch advocates scientism. — Banno

The only alternatives to science are

tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination — counterpunch

So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices.

Fauci is anti-science.
— fishfry

No need to say anything further, that speaks volumes. — Wayfarer

Fauci is not even a scientist. He has an MD but never practiced medicine. He's been a bureaucrat all his life. Surely you can't hold him up as a scientist. And his endless politicized flipflops speak for themselves.

I read in the weekend papers that the Lab Escape theory is being re-considered. If that turns out to be the case, then so be it, although presumably it might have serious ramifications for China. — Wayfarer

Gosh without that, China would be a wonderful country. Or as I like to say: Uyghur please!

But you are making my point for me exactly. A year ago if you espoused the lab leak theory nobody said, "We should keep an open mind and wait for the evidence." THAT would be science. On the contrary, reputable scientists lost their jobs, got banned from social media, got labeled conspiracy theorists. And now that even Dr. Fauci finally admits that the lab leak might be true, all you can say is that it might be bad for China.

Tell me, a year ago when you read that it started in a wet market and "Oh by the way there's a bioweapons lab a mile away but pay no attention," what exactly was your thought process at the time? Were you unaware that every developed country in the world conducts bioweapons research? The only thing I didn't know about it was that the US actually funds China's bioweapons research. Now that's shocking, but then again, maybe not so shocking.

So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices. — Wayfarer

You make my point for me. Smearing, deplatforming calling people conspiracy theorists, is anti-science.

The situation is hopeless... we must take the next step. (apologies to Pablo Casals.)

@fishfry is talking about politics and policy but calling it science.

fishfry is talking about politics and policy but calling it science. — Banno

I agree and admitted as much a couple of days ago. I'm all for science, and wholeheartedly against the WORD "science" being used as a synonym for "shut up and do what you're told, which is the opposite of what we told you yesterday." That's not science, but lately it's being PRESENTED as science, and more than one person in this thread has DEFENDED it as science. As for example claiming that Dr. Fauci has been doing science, when he does nothing but politics. And that's not a criticism, because Fauci is a career bureaucrat and not a scientist. People should understand that. If you want to say he's been a good bureaucrat, you might almost have a case. If you say he's been doing science, the facts are against you.

Fauci is not even a scientist. — Fishfry

Anthony Stephen Fauci is an American physician-scientist and immunologist who serves as the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and the chief medical advisor to the president.

As a physician with the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Fauci has served the American public health sector in various capacities for more than 50 years, and has acted as an advisor to every U.S. president since Ronald Reagan.[1] He became director of the NIAID in 1984 and has made contributions to HIV/AIDS research and other immunodeficiency diseases, both as a research scientist and as the head of the NIAID.[2] From 1983 to 2002, Fauci was one of the world's most frequently-cited scientists across all scientific journals. — Wikipedia

You know Wikipedia is user-edited, right? So you can go right in there and set the record straight. Let us know when done.

Meanwhile, we should get back to the topic at hand.

Yeah, you say all that then pretend that the issue with Dr. Fauci is one of science, not policy. That's simply th converse of treating policy as if it were science. You are as guilty of Scientism as those you accuse, in that you are "Using the words “science,” “scientific,” “scientifically,” “scientist,” etc., honorifically, as generic terms of epistemic praise".

Nahhh....long-time communications specialist in Uncle Sam’s Canoe Club, back when it was a whole lot more fun.....and risky.....being a hippie than a sailor. Culture clash writ large. — Mww

I see. Thank you for your service. :up:

That's simply th converse of treating policy as if it were science. — Banno

I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. As in "follow the science," when they really meant, "Shut up and follow the latest contradictory policy." But surely if you say, "What do you think of apple pie," I'm entitled to say that I love apple pie but hate apple pie laced with rat poison. What we've been treated to over the past year is science laced with rat poison.

So what kind of answer are you looking for? I like science. Is that ok? And I deplore its misuse. Is that not ok to say?

What we've been treated to over the past year is science laced with rat poison. — fishfry

Last year was nothing compared to what it could have been. Next organism might be much worse. COVID-19 was a lucky test run.

Unfortunately we learned that large swaths of America didn't evolve due to the test run, which is weird. Cultural flaw revealed, I guess.

