I've been following this on Twitter and it's hilarious. Once the censors admitted that "misinformation" includes things that are objectively true, the term lost all meaning. (Well, almost. Now it just means "stuff we don't like or want to talk about.")
To be sure anyone who uses terms like "scientific consensus" ought to be visited by the spirits of Ignaz Semmelweis, Galileo and Bruno every single second they try to grab even a moment of shut-eye until the day when they'll never need earthly shut-eye again.
I've not heard of Bruno. Not sure about that Galileo -- I've seen some serious shade thrown on that fellow's work; a total eclipse, to my astonishment, not like on TV or eighth grade science.
Yes, odd how 'misinformation' never pops up when there's a Middle Eastern enemy of Israel that needs invading. Nary a peep of it during the whole "mushroom cloud" business before Iraq, or the "Assad is gassing people" spiel.
Fauci and friends have been caught red handed (emails) talking about how to prevent people from discussing the lab leak theory and suppressing anyone who does. You don't do that if you have proof that it was natural. You do that when you DON'T.
It is well known that when sorting out family issues, you must involve all parties, because the crazy person in the family makes the normal ones appear crazy at first glance to an outsider, because they are responding to insanity, and normal people don’t do that very well.
Almost a perfect limited hang out with a lively but limited spectrum of debate between lab leak or natural & nobody looks at the fact that there is NO evidence RNA virus can pandemic or 200+ types of novel PCR tests w unknown primers were rolled out globally to measure things with no historic levels for relevance & Diamond Princess showed high percentage of population had prior immunity & only the oldest most frail died. Consensus beliefs substituted for evidence again.
Fascinating exchange. One of the oddities is that this Van der Linden fellow has apparently missed out on 30+ years of research in the sociology of science. Harry Collins, the Edinburgh school, etc. One of the big themes in that research is that there are social aspects to science (e.g., publication) that have nothing to do whatsoever with what is being claimed in a given paper. Network effects, institutional prestige, financial incentives, etc.
Great exchange. But I cannot let that reference to The Lancet pass. In Dec 23 The Lancet published a Comment upon Excess Deaths and Covid, noting 'multiple causes'. The one cause omitted - the elephants in the hospitals worldwide - was 'Injections'! 4 years of them. Globally. Tens of millions of people. Omitted. What Injections? Mis-information? The Silver & Linden rivalry pales into insignificance.
Those two were arguing like a married couple, repetitive circle making.
Any time consensus is used in the realm of science, one should distrust the statement.
Good for Nate Silver to pursue the argument. The politically compromised scientific personalities will be judged poorly by history; they are full of hot air, protecting politics and not science.
Why am I so tired after reading this? We - humanity - are woefully lacking in discernment, it feels like a near impossible task to train my children in a world with floods of information.
NONE of it can be assumed to be wholly true or false. We have to sift through all of it and test it. Truth is what is real, it is consistent with what we observe in life. But increasingly, people find reality online and it is so much easier to redefine reality there.
They believe the lie because they do not love the truth...
Ohhh! That’s rich! Once you’ve seen behind the curtain, (be it extreme lucidity or Divine Providence) you have to admit that the industrial grade psychological operation is quite brilliant, but still industrial grade propaganda at its core.
I've been following this on Twitter and it's hilarious. Once the censors admitted that "misinformation" includes things that are objectively true, the term lost all meaning. (Well, almost. Now it just means "stuff we don't like or want to talk about.")
To be sure anyone who uses terms like "scientific consensus" ought to be visited by the spirits of Ignaz Semmelweis, Galileo and Bruno every single second they try to grab even a moment of shut-eye until the day when they'll never need earthly shut-eye again.
Bravo.
I've not heard of Bruno. Not sure about that Galileo -- I've seen some serious shade thrown on that fellow's work; a total eclipse, to my astonishment, not like on TV or eighth grade science.
Giordano Bruno got kebabbed by the Church in 1600.
You mean, the Roman Catholics.
What'd he do? The Roman church is a jellyfish now; no, more like an amoeba.
That free thinking and speaking thingy, Always been bad for people's health.
