@anatomical_normalcy @RogerBW @jascha you don't need to debunk flat earth. It's perfectly fine, you'll just have to deal with a horrible geometry and a lot of additional assumptions to compensate for your shitty model 🧚
Aaand: as a local approximation it's killer :)
@unionwhore @gsc @anatomical_normalcy @RogerBW @jascha
Presumably as opposed to the Globally Flat Earth Society
...wait
@jascha it's the whole point of science.
The friction occurs because of who funds studies, etc. And that can be legitimate.
But science itself is just science.
Every conversation I have had where I encountered this, I made that point. And it sticks.
There is bias in some aspects of what is *presented* as science.
But that's not science.
Science is not marketing. So I point to that. 🙃
@knowprose @jascha one of the reasons we founded BIML was to do science unencumbered by marketing pressure #MLsec
@noplasticshower @jascha One of the many reasons I follow you.
My own writing tends toward the same thing, but I am not a scientist. I just follow coherence. It takes me to interesting places. :)
@noplasticshower @jascha It's a marathon, that's for sure.
The Distraction economy keeps the good stuff out of people's heads. Been writing about that, though data sovereignty has been the more prominent thing in the past week. Wrapping that up today on knowprose.com.
Not exactly, for example, medical research is riddled with misogyny. The bias towards white males in scientific studies does lead to conclusions which are incorrectly applied to the whole of humanity.
@GutterPoetry @jascha That is a valid issue.
That is a science issue but it is a blind spot that is being addressed.
I'll give you an example.
My father was in a diabetic coma, but he had no ketones in his urine. Why? He was East Indian. The medicine around that has changed.
Not misogyny. Misogyny requires intent. Medicine has been biased toward white males. No question. But I won't say every doctor who built it hated women. That seems extreme.
Some did. Maybe many. But not all.
@GutterPoetry @jascha So to follow up and be clear...
Has there been misogyny in medicine? Yes.
Is all medicine misogynistic? No.
Nuance.
@knowprose @GutterPoetry @jascha Wrong nuance.
Your little hair split doesn't even matter because you left out the important bit:
* Is there a system of misogyny in medical science that results in improper medicine? Yes.
"But not everyone is misogynistic..." 🙄
You're not even making a point even though you think it's a very important one.
"nuance" <- ass
@crazyeddie @GutterPoetry @jascha i am glad for the response.
The point is broad brushes don't hit the corners that do need to be addressed.
Like heart attacks in women. Ketone in urine related to diabetic comas. Etc.
Overuse causes these things to be lost in the broad brush.
And again, misogyny assumes intent. It's in the very definition of the word, pre-supposing.
Oversight happen regardless of intent.
@crazyeddie @GutterPoetry @jascha now, derptron, if you wish to call me an ass because of that point, that's on you.
At least you did not call me a misogynist. That was the obvious trap.
Misogyny exists. The problem is what needs to be addressed regardless of intent, and that is bigger than all of us.
Good talk. 🙃
Science is only as unbiased as the researcher, and given that most people (even women) carry unconscious bias against women, there is little chance that this issue will be addressed so easily. The same goes for racial bias. Knowing about the problem doesn't alleviate it, huge changes must be made, studies replicated, new investigations carried out.
Misogyny can be overt or not & through direct and indirect means. Neglect of female health is misogyny & wasn't accidental.
@GutterPoetry @jascha I have no question that there is bias. That's part of being human.
Which is where peer reviews, etc, come in.
As to specific biases that you are pointing to... I don't have specific data so I cannot comment on it.
The whole point of science, imho, it to fill in holes in our knowledge and to ask better questions.
Do you have any ideas on how to improve on the issues you perceive?
As I said, replication of biased studies with a representative study population & disregard of older biased studies. Deliberate new research ~ women & other marginalised groups. Scientists & medical staff being forced to recognise the seriousness of past & present bias, so the issues cannot be downplayed any longer - meaning oversight from a body with the power to effect change globally (punish financially). Not likely, especially in the trump (white male superiority) era.
. . . this one neat trick. ugh.
…discovered by a single mom
@jascha
Reminds me of that joke
Child to his biologist dad:
"Dad what's an electron?"
Dad: "Why don't you ask your mom, she's the physicist, electrons are her wheelworks."
Child: "But I don't want to know *that* much about it."
A pair of condensed matter physicists here, so yeah 😎
@jascha while I agree that it is indeed an overly generalist statement, I don’t think you should dismiss everything someone says after they made a possible mistake.
Physicians often don’t want you to know about metaphysics. Biologists often don’t want you to know about endogenetics. Computer scientists don’t want you to understand quantum computers.
Scientists are people like everyone else, and they too will often deny what you say based on bias or pass you off like a hot potato.
@arendjr @jascha I can think of no reason why a computer scientist wouldn't want you to understand quantum computers. There's furthermore plenty of stuff you can read online about them. You can dig into all the theory and learn quite a lot.
What makes you think we want to hide this knowledge from you? It's not like you can go build a quantum computer and accidentally everyone into dust or puddles of bio remnant goo.
@crazyeddie @jascha haha, I’m not saying it goes for all of them, but I’ve run into plenty of such programmers in my career.
As for baseless accusations, I guess the shoe fits 😅
@csolisr this obsession with demonising funders is the same strand of anti-science, honestly.
Most funders are also people, part of an org set up to... Fund science.
Globally, much research is funded by governments (so via taxes, interested in R&D and the benefits to local areas that brings, primarily), charities (and ultimately citizens for the most part) and industry. And some big donors, but again mostly because they have pet causes.
Sure there can be some conflicts of interest with industry and government and wealthy individuals. But overwhelmingly it's just... Funding.
It's disclosed in publications. The scrutiny should be on scammers - in the US, medical insurance systems for example, and the 'wellness industry', multibillion dollars wasted on trash studied and marketing worldwide. And 'alt med'.
This idea that scientists' funders are all out there making nefarious decisions and invalidating research findings is just as rubbish as making scientists out to be evil secret-hoarders.
John P. Green
tomate 🍅
Elvith Ma'for
Roger BW 😷
AnatomicalNormalcy🇺🇦🇪🇺🇩🇰
gsec
Union Whore
Ava
Leeloo
Savannology
cyberia
Curio
Bill the Lizard
Taran Rampersad
noplasticshower
GutterPoetry
derptron
zy
Octavia Con Amore 
Succubard's Library
alvin 👍 🥉
Sverik 🇪🇪💙🇺🇦
Marianne
MaxTheFox
EinsPossum, Hass-Ära 2.0
Kim Possible 
glasspshr
Chu 朱
Dianora (Diane Bruce)
CelloMom On Cars
cometsncats.bsky.social
smeg
Alexander Knochel
sollat
RowinSpeez
Arend van Beelen
Em & future cats 🇺🇦🐈🏳️🌈
John McCabe-Dansted
GJ Groothedde 🇪🇺
Carlos Solís