Next organism might be much worse. COVID-19 was a lucky test run. — frank

Nice to see you admit it was a test run. A test run of man-made bioweapon, a test run of media-induced hysteria as a means of social control.

[Former assertion not definitively proven; latter is perfectly obvious and will become more so as time goes on].

Unfortunately we learned that large swaths of America didn't evolve due to the test run, which is weird. Cultural flaw revealed, I guess. — frank

Or perhaps the globalists are being revealed as the evil madmen and women that they are, and the public is starting to wise up. Or didn't you get the memo about Bill Gates? He was hanging around with child predator Epstein in the hopes Epstein could get him a Nobel prize. The bloom is off THAT rose, it's fair to say.

Eh, we're all in this together. There's nothing new under the sun.

I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes.

Full disclosure, I didn't read the entire article. — fishfry

Then why make claims about what you didn't read?

Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility. — fishfry

And why do you think that is?

Science works by saying, "Let's keep an open mind and look at the facts." Not, "Let's decide on one conclusion in spite of available facts, and deplatform and smear anyone who dares to differ." That's anti-science, and that is what happened over the past year. — fishfry

In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either.

Fauci is a political hack who changed his mind and flipflopped with the wind. Fauci is anti-science. — fishfry

It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it.

A year ago, when people suggested a lab origin, they were deplatformed, fired from their scientific jobs, and labeled conspiracy theorists. That's politics, not science. — fishfry

What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? You admit that the origin is unknown. What someone "suggests" in this situation is irresponsible without solid evidence. That evidence is, by your own admission, not available.

I did not say she got what she deserved. I questioned your comparison to what happened to a man who was killed by having his neck kneeled on for over nine minutes. — Fooloso4

At trial it was revealed that Chauvin's knee was on Floyd's upper back and not his neck; and that Floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe before cops even laid a hand on him; and that Floyd had three times the fatal dose of fentanyl in him; and that his dope dealer, sitting next to him in the car and subject to prosecution if he admitted giving Floyd a fatal dose of drugs, took the Fifth and refused to testify.

Calling Chauvin's trial a kangaroo court is an insult to marsupials from the family Macropodidae. Not that Chauvin was officer of the year, by all accounts he was a bad cop. But if you believe in fair, impartial justice, this was a bad day all around.

I do apologize if I confused your response with someone else's. Someone said she got what she deserved. Well as Clint Eastwood said in Unforgiven to the Kid, who said of a guy he'd just shot to death, "He had it comin'": "Kid, we ALL have it comin'."

Then why make claims about what you didn't read? — Fooloso4

Don't believe I did. My claim was that people deplatformed and smeared anyone who even dared to suggest the possibility a lab origin for covid, The article claimed to delineate the process by which that happened. I confess I have a bad habit of posting links I don't read. Perhaps from now on I should include a disclaimer when I do that.

Only that finally, after a year, people are starting to admit the possibility.
— fishfry

And why do you think that is? — Fooloso4

Because Trump is no longer president, so they don't feel the need to irrationally object to everything anyone says that Trump might have agreed with. TDS killed people because it make liberals totally irrational. If Trump said the sky is blue the New York Times would deny it. That was a problem for the past several years.

In addition to not bothering to read the article you linked to it seems you have not bothered to find out the facts either. — Fooloso4

I'm painfully aware of the facts of censorship of reputable scientists who dared to oppose the MSM orthodoxy. I wonder why you're seemingly defending it.

It was the political hack who was elected President who suppressed the facts and forced Fauci to play by his rules. He is not anti-science and has the credentials to prove it. — Fooloso4

Fauci's credentials are that he's a career bureaucrat who never practiced medicine. He's no scientist and surely you know that. And say what you will about Trump, you can't call him a political hack. He's the anti-politician. One of his worst weaknesses was that he knew nothing of politics and how things get done in Washington. Trump was an anti-politician who had never run for elective office in his life. You can't call him a political hack. That's your TDS talking. You killed people with that malady.

What evidence did they have? What did Tom Cotton know? On the one hand you — Fooloso4

What's wrong with saying, "Let's keep an open mind and find out," as opposed to smearing him as a conspiracy theorist when, in the end, he's probably going to turn out to be right? Reputable scientists lost their jobs and got deplatformed for stating their opinion.

