Nostr Web Client

Grok Reddit today

When I say unqualified, what I mean is incompetent. A qualification doesn’t mean anything, but experience does. We as bitcoiners know not to accept any nonsense information about how the whole thing will blow over like a house of cards from some no coiner. And yet, I’m merely pointing out that there is people speaking with authority in the antivax world that have none. And so far there has been no evidence, using the scientific method, to definitively say that vaccines are bad

Jimmie 1w ago

People have trouble with boring, tangible evidence, because you have to sift through it and that takes work. They'd rather hear someone speak "authoritatively" and any skepticism is washed away with "source: ___".

I think we agree on the problem - the solution unfortunately is simple verification but God forbid anyone read data themselves.

Replying to

Bunnyman

I say, Don’t trust verify.

Science has objectively verifiable data. When people laugh and mock at “trust the science” it is meaningless. Data is data is data. Interpreters can be wrong or misleading. Especially people who have no fucking idea how to interpret data. Brett Weinstein, Joe Rogan and weekender DIY “science enthusiasts” haven’t somehow “figured it all out”.

That’s not to say that mainstream media wasn’t a shitshow, or that politicians acted rashly or even insidiously. But I don’t buy this mainstream bitcoiner black pill, anti vax angle that “everyone’s lying to you man”. The world is obviously more nuanced than that and not everything is a psy-op to be figured out, just because fiat money appears to be.

Jimmie 1w ago

That's the point. Textbooks act as the "interpreters" you mention. They don't just provide data.

Look at the citations in a modern, $150 university textbook. Wikipedia, Wikipedia, Article, another Textbook, citation-of-a-citation. It's credibility-laundering.

There's the scientific method, which few mock, and there's explicit data which Covid exposed what "trusting without verifying" leads to:

Take California in this trickle-down credibility ponzi.

Fauci says "pick a mask, any mask"

CDC publishes an official statement "any mask will work, but N95 is best"

-- The first bad citation: CDC uses a 2013 Influenza study on mask efficacy that concludes "cloth masks aren't great" and interprets the study just-for-you

Newsom sees the CDC citation and cites it for his public health emergency shutdown of public gatherings and mask-mandate

A whole state halts to a stop because people cited a citation of an irrelevant study used to back someone's ego.

The CDC was guilty of bad study citation countless times during the Covid19 crisis, and the CDC is what will get cited in textbooks.

That's the problem.