User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 157

  1. #51
    I could do things Hard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    ENFJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 sp/so
    Socionics
    EIE Fe
    Posts
    7,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Very brilliant article.

    Personally, I feel it is absolutely the obligation of the scientific community to make science, knowledge, and information accessible to all. They are the liaisons of what the world knows about it's own stuff. Not everyone can focus on science. It is up to scientists to team up with people who can translate things in such a way that not only accurately represents the data, but still sums it up into digestible segments. it is NOT an easy task.. but the only alternatives are what we already have: people reading what they want to read, or misunderstanding the information, and stupid news people putting emotional lashes into data to create this crazy sphere of falsity.

    Scientists are all subject to society. Because like it or not, want it or not, people will read their data and findings and come to a conclusion about it. You can ignore them, and likely have your product turned into garbage and delay potentially great findings for years. (I love Nikola Tesla forever and forever.. but he was a wimpy moron when it came to actually trying to improve things. He wanted to work to just work. Instead of taking a few moments to protect himself, his work, and coincidentally everyone in society ever forever more.... he ended up getting it all taken away.. from himself, and us. He's a great example of how it doesn't matter HOW much we KNOW, if we don't DO anything with it it's pretty useless.)
    Not much to say other than I totally agree. Unfortunately, a great many of scientists have no interest in this. It's mostly in academia and industry that this comes about. Most simply want to do their science, publish it, and move to the next thing. Since there's no requirement to get it out as public knowledge in a factual yet digestable manner (and I'd argue it would be counter-productive to require that), it doesn't move public support all that far unless people were already ok with it to begin with.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    You have people like Food Babe that KNOW how to TALK to people. They know what to say, when to say it, to appeal to people. And it's all lies and garbage. Bullies using their pseudo facts to make things happen because Yay making something happen I guess? And the only way to help people is to truly appeal to them.

    They did studies to find out what everyone with common sense already knows: using vaccine education does NOT educate people about vaccines. The people who reject them ALREADY have been told the facts. They do not want them. It is going to take something else to motivate people. In this aspect, and others.
    It's largely because I'm ENFJ, but I know this whole "talking" to people bit well. It's absolutely amazing how with just a little bit of knowledge that's at maybe 5% of what would be neede dto truly now it, is enough to completely sway people one way or another. I used and abused it when I was a kid. The problem is it's largely unethical, and with me at least, I am unable to use it (even though I have the skill) if it requires me to flagerently lie about known facts, or doesn't actually teach something in the process. This is why I'm bad with dealing with anti-vaccine individuals. I absolutely can not bring myself to discuss things in such a way that would sway them, or get some common ground. It's very frustrating.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Not an easy thing to do my friend.

    Science is not intuitive. Doctors get new evidence and then still do the same shit. And they're well versed in the practice of science-based evidence. People don't want to CHANGE. We don't like ambiguity. We don't like to be told we're wrong. We don't like to be told everything we know and love is a lie. Or that we're stupid. Science pretty much shows us all of those things all at once. Change this for sure, because maybe this sometimes, and so we've been all wrong and turns out we've been believing this out of sheer stubborn stupidity. K? .. Its a formula for disaster without some serious delicate weaving and teaching.
    Change is very, very difficult, and I am no stranger to it. I knee jerk react to almost every change I face.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I think this is where brilliant, bright people come in. Liberal arts ARE useful for MANY things. Painters can show the true pain and suffering that's come from flus and measles. Advertisers can create brilliant pamphlets and interactive models online that shows data in digestible segments that people can truly understand. Web designers, photographers, historians, librarians, they all have a role to play in spreading this information. It's where you can connect intuition and creativity with the logic and ever-changing mass of scientific knowledge.
    This is an extremely astute observation, and it really shows the importance of this. It's been shown that science alone can only go so far to inform and sway the public at large as needed. We needed others with different skill sets that apply to communication to the public to help, and it's becoming very increasingly important.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Unfortunately, as with many things, I think government and law and politics will play a major role in science being enforced or not. Doctors doing things they did 50 years ago can lose their license now-a-days. Similarly, doctors are making policies about not letting in patients without vaccinations because of anti-vaccine believers. I think it'll take people making unpleasant rules and procedures to make people bend to the will of things instead of people taking some introspection and proactive thought. It's the easier of the two.
    The unfortunate thing about needing government/law/politics playing a roll in this is two fold: 1. usually those involved with the political side aren't properly informed, or lack the skills to be informed. 2. It's very, very slow to do anything. Otherwise, it's a needed force. Without something to make things work and be followed (because as pointed out, this stuff isn't readily believeable despite being true and provable), it won't be to the level required.
    MBTI: ExxJ tetramer
    Functions: Fe > Te > Ni > Se > Si > Ti > Fi > Ne
    Enneagram: 1w2 - 3w4 - 6w5 (The Taskmaster) | sp/so
    Socionics: β-E dimer | -
    Big 5: slOaI
    Temperament: Choleric/Melancholic
    Alignment: Lawful Neutral
    External Perception: Nohari and Johari