The first article I ever read about covid identified the wet market in Wuhan as the source, and then said that there just happens to be a bioweapons research facility a mile from there. At that moment I was a proponent of the lab leak hypothesis, because it makes more sense than bat soup. Every developed nation in the world is doing bioweapons research and it's inevitable for the occasional bug to escape. The most benign explanation is an accidental lab leak. In the worst case, it was a deliberate trial run for a global bioweapon. You still hanging on to the bat soup theory? Not even Fauci believes that anymore.

I am criticizing those who in the past year constantly called policy by the name of science. — fishfry

For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. You know, the guy who tried to get the National Weather Service to back up his claims about the path of a hurricane to make him look less stupid than he is.

A test run of man-made bioweapon — fishfry

What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon.

For the majority of the past year your man Trump was in office. — Fooloso4

If I can recall that far back, my other choice was Hillary. I'd do it again. That doesn't make Trump "my man." It only means that millions of people who voted for Obama twice, couldn't stomach voting for Hillary. I was one of those millions. You could look up the numbers. Hillary doesn't call Trump supporters a basket of deplorables, she wins. She goes to Wisoconsin, she wins. She's even slightly less of a corrupt warmonger, she wins. She couldn't do or be any of that because she's Hillary. She managed to be the only person in the country who couldn't beat a guy like Trump.

Subsequently, the party I'd been a member of all my life, the Dems, went all-in for Russiagate hysteria and Muellergate and Ukrainegate and are now completely off the rails. I'm not the only former liberal who feels this way.

What evidence do you have of that? Again, you hear part of something and make up your own story or blindly believe conspiracy theories as if the are "alternative facts". Even if it came from a lab that does mean it was deliberately released as a test run of a bio-weapon. — Fooloso4

I took the trouble to admit that this is not proven. So why do you pretend to have not seen me do that? It's certainly a possibility. Every government in the world that can afford a bioweapons lab is doing the research.

@fishfry

I am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts.

Perhaps you will have the decency to allow this thread to get back on topic.

am not going to continue playing a part in another of your political rants, conspiracy theories, and alternatives to facts. — Fooloso4

Forbes magazine is a mainstream periodical, hardly a hotbed of conspiracy theories. They explored the question. Did Covid-19 Come From A Lab? Was It Deliberate Bioterrorism? A Biodefense Expert Explores The Clues

The title of the thread is Science. If you are not aware that every advanced country in the world is engaged in bioweapons research, conducted by scientists, actual scientists, I do hope you will take the trouble to educate yourself. And if not you, perhaps other readers will. We don't know the origin of covid. Bat soup seems very unlikely at this point. It was most likely either an accidental leak from a bioweapons lab -- one partially funded indirectly by Dr. Fauci himself -- or a deliberate leak. The latter remains a possibility until it's ruled out. And you can't rule anything out scientifically by calling ideas you find unpleasant, conspiracy theories.

What exactly do you think gain of function research is? They take a naturally occurring disease, and they try to figure out how to make it easier to pass from one human to the next. Why? Because they are either planning to use it as an offensive weapon; or they need to study it to defend against the other guys doing it. In either case it's the same thing.

Here, read and learn. Science is about having an open mind. And very very sadly, science is about bioweapons research these days. When we say science, we're not talking James Clerk Maxwell anymore.

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/the-wuhan-lab-and-the-gain-of-function-disagreement/

For the record, there are no smoking guns. Only questions. Questions you smear as conspiracy theories, but that reputable scientists are asking.

@banno, This is a better response to your question. Can I say something bad about science? Yes, the US government spends a lot of money figuring out how to kill people with bioengineered viruses. That's science and it's evil. Perhaps a necessary evil, in the sense that our adversaries are doing the research and we have to know enough to defend ourselves. But this is what science has come to. Newton at Woolsthorpe during the plague year, it ain't.

I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Science is used for evil, and most scientists do not know and/or care (or they would not be scientists).

