NEClimbs.com forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Reading the forum on your cell phone? There's an easier way. We've enabled a Tapatalk app that makes browsing the forum a whole lot easier. Check it out in the iPhone or Android store if you don't own it already.

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: WOT but not really  (Read 1100 times)

neiceclimber

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
WOT but not really
« on: January 30, 2014, 12:22:29 PM »

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

I think this article sums up our relationship with good ole champ. Basically to summarize, paraphrase, and generally interpret the article (most likely incorrectly), the author states that the ease of gathering information whether it be real or imagined, true or false and the ability for those perhaps less inclined to listen to those with actual experience has led to the marginalization of expertise. A  dumbing down of our society which is leading to condition that is making it almost impossible to have any type of cohesive and intellectual conversation. A prime example is how thousands are following a former soft core porn stars theory on vaccination, while foregoing the advice of doctors who have spent their entire adult lives studying the ramifications of vaccinations. I certainly have been a part of many of the pitfalls outlined in the article, especially when it comes to politics.
Logged

JBrochu

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1022
  • Doing God's work
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2014, 01:12:14 PM »

I used to believe that the availability of information on the web would actually force politicians to have more open and honest debates but it's turned out just the opposite has happened. There is information overload and they just make up whatever they feel like and yell it into the echo chamber to the point it's sometimes pretty hard to figure out what the actual truth of a given matter is.

I've pretty much lost all hope in humanity and as Jim Morrison said, "I'm just gonna get my kicks in before the whole shithouse goes up in flames."
Logged
Have a quiche, now, or maybe a tort.  You deserve it!
-bristolpipe

I like to keep things simple, even if it's faaaken painful and miserable.
-Stoney Middleton

This is grain, which any fool can eat, but for which the Lord intended a more divine means of consumption.
-Friar Tuck

perswig

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 820
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2014, 01:14:13 PM »

I certainly have been a part of many of the pitfalls outlined in the article, especially when it comes to politics.


I certainly have been a part of many of the pitfalls outlined in the article, especially when it comes to porn stars.
But that's a different story, for a different day.

Now I gotta go read the article.
Dale
Logged
If it's overhanging, I'm probably off-route.

ralbert20

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #3 on: February 02, 2014, 07:04:44 PM »

That was a great article! Though, things always sound better when someone tells you something that you agree with...
Logged

Pete Jackson

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 229
  • RCA guy. Want to help? PM me.
    • Rumney Climbers Association
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2014, 08:17:55 PM »

Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Logged
We came to climb, not to whine.

lucky luke

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1443
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #5 on: February 06, 2014, 12:01:33 PM »

A prime example is how thousands are following a former soft core porn stars theory on vaccination, while foregoing the advice of doctors who have spent their entire adult lives studying the ramifications of vaccinations.

I just read barely the article, but what I understand is more one of his conclusion: "In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible".

What his an expert? For each two year in the field equal one year of university , it is what they call the equivalent. So, we can't state that because someone did six years of university, he is more than an expert who climb every day for ten years in different condition. This is particularly true in climbing when I red some guide self proclaim expert when they can't even rescue some one in danger in a white out in Mt Washington. Claiming that you spend more dollars for courses than day in the field doesn't make you an expert.

What is the conflict between expert is not the theory or practice, it is the conclusion. In a lake, two company fight to have a contract. One company is for the following of fishing industry and the other for the evolution of mercury in the water. If they found no mercury, fishing industry will have the contract, other wise, the other company will have the money. Two analysis and two results. Guest what happen?

Falsification of data is very dangerous and it is accepted in politic, particularly the justice ministry. In Quebec, a teacher change the definition of a world to eliminate a student of having grant. If you have 60 %, and asking for a grant, you will compete with people who will have 85%. Your chance to have a grant are 0%. The teacher change the definition so the student had 60%. The judge asked the teacher: do you change the definition? Of course the teacher can be accused of falsification, criminal offense, and lost his job. The teacher answer no, that what he wrote was O.K. So, the judge, knowing that the definition was false because he cited the definition that we found in literature, protect the teacher...making himself a falsification. That kind of politic, call judiciary power (oppose to legislative power and administrative power of the deputy) is very dangerous. The expert is not reliable because the authority, which is not elected democratically in Quebec, are violent against student. The student lost all his life.

Expert or money maker? Democracy and liberty is very important for me, as well as live free or die. The problem of expert is what you gain from the expert. If a judge can change the life of other just because of his conviction, expert worth nothing. I am for a democratic justice. I like to see in the futur, a panel of twelve person, choose randomly from the population, without interest in a conflict, who will act as a judge for a week. With computer, I think that it is possible that a person of indiana and an other of florida be in a same panel to make the justice really "we the people".       

 
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4543
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #6 on: February 06, 2014, 12:22:26 PM »

That was a great article! Though, things always sound better when someone tells you something that you agree with...

i only like reading things I agree with  :D Unless i want to yell about something
Logged

neiceclimber

  • NEClimbs Senior Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 352
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #7 on: February 07, 2014, 03:34:33 PM »

Very true LL data is in the hands of the presenter. The premise is however if all or nearly all of the presenters seem to be in agreement there are people very vocal people who are not emotionally, physically, or mentally equipped that seem to continuously disrupt conversation based on their opinions and not education. And that these vocal people are given far more attention than those that actually know something about the given subject. In context to you I believe you are very similar to Dostoevsky's character in "Notes from the Underground," particularly the part in which he argues 2+2=5.
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4543
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2014, 06:24:46 PM »

I guess one can't have an opinion and an education at once ?
Logged

ralbert20

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2014, 07:33:36 PM »

I guess one can't have an opinion and an education at once ?