  2. #52
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    Since there's no requirement to get it out as public knowledge in a factual yet digestable manner (and I'd argue it would be counter-productive to require that), it doesn't move public support all that far unless people were already ok with it to begin with.
    Well it depends. If the science is public-health based, then it needs to be in the public. I don't think a physicist really needs to publish his findings in an elementary format to joe schmoe farmer.. but, for example, even though we don't know what causes SIDS, the fact that we were noticing certain things kept it from happening was enough to say, "Hey, this needs to get out into the public." And unfortunately, a lot of stuff that really benefits the public does not. I can't imagine how many lives we saved because the scientists studying this said "Hey, lets try this" instead of keeping it to themselves until they knew more. I was surprised how many pediatric lives are really saved because there is so much more experimentation with pediatric patients than adult patients. You'd think it'd be the other way around. But turns out, surprise, adults are desperate to save the lives of their children and consent to things that turn out to work. Adults are less likely to do that with their own lives.

    While I don't think it should be REQUIRED.. I do think there should be more access to scientific information. Even the abstracts, and conclusions written about studies are foreign to anyone who's never read a study. They're very complex and complicated and honestly you CAN summarize at least 80-90% of health-based and society-based studies in more laymen terms WITHOUT throwing bias in there. I think something that would benefit people that they could do is a very scholarly version of .. Oh .. Vines? Reddit? Something where you upvote things? Where you say "On the subject of vaccines being poison" you give studies a rating of A-F for their validation, the credentials of the people studying it, bias, the type of study, etc. and you show how many studies say Nay and Yay and both by overall conclusions, and you can see the list of EVERY study in each of those categories.. with some in laymen terms, and some with the whole format. I don't think the scientists themselves have to do this.. but it should be public information. People should be able to educate themselves.. and similar to how we don't say "Take this drug, trust us" and give them drug information to read on their terms instead of doctor terms.. we shouldn't just tell people "Eat My Plate and Stfu." We should show them the evidence we use to back that up. Let them read it themselves. Include third party studies, hospital studies, world studies, etc. etc. Many studies you don't even have access to.. and it's a shame, they're good studies.

    This is why I'm bad with dealing with anti-vaccine individuals. I absolutely can not bring myself to discuss things in such a way that would sway them, or get some common ground. It's very frustrating.
    Well the problem is there isn't a 'side' for this subject. There are for many subjects.. but not this one. Unfortunately, the science is far too strong. People can say the Earth is flat all day long, but science says they're just plain wrong. There is no 'flat-earth side' even though it seemed like there was. There were right people and a loooott of wrong people. Vaccines are one of the strongest sciences we have today in public health at least .. besides maybe wash your hands and germs exist.. there is no 'anti-vaccine' side. People sort of created it out of nothing. There are legitimate people that cannot get vaccines which is still covered under the umbrella of supporting vaccines. There just isn't a two-way street. Just people driving on the wrong side of the road for unfounded reasons.

    Change is very, very difficult, and I am no stranger to it. I knee jerk react to almost every change I face.
    I think most people do. Even when I CAUSED the change and I made it happen I STILL get frowny-faced about it. "No, I'm getting out of the military and getting a civilian career. I liked my time, but its time to move on now." 'But now I totally want to still act like a Sgt and yell at people and complain that civilian life isn't army life. like i knew it wasn't... '

    This is an extremely astute observation, and it really shows the importance of this. It's been shown that science alone can only go so far to inform and sway the public at large as needed. We needed others with different skill sets that apply to communication to the public to help, and it's becoming very increasingly important.
    Can you imagine if Food Babe was spreading the same truths rawfoodsos and sciencebasedmedicine were? If Forks over Knives was showing alternatives to government policies, to include raw food diets, on food vs unfounded and bad data to drive an emotional goal? We'd have an army of people spreading a wealth of truth instead of wasted passion and time.