Without the scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda, or rather we would still be in the primitive stages of propaganda that existed in the time of Pericles or Augustus. Of course, propagandists may be insufficiently versed in these branches of science; they may misunderstand them, go beyond the cautious conclusions of the psychologists, or claim to apply certain psychological discoveries that, in fact, do not apply at all. But all this only shows efforts to find new ways; only for the past fifty years have men sought to apply the psychological and sociological sciences. The important thing is that propaganda has decided to submit itself to science and to make use of it. Of course, psychologists may be scandalized and say that this is a misuse of their science. But this argument carries no weight; the same applies to our physicists and the atomic bomb. The scientist should know that he lives in a world where his discoveries will be utilized. Propagandists inevitably will have a better understanding of sociology and psychology, use them with increasing precision, and as a result become more effective. — Jacques Ellul, 'Propaganda' (1965)'

Our entire much-praised technological progress, and civilization generally, could be compared to an axe in the hand of a pathological criminal. — Albert Einstein, (1917)

In 2009 the AAAI (Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence) held a conference that dealt with the dangers posed by the development of artificial intelligence, and as possible remedies the participating scientists considered "limits on research," the confinement of some research to "a high-security laboratory," and a "cadre" that was to "shape the advances and help society cope with the ramifications" of artificial intelligence. It's hard to tell to what extent all this was a public-relations effort and to what extent the scientists actually believed in it, but in any case their proposals were hopelessly naive.

[...]

In any case, however sophisticated the propagandists' arguments may be, everything relevant that I've seen in the media up to the present (2016) seems to indicate that most scientists' thinking about the social and moral implications of their work is still at a superficial, or even juvenile level.

[...]

Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak thinks that "robots taking over would be good for the human race," because they'll be "smarter than us" and will make us like "the family pet and taken care of all the time." — Ted Kaczynski, 'Technological Slavery' (2019)

@darthbarracuda

:up: :100: :clap:

Science is used for evil — darthbarracuda

Yep.

most scientists do not know and/or care — darthbarracuda

Nuh.

Your list of big ticket items is propaganda and artificial intelligence. Sure, scary.

@Banno
Ah,another who can't tell the difference between technology and the theoretical ideology knows as science. Strawman thread.
Beavers have technology,but no textbooks on quarks.
Science in the main tries to claim its the only route to knowledge. I know that's not your/ wittys position,but nonetheless in practice you try to silence alternative thought. And your kneejerk fear of religion leads you Dawkins like ignorance of what religion is pointing to and
the actual original religious method. Which method is banno?

Not peer-reviewed scientific journal studies, but it does purport to contain witness testimony, and for those who accept its premisses, it presents a coherent worldview, notwithstanding that it doesn’t meet the criteria of scientific empiricism. Besides, we all believe more than we can plausibly prove or know for certain. — Wayfarer

Beliefs based on empirical observations can be confirmed or dis-confirmed by investigation to the satisfaction of any unbiased observer; the extraordinary claims made in the bible cannot, the existence of God cannot. It is a valid distinction.

It's true that we all believe more than we can actually prove or know for certain; and the truth status of scientific theories (as opposed to simple empirical observations) cannot be confirmed or dis-confirmed by observation. The point is that we have specific criteria for assessing theories: whether or not what they predict is observed. No such criteria exist when it comes to religious belief and theology. So, again, there is a real difference there.

I think you know what I meant. The "good Germans" we heard so much about, as in "Where were the good Germans?" Now that I've seen the past few years in the US, I understand better where they were. — fishfry

It was terrible for the Germans after WWI. The Treaty of Versailles demanded huge reparations, while at the same time annexed the Saaland, which was Germany's main access to coal for industrial and domestic fuel. At the same time Germans had democracy forced on them - and it was proportional representation, which led to a proliferation of political parties, and weak, indecisive government. It's easy to see how Germany fell prey to the Nazi regime.

Well then we're all in agreement. Personally I don't resist cops, I comply and act polite. That's because when I was young and foolish, I sassed off to a cop and got a night in the Oakland, CA city jail for my troubles. Got my Ph.D. in the criminal justice system that night. Now that I'm old and foolish, I'm polite to cops. — fishfry

When all this kicked off, I looked up the statistics on Arrest Related Deaths - and apparently, there are around 10 million arrests per year, and around 1000 end in the death of the suspect. That's 0.01%. Of those, 32% are black - which may immediately seem disproportionate, given that black people are only 13% of the US population. However, when you look more closely, it turns out that black people commit a lot more crime - and so make up a larger proportion of arrests than their numbers in the population would suggest. I was on twitter at the time - and shared these statistics, and was banned from twitter for doing so.

