Food for thought about data, interpreting research, and misinformation

What may set them apart in the future is the family commitment compromise. If you look at women and men with no kids into the 40s you may find them with similar income, but if you look at men with housewives they may be higher paid than men with working wives and kids, and women in similar situations.

Of course. And?????

At some point there is a practical reality. I can’t nurse my kids. My wife can. Nothing will ever change that. No amount of compelling by the government, no fairness differential, no politician saying what is fair, no nothing.

And you know what else? My wife staying home, and losing years of seniority and pay increases, for three kids, was worth more than gold.

And you know what is a crime? 1) women who want to keep up with the joneses and go back to work and push their kids into daycare. 2) men that enable this. I know that’s harsh language…. Hear me out.

I get it that some women will push career over kids entirely. That’s their choice. And I respect them greatly. I get it also that some women can’t take off that long without losing their job. And that’s a crime too, IMO. Protecting kids (women, but that’s probably offensive, and it really is in the kids best interest) to let women stay at home and spend more time with their kids should be supported at all costs, IMO. It is a precious time, and so critical. But I’m sorry… you don’t yet years of seniority, and raises, magically, when you were off. My wife didn’t. For three kids. And it was a conscious decision that she (we) made.

I work with some incredible women professionally. And I have maximum respect. And they have and earned every bit of their success by being smart and aggressive and getting things done in a smart way. But for my wife and I, we have already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of “family commitment”. And we would do it exactly the same next time. So I don’t buy the bs that family commitment is an excuse in terms of fairness. Your #1 job is your kids…. And some aspects especially early on, only a woman can do. That’s not sexist, that’s biology. And if she doesn’t work, she may fall behind. And there’s no shame in it. But there should be shame in crying foul over making the right decision for your kids. And it is the right decision.

You don’t increase seniority because you’re off? Sorry. You can’t increase pay because your job is based upon years instead of merit? Sorry. Oh, you stayed home for many years to raise kids? That is absolutely noble merit, you sacrificed, and you should be praised. But some P taking point about how it’s unfair to some woke imbecile? No thanks.
 
Last edited:
The comment hints that there must be something more going on because while avian flu makes a ton of sense as the primary cause for elevated egg prices, since that information came from our government, you obviously can't trust it to be true. As if 100% of what the government says must be untrue. Ok? Is there any reason to not trust it because in my mind tens of millions of chickens dying from avian flu seems like a pretty logical reason?

If you don't find alternative evidence you can't really dismiss the original idea.
It's not complicated... if you catch someone lying to you numerous times, you're probably not going to believe anything they say anymore.

This just leads to tens of millions of people just questioning everything, continued erosion of trust in everything, and more chaos.
And whose fault is that "erosion of trust?" The people with a history of lying, that's who.
 
It's not complicated... if you catch someone lying to you numerous times, you're probably not going to believe anything they say anymore.


And whose fault is that "erosion of trust?" The people with a history of lying, that's who.
Yes, it really is not complicated, that specific SOMEONE should not be trusted, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is when SOMEONE lies people decide to not trust ANYONE. A scientist lied = no scientist can be trusted. A government official lied = no government official can be trusted. It's illogical nonsense and dishonest because it's a ******** reason to simply discredit anyone who doesn't say what you want them to say and most people doing this know it's a BS reason as they hide behind fake claims of wanting "honesty".
 
Last edited:
Yes, it really is not complicated, that specific SOMEONE should not be trusted, but that's not what's happening. What's happening is when SOMEONE lies people decide to not trust ANYONE. A scientist lied = no scientist can be trusted. A government official lied = no government official can be trusted. It's illogical nonsense and dishonest because it's a ******** reason to simply discredit anyone who doesn't say what you want them to say and most people doing this now it's a BS reason.
People seem to believe the science that fits their opinion. And the only truthers are those who fit their narrative.
Objective thinking? We don't need no objective thinking!

By the way, my favorite book is, "Educated", by Tara Westover. That will teach the gentle reader a thing or two about questioning your deeply most held beliefs. Just my 2 cents...
 
People seem to believe the science that fits their opinion. And the only truthers are those who fit their narrative.
Objective thinking? We don't need no objective thinking!

By the way, my favorite book is, "Educated", by Tara Westover. That will teach the gentle reader a thing or two about questioning your deeply most held beliefs. Just my 2 cents...
Yup, and the science should be the basis for their opinion and not the other way around. I defend science every day that I really don't give a crap about either way other than that's what the data supports. No dog in the fight either way but the data supports what the data supports....
 
Last edited:
People seem to believe the science that fits their opinion. And the only truthers are those who fit their narrative.
Objective thinking? We don't need no objective thinking!

