I'm not anti-vax, I'm pro-research! - Page 7

[fruitfulmomma]

The evidence never lies, but it certainly can be incomplete and it is always interpreted through bias. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

One of my favorite science quotes is, "Scientists often make the the mistake of assuming that everything they know is everything there is to know."  

I like that too!

and

Science does not know it's debt to imagination.

Quote:

The evidence never lies, but it certainly can be incomplete and it is always interpreted through bias. 

who looks and it and who draws the conclusions (to their advantage or not?! Hello BIG Pharma!)  - not who votes but who counts the votes 

[erigeron]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

One of my favorite science quotes is, "Scientists often make the the mistake of assuming that everything they know is everything there is to know."  

I think there are probably very few scientists who actually think this. Scientists are always conducting more research. Why would they if they felt they knew everything? If anything it is the other way around--the more one learns, the more one realizes there is to learn. For my part, as a healthcare professional, I have enough in-depth knowledge to know that there is a large body of knowledge that I have not yet explored, which is one reason I am very skeptical of people who claim they're "educated" and "know more than their doctors" after reading a bunch of articles on the Internet. 

[serenbat]

Quote:

I think there are probably very few scientists who actually think this. Scientists are always conducting more research. Why would they if they felt they knew everything? If anything it is the other way around--the more one learns, the more one realizes there is to learn. For my part, as a healthcare professional, I have enough in-depth knowledge to know that there is a large body of knowledge that I have not yet explored, which is one reason I am very skeptical of people who claim they're "educated" and "know more than their doctors" after reading a bunch of articles on the Internet. 

another real good prospective can be from a Nurse Practitioner and their dealing with MD's - many do run into those who feel they do know it all- some are out there, there are all types

[IdentityCrisisMama]

That quote is less a dig on Scientists and more a comment on human nature...and offered on contrast to the quote by the planetarium dude (that quote from PSM was him, right?)

[Rrrrrachel]

Planetarium dude??? You mean Neil degrasse Tyson? He's an astrophysicist, not a docent, but maybe that's what you meant.

[Rrrrrachel]

It's also acceptable to refer to him as "the man that killed Pluto."

[Rrrrrachel]

Originally Posted by Marnica 

Even I can grasp the notion that  highly educated, smart thoughtful parents can review the science and come to different conclusions - that's why we are here. 

I know this is going way back, but how ironic that this statement should come in on this thread. He of the things I find so annoying about the OP is e implication that if you actually do your research there's only one inevitable conclusion. I totally agree that reasonable intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and sometimes come to different conclusions.

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Yes! I'm on my phone and was having a brain freeze. :-)

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 


I know this is going way back, but how ironic that this statement should come in on this thread. He of the things I find so annoying about the OP is e implication that if you actually do your research there's only one inevitable conclusion. I totally agree that reasonable intelligent people can look at the same set of facts and sometimes come to different conclusions.

I agree with this but I also think this kind of insinuation goes on from both sides of this issue. I feel like I've read here on MDC recently something like, "I'm pro-research, I vaccinate".  Or even Erigon's post that insinuates that those opposed to vaccination have made their decision after reading a bunch of articles on the internet. 

It always seems to me that we tend to see the negative in folks that we fundamentally disagree with...again with the human nature.  

This loops back into bias and stuff like that and right back into your comment that I quoted. Some sort of...right on the tip of my tongue...mobius stirp. 

[Turquesa]

I DID make my decisions based largely on the Internet. Without the Internet, I would never have seen ACIP meeting notes, medical journal abstracts, investigative reports, the CDC Pink Book, vaccine package inserts, compelling op-eds in medical journals, IoM reports, Cochrane Collaboration data, CIRDAP data, vaccine-related congressional testimonies, vaccine-related court decisions, data from VAERS, data from NVICP, epidemiologic data on outbreaks, other countries' vaccine schedules, information about my legal rights, doctors disagreeing with each other... and learning other peoples' competing interests is just a few keystrokes away. Pesky old Internet!

It's no wonder public health officials are constantly quoted in the media with some condescending sound-bite about "misinformation on the Internet." They take comfort in the narrative that anybody who questions them cannot possibly know how to track down, read, and critically evaluate any source material. It would shake them to the core to learn that I'm not shallow enough to make my decisions based on what Jenny McCarthy says.

