Food for thought about data, interpreting research, and misinformation

[BISCUT]

FTR...there is nothing worse than people getting overly defensive in a discussion. I'm not attacking you and I'm just stating my position that my intention was for this to be a broader discussion than just the OP story - not that there haven't been comments about that and not that there isn't value in discussing that too. I never said or implied you're ignorant in any way. I have included myself along with the high school graduates in the above posts as someone who is not an expert in everything and who out of necessity must also rely on others for their expertise, including lots of high school graduates who can, for instance, wire an outlet for $2K, when clearly I can not. Not knowing everything is not the same as being dumb but claiming you or someone else without the education or training, especially in technical fields, can just be your own expert is misguided IMO.

Haven't you done just this in at least half a dozen posts? You've been on your heels multiple times and your a professional. Conjecture but it seems to me you are high enough on that soap box to dismiss us, mere commoners. COVID and the rampant disinformation (that is being polite) provided us has severely diminished the trust in not only science but what Gov't refers to as "THE SCIENCE." Great harm was done.

While you certainly have valid arguments that deserve credence; invoking the ignorance of a commoner like me concerning climate change is dismissive and reveals an ideology and ideology in the world of science is exactly what at times leads to predetermined outcomes and watered-down findings to fit the funders requested narrative.

Edit to add: Additionally, modern science from my admitted armchair, seems centralized and focused on consensus whereas life-changing scientific developments in the past often came from a fringe. Hopefully this isn't your experience in the field and it's only a portion of what a layperson has knowledge of.

 

[BISCUT]

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 agree with much of this. Single father of 3 and 50. I've dated many career women in their late 30's and early 40's. To a large degree they shared guilt, loneliness, and regret over not prioritizing having a family. These were highly successful women. Business owner, a CPA in Manhattan, corporate law partner in NYC. They all had serious bank but it wasn't fulfilling. Older, looking backward I'd agree that the bankroll isn't worth not having a family.

 

[Hillbilly Deluxe]

This thread isn't full of politics?

 

[BISCUT]

This thread isn't full of politics?

Much of modern science IS politics.

 

[PWMDMD]

Haven't you done just this in at least half a dozen posts? You've been on your heels multiple times and your a professional. Conjecture but it seems to me you are high enough on that soap box to dismiss us, mere commoners. COVID and the rampant disinformation (that is being polite) provided us has severely diminished the trust in not only science but what Gov't refers to as "THE SCIENCE." Great harm was done.

While you certainly have valid arguments that deserve credence; invoking the ignorance of a commoner like me concerning climate change is dismissive and reveals an ideology and ideology in the world of science is exactly what at times leads to predetermined outcomes and watered-down findings to fit the funders requested narrative.

Edit to add: Additionally, modern science from my admitted armchair, seems centralized and focused on consensus whereas life-changing scientific developments in the past often came from a fringe. Hopefully this isn't your experience in the field and it's only a portion of what a layperson has knowledge of.

Interesting take that you think I was somehow claiming to not be ignorant myself as I've said several times I am just as much at the mercy of the experts as anyone who is not themselves an expert in a particular field. I don't have an original thought in my head about climate change and wouldn't know where to start if the data were made available to me. My opinion is simply that there is a majority consensus opinion by climate scientists - I choose to believe them because I really have no other logical choice. This is true of just about everything other than a handful of things I'm trained to do. Nowhere am I claiming intellectual superiority over the "commoner". I'm claiming the opposite - submission to the consensus because none of it is my wheelhouse. My claim is simply that I have a good handle on "how" science work and I'm not claiming in any way to understand all science.

 

[BISCUT]

Interesting take that you think I was somehow claiming to not be ignorant myself as I've said several times I am just as much at the mercy of the experts as anyone who is not themselves an expert in a particular field. I don't have an original thought in my head about climate change and wouldn't know where to start if the data was made available to me. My opinion is simply that there is a majority consensus opinion by climate scientists - I choose to believe them because I really have no other logical choice. This is true of just about everything other than a handful of things I'm trained to do.