Jon - more that one can ONLY have an opinion AFTER education.
Logged

strandman

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4543
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2014, 08:53:58 PM »

I left college to learn about climbing  ???
Logged

darwined

  • Guest
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2014, 08:17:33 AM »

A prime example is how thousands are following a former soft core porn stars theory on vaccination, while foregoing the advice of doctors who have spent their entire adult lives studying the ramifications of vaccinations.

I just read barely the article, but what I understand is more one of his conclusion: "In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible".

What his an expert? For each two year in the field equal one year of university , it is what they call the equivalent. So, we can't state that because someone did six years of university, he is more than an expert who climb every day for ten years in different condition. This is particularly true in climbing when I red some guide self proclaim expert when they can't even rescue some one in danger in a white out in Mt Washington. Claiming that you spend more dollars for courses than day in the field doesn't make you an expert.

What is the conflict between expert is not the theory or practice, it is the conclusion. In a lake, two company fight to have a contract. One company is for the following of fishing industry and the other for the evolution of mercury in the water. If they found no mercury, fishing industry will have the contract, other wise, the other company will have the money. Two analysis and two results. Guest what happen?

Falsification of data is very dangerous and it is accepted in politic, particularly the justice ministry. In Quebec, a teacher change the definition of a world to eliminate a student of having grant. If you have 60 %, and asking for a grant, you will compete with people who will have 85%. Your chance to have a grant are 0%. The teacher change the definition so the student had 60%. The judge asked the teacher: do you change the definition? Of course the teacher can be accused of falsification, criminal offense, and lost his job. The teacher answer no, that what he wrote was O.K. So, the judge, knowing that the definition was false because he cited the definition that we found in literature, protect the teacher...making himself a falsification. That kind of politic, call judiciary power (oppose to legislative power and administrative power of the deputy) is very dangerous. The expert is not reliable because the authority, which is not elected democratically in Quebec, are violent against student. The student lost all his life.

Expert or money maker? Democracy and liberty is very important for me, as well as live free or die. The problem of expert is what you gain from the expert. If a judge can change the life of other just because of his conviction, expert worth nothing. I am for a democratic justice. I like to see in the futur, a panel of twelve person, choose randomly from the population, without interest in a conflict, who will act as a judge for a week. With computer, I think that it is possible that a person of indiana and an other of florida be in a same panel to make the justice really "we the people".       

 
I'm curious which case you're using as an example.  Could you post a link?
Logged

eyebolter

  • NEClimbs God
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 588
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2014, 05:17:50 PM »

Hate to wade in on this but i think he is talking about Jenny Mcarthy? She was a playboy nude model I think not exactly a porn star.

She had a kid with autism that she said clearly started due to vaccinations. 

Not saying she is right or wrong, but the number of double blind studies comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children is exactly zero.

Big phrama says they won't do them since it is "unethical," given that they already know that vaccinations are "safe and effective."

May or may not be true but not exactly solid science.

Ella has had her DPT series but nothing else.  By this age she would have had 30 vaccinations had she followed the recommended protocol.

Daddy Eyebolter has a hard time vaccinating newborn babies for sexually transmitted and IV drug transmitted diseases, or non-fatal ones, maybe I'm crazy....
Logged

ralbert20

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 187
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #13 on: February 09, 2014, 07:32:17 PM »

I left college to learn about climbing  ???

I said NOTHING about college! I said education. The two are not necessarily related, in fact, seldom are...
Logged

hobbsj

  • NEClimbs Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 145
Re: WOT but not really
« Reply #14 on: February 09, 2014, 11:26:57 PM »

Hate to wade in on this but i think he is talking about Jenny Mcarthy? She was a playboy nude model I think not exactly a porn star.

She had a kid with autism that she said clearly started due to vaccinations. 

Not saying she is right or wrong, but the number of double blind studies comparing vaccinated with unvaccinated children is exactly zero.

Big phrama says they won't do them since it is "unethical," given that they already know that vaccinations are "safe and effective."

May or may not be true but not exactly solid science.

Ella has had her DPT series but nothing else.  By this age she would have had 30 vaccinations had she followed the recommended protocol.

Daddy Eyebolter has a hard time vaccinating newborn babies for sexually transmitted and IV drug transmitted diseases, or non-fatal ones, maybe I'm crazy....

The only studies linking autism to vaccines have long been defunct.  You ask the people who claim this link exists to show you any data, and they can't.  But, they rather go on spewing rhetoric that really has no relation to the argument or things that simply aren't true.  As far as your comment being that pharmacies won't perform double blind studies since they are unethical because there is no link and vaccines are safe, I highly  doubt that is why they aren't done.  You would be hard pressed to find an ERB willing to sanction a study that would randomly assign children to possible developmental harm, especially if there is no evidence to suggest a link.  Its not a big pharmacy thing, its an ethics in research thing. Most data of this sort isn't necessarily from experimental design, especially for initial collection.  But rather, other study designs are implemented to first see if there is a possible link before a true experimental design is attempted.  If there is no correlation, why go through the risk and cost to evaluate for causality?

The fact of the matter is that a child is more likely to suffer negative consequences of a contagious disease rather than any of the proposed negative impacts of vaccines at this point (always possible we could find something later that further supports the use or having us think "man that was a horrible idea."  That's the beauty of science-- it is self-correcting).  Sometimes these zealots are good as they may reveal a new idea to look in to.  But for the most part, its just fear mongering based on emotion.  The tool of the uneducated going on emotion rather than any sort of evidence, just as the original poster stated.

I have strong views on childhood vaccines, but don't mean my statements as an attack on you, so please don't interpret it that way.  But rather just taking examples from what you said to illustrate the point.  Some one could have made a comment regarding the same scenario about something like tie in points or safety of air bags and I would have brought up the same points if they were pertinent.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.168 seconds with 23 queries.