It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science denier

page: 1
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+1 more 
posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:09 AM
link   
It's important for terms to say what they mean, and mean what they say. Here we have a new term for our government. it's highly accurate and should be used in all cased having to do with nature or science.

I'm sure most are getting tired of hearing me rail on and on about natural immunity, I'm tired myself. But to see people who lead nations, not just small nations, but the most powerful nation on the planet, not be able to comprehend basic science is frightening to say the least. Between the inability to even mention a plan for studies of the recovered vs. vaccinated, or recognizing that recovered people are at least as well protected as the fully vaxxed, perhaps more so, leads me to believe that they honestly don't understand any of this.

They you have the blaming hurricanes on Climate change, and you see that there is no intelligent life in the white house. It's possible they do know, and are just counting on their voters to really be that damn stupid, and it's obvious they are to an extent, but not all of them. A few understand reality to a degree. Why don't they speak up? Afraid to upset the apple cart?



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Science has evolved. It’s now all data science and quantitative modeling to maintain the status quo and keep the machine churning.

Natural immunity is better, but is the path to natural immunity the better one. You won’t find one data model that shows that to be the case.

You’re fighting against computers at this point who can run an incalculable amount of predictive models.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

One isn't better than the other because a hybrid was always going to be the better option.

A healthy adult doesn't need it, an adult with medical problems needs it, older folks it makes more sense.

Vaccine mandates for kids are insane.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:27 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

Hear me out.

The biden administration says they want the rest of the 80 million to get vaccinated because they are the ones that are catching covid-19 and creating the new variants. You see, catching it and spreading it allows the virus to mutate.

The problem is, even if you have the shot you can still get the China virus but you just don't get as sick, and you can also spread it. This allows the China virus to mutate.

So it appears to me that they have no argument for people to take the shot.

In my opinion if you are at high risk you should take the shot. If not then I don't see any reason to take the shot but do what you want.

Can someone explain their reasoning for taking the shot?



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

I’m not arguing one way or the other. I’m not in that field and so I have no clue.

I’m just stating the current science (even as it related to public health) isn’t SOLELY based on whether natural immunity is greater than a vaccine.

Current science is all quantitative modeling.

Let’s say natural immunity is better and that the science is sound. I have no reason to believe it isn’t. Now I plug in what it would take to achieve natural immunity and run millions upon millions of scenarios. I see the most likely outcome for achieving natural immunity is more detrimental to society at large, so my policy goes against that because all I’m doing is running cost-benefit analysis at a macro level.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo
a reply to: network dude

Science has evolved. It’s now all data science and quantitative modeling to maintain the status quo and keep the machine churning.

Natural immunity is better, but is the path to natural immunity the better one. You won’t find one data model that shows that to be the case.

You’re fighting against computers at this point who can run an incalculable amount of predictive models.


This is a very astute comment that has gotten my wheels churning this morning!

Ive always said AI is the biggest threat to humankind. Kill all the robots.


edit on 9/10/2021 by BrujaRebooted because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:48 AM
link   
Much like he who owned the printing press decided what information passed the press real or fictional so do those who own the models. They decide now what passes as the supposed/expected future real or imagined.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 07:49 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

I don't think you are wrong in your theory, but as we have seen from the climate models, unless you have good data to use as a basis for the model, the outcome will be massively flawed, and give essentially a garbage answer to a poorly worded question. (IMHO)



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

I don't think you are wrong in your theory, but as we have seen from the climate models, unless you have good data to use as a basis for the model, the outcome will be massively flawed, and give essentially a garbage answer to a poorly worded question. (IMHO)


So I don't want to say you're wrong because you're not, but data science and modeling isn't exactly black and white. The way I've described it to people where I work (because we use it, and I work for the State of Texas) is this:

I'm going to bet on a football game and use my data modeling to decide where to place my bets. However much data I can gather will give me a better predictive model for the outcome. I plug in data and run scenarios and get something like this:

1% chance Cowboys win by 40
1% chance Cowboys win by 38
2% chance Cowboys win by 35
5% chance Cowboys win by 30

Etc...(I won't type it all out)

I then bet accordingly. I cannot model everything though. Dak Prescott could tear his ACL on the first play and I can't predict that (although the likelihood is built into my model). If he tears it on the first play as opposed to the last, my outcomes are also different (and I've modeled this as well). So I can't completely model the future or even tell you the outcome, I can just tell you the most likely outcome. It doesn't mean I will win this bet, but over the course of an NFL season I will win enough that I will make money.

So in regards to something like climate modeling, I can't get future prognostications down to a T because the variables are ever changing and out of my control. I can however, give you the most likely scenario and if you (not you, but any generic you) go against the computer modeling as a default you will be wrong more than you are right.

Realize that the game isn't about being right 100% of the time, I just have to be right more than I'm wrong. By the way, I've modeled how many "wrongs" I will be into the model as well.

