Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[RJG]

[Note: This question is in respect to the current global crisis - covid virus]

************
Firstly:

1. What is the ONLY thing that all legitimate scientists and medical experts agree on that stops the continuous perpetuation (mutations) of this virus?
- Answer: herd immunity.

****
2. What is herd immunity?
- Answer: Herd immunity is the protective effect resulting from immune people surrounding vulnerable people, so as to prevent the transmission of the virus from infecting the vulnerable population. If enough immune people "participate" in achieving herd immunity this will effectively eradicate the virus (and its future mutations).

****
3. How does one "participate" in herd immunity?
- Answer: firstly one must be immune (healthy and preferably vaccinated/or acquired natural immunity). Secondly, they must socialize unmasked around vulnerable people. To help better understand the mechanism of herd immunity, refer to the famous Mosquito Analogy.

****
4. What is the role of 'vaccination' in achieving herd immunity protection?
- Answer: vaccination helps give us immune people. And immune people that "participate" in achieving herd immunity give us herd immunity protection.

************

So then, how do we recognize Bad Science from Sound Science?

****
- Bad Science tells us that implementing herd immunity will result in massive deaths/hospitalizations to our vulnerable population.
- Sound Science tells us that implementing herd immunity will result in massive life saving protection to our vulnerable population.

****
- Bad Science advises immune people to continue to mask up and not-socialize.
- Sound Science advises immune people to unmask and freely socialize.

****
- Bad Science tells us that to stop this virus we need to vaccinate enough people.
- Sound Science tells us that to stop this virus we need enough immune people to "participate" in achieving herd immunity. (Vaccination without "participation" will NOT stop this virus.)

************

One last question:

If herd immunity is the ONLY way to stop this virus, then what are we waiting for? ...more deaths and mutations???

[stevie]

To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

[RJG]

To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

Stevie, this is how I define these terms:

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

[JackDaydream]

@RJG

The problem which I see with this thread is that there is a debate about what is good and bad science, but that is a separate matter to the issue of Covid_19. So, I was rather disappointed to read this thread title and find that it was focused on vaccines and masks, especially when there have been so many threads on the topics already. This one is not saying anything new.

Also, in your post above you are arguing that bad science is that which goes against logic as opposed to that which is based on logic. The problem is that anyone can try to say that their ideas are sound logic, which is why evidence based research is important in science.

[chewybrian]

The problem which I see with this thread is that there is a debate about what is good and bad science, but that is a separate matter to the issue of Covid_19. So, I was rather disappointed to read this thread title and find that it was focused on vaccines and masks, especially when there have been so many threads on the topics already. This one is not saying anything new.

Also, in your post above you are arguing that bad science is that which goes against logic as opposed to that which is based on logic. The problem is that anyone can try to say that their ideas are sound logic, which is why evidence based research is important in science.

RJG starts a new thread with these same tired arguments about once a week. They go in different sub-forums, and they have different sounding titles, but it is all the same nonsense.

I don't understand how these tactics don't violate some rule of the forum. If they don't, then someone should make a rule to apply to this and then stop this game. Nobody should be able to disguise their preaching and dominate the discussion with the same ideas over and over. He has an agenda to preach this stuff and drowns out real discussions of philosophy. He has had his say. He he said "AGREED?" about 100 times and nobody has consented.

[RJG]

JackDaydream
chewybrian

Hey guys, if you see a flaw in the logic, then just point it out! This is a discussion forum here. I don't mind being proven wrong, but you gotta prove me wrong; show the flaw in my logic.

And Chewy, your constant ad hominem attacks against me are forum violations. If you can't respectfully contribute to this discussion, then please GO AWAY. No one is forcing you to look at anything I post.

[chewybrian]

@JackDaydream
@chewybrian

Hey guys, if you see a flaw in the logic, then just point it out! This is a discussion forum here. I don't mind being proven wrong, but you gotta prove me wrong; show the flaw in my logic.

And Chewy, your constant ad hominem attacks against me are forum violations. If you can't respectfully contribute to this discussion, then please GO AWAY. No one is forcing you to look at anything I post.

I am not attacking you; I am attacking your tactics. I am pointing out that you are not able to back up your claims (upon which you like to stack logic so you can declare victory). You try to get us to accept wild unproven claims as the foundation for a chain of logic, and also have repetitive and deceptive 'style' in which you are posting.

Was I 'forced' to look at your post? Of course not. But, I saw the title "How do we recognize bad science from sound science?", and I was intrigued. I was hoping to read a thread that matched the title, and I'm sure that a lot of people here would have compelling and interesting answers to the alleged subject of the thread. Then I open it up to see more of the same from you. I think it is very poor sportsmanship to post the same ideas over and over with different titles in different sub-forums. Again, I don't know the first thing about you and I have no basis nor desire to attack you personally, and I don't think I am (report me if you think I am). I think your tactics are terrible.