    The unfortunate thing about needing government/law/politics playing a roll in this is two fold: 1. usually those involved with the political side aren't properly informed, or lack the skills to be informed. 2. It's very, very slow to do anything. Otherwise, it's a needed force. Without something to make things work and be followed (because as pointed out, this stuff isn't readily believeable despite being true and provable), it won't be to the level required.
    I prefer sticking with the optimistic "We can do this!" outlook for both of those reasons. Politicians, if the internet fiasco recently was any indication, have no clue wtf is going on in the world around them or how things truly work. I wish, more than anything, a panel of REAL experts NOT paid by the government would be allowed to volunteer for educating politicians about things they have to vote about. I wish politicians were required to go to seminars about subjects they have to make votes on. People need to be truly informed with decision making.. and politicians fall sadly short much of the time. And don't get me started on the media. ugh.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  3. #53
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Personally, I feel it is absolutely the obligation of the scientific community to make science, knowledge, and information accessible to all. They are the liaisons of what the world knows about it's own stuff.
    In the present educational, cultural, and business climate, this task is almost impossible for scientists, and extremely difficult for anyone or even the best formed coalition. Until ordinary folks are willing to devote the same attention and effort to science that they now devote to sports, entertainment, and consumer goods, ignorance and misunderstanding will prevail.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Not everyone can focus on science. It is up to scientists to team up with people who can translate things in such a way that not only accurately represents the data, but still sums it up into digestible segments. it is NOT an easy task.. but the only alternatives are what we already have: people reading what they want to read, or misunderstanding the information, and stupid news people putting emotional lashes into data to create this crazy sphere of falsity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hard View Post
    This is an extremely astute observation, and it really shows the importance of this. It's been shown that science alone can only go so far to inform and sway the public at large as needed. We needed others with different skill sets that apply to communication to the public to help, and it's becoming very increasingly important.
    This is the point I was trying to make to Xander a couple pages ago, with uncertain success.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    They did studies to find out what everyone with common sense already knows: using vaccine education does NOT educate people about vaccines. The people who reject them ALREADY have been told the facts. They do not want them. It is going to take something else to motivate people. In this aspect, and others.
    Perhaps when children start to die again, people will take notice. Americans are great at pulling together in a crisis. Sad that it in fact does take a crisis.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Science is not intuitive. Doctors get new evidence and then still do the same shit. And they're well versed in the practice of science-based evidence.
    Much of this is (1) practicing defensive medicine; and (2) seeing patients more as customers, and doing what it takes to satisfy and keep them. It doesn't help that the medical business model has shortened patient visits to the point where doctors don't have the time for real discussions with their patients, during which they can get to know them as people, establish trust, and give more thorough explanations of their diagnoses and treatment recommendations.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    Unfortunately, as with many things, I think government and law and politics will play a major role in science being enforced or not. Doctors doing things they did 50 years ago can lose their license now-a-days. Similarly, doctors are making policies about not letting in patients without vaccinations because of anti-vaccine believers. I think it'll take people making unpleasant rules and procedures to make people bend to the will of things instead of people taking some introspection and proactive thought. It's the easier of the two.
    Unpleasant rules based on scientific understanding would be a welcome change from unpleasant rules based on draconian fears and insecurities.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    While I don't think it should be REQUIRED.. I do think there should be more access to scientific information. Even the abstracts, and conclusions written about studies are foreign to anyone who's never read a study. They're very complex and complicated and honestly you CAN summarize at least 80-90% of health-based and society-based studies in more laymen terms WITHOUT throwing bias in there. I think something that would benefit people that they could do is a very scholarly version of .. Oh .. Vines? Reddit? Something where you upvote things? Where you say "On the subject of vaccines being poison" you give studies a rating of A-F for their validation, the credentials of the people studying it, bias, the type of study, etc. and you show how many studies say Nay and Yay and both by overall conclusions, and you can see the list of EVERY study in each of those categories.. with some in laymen terms, and some with the whole format. I don't think the scientists themselves have to do this.. but it should be public information. People should be able to educate themselves.. and similar to how we don't say "Take this drug, trust us" and give them drug information to read on their terms instead of doctor terms.. we shouldn't just tell people "Eat My Plate and Stfu." We should show them the evidence we use to back that up. Let them read it themselves. Include third party studies, hospital studies, world studies, etc. etc. Many studies you don't even have access to.. and it's a shame, they're good studies.
    I'm all for the broadest access possible to scientific information, but again, it comes down to economics. These studies are published in journals that make money through subscriptions. It is hard sometimes for scientists themselves to access these studies and papers, if their university or organization does not already subscribe to the publication. Buying access to papers one by one is quite costly. Some publishers (or funding agencies) are willing to make studies available for free, while others are not. Obviously those who do can spread their conclusions more widely, but are they always the best studies, or is their release simply a marketing strategy? For the public, or even scientists, to be fully informed, they must be able to access all information on a topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I wish politicians were required to go to seminars about subjects they have to make votes on. People need to be truly informed with decision making.. and politicians fall sadly short much of the time. And don't get me started on the media. ugh.
    In this respect, our elected officials are representative of their constituents. Until the ordinary voter places more value on scientific literacy, he/she will not consider that an important qualification for public office. People seem to value expression of mainstream religious beliefs more.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #54
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    In the present educational, cultural, and business climate, this task is almost impossible for scientists, and extremely difficult for anyone or even the best formed coalition. Until ordinary folks are willing to devote the same attention and effort to science that they now devote to sports, entertainment, and consumer goods, ignorance and misunderstanding will prevail.
    I don't think it is impossible. I think it is difficult. But, when people see a benefit, particularly a free benefit, they come. We tell people "Osteoporosis is a blah blah blah" that's all they hear. You say, "Hey, we're doing a health fair, and we have an osteoporosis testing device there, and we can tell you about how to prevent if if you're clear!" and people were lined up out the door. With as many interns, researchers, and people in general out there, I know information can be made better. Scientists WORKING the research can take the extra moment to translate their own research into laymen's terms that anyone could read and gain insight from. It's important, and dismissing it as "people don't care and just want football" is a negative, irresponsible way to just dismiss the crowd as stupid and worthless.