Reasonable response for sure. Thanks.

 

[PWMDMD]

Reasonable response for sure. Thanks.

BTW...I fully realize I can be "excitable" and **** near insufferable at times. The truth is I really like "vigorous" debate, I have and do spend a lot of time reading/thinking about topics like this one, because I think it really is a worthy topic to try and wrap my head around. To me we aren't arguing or fighting and each and every post, even if I totally disagree with it, helps me to understand the topic more and refine my argument.

 

[PWMDMD]

This thread isn't full of politics?

Not sure discussing the government in general qualifies as "politics" and I think everyone has tried very hard to not cross the name/party line where it really would be discussing poltics.

 

[PWMDMD]

Much of modern science IS politics.

There are plenty of scientists sitting in a basement of a university somewhere studying the parasites that live on the mouth parts of the American lobster or mate selection in a fruit fly species with zero politics involved.

There is nothing inherently political about science except where it intersects with public policy which thankfully represents very few limited fields in the overall scope of science.

 

[dnewton3]

This thread isn't full of politics?

This is an interesting thread, but we need to, as a group, make sure we're not diving into "politics".
We can acknowledge that science as reported to the public is affected by politicians, and leave it at that. We don't need to go any deeper than just acknowledging that fact.
I don't want to have to shut this down; the thread has merit.
Let's not let it devolve, shall we?

 

[PimTac]

There are plenty of scientists sitting in a basement of a university somewhere studying the parasites that live on the mouth parts of the American lobster or mate selection in a fruit fly species with zero politics involved.

Studies like that are funded by the G. You don’t think the university would spend their precious money on such foolish studies?

 

[PWMDMD]

Studies like that are funded by the G. You don’t think the university would spend their precious money on such foolish studies?

...and? A $50K NSF grant hardly makes you an indentured servant to the man. I have applied for and received grants and there were no G-men outside my door. No one telling me what the results should be or else. No handler was assigned to me. I spent 11 years in higher education and published in several fields at several different institutions. I knew the PIs really well and worked day in and day out with them. I continue to have close friends that receive much higher levels of funding and again, no handlers, no g-men, nothing sinister.

 

[PimTac]

...and? A $50K NSF grant hardly makes you an indentured servant to the man.

Funny, I get the opposite feeling.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Much of modern science IS politics.

I would say the way science is presented is politics.
Science is man's endless search for truth in nature.

I certainly see your point.

 

[PWMDMD]

Studies like that are funded by the G. You don’t think the university would spend their precious money on such foolish studies?

We used to have weekly department meetings with all the faculty and grad students where everyone would present the previous week's work and the job of every other person in the room was to try and rip it apart. The goal was to make sure the research being done was top notch, all aspects were considered, and there were as few holes as possible. Very few people in the department worked together and there was no incentive for one person to give an attaboy or attagirl - it could be brutal at times, but the group caught a lot of potential issues, and most of these PIs published in the best journals. Science is brutal and there's little that can be hidden. Even the public cases of scientists faking results are more often than not discovered due to a whistle blower.

 

[PWMDMD]

Funny, I get the opposite feeling.

Ok...I filled out some forms, sent in a proposal, was awarded some money, had to do some basic accounting reports, finished my research, and that was 20 years ago.

As an aside - interesting "Freudian slip". I think some of the issues we see are people use "feelings" to determine the veracity of a situation. In other words they think there's something more sinister going on because they "feel" like there's something sinister going on and even in the absence of any evidence (like I was owned by the man) choose to listen to the feeling and not the objective evidence.

 

[dnewton3]

I'd like to make a comment based on a simple example of how perspective (bias) causes one to view something favorably or unfavorably....


The US Soccer Federation includes both a mens and womens team.
As we've heard in the last several years, the womens team has complained (and even filed suit in federal court) about "unfair" pay
- it is a FACT that the women have won several world championships since the 1990s
- it is a FACT that the men have won zero world championships since 1920s
- it is a FACT that the women currently get approximately 50% of the total paid compensation from the US Soccer Federation
- it is a FACT that the women are paid MORE (on a "per game" basis) than the men
- it is a FACT, that the mens team generates the BULK of the Federation revenue (97.5%)

Now, this is a matter of perspective. The women want to be paid "more". Despite the fact that they actually are paid more "per game", they still want more. They only generate 2.5% of the total income, and they get paid 50% of the total salary, it's still not enough for them.

The world, as a whole, values mens sports over womens sports. No amount of "woke values" changes that fact. The mens soccer system is a multi-Billion dollar business; the women's a a tiny fraction of that. The US Soccer Federation is not in the business of doing things for free; they exist to make money. ANY professional sports team HAS to make money, or they cease to exist. So of the total earnings brought into the organization, 97.5% is brought in by the mens team, and 2.5% by the womens team. The mens team does not control who pays to come see them, or buy their merch. It's just how society works; it's free market. People spend their money where they choose; it's that simple.

Boiled down to a consumable form:
Men: generates 97.5% of the total income; gets paid 50%
Women: generates 2.5% of the total income; gets paid 50% (actually more, if viewed on a "per game" basis)
And yet, the women still want MORE pay ...

THAT is a matter of perspective bias, folks.

 

[BISCUT]

BTW...I fully realize I can be "excitable" and **** near insufferable at times. The truth is I really like "vigorous" debate, I have and do spend a lot of time reading/thinking about topics like this one, because I think it really is a worthy topic to try and wrap my head around. To me we aren't arguing or fighting and each and every post, even if I totally disagree with it, helps me to understand the topic more and refine my argument.

I feel the same. I respect everything you stated and it stimulates thought from a point of view I otherwise wouldn't have had the opportunity to absorb. IMO this is exactly what is missing in our post-modern world. Much respect. You aren't in an easy field.

 

[BISCUT]

I'd like to make a comment based on a simple example of how perspective (bias) causes one to view something favorably or unfavorably....


The US Soccer Federation includes both a mens and womens team.
As we've heard in the last several years, the womens team has complained (and even filed suit in federal court) about "unfair" pay
- it is a FACT that the women have won several world championships since the 1990s
- it is a FACT that the men have won zero world championships since 1920s
- it is a FACT that the women currently get approximately 50% of the total paid compensation from the US Soccer Federation
- it is a FACT that the women are paid MORE (on a "per game" basis) than the men
- it is a FACT, that the mens team generates the BULK of the Federation revenue (97.5%)

Now, this is a matter of perspective. The women want to be paid "more". Despite the fact that they actually are paid more "per game", they still want more. They only generate 2.5% of the total income, and they get paid 50% of the total salary, it's still not enough for them.

The world, as a whole, values mens sports over womens sports. No amount of "woke values" changes that fact. The mens soccer system is a multi-Billion dollar business; the women's a a tiny fraction of that. The US Soccer Federation is not in the business of doing things for free; they exist to make money. ANY professional sports team HAS to make money, or they cease to exist. So of the total earnings brought into the organization, 97.5% is brought in by the mens team, and 2.5% by the womens team. The mens team does not control who pays to come see them, or buy their merch. It's just how society works; it's free market. People spend their money where they choose; it's that simple.

Boiled down to a consumable form:
Men: generates 97.5% of the total income; gets paid 50%
Women: generates 2.5% of the total income; gets paid 50% (actually more, if viewed on a "per game" basis)
And yet, the women still want MORE pay ...

THAT is a matter of perspective bias, folks.

Add to this WNBA. Excellent way to demonstrate it. The end product (women's soccer and basketball) simply isn't filling the stands.

 

[BISCUT]

I would say the way science is presented is politics.
Science is man's endless search for truth in nature.

I certainly see your point.

We are in greater agreement.