Yes, odd how 'misinformation' never pops up when there's a Middle Eastern enemy of Israel that needs invading. Nary a peep of it during the whole "mushroom cloud" business before Iraq, or the "Assad is gassing people" spiel.
Dear Sander van der Linden;
Fauci and friends have been caught red handed (emails) talking about how to prevent people from discussing the lab leak theory and suppressing anyone who does. You don't do that if you have proof that it was natural. You do that when you DON'T.
Glad I could clear that up for you. No charge.
“Never argue with a fool. Onlookers won’t be able to tell who’s who.”
-somebody well known
It is well known that when sorting out family issues, you must involve all parties, because the crazy person in the family makes the normal ones appear crazy at first glance to an outsider, because they are responding to insanity, and normal people don’t do that very well.
The Good Book.
"Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him." Proverbs 26:4
Haha! It's only since looking into substack that I've encountered good writers who abandon all craft when forced to argue a point.
Almost a perfect limited hang out with a lively but limited spectrum of debate between lab leak or natural & nobody looks at the fact that there is NO evidence RNA virus can pandemic or 200+ types of novel PCR tests w unknown primers were rolled out globally to measure things with no historic levels for relevance & Diamond Princess showed high percentage of population had prior immunity & only the oldest most frail died. Consensus beliefs substituted for evidence again.
And the navy ship (Roosevelt I think)
Bravo!! High Fives.
You cannot have a worldwide pandemic with a RNA respitory virus.
END.
Fascinating exchange. One of the oddities is that this Van der Linden fellow has apparently missed out on 30+ years of research in the sociology of science. Harry Collins, the Edinburgh school, etc. One of the big themes in that research is that there are social aspects to science (e.g., publication) that have nothing to do whatsoever with what is being claimed in a given paper. Network effects, institutional prestige, financial incentives, etc.
Pretty ironic given that Silver himself is an establishment propagandist.
Maybe Silver, like Taibbi before him, had an epiphany of some sort.
Yes, was quite surprised at that. To see him call out the 'experts' as 'f#$#ng idiots' was hilarious. It is, of course, true.
Truth can come from bad sources... The problem is discerning which parts are true in the soup of falsehoods.
A broken clock is right twice a day.
This is wonderfully enjoyable. Thank you for your service--and your fortitude!
This is the most incredible thing I've witnessed today. 😆 Thank you.
We are in so much trouble.
Great exchange. But I cannot let that reference to The Lancet pass. In Dec 23 The Lancet published a Comment upon Excess Deaths and Covid, noting 'multiple causes'. The one cause omitted - the elephants in the hospitals worldwide - was 'Injections'! 4 years of them. Globally. Tens of millions of people. Omitted. What Injections? Mis-information? The Silver & Linden rivalry pales into insignificance.
Those two were arguing like a married couple, repetitive circle making.
Any time consensus is used in the realm of science, one should distrust the statement.
Good for Nate Silver to pursue the argument. The politically compromised scientific personalities will be judged poorly by history; they are full of hot air, protecting politics and not science.
Yes, at one time there was a consensus that the earth is flat. Then came Climate Change...
Nobody is suppressing any discourse??? I won't waste my time reading any more from the delusional dutchman.
I honestly despair.
Why anyone thinks not allowing potential misinformation rather than having a nuanced debate is better is beyond me.
Have a debate!
Don’t censor!
What was considered misinformation now might be the truth tomorrow!
Small example Dr. Simmelweiss....
Why am I so tired after reading this? We - humanity - are woefully lacking in discernment, it feels like a near impossible task to train my children in a world with floods of information.
NONE of it can be assumed to be wholly true or false. We have to sift through all of it and test it. Truth is what is real, it is consistent with what we observe in life. But increasingly, people find reality online and it is so much easier to redefine reality there.
They believe the lie because they do not love the truth...
FBI says lab is most likely. White house sais there is no consensus. Van der Linden is a joke. And he is overpaid. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64806903.amp
Ohhh! That’s rich! Once you’ve seen behind the curtain, (be it extreme lucidity or Divine Providence) you have to admit that the industrial grade psychological operation is quite brilliant, but still industrial grade propaganda at its core.