By the way, my favorite book is, "Educated", by Tara Westover. That will teach the gentle reader a thing or two about questioning your deeply most held beliefs. Just my 2 cents...
Thanks for bringing that one up. I will check it out. I like to read and I also like to know all points of view about many things. It can even be found on ebay. Found on Amazon also. Wife will likely read it too if she has time.
 
Of course. And?????

At some point there is a practical reality. I can’t nurse my kids. My wife can. Nothing will ever change that. No amount of compelling by the government, no fairness differential, no politician saying what is fair, no nothing.

And you know what else? My wife staying home, and losing years of seniority and pay increases, for three kids, was worth more than gold.

And you know what is a crime? 1) women who want to keep up with the joneses and go back to work and push their kids into daycare. 2) men that enable this. I know that’s harsh language…. Hear me out.

I get it that some women will push career over kids entirely. That’s their choice. And I respect them greatly. I get it also that some women can’t take off that long without losing their job. And that’s a crime too, IMO. Protecting kids (women, but that’s probably offensive, and it really is in the kids best interest) to let women stay at home and spend more time with their kids should be supported at all costs, IMO. It is a precious time, and so critical. But I’m sorry… you don’t yet years of seniority, and raises, magically, when you were off. My wife didn’t. For three kids. And it was a conscious decision that she (we) made.

I work with some incredible women professionally. And I have maximum respect. And they have and earned every bit of their success by being smart and aggressive and getting things done in a smart way. But for my wife and I, we have already lost hundreds of thousands of dollars because of “family commitment”. And we would do it exactly the same next time. So I don’t buy the bs that family commitment is an excuse in terms of fairness. Your #1 job is your kids…. And some aspects especially early on, only a woman can do. That’s not sexist, that’s biology. And if she doesn’t work, she may fall behind. And there’s no shame in it. But there should be shame in crying foul over making the right decision for your kids. And it is the right decision.

You don’t increase seniority because you’re off? Sorry. You can’t increase pay because your job is based upon years instead of merit? Sorry. Oh, you stayed home for many years to raise kids? That is absolutely noble merit, you sacrificed, and you should be praised. But some P taking point about how it’s unfair to some woke imbecile? No thanks.
I hope you don't take it as not respecting women who take time off to raise children, it is a harder job than work.

What I'm trying to say is obviously single earner family has a obvious higher male earner income if he has a housewife, so don't be surprised if you take that into consideration the inequality between gender is not as big as political claims we have seen.

Most of the women I work with have high performance, often higher performance than their dual income family men. I don't think it would be fair to compare those with single earner family men as they can focus more on their careers with housewives helping out at home.
 
Science is the new R. Plain and simple.
“Trust the science” is the new dogma. Back in the day you didn’t dare to question priests, now you cannot dare to question a scientist.

I understand scientists in technical fields find the erosion of trust troubling. But put yourselves in an average person’s shoes. You barely finished high school, have no real education and cannot really discern “science” from science. Now 2020-2022 happens.
It’s a natural reaction to not trust any scientists after such an experience since you lack knowledge to differentiate different fields in science. To you a scientist is like a welder, or a mechanic.

So how about this. Why not have the scientific community hold people truly accountable? Why is Mr. Dr. “Wear three masks” still a doctor? Why hasn’t he been publicly banned from the scientific community? Instead he will be allowed to fade into obscurity without any repercussions from he has done.

I would say the onus is on the scientists to earn an average Joe’s trust, not for the average Joe to trust you because you have degrees to show for it. Not after the recent events.
 
Last edited:
But it's not singular. It's year after year, decade after decade............

Naivety and ignorance cut deep and both ways.
ALL government officials lie year after year? ALL scientists lie year after year? It may not be singular, it may be a particular group, but I still don't see how you justify broad generalizations.

Here's a question for you and the rest BITOG. These government officials that lie year after year and decade after decade are on both sides of the aisle, right? These scientists that lie year after year and decade after decade include scientists whose expert opinions agree with your opinion, right? Or is it only the politicians and scientists who do not agree with your opinion who are lying? That would just be one amazing coincidence.
 
As Mark Twain used to say - "Lies, ****ed lies, and statistics"


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".

Used to be that peer-reviewed research would instill confidence.
 
As Mark Twain used to say - "Lies, ****ed lies, and statistics"




Used to be that peer-reviewed research would instill confidence.
As someone who is familiar with the peer-review process and participated in it several times, I agree. But again, the problem is SOME scientists lie and SOME peer reviewers do not do their due diligence and catch the lies initially but it does not mean ALL peer-reviewed research is crap. Also, eventually most lies are caught and no one ever hangs their hat on a single publication - when there are 1000 papers from groups all around the world all basically confirming the same thing from hundreds of different angles that is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the claim.