    Perhaps when children start to die again, people will take notice. Americans are great at pulling together in a crisis. Sad that it in fact does take a crisis.
    I wish I didn't feel this jaded about this.. but I do. I think it will take children dying. And I don't even think it'll be the unvaccinated children right away. It'll be stories like the children who were on chemo, finally healthy enough to have fun for a weekend--and then had an emergency hospitalization due to exposure to measles. True story. A very sad one.

    Much of this is (1) practicing defensive medicine; and (2) seeing patients more as customers, and doing what it takes to satisfy and keep them. It doesn't help that the medical business model has shortened patient visits to the point where doctors don't have the time for real discussions with their patients, during which they can get to know them as people, establish trust, and give more thorough explanations of their diagnoses and treatment recommendations.
    Very unfortunate as well. As a nurse in training, it's surprising how little time is actually spent with patients. Not only are those issues very real, but patient protection things are so advanced and complex now that nurses have to spend hours charting things they did just to prove they did them 15 years later when a patient tries to sue them for something.. and those hours could be spent with patients. (If you ask me, official charters that practice under the doctor or nurse should be present to do more paperwork more thoroughly with a nurse and doctor checking it and signing off on it mid shift and end of shift.. the time spent away from patients is too much.) I thought if I became a doctor I'd be a "pay scale" doctor and you'd pay cash for a visit at a reasonable rate based on your income vs dealing with insurance policies and all that.. so people could pay for small insurance just in case, and use a doctor occasionally when healthy for the most part. I think house-call doctors and affordable cash-or-monthly-payment doctors will be making a come back in the face of health care changing.

    Unpleasant rules based on scientific understanding would be a welcome change from unpleasant rules based on draconian fears and insecurities.
    Oh I definitely agree.

