Scientists and knowledge

[spilldig]

I tend distrust scientists and so called experts if and when they are government funded, because they must nearly always know the answer that the government wants, so I always think that if they want the government to throw more money at them in the future then they sway their opinion towards that answer.

[unbeliever]

I tend distrust scientists and so called experts if and when they are government funded, because they must nearly always know the answer that the government wants, so I always think that if they want the government to throw more money at them in the future then they sway their opinion towards that answer.

 

I understand completely.

¿ Why when the government gave me money to help find dark matter, I secretly knew that they had their own plans for it and we were expected not to find any. ¿

[onewheeldave]

Random thoughts:

 

1. Because scientists and medics are all in the pay of Big Pharma. All of them. I know this because I read it on the internet, and I tend to only go on sites which support my own fledgling views about the world.

 

Concerning medics, here's Dr Peter Gotzsche agreeing-

 

 

(in the first 3-4 minutes of the video)

 

Dr Peter Gotzsche is the head of the Danish Cochrane Collaboration, an organisation considered to be the gold standard in evidence appraisal.

 

There's a lot of high ranking medical professionals starting to speak out about the total corruption of our medical evidence systems by pharmaceutical companies, especially some U.S. cardiologists, but I tend to point towards Dr Peter Goetsche, as most apologists for the scientific system tend to rate the Cochrane Collaboration highly, and it's always interesting to watch them wriggle

[Obelix]

And there would be further proof of the problem I'm talking about - viz a single fact being seized on and then extended as a blanket cover to fit all possible interpretations when it doesn't actual do so in any form.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 14:00 ----------

 

as most apologists for the scientific system tend to rate the Cochrane Collaboration highly, and it's always interesting to watch them wriggle

 

Complete with the usual weasel words and low grade abuse as well....

[unbeliever]

In other news: dogs have 4 legs and my cat has 4 legs so I now know that my cat is in fact a dog.

[Obelix]

In other news: dogs have 4 legs and my cat has 4 legs so I now know that my cat is in fact a dog.

 

My dogcat has a tail as well and can jump so it's actually a rabbit.

 

Or is it a gerbil?

 

People can play silly games all day long, but I still go back to the point as weve seen again, people find problems with some "scientist" and conflate that to all science. Why? That's what I'd love to know - is it a general lack of knowledge about science? Or just fear born of mistrust because they don't understand what can be a tricky subject?

 

But then I don't understand for example psychology much, but I don't distrust psychologists....

Edited March 24, 2017 by Obelix

[onewheeldave]

And there would be further proof of the problem I'm talking about - viz a single fact being seized on and then extended as a blanket cover to fit all possible interpretations when it doesn't actual do so in any form.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 14:00 ----------

 

 

Complete with the usual weasel words and low grade abuse as well....

 

Not a single fact-like I said I could post many links to high up medical professionals and experts condemning and highlighting the epidemic of corruption from the pharmaceuticals.

 

As for 'apologist' I'm autistic (high-functioning) and state the facts. I call a spade a spade and an apologist an apologist. Neither is it abuse, as the term simply means-

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

 

'A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.'

 

So, when I highlight a serious flaw in a system, and a horde of apologists arise to defend said system and deny said valid claim, they are apologists- no offense in that term.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 14:12 ----------

 

Incidently, one of the points Dr Gotzsche addresses is the fact that when pharmaceutical companies crimes are discovered, the fines are much smaller than the profits made from the crime.

 

Logic alone explains why they continue to commit such crimes- it would be appallingly bad business to not do so.

 

Even the system used to police that part of the system, is itself utterly corrupt!

[Obelix]

Not a single fact-like I said I could post many links to high up medical professionals and experts condemning and highlighting the epidemic of corruption from the pharmaceuticals.

 

As for 'apologist' I'm autistic (high-functioning) and state the facts. I call a spade a spade and an apologist an apologist. Neither is it abuse, as the term simply means-

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apologist

 

'A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.'

 

So, when I highlight a serious flaw in a system, and a horde of apologists arise to defend said system and deny said valid claim, they are apologists- no offense in that term.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 14:12 ----------

 

Incidently, one of the points Dr Gotzsche addresses is the fact that when pharmaceutical companies crimes are discovered, the fines are much smaller than the profits made from the crime.

 

Logic alone explains why they continue to commit such crimes- it would be appallingly bad business to not do so.

 

Even the system used to police that part of the system, is itself utterly corrupt!

 

I'm a high functioning autistic and I find the term deeply insulting.

 

You've decided to bring your vendetta (to clarify I find that term merely descriptive and you shouldn't find it insulting at all) onto a thread which is not about your vendetta at all. Since I don't intend to deal with another 17 page epic about red lights and landrovers I give you fair warning now I will start reporting any posts of yours that depart from the matter in hand.

 

If you don't like or cannot deal with that start a different thread.

[onewheeldave]

I'm a high functioning autistic and I find the term deeply insulting.

 

????

I'm HF autistic and I don't find it offensive, and I will be as open about my HF autism as I wish.

 

I've not in any way even applied the term to you, and have no understanding of what your problem is with me describing myself as what I am.

 

---------- Post added 24-03-2017 at 14:24 ----------

 

As for my 'vendetta'- it's also Dr Peter Gotzsche's and several other high ranking medical professionals, and scientists, 'vendetta'.

 

Fact is, the scientific medical system is totally corrupted by the pharmaceutical companies, and, that is highly relevant to this thread.

Edited March 24, 2017 by onewheeldave

[Jacktari]

Do you define yourselves by these names, or categories?