Lastly, how large is this problem really and how much of it blown up by the science-denier community? I have good friends who are PhDs in lots of different science disciplines and they all have a great handle on the literature and when something weird comes out they know it right away - they are suspect right away - these papers tell a story that is either consistent or not. I don't think most people understand "science literature" and how it works. That month after month thousands of researchers from all over the world are publishing within lots of different journals with different editors and peer-reviewers and it is collectively what is being said that counts. Even the "seminal" papers are just the start for decades of more research. There's never been a paper published were the world read it and said we're done...that's it...no need to pursue this any longer.
 
Last edited:
As someone who is familiar with the peer-review process and participated in it several times, I agree. But again, the problem is SOME scientists lie and SOME peer reviewers do not do their due diligence and catch the lies initially but it does not mean ALL peer-reviewed research is crap. Also, eventually most lies are caught and no one ever hangs their hat on a single publication - when there are 1000 papers from groups all around the world all basically confirming the same thing from hundreds of different angles that is pretty good evidence for the veracity of the claim.
All scientists need to make a living just like everyone else. Some will go into mental gymnastics to justify what they do as ethical, if they are ethical people. A large chunk I suspect care only for prestige and wealth.

All I can say is that there is no absolutes, and as a rule of thumb my approach is that when I see something, I assume that it's 20% true and 80% a mix of misrepresentation and outright lies. The hard part is to know where that 20% is but it is there in general to not completely discredit the industry.
 
All scientists need to make a living just like everyone else. Some will go into mental gymnastics to justify what they do as ethical, if they are ethical people. A large chunk I suspect care only for prestige and wealth.

All I can say is that there is no absolutes, and as a rule of thumb my approach is that when I see something, I assume that it's 20% true and 80% a mix of misrepresentation and outright lies. The hard part is to know where that 20% is but it is there in general to not completely discredit the industry.
There are always bad apples but the fact is all the scientists I know are very successful and highly moral and ethical.
 
ALL government officials lie year after year? ALL scientists lie year after year? It may not be singular, it may be a particular group, but I still don't see how you justify broad generalizations.

Here's a question for you and the rest BITOG. These government officials that lie year after year and decade after decade are on both sides of the aisle, right? These scientists that lie year after year and decade after decade include scientists whose expert opinions agree with your opinion, right? Or is it only the politicians and scientists who do not agree with your opinion who are lying? That would just be one amazing coincidence.
I was only quoting .gov

Yes both sides.

As an advocate for the 2nd Amendment I see the lies hourly. Total made up out of whole cloth lies. Sure they are 180° from my opinion, and the facts. They simply are not trust worthy.
 
All scientists need to make a living just like everyone else. Some will go into mental gymnastics to justify what they do as ethical, if they are ethical people. A large chunk I suspect care only for prestige and wealth.

All I can say is that there is no absolutes, and as a rule of thumb my approach is that when I see something, I assume that it's 20% true and 80% a mix of misrepresentation and outright lies. The hard part is to know where that 20% is but it is there in general to not completely discredit the industry.
If "all" scientists lie to make a living or even a moderate number lie to make a living that would mean all or at least a significant portion of science is a lie and untrue and if that were true then the world is one hell of a coincidence because...

We've doubled life expectancy in the past 100 years.

We smash protons together at 99.99991% the speed of light and directly measure subatomic particles within an extraordinary level of accuracy that was predicted 50-100 years ago based on mathematics.

We look out into the cosmos and see stars millions of light years away behaving exactly as our understanding of science says they should.

We are surrounded by technology that is entirely based on our understanding of science.

My son's phone knows where he is in a 3-D world based on our understanding of science.

I can go on and on and on...where is the monumental breakdown in science due to all the lying scientists?
 
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.
Even when real science determines the real truth of what is going on, there are always people who are willing to try to Kill the Messenger if they don't agree with what the messenger is saying. There are some people that have to have things forced on them. Not everyone except things that they don't like, even if the things they don't like are the reality and truth of what is going on. One of the first Natural Instincts of experiencing something that you don't like is to attack it. It takes a certain level of intelligence to realize that just because you don't like it, attacking the message isn't going to change the reality of what is going on. Many people do not have the ability to suppress their first natural instinct and take the time to intelligently analyze whether or not the information is true even if they don't like it.

Let's all put pieces of black electric tape over the check engine light and other system check lights of our vehicles because we don't like it when any of those lights come on.

Wasn't it the Shah of Persia who killed the messenger because he didn't like what the messenger was telling him. That didn't change the message. And there are plenty of people out there today that have that same mentality, regardless of the subject that the information is dealing with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top