|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 10/21/2014 : 21:26:48
|
The Rude Pundit cites some nice examples of Republicans twisting around on scientific issues:Speaker of the House John Boehner on why he is against President Obama on policies to slow climate change: "Listen, I’m not qualified to debate the science over climate change."
Speaker of the House John Boehner on action to halt Ebola: "A temporary ban on travel to the United States from countries afflicted with the virus is something that the president should absolutely consider along with any other appropriate actions as doubts about the security of our air travel systems grow."
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on why he doesn't want to say how much human activity contributes to climate change: "I’d leave it to the scientists to decide how much, what it means, and what the consequences are...Let the scientists debate and figure that out."
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal on why we should act preemptively to stop Ebola's spread: "It's pretty clear they refused to take common sense steps and call for the ban of these flights...That's been something I've been calling on for quite some time now. This is just common sense. Why in the world wouldn't we do this?"
Representative Paul Ryan on whether humans cause climate change: "I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think science does, either."
Representative Paul Ryan on how we should react to Ebola: "We’re learning a lot about how it’s spread but the question is ‘How can a person just jump on a plane and get here without a quarantine period of 21 days, which I believe is recommended." Of course, they actually disagree with the science on both issues. They think the climate change science is overblown (because it won't affect them or even their grandchildren very much) but they think the reaction to ebola is lacking (because it might kill them next week!). So it might look hypocritical, but I think it might actually be based on the same "how will this affect meeeeeee?!?" egotism these politicians can't seem to avoid.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/22/2014 : 05:36:40 [Permalink]
|
I think it can be summed up pretty shortly as Dems are getting in on the Ebola scare train as well.
<Insert science subject that I am getting campaign finances from for supporting/denying> <claim that the science is/is not settled> <Use it to stonewall/push through legislation while decrying the other side's lackeys of opening up the country to economic/ecological damage>
vs
<Insert subject that has been so overblown in the media that it causes a scare> Claim that even though they are not scientists that <condition/disease> could have been prevented from coming across by <denying US citizens the right of return/using "common sense" whatever that is/placing undue travel burdens on brown people or people who visit places peopled with brown people (yes, I am suggesting that this is a wee bit racist)> for political points with my constituency.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2014 : 19:00:06 [Permalink]
|
How scientific is the question of how to limit the spread of Ebola? We can't test different approaches under any decent experimental conditions.
We can make models and tweak the parameters and see what changes (it's not really as simple as that, there's lots of math involved, but that's essentially what all the math tells us). I'm somewhat well-versed in many of the epidemiological models in use as an academic interest, but they're honestly quite primitive (and typically make some assumptions that are hard to justify).
Of course scientists are already confident of the answer of those questions on climate change... |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 10/29/2014 19:06:46 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2014 : 21:38:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Machi4velli
How scientific is the question of how to limit the spread of Ebola? We can't test different approaches under any decent experimental conditions. |
We can't test volcanism under any decent experimental conditions, either, but try telling volcanologists that they're not scientists.
There's hands-on "lab" science with strict methods and double-blind controls, and then there's "historical" or "observational" science for everything else. Creationists like to claim that only the former is "real" science, and so evolution can't be scientific, but the methods for both are the same: develop hypotheses and compare their predictions to real-world evidence, then refine and repeat. Climatology and evolutionary biology are not different types of science than chemistry and physics in that regard.
Back to Ebola: obviously the methods used in Dallas failed. I'm sure there's a lot more data about a lot more failed attempts to limit the spread. Each time Ebola spreads, it signifies another failed test of another method to contain the epidemic. The fact that we can't (ethically) try methods we know will fail (as "controls") doesn't make the accumulation of observations and refinement of hypotheses less scientific. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2014 : 09:50:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Machi4velli
How scientific is the question of how to limit the spread of Ebola? We can't test different approaches under any decent experimental conditions. |
We can't test volcanism under any decent experimental conditions, either, but try telling volcanologists that they're not scientists.
There's hands-on "lab" science with strict methods and double-blind controls, and then there's "historical" or "observational" science for everything else. Creationists like to claim that only the former is "real" science, and so evolution can't be scientific, but the methods for both are the same: develop hypotheses and compare their predictions to real-world evidence, then refine and repeat. Climatology and evolutionary biology are not different types of science than chemistry and physics in that regard.
Back to Ebola: obviously the methods used in Dallas failed. I'm sure there's a lot more data about a lot more failed attempts to limit the spread. Each time Ebola spreads, it signifies another failed test of another method to contain the epidemic. The fact that we can't (ethically) try methods we know will fail (as "controls") doesn't make the accumulation of observations and refinement of hypotheses less scientific.
|
The methods failed in Dallas because the staff became complacent with universal precautions. Failure to wear clean gloves. Failure to dispose of the gloves properly. Failure to wash hands between each and every patient. Failure to wear the proper protective gear.
This gets pounded into every health care worker from the janitor on up. We have yearly training. CDC nailed it on the head (and then had to apologize for telling the truth).
The CDC, however, was slow to react and get advisors/supervisors on the ground early enough to re-inforce (and by extension give an appearance of scrutiny) that training. The scrutiny (or appearance thereof) is useful so that staff believe they are being watched and less likely to violate those precautions through additional vigilance. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2014 : 02:42:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The methods failed in Dallas because the staff became complacent with universal precautions. Failure to wear clean gloves. Failure to dispose of the gloves properly. Failure to wash hands between each and every patient. Failure to wear the proper protective gear.
|
So, this was basically a case of Darwin Award.
 |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 11/04/2014 : 08:07:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Back to Ebola: obviously the methods used in Dallas failed. I'm sure there's a lot more data about a lot more failed attempts to limit the spread. Each time Ebola spreads, it signifies another failed test of another method to contain the epidemic. The fact that we can't (ethically) try methods we know will fail (as "controls") doesn't make the accumulation of observations and refinement of hypotheses less scientific.
|
I don't know that we even have a lot of observational data to suggest whether or not stopping flights from a particular region is helpful or not, which seemed to be the gist of most of their comments.
We do have models that can give possibly good suggestions, but most tend to impose some assumptions (uniform mixing or some tempered version of the same) that I worry have undue effects on predictions, which can really matter because quite a lot of decisionmaking hinges on tipping points where the long-term behavior of the system changes dramatically. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
| Edited by - Machi4velli on 11/04/2014 08:09:00 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Science hypocrisy
