|
|
Post by lesleysm2 on Nov 29, 2024 0:48:02 GMT
I wouldn't want any diary/calendar that didn't start on Sundays, nor any that tries to bundle Saturdays and Sundays together in a tiny space. I've made that mistake before now buying a diary on line that said "day to a page" then put Saturday/Sunday on the same page. I keep a personal diary and have done for 50 years and I need those days to be the same size as the others |
|
|
|
Post by MJB on Nov 30, 2024 10:25:22 GMT
Peer reviewed science, several years of trials and research, and fact based rational thinking have been replaced by Karen off of Facebook and Dave from the pub.
|
|
|
|
Post by gray1720 on Nov 30, 2024 10:55:20 GMT
Welcome to my world, Martin. In addition I'm looking forward to two days of moaning about the poor farmers when I visit Mum next weekend, in addition to the usual racism, homophobia, transphobia and general it's all gone to shitism. This from someone who was moaning before the budget that she was going to have to pay inheritance tax...
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Nov 30, 2024 11:04:58 GMT
Peer reviewed science, several years of trials and research, and fact based rational thinking have been replaced by Karen off of Facebook and Dave from the pub. Unfortunately a few have spoiled it for the many, the research that suggested “smoking is good for you” and “sugar isn’t harmful”, both now shown to be incorrect has made the general public wary of “science”. Unless those individuals and bodies who fund research are prepared to do so irrespective of the outcome there is always room for some people to believe that “it’s rigged”. That there’s evidence that, in the past, “it” has been rigged only encourages them. |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Nov 30, 2024 11:07:28 GMT
Science is a process, not an outcome. Surely?
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Nov 30, 2024 11:08:49 GMT
Peer reviewed science, several years of trials and research, and fact based rational thinking have been replaced by Karen off of Facebook and Dave from the pub. Or if you are in the US, that's your nominee for heads of Department of Public Health and CDC. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Nov 30, 2024 11:11:35 GMT
Science is a process, not an outcome. Surely? Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Nov 30, 2024 11:19:45 GMT
Welcome to my world, Martin. In addition I'm looking forward to two days of moaning about the poor farmers when I visit Mum next weekend, in addition to the usual racism, homophobia, transphobia and general it's all gone to shitism. This from someone who was moaning before the budget that she was going to have to pay inheritance tax... To be fair, there is a fair bit of truth in "it has all gone to shitism". It certainly seems to be on a downward trajectory.  |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Nov 30, 2024 11:33:05 GMT
Science is a process, not an outcome. Surely? Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. Absolutely, I'm in agreement with you. But (and I mostly blame the media, predictably enough) there's an ignorance of what science is which leads to this sweeping distrust. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Nov 30, 2024 11:57:23 GMT
Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. Absolutely, I'm in agreement with you. But (and I mostly blame the media, predictably enough) there's an ignorance of what science is which leads to this sweeping distrust. It doesn't help when the PM of the day was listening to the science and blatantly ignoring it... |
|
|
|
Post by zou on Nov 30, 2024 12:01:50 GMT
Absolutely, I'm in agreement with you. But (and I mostly blame the media, predictably enough) there's an ignorance of what science is which leads to this sweeping distrust. It doesn't help when the PM of the day was listening to the science and blatantly ignoring it... But again the media has a role to play in calling that out, making it clear that the findings were _____ and the guidance is not aligned with that. |
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Nov 30, 2024 12:24:09 GMT
It doesn't help when the PM of the day was listening to the science and blatantly ignoring it... But again the media has a role to play in calling that out, making it clear that the findings were _____ and the guidance is not aligned with that. And the behaviours were blatantly incorrect as well |
|
|
|
Post by kate on Nov 30, 2024 12:32:01 GMT
Science is a process, not an outcome. Surely? Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. I agree. I am doubly sceptical when digging further and seeing the background to the tested population. The exclusions from the Oxford (Indian funded) mrna vaccine went on for pages. How conclusions can be valid for roll-out amazes me. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Nov 30, 2024 18:53:14 GMT
Science is a process, not an outcome. Surely? Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. That's a tricky one when it comes to science to support policy because funding budgets tend to open up in directions that are favoured politically and the chance of research being funded does increase if it is policy relevant. Meanwhile no health related research gets published without the researchers making formal declarations of their "interests" in order to exclude the possibility of external influences on the results. Health related published research also has a particular style that makes papers almost impenetrable to even the most informed lay reader. It is a very closed club. Even the "ordinary" physical sciences suffer a bit from publication bias and due process in research publication. New Scientist had a gem on the back pages a while ago. They picked up on a paper that a publisher had let go through on a tick-box basis. The authors' reply to reviewers went something like .. the authors are pleased to include (a long list of [added] references) at the suggestion of one of the reviewers even though these references have absolutely no relevance at all to the topics of research described herein. New Scientist suggested the faint possibility that the name of the [anonymous] reviewer might be guessed given that all of the dozen or so newly included references shared a common author. For non-scientists, the number of times a paper is cited is important (citations per year is a performance metric) and authors submitting papers for publication have to address the comments of the reviewers and inform the publisher that this has been done. |
|
|
|
Post by geoffr on Dec 1, 2024 9:38:09 GMT
Science is indeed a process but research has findings. When said findings favour those funding the research one is inevitably suspicious. That's a tricky one when it comes to science to support policy because funding budgets tend to open up in directions that are favoured politically and the chance of research being funded does increase if it is policy relevant. Meanwhile no health related research gets published without the researchers making formal declarations of their "interests" in order to exclude the possibility of external influences on the results. Health related published research also has a particular style that makes papers almost impenetrable to even the most informed lay reader. It is a very closed club. That's an understatement! Even the "ordinary" physical sciences suffer a bit from publication bias and due process in research publication. New Scientist had a gem on the back pages a while ago. They picked up on a paper that a publisher had let go through on a tick-box basis. The authors' reply to reviewers went something like .. the authors are pleased to include (a long list of [added] references) at the suggestion of one of the reviewers even though these references have absolutely no relevance at all to the topics of research described herein. New Scientist suggested the faint possibility that the name of the [anonymous] reviewer might be guessed given that all of the dozen or so newly included references shared a common author. For non-scientists, the number of times a paper is cited is important (citations per year is a performance metric) and authors submitting papers for publication have to address the comments of the reviewers and inform the publisher that this has been done. I am no fan of performance measurement this seems, at first glance and ignoring peer review, a good way to make people write what others want to read. |
|
