Yes, it is both insulting and funny, which for better or worse, is often how humor rolls out, as noted. Even when someone slips on a banana peel, we laugh because the slipee looks like a fool.

 

And now, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

I would like to excuse for the serious tone of my last post - the attack on scientific standards and the surge of pseudoscience to the detriment of the well-being of all is a major concern of mine and to be frank, I find it as nearly in as bad taste as joking with school shootings. I would argue that pseudoscience is most likely the cause of more deaths than mass shootings.

That corruption of scientific research happens is a given as no field of employment is completely free of it; stating otherwise would be stupid. Government officials, small business owners, nurses - there are plenty of examples of persons working in all kinds of environments who have acted unethically.

Do I believe that it is a "real and serious issue"? That would depend of the definition of "serious", I guess. The research that comes from accepted, mainstream sources generally have high standards for transparency, both in the quality of research and regarding funding. The metastudies building on individual studies and concluding broadly on the basis of those findings have access to all that information and take it into account. They too have to publish their own sources, metadata, etc if they wish to be taken seriously by the academia and get published by anyone serious.

I would say that the problem with poor studies most often arise when laymen inexpertly try to conclude very specificly from them or data read from them gets scewed or misunderstood in order to either promote a certain ideology or to make some headlines for news outlets.

The "exaggeration" part of it I don't care about, it is the notion that all sponsored science is part of a conspiracy to shut up those "independant" scientist. I find that derogatory to the many scientist in various who are trying to make this a better place for us all, sponsored or not.

If there are issues with sponsored research, I would suggest that those are probably more in the range of more narrowly formulated hypotheses and most likely less promotion of the findings, should those not be to the liking of the coorporations. Again, due to the transparancy of the most regarded institutions, this is not something that are simply getting swept under the rug and it will be taken into account when evaluating the study.

Will fraud happen still? It would be extremely optimistic to suggest otherwise. However, because of the scientific method, findings that are spectacular will be tested again and the findings form only into the established view on the matter; an extreme result varying significantly will usually be weighed less authorative than those trials or studies that don't and claims made with a basis in the scientific method can be disproven by science - as opposed to pseudoscience where fantastic claims can stand undisturbed by evidence disproving them - in part because of the distrust against the establishment, an example of which was posted here.

I have much more to say about the subject, but I am afraid my English skills are just not up to conveying my ideas concisely enough

I'll leave now and let the stage be home for more jokes and uplifting posts

 

The author of “Truly Tasteless Jokes” argues that no subject should be off limits to joke about. I disagree.There are lines that shouldn’t be crossed. While pseudoscience may kill more people than mass shootings, any joke about school shootings is a disgusting, low-class, crass, insensitive thing to make fun of.

Poking fun at scientists is one thing, and I agree, registers very low on the amusement meter. But to say that it is “nearly in as bad taste as joking about school shootings, where little kids lose they’re lives because of some deranged maniac? No, sorry, not even close.

 

As a freelance writer, last week, a national newspaper assigned me to cover the Inter-Religion Integration Seminar, being held in my city. Using my press pass for access, I had the opportunity to interview the representatives of several attending religious organizations. The conference center was near my apartment, so I hopped on my bike and rode over, enjoying the sunny spring morning and a bit of fresh air and exercise.

My first session was with the Catholic Bishop, who upon meeting me put his hands upon my head and said, “Bless you my son, by the will of Jesus Christ, you will walk today!”

I smiled and told him I could already walk, but thank you very much.

The Rabbi came, and he laid his hands on mine and said, “By the will of God Almighty, you will walk today!

I was a bit less amused this time when I told him there was nothing wrong with me.

Next was the Mullah came, who took my hands in his and said, “Insha Allah, you will walk today!”

A bit annoyed at this point, I told him there was nothing wrong with my legs.

Finally came the Hindu sadhu came and said "Namaste, you will walk on your own two legs today."

I sighed and said once again - there is nothing wrong with my legs!

Wrapping up my interviews, I left for my apartment to begin writing my article - only to find that my bicycle had been stolen.

Now I'm a believer.

 

The way you phrase it (above), few would argue with your position. Unfortunately, though, it is not that simple. Even the very organizations that are expected to give the best medical guidance (e.g. the CDC, WHO, etc.) have made some dubious claims relating to COVID, and some well-trained and educated doctors and scientists (nothing "pseudo" about them) presented different views, which were subsequently proven to have been correct, or, minimally, more accurate. And some of those doctors and scientists were punished (fired, etc.), while others were blackballed from media outlets.

I don't wish to derail the thread much further, but there is a lot of evidence of corruption of scientific research, particularly by Big Pharma. And here is just one example, which touches on both the corruption of scientific research, and the attempt to silence knowledgable critics in social media.

BMJ = British Medical Journal

You can read the rest here:

https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rr-80

and a good summary of the Pfizer research issue:

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/202...ntegrity-issues-in-pfizers-vaccine-trial.html

 

Do you think only adults die because of pseudoscience? Or are their lives just worth less than those killed by bullets? Or are you really arguing that it is the tool you kill people by that qualifies you to be deranged or not?

 

I am arguing that jokes about school shootings and about science are not remotely close in terms of what most people would find offensive.

I would also remind you that this is in the Jokes thread. That implies from the outset that it’s supposed to be viewed with a less serious lens, and that often, someone will be the butt of the joke.

Should we be up in arms about drunk Irishman jokes, because of how many lives are lost each year from alcohol-related causes?

 

My post really wasn't about censorship or anything like that. I am only concerned about the implied nefariousness of the sponsored research, which I expanded on in my second post here.

 

A false study published in the BMJ back in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield (the findings have subsequently disproven) have caused a huge loss in confidence in what are routine and very safe vaccines, with the repercussions of all that still happening today. There's little doubt that this has lead to suffering and deaths that could have easily been avoided. As Tony points out, profit motives are sometimes involved, and in this case were as well.

But overall I agree that the system generally works. It works best when publicly funded IMO.

 

"made loud to be played loud"

have fun
kfw

 

Well, I would say that you are underrating the level of corruption in privately funded research. As Al says, publicly funded is much more reliable.

 

Why did the chicken cross the road?

 

Doesn't get much better than publicly funded, peer reviewed research that's backed up by additional studies and general consensus among the scientific community. Unfortunately, memes on social media don't/can't make that distinction and people end up becoming skeptical of all science and expertise. Or at least that's what they want you think to distract us from the truth that the Earth is flat and birds aren't real...

 

As new methods / instrumentation / data become available, research will get better. We need more of it. What would have happened if man dictated the earth was flat and stopped all research? Scientists said it was impossible for man to fly. Global cooling was huge in the '70s with research to back it. Climate change now. I say keep improving and keep researching (preferably with an open mind). I would much rather protect our planet than destroy it. Oh, I wouldn't mind flying cars

 

I don’t think it is fair to link the attempt at humour to school shootings. That seems a very unfair attack

 

Science cannot at this stage cannot explain time, consciousness or the creation of life or even if life is universally ubiquitous.Reading Yuval Noah Harari modern science does have the potential to deny that we exist as an individual and ultimately can state that we are just set of independent systems with an illusion of self will being driven by separate independent biological algorithms, which in turn are easily hacked to generate the required behaviour. He postulates that this is a significant threat to the liberalism many people take for granted. So maybe we should be careful if we follow the science too blindly as offered by those in power….. now can we get back to the jokes please …..