Science & Technology News

[Franziska]

Fact checker became really a necessity with the birth of the words "alternative facts" which where previously only known as lies. The latter where traditionally considered as being bad behavior....

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

. Doubtless, reading technical articles can be challenging. Excerpted from the WHO article: " The cycle threshold (Ct) needed to detect virus is inversely proportional to the patient’s viral load...WHO reminds IVD users that disease prevalence alters the predictive value of test results; as disease prevalence decreases, the risk of false positive increases (2). This means that the probability that a person who has a positive result (SARS-CoV-2 detected) is truly infected with SARS-CoV-2 decreases as prevalence decreases, irrespective of the claimed specificity." I stand by my interpretation of this and the rest of the WHO statement.



factcheck.org is a political site. Personally, I wouldn't rely on it for fact checking in that field, much less any scientific field. Perhaps you can correct them by giving the CDC link in which they indicate, within the context in which I wrote, "For 6% of the deaths, COVID-19 was the only cause mentioned."

[Franziska]

And, your source is?????
Just saying "European scientists" is really not more than hot air.

Originally Posted by Ded reckoner

Mandatory stay-at-home orders and business closures ineffective against COVID-19 spread

European researchers conclude in a new study of the spread of COVID-19, corroborating several others, that, "we find no clear, significant beneficial effect of mandatory restrictive non-pharmaceutical interventions on case growth in any country." In this article's context, mrNPI's mean mandatory stay-at-home and business closures.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Franziska

And, your source is?????
Just saying "European scientists" is really not more than hot air.

In fairness, he named his source -- there is a link to an important peer-reviewed scientific article, an important study which I read some weeks ago.

The science on this question is not firmly settled yet, but there is little evidence that the most restrictive NPIs (like stay at home orders and mass closing of businesses) have any significantly greater effect than less restrictive measures, which does happen to line up with the fact that nearly all of the most affected countries were using mrNPIs and nearly all of the least affected countries, with big exceptions of Australia and NZ, were not using them.

The paper is worth a read. Not "hot air" at all.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Franziska

As long they are serious and reputable sources I agree that is not necessary, but if there are deliberately political tainted sources which tend to spread falsehoods involved I deem it absolutely necessary to at least give an indication of the true intent of such a source.

And you actually believe that 5here are any sources of information that are not biased in some way? They all pander to some extent . They need funding to do their research and a certain view to appeal to their readership.
The best thing is to read at least 4 sources from all sides of the equation and somewhere in the middle is the actual facts.
Must always apply CRAAP testing protocol on sources.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Franziska

And, your source is?????
Just saying "European scientists" is really not more than hot air.

He was summarizing the peer reviewed study report . Perhaps read it prior to commenting

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by newhaul

... The best thing is to read at least 4 sources from all sides of the equation and somewhere in the middle is the actual facts.
Must always apply CRAAP testing protocol on sources.

Not always.
False balance is a logical fallacy, that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them. This concept often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where journalists present both sides of a story, as if they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows that this is not the case.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not always.
False balance is a logical fallacy, that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them. This concept often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where journalists present both sides of a story, as if they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows that this is not the case.

Indeed Gord well described the phenomenon.

HOWEVER, I do commend Newhaul's commitment to reading sources from all different points of view. That's the opposite of the usual echo-chamber seeking behavior of this day and age, and VERY good for the mind.

On politics, I have subscribed to BOTH The Nation AND National Review, representing the highest quality of thought on both left and right, for decades (and very different from rags like The Atlantic and American Spectator). I disagree with a lot of what is written in both journals, but I learn a lot. If you listen to a lot of different points of view, you will eventually figure out that no one has a monopoly on truth, and that is a really good thing to understand.

[Franziska]

No, but there are sources which are much much more severely tainted than other ones.
You are absolutely right verifying things from different sources is a very good habit.
It's always best to read the sources quoted directly.

Originally Posted by newhaul

And you actually believe that 5here are any sources of information that are not biased in some way? They all pander to some extent . They need funding to do their research and a certain view to appeal to their readership.
The best thing is to read at least 4 sources from all sides of the equation and somewhere in the middle is the actual facts.
Must always apply CRAAP testing protocol on sources.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not always.
False balance is a logical fallacy, that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them. This concept often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where journalists present both sides of a story, as if they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows that this is not the case.

Well explained Gord. As a former member of the big-bad-media I can tell you the effort to remain "balanced" when reporting controversial topics is a very real thing by most journalists. At least it used to be... back in my day. Most good reporters and editors sometimes go out of their way to be "balanced," which has produced the issue Gord is pointing out.

Of course since my day we have the rise (or really, the return) of overtly biased media outlets. Some now don't even pretend to approach a subject objectively, let alone try to present a full picture of the issue.

But the absolute worst thing that has happened in the last decade or so is the near-complete blurring of opinion and news. There was a time, not so long ago, when you would never, EVER, see opinion in the news sections, or in the news casts. Opinion was clearly and severely walled off (as was advertising, which has also bled into the news). There was no mistaking it.