    I'm all for the broadest access possible to scientific information, but again, it comes down to economics. These studies are published in journals that make money through subscriptions. It is hard sometimes for scientists themselves to access these studies and papers, if their university or organization does not already subscribe to the publication. Buying access to papers one by one is quite costly. Some publishers (or funding agencies) are willing to make studies available for free, while others are not. Obviously those who do can spread their conclusions more widely, but are they always the best studies, or is their release simply a marketing strategy? For the public, or even scientists, to be fully informed, they must be able to access all information on a topic.
    But this system really holds all of it back. Progress as a whole. Scientists don't even get properly informed, how is the public suppose to? How is the research suppose to make a real impact? Maybe new and upcoming research should be paid for.. but metanalyses like the cochran reports and other information that's been out there? It can definitely be consolidated, and while maybe you'd still have to subscribe for the rights to the nitty-gritty of the research.. a more in-depth look than a vague abstract (which is all anyone ever reads anymore it seems like) in laymen's terms with the findings in a non-bias format is definitely possible. It doesn't have to be complex or take away from the rights of others. The people who really need the research are official people anyways.. the individuals rarely desire it because they don't understand it. Instead, lets stop this catastrophe of people misrepresenting information because they pick and choose words and give them something to truly say and read. So someone can easily go "Oh, that buzzfeed article says PROTEIN AND ANIMALS KILL PEOPLE!! SRSLY GUYS!! ... But the research they gave says that it killed rats when fed way too much of a particular protein nicknamed x, and that the low protein rats actually died faster than the high protein rats. They all died... that isn't really the same thing at all!"

    In this respect, our elected officials are representative of their constituents. Until the ordinary voter places more value on scientific literacy, he/she will not consider that an important qualification for public office. People seem to value expression of mainstream religious beliefs more.
    See, I blame the electoral party thing more than anything. My vote does not mean shit in Texas. The whole state can vote democratic, and the electoral party will vote republican and that'll be the vote. The American voter is weaker than ever.. unfortunately, we did it to ourselves through ignorance.. but that's exactly why I think it is almost an obligation for fighters of ignorance (aka scientists) to help the people fight it as well. Information made available is more possible than it has ever been. And scientists can still get paid while providing it. No one speaks for science better than those who practice it. They need to stop letting Thomas Jefferson's of the world steam roll their work for the good of progress, science, and the people themselves. Like it or not, those ignorant people run the world.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  5. #55
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I don't think it is impossible. I think it is difficult. But, when people see a benefit, particularly a free benefit, they come. We tell people "Osteoporosis is a blah blah blah" that's all they hear. You say, "Hey, we're doing a health fair, and we have an osteoporosis testing device there, and we can tell you about how to prevent if if you're clear!" and people were lined up out the door. With as many interns, researchers, and people in general out there, I know information can be made better. Scientists WORKING the research can take the extra moment to translate their own research into laymen's terms that anyone could read and gain insight from. It's important, and dismissing it as "people don't care and just want football" is a negative, irresponsible way to just dismiss the crowd as stupid and worthless.
    You are misunderstanding my point about sports and entertainment. I raised it to demonstrate exactly the opposite: that people are not stupid. They are capable of learning about and understanding whatever they put their minds to understanding. You don't have to be an athlete yourself to track all the players and stats, trades and strategies. People can understand more about science than perhaps even they give themselves credit for. The problem is one of motivation and values. As I mentioned before, scientists (like doctors) have the best chance of influencing public opinion one-on-one or in small groups, where true conversation is possible. Given the ratio of scientists to everyone else, however, that is a seriously uphill battle. For it to succeed at all, we need to set the foundation with how we educate our young people, and then keep the playing field of ideas more level with better laws about public disclosure of information - everything from truth in advertising to transparency in processes that affect our communities.

    As for people responding to free benefits, you might be surprised how quickly people will refuse freebies. I have been a science education volunteer for years, and we are routinely turned away from schools, despite furnishing supplies, equipment, activities, and volunteers - all entirely free. In the next breath, of course, school administrators are complaining about lack of resources, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I thought if I became a doctor I'd be a "pay scale" doctor and you'd pay cash for a visit at a reasonable rate based on your income vs dealing with insurance policies and all that.. so people could pay for small insurance just in case, and use a doctor occasionally when healthy for the most part. I think house-call doctors and affordable cash-or-monthly-payment doctors will be making a come back in the face of health care changing.
    I am not in favor of anything that links access to medical services with ability to pay. Especially for children, this is a recipe for untreated illness and missed preventative care. It is just another form of rationing, and not the most effective or fair one.