So you're not a science denier in saying that natural immunity is better, or that climate change isn't a threat to civilization (or any of the other things you could spout) in the classical sense of science. You are a science denier in the modern sense of science which is all quantitative modeling and I can assure you that no person on earth can beat the computer model over time.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo




You’re fighting against computers at this point who can run an incalculable amount of predictive models.

Computers CANNOT predict ANYTHING.
They can only present models based on data.
GiGo
edit on 9/10/21 by Gothmog because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:14 AM
link   
"Science denier" is an excellent descriptor for people like Biden and the wokesters. These are people who have no understanding of how real, actual science works, but they've convinced themselves that merely saying the word "science" will make them appear smarter. It's hilarious. It's like a George Carlin bit.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

but as both of us have said, the model is only as good at the data that is entered.
What if you put all your eggs into one basket, and then found that your basket was bad? You would be forced with the choice to save face and continue the lie or come clean and admit to a massive mistake. I don't see our current leaders being the kind to admit to a massive mistake.

Fauci likely funded the work that created this pandemic. And Fauci is in charge of our response to this pandemic. But nobody seems to really be interested in the conflict of interest.

And my opinion is that our leaders are the "science deniers", as they are the one's who won't mention natural immunity or it's place in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated spectrum.
covidcalltohumanity.org...
reporting facts = heresy. This is where we are in fall of 2021. God help us, because we don't seem mentally capable of helping ourselves.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:21 AM
link   
There is science and there is scientism.

Scientism is the traveling circus snake oil barkers using just enough science to justify the mental analysis a listener does to approve of buying the snake oil.

Modern day scientism is the political power brokers spouting just enough science (that the citizens won't fact check the fact checkers on) to surrender their liberty and approve of the scientism they are selling.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

but as both of us have said, the model is only as good at the data that is entered.
What if you put all your eggs into one basket, and then found that your basket was bad? You would be forced with the choice to save face and continue the lie or come clean and admit to a massive mistake. I don't see our current leaders being the kind to admit to a massive mistake.

Fauci likely funded the work that created this pandemic. And Fauci is in charge of our response to this pandemic. But nobody seems to really be interested in the conflict of interest.

And my opinion is that our leaders are the "science deniers", as they are the one's who won't mention natural immunity or it's place in the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated spectrum.
covidcalltohumanity.org...
reporting facts = heresy. This is where we are in fall of 2021. God help us, because we don't seem mentally capable of helping ourselves.


I don't disagree with you. I'd only state that you and I have maybe 1% of the pie, people in power may have 10%.

Nobody has 100% of it, and much is unknown. No outcome has 100% certainty.

Just pointing out that what is steering society at large isn't human emotion at this point, but computer modeling. Which should be a blessing, honestly (at least from where I sit).



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ColeYounger
"Science denier" is an excellent descriptor for people like Biden and the wokesters. These are people who have no understanding of how real, actual science works, but they've convinced themselves that merely saying the word "science" will make them appear smarter. It's hilarious. It's like a George Carlin bit.





My God, can you imagine the shows Carlin could put on with the material supplied by this admin. he could just read the news, then look at the camera with that look he does, and we would all laugh, well, most of us would.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

but knowing for absolute certain that a portion of the pie is being excluded does make it easier to see how pathetic those in charge really are. And it's not a small part either, it's a massive slice. I'd go so far as to say it's the answer to the end of this madness. If they managed the cases and put just a tiny bit of effort into finding a treatment for the symptoms of the virus, this could be over in a year, or could have already been over, had it been done from the start.

But as one of our members has deduced, this isn't about a virus or saving lives at all, but about money and power.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 08:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

but knowing for absolute certain that a portion of the pie is being excluded does make it easier to see how pathetic those in charge really are. And it's not a small part either, it's a massive slice. I'd go so far as to say it's the answer to the end of this madness. If they managed the cases and put just a tiny bit of effort into finding a treatment for the symptoms of the virus, this could be over in a year, or could have already been over, had it been done from the start.

But as one of our members has deduced, this isn't about a virus or saving lives at all, but about money and power.
www.abovetopsecret.com...



For sure. We’re missing a ton of data points that could help steer policy.

I’ve been absolutely floored why we didn’t focus on antibody testing and even Covid testing for all citizens to get GOOD data from the jump. We still haven’t gone that route.

It would be great to know how much of society has been infected and which percentage of society is currently infected, at all times through the past year and a half. This data is crucial and yet non existent.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: GeechQuestInfo

It would be great to know how much of society has been infected and which percentage of society is currently infected, at all times through the past year and a half. This data is crucial and yet non existent.


If I could type "bingo" a million times, I would.



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 10:06 AM
link   
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Would you believe the data even if they did provide it?



posted on Sep, 10 2021 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: BringMeT
a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

Would you believe the data even if they did provide it?


wouldn't we need to see it first to make that call? Or is that not how things work anymore?



new topics

top topics



 
18
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join