For some reason, today's scientists NEVER want to see ANY data showing they got it wrong. We are really going to have to redefine the word "scientist." I provide a list.
That editorial is from 2021, which was before the Czech record level data became available. Even if they do have a different viewpoint now, it doesn't matter as far as this editorial is concerned. Moreover, you seem to be taking that particular quote out of context. Their recommendation was simply that, given the data then available, administering primary vaccinations to those still unvaccinated should take priority over large-scale boosting of those already vaccinated.
Consensus Science: The continually funded scientist reads what other scientists in his field are saying, then modifies his data and paper to align with everyone else.
I think what you are really describing is pseudoscience. It kind of sounds like science, but in fact is anything but. The difference between real science and pseudoscience is subtle, so, with a tip of the hat to Jeff Foxworthy, I offer some useful tests to help you determine if you, or someone you know, "might be a pseudoscientist."
When the data disagrees with theory you adjust the data until it agrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think consensus is a good way to establish scientific truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you refuse to debate with anyone that disagrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If your principal arguments consist of abuse, insults, and smearing the opposition, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you blacklist scientists that disagree with your opinions, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase “the science is settled,” you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase the “science says,” you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think correlation proves causation, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you only use data that supports your theory while ignoring any data that disproves it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If predictions based on your theory are never correct but you still insist your theory is fact, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you admit to being poor at math or statistics, but insist you are a good scientist, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If your theory violates thermodynamic laws, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If no matter what happens you claim your theory predicted it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If frightening children and the gullible is more important than seeking the truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think peer review is the ultimate in validating scientific research, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think computer models produce data, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If your salary depends on supporting a specific scientific conclusion, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you conduct studies where you already know the conclusion, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
Steve, your call for rigorous scientific integrity rings hollow amidst manipulation of KCOR data. The Czech dataset, compromised by approximately 2 million unidentifiable non-citizen entries, lacks reliability, rendering it unsuitable for analysis. Your insistence on its use contradicts your prior assertions making you look like a hack Steve.
you're joking right? 2 million UNIDENTIFIABLE non-citizens. That is they do not belong mixed in with the citizens. Now the data is useless because it no longer represents the Czech Republic. None of the denominators will be correct. The 2024 Czech population was 10.88 million. An extra 2 million in the denominator will greatly effect the results. If we could remove those records fine but there's no way to do so.
No, and repeated attempts to contact the Czech data providers have gone unanswered. That’s unfortunate, since the dataset itself contains useful material. Yet Steve’s KCOR version exhibits methodological errors and evidence of manipulation. After independently replicating his analysis, I identified these issues in detail and showed them to Steve...his response was to block me on Twitter. I understand he has since reversed that, though I no longer use the account.
6. Rodney Dangerfield style: I told my psychiatrist I had an unfulfilled desire to be the smartest man in the room. He told me to hang out with scientists. I tell you I get no respect.
Scientist: an acolyte of a religion that is incapable of seeing or acknowledging any data, studies, or conclusions that disagree with the manufactured consensus, paid for by Pharma.
That editorial is from 2021, which was before the Czech record level data became available. Even if they do have a different viewpoint now, it doesn't matter as far as this editorial is concerned. Moreover, you seem to be taking that particular quote out of context. Their recommendation was simply that, given the data then available, administering primary vaccinations to those still unvaccinated should take priority over large-scale boosting of those already vaccinated.
Science and medicine are effectively dead. In case you hadn't noticed, the fate of the world is following close behind.
lol, yes, the list is awesome.
Are there any independent, dependable, trustworthy, ethical sources in the medical system left?!
No. Because almost all of them are on the Left.
Who is this Lori that sends me nasty emails and then blocks me? So this is the kind of people that follow Steve? Pathetic.
Consensus Science: The continually funded scientist reads what other scientists in his field are saying, then modifies his data and paper to align with everyone else.
Very good. The "scientific" truth wins every time.
I love #4!! Can't stop laughing!
I love these scientist definitions! Brilliant!
I think what you are really describing is pseudoscience. It kind of sounds like science, but in fact is anything but. The difference between real science and pseudoscience is subtle, so, with a tip of the hat to Jeff Foxworthy, I offer some useful tests to help you determine if you, or someone you know, "might be a pseudoscientist."
When the data disagrees with theory you adjust the data until it agrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think consensus is a good way to establish scientific truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you refuse to debate with anyone that disagrees, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If your principal arguments consist of abuse, insults, and smearing the opposition, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you blacklist scientists that disagree with your opinions, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase “the science is settled,” you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you ever use the phrase the “science says,” you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think correlation proves causation, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If you only use data that supports your theory while ignoring any data that disproves it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If predictions based on your theory are never correct but you still insist your theory is fact, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you admit to being poor at math or statistics, but insist you are a good scientist, you might be a pseudoscientist.
If your theory violates thermodynamic laws, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If no matter what happens you claim your theory predicted it, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If frightening children and the gullible is more important than seeking the truth, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think peer review is the ultimate in validating scientific research, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you think computer models produce data, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If your salary depends on supporting a specific scientific conclusion, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
If you conduct studies where you already know the conclusion, you just might be a pseudoscientist.
I love this.
In answer to the question, "Do the vast majority of self described scientists fall into one or more of the categories above? Answer? Emphatically yes.
Concerning "computer models": garbage in, garbage out (GIGO)!
This is an outstanding collection!
Steve, your call for rigorous scientific integrity rings hollow amidst manipulation of KCOR data. The Czech dataset, compromised by approximately 2 million unidentifiable non-citizen entries, lacks reliability, rendering it unsuitable for analysis. Your insistence on its use contradicts your prior assertions making you look like a hack Steve.
LOL, says the hack who worked at a woke university for 34 years. Yeah, anything you got to say, a big No Thank You.
Please explain to us laymen how it was made unsuitable for analysis.
you're joking right? 2 million UNIDENTIFIABLE non-citizens. That is they do not belong mixed in with the citizens. Now the data is useless because it no longer represents the Czech Republic. None of the denominators will be correct. The 2024 Czech population was 10.88 million. An extra 2 million in the denominator will greatly effect the results. If we could remove those records fine but there's no way to do so.
Ie: the “unidentifiable non-citizen entries” must be traceable. Has that been addressed?
No, and repeated attempts to contact the Czech data providers have gone unanswered. That’s unfortunate, since the dataset itself contains useful material. Yet Steve’s KCOR version exhibits methodological errors and evidence of manipulation. After independently replicating his analysis, I identified these issues in detail and showed them to Steve...his response was to block me on Twitter. I understand he has since reversed that, though I no longer use the account.
6. Rodney Dangerfield style: I told my psychiatrist I had an unfulfilled desire to be the smartest man in the room. He told me to hang out with scientists. I tell you I get no respect.
😆
Science is mostly boring proving things that we think are true. But when money is involved truth often takes a backseat.
Love all your definitions!
Scientist: an acolyte of a religion that is incapable of seeing or acknowledging any data, studies, or conclusions that disagree with the manufactured consensus, paid for by Pharma.