I agree, though. There's a tendency on pretty much any side of any issue to self-aggrandize by painting opponents as idiots. The problem is that that's not an argument. It's just a substitute for an argument.

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by fruitfulmomma 

The evidence never lies, but it certainly can be incomplete and it is always interpreted through bias. 

So science is infallible. But not necessarily scientists.

[erigeron]

Um, way to miss the point of my post, guys. Go back and reread it. It wasn't really about the Internet. It was about the immense body of knowledge involved in science. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by Rrrrrachel 

It's also acceptable to refer to him as "the man that killed Pluto."

I love that we can go WAY off topic in this forum...but I was checking that NTG (aka "that planetarium dude") is credited with the quote from PSM and was going to say how I thought it was a little ironic that he was the man who killed Pluto and I think maybe he isn't the man who killed Pluto. From Mike Brown: "It’s been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved."  

Happy medium? 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

One of my favorite science quotes is, "Scientists often make the the mistake of assuming that everything they know is everything there is to know."  

I think that's actually one of the last things scientists do. Science is the process of finding the point where we don't know anything and probing into it.... 

I think perhaps non-scientists make the mistake of thinking scientists assume they know everything they need to know. Bit convoluted though! 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by serenbat 

Science does not know it's debt to imagination.

It really does. The process of science involved a lot of imaginative thinking. :) 

[prosciencemum]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama 

I love that we can go WAY off topic in this forum...but I was checking that NTG (aka "that planetarium dude") is credited with the quote from PSM and was going to say how I thought it was a little ironic that he was the man who killed Pluto and I think maybe he isn't the man who killed Pluto. From Mike Brown: "It’s been a long time coming. Science is self-correcting eventually, even when strong emotions are involved."  

Happy medium? 

I love that quote. 

I think both Mike Brown and Neil de Grasse Tyson have a claim to helping with the redifinition of pluto. Mike Brown was the discover of MakeMake (a dwarf planet larger than pluto and in a similar orbit to it). Neil de Grasse Tyson in his role as Director of the PLantarium in the Natural HIstory Museum in New York made the decision to not list pluto as one of the planets. PS. pluto is still there and exactly the same as it always was - it's just our opinion/classification of it that has changed.  

Kind of makes my point I think - science is always true - it's just our understanding/opinion of things which is constantly being developed and changed. So there is an answer to if vaccines cause X, or prevent Y - but our measurement of that answer may change over time. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

Originally Posted by prosciencemum 

I think perhaps non-scientists make the mistake of thinking scientists assume they know everything they need to know. Bit convoluted though! 

It certainly could be because I think it may have been a journalist who said that, come to think of it. I'll see if I can dig up the quote. 

That said, the quote you gave...my guess is that NTG was referring to something very specific and not to science in general always being right, no? Because doesn't that kind of generally contradict the idea that we should be aware that all we know isn't all there is to know? 

I'll see if I can find it in context. 

[IdentityCrisisMama]

I had a feeling that the NDT quote was made in reference to global warming and I think that may well be - from an episode of the Bill Maher show, which I'm sure I can find but I dislike him and can't watch. ;-)  

As for my quote...I can't find it because I think it was just a vague reference in one of Michael Pollan's books. He was talking about nutrition fads and the comment really resonated with me. I honestly don't think it applies well to scientists in general but think it is a pitfall of all applied sciences, which are often developed with what we know.  The me this is a perfectly fine, practical thing that doesn't need to be elevated or demonized. It just is.  

I will revise my quote to read, "One of the pitfalls of applied science is that they are often developed what what we know, not what we don't know...and that's life."  

[Turquesa]

Originally Posted by erigeron 

Um, way to miss the point of my post, guys. Go back and reread it. It wasn't really about the Internet. It was about the immense body of knowledge involved in science. 

Yea, I got the main point. But I couldn't let that little aside about "articles on the Internet" go unchallenged.

Here's my own favorite NDT gem:

"When your reasons for believing something are justified ad hoc, you are left susceptible to further discoveries undermining the rationale for that belief."

When does "pro-science" cross the line into "pro-confirmation bias?"