I think it can be distilled down to:
Real scientists shouldn't need to say that.
Sounds great but 99% of all science is funded by someone else and in practice, it's not at all easy to follow the money.follow the $$$
I think it can be distilled down to:
Real scientists shouldn't need to say that.
Sounds great but 99% of all science is funded by someone else and in practice, it's not at all easy to follow the money.follow the $$$
I only wish this were true.I think it can be distilled down to:
Real scientists shouldn't need to say that.
Real science, real data doesn't need anyone to force it on others.
Absolutely, I love when people with high school degrees are arguing the science of X, Y, and Z doesn't make sense to them. I always think, yeah I know, but it never stops them from denouncing it as being wrong. I don't know or I'm not sure is usually the most appropriate response. I know a lot of science, a buttload more than your average Joe, but all that means is I know there's even more I don't know. There are some things I can speak about with authority but most things I can not and in those (most) cases I am still at the mercy of those who are experts.For over a decade, I did was a "Senior Engineer" doing statistical process quality control at a multi-national company. It was my job to study whatever needed studied in our facility and within my scope of operations, and also write/run DOEs (design of experiements). I was not the sole person doing this; I was one of many.
I can attest that "science" is misunderstood by just about everyone except those who actually did the study.
I can also attest that often "science" is biased (on purpose or not; does not matter).
But, there's always a story to tell with data. It's just a matter of how well the data was collected, processed, and presented. You cannot eliminate bias, but you can account for it and try to reduce it in the study. What we cannot control is the bias of the observer who reads the study.
For years I coded a "sales capacity" model on millions of rows of sales data that incorporated sales force tenure, region, product mix, seasonality and more. From a high level, this was a SQL model using linear regression on a rolling 4 quarter basis. The primary goal was to adaquately staff a region with properly tenured sales personell in order to meet corporate forecast goals. From a forward looking perspective, as the model became susprisingly accurate; the executive staff became more and more interested. The model was remarkable in that expected outcomes based on model results were, to a large extent, realized.For over a decade, I did was a "Senior Engineer" doing statistical process quality control at a multi-national company. It was my job to study whatever needed studied in our facility and within my scope of operations, and also write/run DOEs (design of experiements). I was not the sole person doing this; I was one of many.
I can attest that "science" is misunderstood by just about everyone except those who actually did the study.
I can also attest that often "science" is biased (on purpose or not; does not matter).
But, there's always a story to tell with data. It's just a matter of how well the data was collected, processed, and presented. You cannot eliminate bias, but you can account for it and try to reduce it's effect on the study. What we cannot control is the bias of the observer who reads the study.
My dermatologist is a young physician assistant. She does surgery on me. She is super cute and very sexy in a professional way. I was talking with her at my last skin cancer screening about my mother in law's rare skin cancer and asked her if she's ever seen it in her practice. She was very open in saying that she's never seen it. She learned about it in school and asked me what it looked like. I really respect people when they say things like that. It adds credence when people admit when they don't know. I'm more trusting that they do know when they say they know.The mark of a professional is knowing what you do know, and admitting what you don't. Seems to be a skill that is lost on many these days...
I'll leave it at that...
I'm never afraid to say I don't know. As a matter of fact, I'd find the burden of knowing everything to be tedious and exhausting.My dermatologist is a young physician assistant. She does surgery on me. She is super cute and very sexy in a professional way. I was talking with her at my last skin cancer screening about my mother in law's rare skin cancer and asked her if she's ever seen it in her practice. She was very open in saying that she's never seen it. She learned about it in school and asked me what it looked like. I really respect people when they say things like that. It adds credence when people admit when they don't know. I'm more trusting that they do know when they say they know.
Any time I say those 2 words, "I know", what I am really saying is my mind is only open to what I wanna hear.I'm never afraid to say I don't know. As a matter of fact, I'd find the burden of knowing everything to be tedious and exhausting.
OKAs if 100% of what the government says must be untrue.
Amen!OK
But to challenge this, would be borderline or actual politic violation on BITOG?
There are many reasons in 2022 NOT to trust much anything involved with USA gov. Maybe not 100%, but 90%
Laptops, classified papers all over the place....................
Absolutely, I love when people with high school degrees are arguing the science of X, Y, and Z doesn't make sense to them.
+1"Admittedly, while much of this is self-inflicted, we as a society need to make changes that result in increased public confidence in our "experts"
Being a free individual I could care less what an "expert" says. Some "Experts" want the world to be as they think it should be.
I dont need to be told how to live, how to act or who to hire, this is part of a free society. We slowly but surely as a people seem to be handing power over us to "experts" at the cost of your freedoms.
Who determines who is an expert when it comes to social issues?
With that said, good OP post, I would call that more of an analyst providing facts for people vs so called experts. The study might be considered a study by a mathematician which I think is more credible than someone labeled an expert.
The problem is that we're all being manipulated whether we want to admit it or not by the media. and gov't. We don't know what we don't know. And 99% of what we do know, we only know because the media or the gov't wants us to know. I blame the media primarily for biased reporting."Admittedly, while much of this is self-inflicted, we as a society need to make changes that result in increased public confidence in our "experts"
Being a free individual I could care less what an "expert" says. Some "Experts" want the world to be as they think it should be.
I dont need to be told how to live, how to act or who to hire, this is part of a free society. We slowly but surely as a people seem to be handing power over us to "experts" at the cost of your freedoms.
Who determines who is an expert when it comes to social issues?
With that said, good OP, I would call the OP more of an analyst providing facts for people vs so called experts. The study might be considered a study by a mathematician which I think is more credible than someone labeled an expert.
People can be their own experts, make their own decisions as long as they have the facts from analysts and that to me is what is missing in our society. Everyone tuned into entertainment soap opera news and nothing more.
But it's worse than that.My understanding of the so called "income gap" between men and women is that the numbers are derived from taking income tax data from the entire population, separating it by gender and then looking at the overall numbers.
It would be very, very complicated and costly and have all kinds of statistical aberrations if someone were to try and really determine if a man and woman were doing the EXACT same job, had the same experience, same education or training, same number of years on the job, same attendance record and other factors that go into salary determinations. It would be an impossible task, really.
So people who have a political agenda use the same old argument that women make less than men in an attempt to make it appear that they make less with all other things being equal, which they NEVER are.
Which represents a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny percent of what constitutes the US government. It ain't perfect but that also doesn't mean 100% of it is broken because parts of it are broken. That said, my real point is it's not enough to just say something is broken or wrong without providing evidence for exactly what is broken.OK
But to challenge this, would be borderline or actual politic violation on BITOG?
There are many reasons in 2022 NOT to trust much anything involved with USA gov. Maybe not 100%, but 90%
Laptops, classified papers all over the place....................
Last I checked, 1/3+ if we have a 3 legged stool, plus the Senate.........so easily 1/2.Which represents a tiny tiny tiny tiny tiny percent of what constitutes the US government. It ain't perfect but that also doesn't mean 100% of it is broken because parts of it are broken. That said, my real point is it's not enough to just say something is broken or wrong without providing evidence for exactly what is broken.