But wait, because the plot thickens. Data on arrest related deaths was collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics from 2003-2012, whereupon the Obama administration shut it down, the year before BLM was formed in 2013. So, this kicking off in the weeks leading up to the Presidential election looks mighty suspicious. One has to ask why Obama would shut down data collection on the race of arrest related deaths if it was such a huge issue that forming BLM was necessary. About 300 black people die every year - which is plenty of fuel for a social media narrative, while statistically, there's no evidence of racism on the part of police, and every indication of extraordinary professionalism.

The only alternatives to science are — Wayfarer

tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination
— counterpunch

So - you're either pro-science, or you're relegated to pagan superstition. They're your choices. — Wayfarer

If you say so. Personally, I was responding to the argument made in the article on signs of scientism, which reads:

6. Denying or denigrating the legitimacy or the worth of other kinds of inquiry
besides the scientific, or the value of human activities other than inquiry, such as
poetry or art.

So then, other kinds of inquiry such as tarot cards, astrology, ouija boards, haruspex, divination? Are you denying the legitimacy of these forms of inquiry?

counterpunch buys into the pop story of Catholic anti-scientific practice. — Banno

"The Pope Would Like You to Accept Evolution and the Big Bang."
By Colin Schultz
SMITHSONIANMAG.COM
OCTOBER 28, 2014

Yesterday, Pope Francis, the head of the Roman Catholic Church, said that Darwinian evolution is real, and so is the Big Bang..."

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/

******

Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom".

******

Darwin's Origin of Species was published in 1859.

*****

On February 24 1616 the Qualifiers delivered their unanimous report: the proposition that the Sun is stationary at the centre of the universe is "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture." Heliocentric books were banned and Galileo was ordered to abstain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

******

"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture...."

— Pope John Paul II, L'Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) – November 4, 1992

*****

It's partly right, of course, but the story is much more complicated. — Banno

Which part?

He rejects the Haack article without providing any critique. Counterpunch advocates scientism. — Banno

No, I don't reject the article. It adequately expresses a view, but it's a view I disagree with - because I reject the concept of scientism as an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place - a box formed (in large part) by 400 years of religious anti-science propaganda.

Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, which he called the "primeval atom". — counterpunch

By 1951, Pope Pius XII declared that Lemaître's theory provided a scientific validation for Catholicism.[35] However, Lemaître resented the Pope's proclamation, stating that the theory was neutral and there was neither a connection nor a contradiction between his religion and his theory.[36][37][16] Lemaître and Daniel O'Connell, the Pope's scientific advisor, persuaded the Pope not to mention Creationism publicly, and to stop making proclamations about cosmology.[38] Lemaître was a devout Catholic, but opposed mixing science with religion,[38] although he held that the two fields were not in conflict.[39] — Wikipedia

If there was a reason for posting that wikipedia entry on Lemaître, I'm missing it. Perhaps you could explain - maybe when you respond to the post I wrote to you, above?

I reject the concept of scientism as an attempt to put science back in a box in which it doesn't belong in the first place - a box formed (in large part) by 400 years of religious anti-science propaganda. — counterpunch

The fact that you take it to mean that, only confirms what I said previously - that proponents of scientism will generally fail to recognise what it means. Daniel Dennett says the same: 'Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.'

I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another.

The fact that you take it to mean that, only confirms what I said previously - that proponents of scientism will generally fail to recognise what it means. Daniel Dennett says the same: 'Scientism: I don't know anybody who is guilty of it. Scientism is a strawman used by people who object to science 'poking its nose into places it shouldn't be.'

I think we're done, Counterpunch - we're plainly just talking past one another. — Wayfarer

I've addressed your remarks directly. I've addressed the article directly. I've addressed the concept of scientism directly. If I'm talking past you it's because you're ducking out of the way.