"Everybody in science knows what confirmation bias is, but everybody also believes it always happens to the other guy." I've written something like this a few times since 2018, here and there, and the response I get is often coupled with arguments ad verecundiam: "I have a masters degree in statistics and of course AGW is real, and you are a high school drop out, obviously is a waste of time to make you understand how bad you are."
Scientists cannot admit that many laymen in the general public are better informed than the PhDs because they stopped listening to officialist media and went to research directly the primary assumptions. The young PhDs seem to be completely sheltered from reality and live comfortably in the madhouse of google and wickedpedia.
Your article hits the nail squarely. Whenever I run into a true believer in the whole "climate change" religion, my first question to them is, "Can you provide to me a source of reproducible proof that validates the claims made by any single Climate Change Model?" I'm probably formulating my question wrong, but so far, no proofs, but lots of blank looks.
Good piece thanks.The first thing to know about a model, all models in fact, are that they are by definition not reality. They are a short form man-made representation of some subset of reality in the time-space-conditions continuum, purpose-built, which may or may not succeed at their purpose. Great point about not being able to say causality from a model. A model may tell us that twiddling an independent variable can produce a certain perturbation in a dependent variable, but it cannot tell us that the same perturbation of the dependent variable seen in the real world is due to the real world’s independent variable or some other effect (not modelled).
I am often linked to studies that prove vaccine efficacy from estimates based on models. They also provide vague parameters like "reduces risk of hospitalization" or "reduces risk of severe illness" both of which for the vast majority of us, was minimal. How do you model "severe illness" when for most "severe illness" meant "the flu?" How do you model "risk of hospitalization" when most of the people who tested positive for a disease with a .2% death rate had a mandatory PCR test as a requirement for admission?
I about lost it when I heard Fauci say something like "Nearly everybody who gets a shot will avoid the hospital"...........THAT WAS TRUE BEFORE THE SHOT TOO
All these guys in depositions sound like Flaherty. They should be asked on condition of a pre-gov-nup position that they will not answer the questions with non answers, and that each time they do, they are no longer allowed to say anything. Fauci had thousands of things to say about conditions for school closures and masking, but when asked about his assertions, suddenly he loses the ability to recollect anything. Flaherty is the same way. He should be fired...and when interviewing for a new job, play his "hearing video."
Could you imagine if we answered the same way as Flaherty did in a real job?
"Mr. Gleeson, in your job, you invested millions of dollars in a security software system that was not secure. You stated it was, were you lying or simply guessing?"
"Well, we were in the middle of an unprecedented situation, and our best security minds on the job had the best information possible."
There is also the question of use and verification of humanized animal models, for example mice grafted with a human organ (skin) somehow kept alive and proportedly able to function to a significant degree to be a reasonable model. Reminds on of Alien IV Resurrection. Really raises the ethical questions of inflicting harm and pain to verify the model.
Pretty good, thank you!
"Everybody in science knows what confirmation bias is, but everybody also believes it always happens to the other guy." I've written something like this a few times since 2018, here and there, and the response I get is often coupled with arguments ad verecundiam: "I have a masters degree in statistics and of course AGW is real, and you are a high school drop out, obviously is a waste of time to make you understand how bad you are."
Scientists cannot admit that many laymen in the general public are better informed than the PhDs because they stopped listening to officialist media and went to research directly the primary assumptions. The young PhDs seem to be completely sheltered from reality and live comfortably in the madhouse of google and wickedpedia.
Great article! As a practical example -- if you tell the model that masks work, the model tells YOU that masks work.
Your article hits the nail squarely. Whenever I run into a true believer in the whole "climate change" religion, my first question to them is, "Can you provide to me a source of reproducible proof that validates the claims made by any single Climate Change Model?" I'm probably formulating my question wrong, but so far, no proofs, but lots of blank looks.
Yes, it is an excellent quesiton.
Good piece thanks.The first thing to know about a model, all models in fact, are that they are by definition not reality. They are a short form man-made representation of some subset of reality in the time-space-conditions continuum, purpose-built, which may or may not succeed at their purpose. Great point about not being able to say causality from a model. A model may tell us that twiddling an independent variable can produce a certain perturbation in a dependent variable, but it cannot tell us that the same perturbation of the dependent variable seen in the real world is due to the real world’s independent variable or some other effect (not modelled).
I am often linked to studies that prove vaccine efficacy from estimates based on models. They also provide vague parameters like "reduces risk of hospitalization" or "reduces risk of severe illness" both of which for the vast majority of us, was minimal. How do you model "severe illness" when for most "severe illness" meant "the flu?" How do you model "risk of hospitalization" when most of the people who tested positive for a disease with a .2% death rate had a mandatory PCR test as a requirement for admission?
I about lost it when I heard Fauci say something like "Nearly everybody who gets a shot will avoid the hospital"...........THAT WAS TRUE BEFORE THE SHOT TOO
All these guys in depositions sound like Flaherty. They should be asked on condition of a pre-gov-nup position that they will not answer the questions with non answers, and that each time they do, they are no longer allowed to say anything. Fauci had thousands of things to say about conditions for school closures and masking, but when asked about his assertions, suddenly he loses the ability to recollect anything. Flaherty is the same way. He should be fired...and when interviewing for a new job, play his "hearing video."
Could you imagine if we answered the same way as Flaherty did in a real job?
"Mr. Gleeson, in your job, you invested millions of dollars in a security software system that was not secure. You stated it was, were you lying or simply guessing?"
"Well, we were in the middle of an unprecedented situation, and our best security minds on the job had the best information possible."
"You're fired."
Yeah I don't understand how "I don't recall" is an acceptable answer for public servants.
"OK, well you have 24 hours to figure it out or we take all your electronics and figure it out ourselves."
Well - more people would avoid hospital who didnt get “shot”
There is also the question of use and verification of humanized animal models, for example mice grafted with a human organ (skin) somehow kept alive and proportedly able to function to a significant degree to be a reasonable model. Reminds on of Alien IV Resurrection. Really raises the ethical questions of inflicting harm and pain to verify the model.