I wouldn't even feel strongly enough to engage you on any of these ideas if they were not so dangerous, though. I have lost friends and co-workers who bought into the pseudo-science about covid and did not do the things they should have done to protect themselves. If people were not spreading misinformation, as I believe you are, some of those folks would still be alive. If you saw me post something that might get your friends or family killed, would you feel the need to speak up? If I said that motorcycle helmets caused more deaths than they prevented, and urged everyone not to wear a helmet, should the rest of you just let that pass so my feelings wouldn't be hurt?

[RJG]

You try to get us to accept wild unproven claims as the foundation for a chain of logic, and also have repetitive and deceptive 'style' in which you are posting.

"Wild unproven claims"??? Please look at what I wrote. The first 4 questions reveal obvious truthful premise statements. These are all accepted truths of science.

If you think any of these science facts are not true science facts, then don't be shy, point out the science fact that is not fact, and tell us (using logic, not insults) why this fact of science is "wildly unproven".

And the same goes with the 3 logical conclusions below that are drawn from these facts of science. If you need me to put this all in syllogism form to help you better see the valid and sound logical conclusions, then I will.

Your claim that my topic here consists of "wild unproven claims", is itself a very wild unproven claim. Again, if you think I'm wrong somewhere, point out the 'specific' error (my actual words!) and show the error in logic.

I wouldn't even feel strongly enough to engage you on any of these ideas if they were not so dangerous, though. I have lost friends and co-workers who bought into the pseudo-science about covid and did not do the things they should have done to protect themselves.

"Dangerous"? It is "dangerous" to follow Bad Science with total disregard to simple logic and rationality. You've lost friends and co-workers specifically because you and others are 'blindly' adhering to this very Bad Science!!! We are stupidly self-destructing ourselves by following this Bad Science.

If you saw me post something that might get your friends or family killed, would you feel the need to speak up?

That is WHY I am speaking up!!! I'm trying to make people look at this from a sound rational view. But we are emotionally (fear-driven to) following very Bad Science. You and others refusal to even look at this from a rational perspective and follow Sound Science is what has perpetuated this virus (into multi-mutations) and caused the massive destruction to lives.


*****************
Chewy, we need to keep this 'non-personal', and just argue rationally and logically. I would love to be proven wrong, but again, you got to use logic, not insults. Just because you don't like the logical conclusion does not mean that it is false. You gotta show why it is false. Prove me wrong!

[Gee]

@JackDaydream
@chewybrian

Hey guys, if you see a flaw in the logic, then just point it out! This is a discussion forum here. I don't mind being proven wrong, but you gotta prove me wrong; show the flaw in my logic.

The flaw is that you seem to think that science and logic are the same thing -- they are not.

Logic is an internal linear examination of facts. If you do not have enough of the facts or the "facts" are wrong, then logic will draw the wrong conclusion.

Example: Since we knew that witches consort with the devil and have the ability to float, throwing them in water to test whether or not they were witches was a sound logical experiment. If they drowned, it was "Oh, sorry madam."

Example: A young boy watches the road in front of his house for a few days. His mother states that the road is dangerous and he should stay away from it. He has heard his father state that his mother is overly emotion. Since he has watched the road for days and nothing has happened, he logically concludes that his mother is too, emotional seeing danger everywhere -- the road is safe.

In both the examples above, there was missing or wrong information, so logic failed. Covid is still too new, so we do not have all the information, certainly not enough to use logic to attack scientists, who are trained to try to find answers.

Gee

[stevie]

To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

Stevie, this is how I define these terms:

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

[LuckyR]

To differentiate "bad science" and "sound science" isn't appropriate. Science is science. But those persons who call themselves or are called "scientists" may be applying science and deserve to be called "scientists" or may not be applying science and not deserve to be called "scientists".

Stevie, this is how I define these terms:

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

Then you are using a terrible definition. Science isn't advanced through logic, it is advanced through experimentation. Logic is to determine hypotheses (or educated guesses) which are either proven or disproved by the results of experimentation.

As long as you harp on logic in the absence of experimental proof, you haven't done any science, you're making hypotheses (guesses).

[chewybrian]

You try to get us to accept wild unproven claims as the foundation for a chain of logic, and also have repetitive and deceptive 'style' in which you are posting.

"Wild unproven claims"??? Please look at what I wrote. The first 4 questions reveal obvious truthful premise statements. These are all accepted truths of science.

If you think any of these science facts are not true science facts, then don't be shy, point out the science fact that is not fact, and tell us (using logic, not insults) why this fact of science is "wildly unproven".

https://news.yahoo.com/cdc-shifts-pande ... p_catchall

“Thinking that we’ll be able to achieve some kind of threshold where there’ll be no more transmission of infections may not be possible,” Jones acknowledged last week to members of a panel that advises the CDC on vaccines.

So, on #1, real scientists are saying that herd immunity is not a realistic goal, at least for now, and that we need to focus on what is achievable, like saving lives.