Today opinion, passed off as "commentary" or "analysis" or more often just a bunch of talking heads arguing over each other, dominates the news pages and the airwaves.

Here's a tip; if an article uses any of the above terms, just skip past. If there is an "expert panel", but who aren't actually experts, or a bunch of people babbling about the issue, tune it out. Basically, if they are telling you what something is, instead of showing you, then move on.

And yes... read a lot of different sources. That definitely helps.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Not always.
False balance is a logical fallacy, that occurs when someone suggests that, if there are two or more opposing positions on a certain topic, then the truth must rest somewhere in the middle between them. This concept often plays a role in the media, where it’s also referred to as bothsidesism, in situations where journalists present both sides of a story, as if they are balanced and equal to one another, even when evidence shows that this is not the case.

Hence my statement of applying the CRAAP testing

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Franziska

And, your source is?????
Just saying "European scientists" is really not more than hot air.

He said "European researchers", not "European scientists".
I wonder if they are more knowledgeable than me! I'm a researcher too.
.
.
.
.
.
I use Google and look things up on Wikipedia all the time.

[Franziska]

Stu, I stand corrected, thanks for clarification.

Still saying "European researchers" (or scientists, or firemen, or whatever...) is a bit of a broad group, no?

Hardly a precise source...

Originally Posted by StuM

He said "European researchers", not "European scientists".
I wonder if they are more knowledgeable than me! I'm a researcher too.
.
.
.
.
.
I use Google and look things up on Wikipedia all the time.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Franziska

Stu, I stand corrected, thanks for clarification.

Still saying "European researchers" (or scientists, or firemen, or whatever...) is a bit of a broad group, no?

Hardly a precise source...

The source was a link to a peer reviewed scientific paper. As precise as it comes.

If you want to answer that post appropriately, you need to follow the links.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And so what?

Burning the stuff is what is harmful. Using it to make plastics and chemicals is far less so.

And furthermore, you don't HAVE to use petroleum to make lube oil -- as we all know -- or even plastic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

Someone has apparently never heard of nuclear power, the ideal base load generator . . . . No, we don't need oil or gas. Wind and oil are not inseparable. We already have all the technology we need to stop burning oil and gas.

And in support of this point, this just out in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/b...-vehicles.html

So GM will be all-electric by 2035. Without being forced to do so by the state at all. Because it JUST MAKES SENSE.

Solving climate change is within our grasp. Transportation can be decarbonized like -- now. Or within a few years. I mean, you can buy a Tesla or a BMW i3 or a Nissan Leaf, and you have had the option already for a few years. Power generation can be decarbonized within a decade if we could muster up some testicles and build some bloody great nuclear power plants like the Finns are doing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkilu...ar_Power_Plant) plus massive roll out of wind power, which is ALREADY the cheapest power source.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? In the middle of the 19th century, lighting of homes and offices was done by means of burning whale oil. Whales started to be fished out, and supplies dwindled, and prices spiked. And about that time they started pumping oil in Baku and in Pennsylvania, and refining kerosene out of it. And the predicted end of mankind did not take place.

It's no different today, and the next predicted end of mankind will also not take place. Fossil fuels have had their run. I've burnt a bit of gasoline in my time, and tremendously enjoyed doing so. But that time is gone -- tomorrow we will be driving electric cars, charged from wind and nuclear power. And maybe we will even stop eating meat, which will have an even greater effect on the climate than burning fossil fuels.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

And in support of this point, this just out in the New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/b...-vehicles.html

So GM will be all-electric by 2035. Without being forced to do so by the state at all. Because it JUST MAKES SENSE.

Solving climate change is within our grasp. Transportation can be decarbonized like -- now. Or within a few years. I mean, you can buy a Tesla or a BMW i3 or a Nissan Leaf, and you have had the option already for a few years. Power generation can be decarbonized within a decade if we could muster up some testicles and build some bloody great nuclear power plants like the Finns are doing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkilu...ar_Power_Plant) plus massive roll out of wind power, which is ALREADY the cheapest power source.

Why is everyone so pessimistic? In the middle of the 19th century, lighting of homes and offices was done by means of burning whale oil. Whales started to be fished out, and supplies dwindled, and prices spiked. And about that time they started pumping oil in Baku and in Pennsylvania, and refining kerosene out of it. And the predicted end of mankind did not take place.

It's no different today, and the next predicted end of mankind will also not take place. Fossil fuels have had their run. I've burnt a bit of gasoline in my time, and tremendously enjoyed doing so. But that time is gone -- tomorrow we will be driving electric cars, charged from wind and nuclear power. And maybe we will even stop eating meat, which will have an even greater effect on the climate than burning fossil fuels.

Show me a kenworth, freightliner, mack, western star, sterling, or insert the name you wish that can drive 3k miles virtually nonstop . Team trucking . Or insert railway name .