Scientists are not immune from bias. However the application of the scientific method is probably the best tool, with its exposure of methods, data, and peer review that we have available to us to advance knowledge of the physical world.
Actually, on this statement, we agree. It is the non-transparency of government spokespersons - admittedly from many different presidents - that prevents the people from seeing truth. And the obfuscation of apologists who cloud the discussion. And the counter-statements of those seeking to make money. Plus the conspiracy theory nut-cases.
Do you think that they (scientists) said you could not contract COVID if you took the COVID vaccine?
The problem is that most people wouldn't recognize a real scientist walking down the street or talking on TV. What's that joke/meme that shows up now and then? "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV"... THAT is who people recognize. Paid TV spokespersons.
When I was spending my weeknights running many hundreds of experimental runs in chemical kinetics, nobody knew about that. They recognized me for what I did in public to pay my way through college - by playing music in a well-located bar on Bourbon Street. Oh, they STILL didn't know my name - but they knew I played an electronic organ on stage in a bar. "I've seen you somewhere... oh, yeah, I heard you playin' the organ that night I got blitzed at the El Morocco club with my friends." Ah, fickle fleeting fame!
People don't recognize scientists unless they start doing something flashy or extremely useful. HISTORY books recognize them, and that is more likely how scientists become widely known. Do you think Edison was THAT well known before his invention of electric lights? Do you think Einstein or Oppenheimer were well known before the Alamogordo atomic bomb tests? Do you think anyone cared about Gregor Mendel until his work in genetics was published? They were scientists before the big newsworthy events... but nobody knew or cared. As is typical for the modern man (not just USA, but world-wide, I would think), "if it ain't newsworthy, I ain't interested."
And then do you feel that under such a blanket statement that your scientific work carries no weight?
My work carried weight but, as is usual, is buried in a journal with the "reference" abbreviation of
Anal. Chem Acta - which is a (typically) obscure magazine for publication of analytical chemistry articles. The only people likely to see it are folks researching isopoly or heteropoly metal oxide anion behavior. The "man on the street" wouldn't know me. Which has the effect of blunting anything I have to say.
But then there were other events going on, and pressures, political and potential monetary rewards, that gloss over/misrepresent/ misinterpret.
And therein originates the misinformation. For instance, are you aware that the "97% of all climate scientists believe that 'global warming' is man-made" statement is nowhere near as strong as it sounds? It stems from a survey that asked the question "Do you believe that man-made actions contribute to global warming in some degree?" But it didn't ask anything specific about the perceived degree of contribution! Hell, even I would answer yes to that question if asked. But my perceived degree of contribution would be "minuscule" and would further suggest "It is POSSIBLE because we can't rule it out". But what happened next was that some jerk-wad JOURNALIST (not a scientist) published "97% of scientists agree global warming is man-made." And that statement, with its absolute authoritative style, has burdened our society since then, even though we no longer call it global warming. It is now "climate change" - which is ANOTHER joke since climate change is what the Earth naturally accomplishes every so often.
The statements that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine were useless in treating COVID is another one of those distortions, claiming that off-label use of a drug is a big no-no. Tell that to people who are taking metformin rather than taking insulin injections. And then they find that metformin has beneficial coronary side effects - off-label, of course. Big Pharma wouldn't make money off of COVID if there were already a cheaper palliative to get you through the worst initial symptoms. So they got some of their stooges to quash the idea that ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine could minimize your down time.
I apologize because I see I got on my "soap box" about being ignored despite having something to say that I believe to be correct and important.
Have a good day,
@GaP42 - I wish you no ill. I just sometimes have to rage against the wind.
www.outkick.com
... I was not leaving out the link you described. it was in relation to Pat's statements which were not about what you are discussing. The research conducted by scientists and the application of the scientific method is one part, the use/misuse of that information (by others/ reporters/ authorities / or by supervisors) is another as they pursue fame, or monetary or political reward. We all have biases (and politics seems a particularly strong influence) that can affect how we interpret things, but the data remains, and so we ignore it at our peril or we find new (better) ways of understanding it (through application of the methods of science).