On #3, you are the only one I've seen make the claim that there is a benefit from exposing yourself to as many vaccinated people as possible. It is quite possible that vaccinated people can catch the virus and carry and spread it at any time. The danger of them being unwittingly infected and giving you the virus far exceeds the possible benefit of the shop vac effect which you evidently just made up. Get off the logic pedestal and find one source that says this claim is true. It goes beyond the bounds of imagination that you alone have stumbled upon this magic cure to the most pressing problem facing humanity while the scientists who have devoted their lives to the work have missed it. I can find a source to back up all sorts of wild unproven theories, but I could not even find one saying what you say. When you put up a wild unproven theory, it is a reasonable request to ask you to provide a source, and reasonable to disbelieve your claim if you cannot or will not.

It is not possible to teach someone what they are convinced that they already know, so I hold no hope of changing your mind about this or anything. I would point out all the other folks trying to show you that you have misplaced your faith in logic and forgotten that it is a "if..then" proposition in every case. All the logic in the world will convince nobody who can think for themselves of anything. You first must show that the premise at the bottom of the pyramid is proven true, at least beyond a reasonable doubt, before the logic means anything.

[Pattern-chaser]

@JackDaydream
@chewybrian

Hey guys, if you see a flaw in the logic, then just point it out! This is a discussion forum here. I don't mind being proven wrong, but you gotta prove me wrong; show the flaw in my logic.

And Chewy, your constant ad hominem attacks against me are forum violations. If you can't respectfully contribute to this discussion, then please GO AWAY. No one is forcing you to look at anything I post.

This is yet another thread that pushes your belief that covid can only be combatted by herd immunity. You assert this in your OP as if it is axiomatic, leaving no room for discussion or disagreement. It is hardly surprising that you see some reticence in accepting your unproven assertions, especially as you have presented them so many times before. The "flaw in your logic" is that you assert stuff that is not widely accepted, and which cannot easily be proven or disproven. Finally, I disagree that we, your forum fellows, must prove you wrong. In time, I dare say you might do this by yourself; no-one else can do it for you, I don't think.

[RJG]

Bad Science = Science that disregards or contradicts logic.
Sound Science = Science that is logically sound.

The flaw is that you seem to think that science and logic are the same thing -- they are not.

Not so. Science and Logic are different disciplines.

******

Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

"Logic" refers to deductive logic.
"Logically sound" refers to logical conclusion drawn from true premise statements with a valid argument structure.

*****

Then you are using a terrible definition. Science isn't advanced through logic, it is advanced through experimentation.

Science is not Logic. Logic provides us with truths (and falses). Science provide us with the premise statements (empirical data). Logic draws logical conclusions from these premise statements.

******

So, on #1, real scientists are saying that herd immunity is not a realistic goal, at least for now, and that we need to focus on what is achievable, like saving lives.

You are mixing apples with oranges. You are talking about the herd immunity "threshold" value, not herd immunity "protection".

It is not "me" making claim #1, this is a well known, established fact of science.

Note: Herd immunity "protection" is not like a light switch that turns on at a prescribed level. Herd immunity "protection" is immediate protection with any number of immune people participating. The greater the participation, the greater the protection. [Refer to the Mosquito Analogy to understand the mechanics of this protection].

On #3, you are the only one I've seen make the claim that there is a benefit from exposing yourself to as many vaccinated [vulnerable] people as possible.

Again, it is not "me" making this claim. This is a well known scientific fact. The protective effect of herd immunity (and how we get herd immunity protection) is a fact of science.


******

This is yet another thread that pushes your belief that covid can only be combatted by herd immunity.

Again, it is not "me" making this claim. Virtually ALL legitimate scientists and medical experts agree that 'herd immunity' is the ONLY way to stop the continuous perpetuation (mutations) and resulting deaths.

Remember, vaccinations do NOT give us herd immunity. Vaccinations help get us immune people. And immune people that "participate" in achieving herd immunity (via unmasked socialization) help gets us herd immunity.


*********
THEREFORE, if we draw logical conclusions from well established scientific facts (premise statements) we will then see the very Bad Science that is dictating our government's covid policy.

Blindly adhering to Bad Science has created this mess; the perpetual self-destructive cycle that we are in.

It's time to wake up. And let Logic be our guide. Bad Science will doom us all.

[Sculptor1]

What part of vaccination is the best route to herd immunity you do not understand?
And why is it you fail to understand that limited health systems cannot take the accelerated route to herd immunity that you seem to think has to be sought.
IN spring of 2021when Brits were dying at the rate of 1500 per day, health services were under such pressure that backlogs for other procedures and operations are still way behind.
Without restrictions it simply would have collapsed.

Bad science is ignoring the numbers in front of your face.

Bad science is failing to recognise the impact of your choices.

Bad science is pressing on with an idea regardless of the deaths it will cause.