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    See, I blame the electoral party thing more than anything. My vote does not mean shit in Texas. The whole state can vote democratic, and the electoral party will vote republican and that'll be the vote. The American voter is weaker than ever.. unfortunately, we did it to ourselves through ignorance.. but that's exactly why I think it is almost an obligation for fighters of ignorance (aka scientists) to help the people fight it as well. Information made available is more possible than it has ever been. And scientists can still get paid while providing it. No one speaks for science better than those who practice it. They need to stop letting Thomas Jefferson's of the world steam roll their work for the good of progress, science, and the people themselves. Like it or not, those ignorant people run the world.
    This is why my second volunteer activity is with the League of Women Voters. Common denominator: critical thinking, and the ability to assess information and separate fact from opinion, and determine whether a conclusion is justified or not. If you want scientists to make a greater impact on the average voter, however, we need access to a much broader forum than one-on-one encounters, and the occasional hands-on activity with a class of schoolchildren. But the Supreme Court has ruled that speech equals money, and we all know where that leads.
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  6. #56
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @kyuuei

    The way I look at it, science is like being an auto mechanic. Or a gourmet chef, or a brain surgeon. They are not obligated to make you understand what is going on, even if they explain it though, that doesn't mean you understand it. There is a difference.

    Most people don't know how to find the top dead center of their combustion engine. If they want to know they can look it up. Most mechanics do not have time to tell you because they are busy doing it, but some will teach you. However in the end you are not required to understand it. Nobody complains that they don't know how their engine works as long as it does.

    In my opinion it is not scientists job top fix all the shortcomings of the world. And what people are doing ARE their shortcomings. They're acting like effing babies essentially and nobody should have to put up with that.

    People don't know what they're asking for because they've developed a habit of being pretentious hacks that put their nose in where it maybe doesn't belong.

  7. #57
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    @kyuuei

    Also just because a scientist convinces somebody enough to let them do their job, that does not mean the person understands a damn thing. It just means they're emotionally satisfied with the illusion that they know wtf is going on.

    IMO if you can't sit in on it then you don't actually know it. It starts to get ridiculous when you break your ass to make things clear and somebody grabs their favorite thing and runs with it and plasters around a bunch of incorrect notions. We're supposed to fix that? Not everyone is innocent in this. There's a lot of people who are an outright nuisance and nothing could ever fix them short of maybe bodily violence which renders them comatose so that they finally shut up.

  8. #58
    Mojibake sprinkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Posts
    2,968

    Default

    Also I posit that there's a tendency for a large number of people to put in an amount of effort which is always just less than what is required to understand (and yes you need to make effort - you need to move your eyes and read the words and THINK ABOUT WHAT THEY MEAN)

    Since these people will always do less than necessary, if you bring the material down to meet them then they will adapt and put forth even LESS effort eventually, and the material itself suffers a loss. If this process continues indefinitely then the material eventually carries no actually useful information.

  9. #59
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,556

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles View Post
    Also just because a scientist convinces somebody enough to let them do their job, that does not mean the person understands a damn thing. It just means they're emotionally satisfied with the illusion that they know wtf is going on.
    Viewed in this manner: what other profession has to expend so much of their time and effort just convincing people to let them do their job?* If we could recover even half the time we spend on this, we would be much more productive.

    *perhaps politicians who must spend months campaigning for election
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  10. #60
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sprinkles
    The way I look at it, science is like being an auto mechanic. Or a gourmet chef, or a brain surgeon.
    You get something back from the auto mechanic, the chef, and the surgeon. With scientific research, there is very frequently no discernible payback for our tax dollars. If you look through any volume of scientific journal, you'll find lots of interesting research, but most of it is just a waste of money and most people, including scientists don't ever read them. It's knowledge that gets published and promptly ignored forever. I'm not opposed to basic research; I'm just opposed to tax payer funding for it.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

Similar Threads

  1. [NF] why is introverted intuition so hard to verbolize?
    By chado in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-13-2015, 11:46 AM
  2. Why does my generation find it so hard to grow up?
    By Lightyear in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 01-28-2011, 05:39 AM
  3. Why are we so attracted to misfortune?
    By Geoff in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-16-2008, 11:44 PM
  4. Why is it so hard to not feed the trolls?
    By Zergling in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 05:23 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO