People who work in the medical field are varied in their intelligence and those who research on their own are varied in their intelligence.
A lot of people - on this site, who I've engaged with - have argued absolute insanity with me, i.e, that HIV/AIDS doesn't kill, AZT killed more. Their view and opinion on this is completely based upon anti-medical websites. Their view isn't from experience in a real setting, it's based on confirmation bias and political leanings.
There are doctors I know who are dumber than dirt. They have limited ability to interpret data themselves. Or, alternatively, they have their own motives for confirming their bias, alliance to a scientific belief system or political motivations.
This meme along is sheer hubris. The arrogance of "lol... I can research on google" is the exact same arrogance of "I have a medical degree, you're not allowed to have an opinion". Both sides are wrong, yet they believe they're right.
Just yesterday, I demonstrated in a thread why you can't take one limited study on SARS-1 vaccination outcomes as proof that COVID-19 vaccines = X outcomes.
Yet, people have very firm belief systems. They won't listen because their confirmation bias tells them that any validation is validation. It doesn't have to be qualitive. The same occurs on the left.
Research is great for influencing choice, however, if you're not interpreting the data correctly, is it worthwhile as influencing outcome? If you're researching to confirm a belief, is the outcome of your research qualitive?
Often, neither side answer those questions, ergo, both are as bad as one another.
You have hit on a lot of reasons why I suggest that the argument is all. It stands on its own, regardless of anything else. It can be debated only on its own merits. If additional evidence or logic suggests an error in an argument, then only a rebuttal that addresses the evidence or logic directly is worthy of admission into the joint effort of divining truth.
Along with that is the requirement for retaining an open mind (in the investigation into truth). You touched on that as well, but you also suggested (and forgive me if I am reading too much into what you said) that the HIV/AIDS/AZT thing MUST be wrong ("absolute insanity"). I am not convinced it is absolutely wrong.
Do I think it is right? No. Have I seen good scientific evidence to support it? No. But to be fair I have not looked into it very deeply. I have seen some small pieces of evidence that are compelling, even if insufficient. I do think there is a good chance it was a manufactured virus, and some of the actors involved have gained a great deal from it not being cured. So there is circumstantial evidence, and possible motivations of known bad actors. I think it warrants a deeper look, despite having seen no good scientific evidence (again, I haven't really looked).
I am saying this because the retaining an open mind, even in the face of what is apparently "impossible" is essential. From my own perspective, when people talk about the "spike protein shedding" thing I allow myself to retain an open mind. Its a transmembrane protein. The idea of a TM protein somehow getting out of the membrane and going off into the ether and then entering another person to find its way to an ACE-2 protein to do its damage is so far beyond the ludicrous It makes me apoplectic. I still try to listen to the argument though. In all my years in biology the only things I can say I know for certain are, it's incredibly complicated, and I know almost nothing about it. Thus keeping an open mind is the only way to respond appropriately, and only a complete argument that addresses the points can be a proper response.
The argument is all.
I think we agree across the board or near enough. I am either putting a finer point on it, or babbling. Take your pick. :)
The issue is more nuanced than that, however.
People who work in the medical field are varied in their intelligence and those who research on their own are varied in their intelligence.
A lot of people - on this site, who I've engaged with - have argued absolute insanity with me, i.e, that HIV/AIDS doesn't kill, AZT killed more. Their view and opinion on this is completely based upon anti-medical websites. Their view isn't from experience in a real setting, it's based on confirmation bias and political leanings.
There are doctors I know who are dumber than dirt. They have limited ability to interpret data themselves. Or, alternatively, they have their own motives for confirming their bias, alliance to a scientific belief system or political motivations.
This meme along is sheer hubris. The arrogance of "lol... I can research on google" is the exact same arrogance of "I have a medical degree, you're not allowed to have an opinion". Both sides are wrong, yet they believe they're right.
Just yesterday, I demonstrated in a thread why you can't take one limited study on SARS-1 vaccination outcomes as proof that COVID-19 vaccines = X outcomes. Yet, people have very firm belief systems. They won't listen because their confirmation bias tells them that any validation is validation. It doesn't have to be qualitive. The same occurs on the left.
Research is great for influencing choice, however, if you're not interpreting the data correctly, is it worthwhile as influencing outcome? If you're researching to confirm a belief, is the outcome of your research qualitive?
Often, neither side answer those questions, ergo, both are as bad as one another.
You have hit on a lot of reasons why I suggest that the argument is all. It stands on its own, regardless of anything else. It can be debated only on its own merits. If additional evidence or logic suggests an error in an argument, then only a rebuttal that addresses the evidence or logic directly is worthy of admission into the joint effort of divining truth.
Along with that is the requirement for retaining an open mind (in the investigation into truth). You touched on that as well, but you also suggested (and forgive me if I am reading too much into what you said) that the HIV/AIDS/AZT thing MUST be wrong ("absolute insanity"). I am not convinced it is absolutely wrong.
Do I think it is right? No. Have I seen good scientific evidence to support it? No. But to be fair I have not looked into it very deeply. I have seen some small pieces of evidence that are compelling, even if insufficient. I do think there is a good chance it was a manufactured virus, and some of the actors involved have gained a great deal from it not being cured. So there is circumstantial evidence, and possible motivations of known bad actors. I think it warrants a deeper look, despite having seen no good scientific evidence (again, I haven't really looked).
I am saying this because the retaining an open mind, even in the face of what is apparently "impossible" is essential. From my own perspective, when people talk about the "spike protein shedding" thing I allow myself to retain an open mind. Its a transmembrane protein. The idea of a TM protein somehow getting out of the membrane and going off into the ether and then entering another person to find its way to an ACE-2 protein to do its damage is so far beyond the ludicrous It makes me apoplectic. I still try to listen to the argument though. In all my years in biology the only things I can say I know for certain are, it's incredibly complicated, and I know almost nothing about it. Thus keeping an open mind is the only way to respond appropriately, and only a complete argument that addresses the points can be a proper response.
The argument is all.
I think we agree across the board or near enough. I am either putting a finer point on it, or babbling. Take your pick. :)