How do we recognize Bad Science from Sound Science?

[RJG]

Yeah that's clearly not what happened in the last 2 years, countless people with otherwise healthy immune systems also got the virus and spread it more easily without masks. Some of them went through hell, they don't need your suicide fantasies pushed on them.

Can we have a respectful discussion here? ...or are you not capable of that? ...this is a serious topic and deserves serious and respectful discussion. Don't join the "cancel-culture" mob by insulting those that you don't agree with.

Look Atla, in response to your comment above, immune people in general do not spread the virus. Check the science if you don't believe me. The rate of replication, and potential expulsion of viral particles back out into the environment, in general, is a function of the health of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy fast immune responses have no or significantly less replication (and less potential to spread viral particles back out into the environment) than those with weak immune systems. Those with weak immune responses (that become infected) have massive amounts of viral replication and high potential of viral expulsion back out into the environment.

If you want to argue that even a small chance of replication with an even smaller chance of expulsion of viral particles out into the environment can still cause potential infections/deaths, then I would have to agree with you.

I would also agree with you that there is a small chance that ambulances that respond to emergencies can get into traffic accidents and still cause injuries/deaths.

But logically, we know that banning ambulances from responding to emergencies will cause MORE deaths, not less deaths.
And likewise, if we apply the same logic, we know that preventing immune people from running "interference" (stopping the transmission of the virus) from reaching vulnerable people, will also cause MORE deaths, not less deaths.

If you want to better understand how immune people protect vulnerable people then review the Mosquito Analogy, or if you want a less detailed more simplified view, take a look at this video https://youtu.be/8BUCi5Tuzms

[Atla]

Can we have a respectful discussion here?

We can't, I think it's disrespectful to put a philosophy forum into a position where the owners might be held responsible for letting such topics stay.

Look Atla, in response to your comment above, immune people in general do not spread the virus. Check the science if you don't believe me. The rate of replication, and potential expulsion of viral particles back out into the environment, in general, is a function of the health of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy fast immune responses have no or significantly less replication than those with weak immune systems.

If you want to argue that even a small chance of replication with an even smaller chance of expulsion of viral particles out into the environment can still cause potential infections/deaths, then I would have to agree with you.

That's what's been happening, many people with healthy immune systems spread the virus too.

What you're saying is like: since most people below 30 have healthy immune systems, most people below 30 never, ever get sick to the point where they spread viruses.

[RJG]

Can we have a respectful discussion here?

We can't, I think it's disrespectful to put a philosophy forum into a position where the owners might be held responsible for letting such topics stay.

Are you the God of all Truth? …seriously Atla, you need to stop the "cancel-culture" mobster tactics.

We get Truth (and falses) from Logic. And if we can take away the emotion (and fear mongering) out of the equation, and look at this problem logically, then we can then see the massive self-destruction that we are causing.

Look Atla, in response to your comment above, immune people in general do not spread the virus. Check the science if you don't believe me. The rate of replication, and potential expulsion of viral particles back out into the environment, in general, is a function of the health of one's immune system. Those with strong healthy fast immune responses have no or significantly less replication (and less potential to spread viral particles back out into the environment) than those with weak immune systems. Those with weak immune responses (that become infected) have massive amounts of viral replication and high potential of viral expulsion back out into the environment.

If you want to argue that even a small chance of replication with an even smaller chance of expulsion of viral particles out into the environment can still cause potential infections/deaths, then I would have to agree with you.

I would also agree with you that there is a small chance that ambulances that respond to emergencies can get into traffic accidents and still cause injuries/deaths.

But logically, we know that banning ambulances from responding to emergencies will cause MORE deaths, not less deaths.

And likewise, if we apply the same logic, we know that preventing immune people from running "interference" (stopping the transmission of the virus) from reaching vulnerable people, will also cause MORE deaths, not less deaths.

If you want to better understand how immune people protect vulnerable people then review the Mosquito Analogy, or if you want a less detailed more simplified view, take a look at this video https://youtu.be/8BUCi5Tuzms

That's what's been happening, many people with healthy immune systems spread the virus too.

You are stuck with whats called "line-of-sight" vision (i.e. you can't see the deadly logical consequences of masking and socially isolating our healthy immune people).

Do you see the deadly logical consequences of banning ambulances from responding to emergencies? …if so, then try to look at the logical consequences associated with banning healthy immune people from unmasked socialization.

Your inability to recognize the tremendous life saving benefits of "unmasked socialization" is preventing you from seeing the great harm (massive deaths and acceleration of mutations) that is being caused by our foolish actions.

What you're saying is like: since most people below 30 have healthy immune systems, most people below 30 never, ever get sick to the point where they spread viruses.

I didn't say that.

[Atla]

Are you the God of all Truth? …seriously Atla, you need to stop the "cancel-culture" mobster tactics.

You seem to be that backwards guy who thinks that since some things are unfairly attacked by cancel-culture (which is true), as a result anything goes, and then laments about being the victim.

[Sculptor1]

Are you the God of all Truth? …seriously Atla, you need to stop the "cancel-culture" mobster tactics.

You need to stay off Fox News. It's not good for you to be exposed to so much hate everyday

[stevie]

Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

"Logic" refers to deductive logic.
"Logically sound" refers to logical conclusion drawn from true premise statements with a valid argument structure.

Ok but that kind of logic only applies to hypotheses. But hypotheses have to be validated by experiments and observations otherwise it's not science.

[Sculptor1]

Ok but then you have to specify "logic" and based on that specification define "logically sound".

"Logic" refers to deductive logic.
"Logically sound" refers to logical conclusion drawn from true premise statements with a valid argument structure.

Ok but that kind of logic only applies to hypotheses. But hypotheses have to be validated by experiments and observations otherwise it's not science.

Indeed and even if logically sound there are serious problems with logic, if the premises upon which conclusions are built are weak or false, but more importantly the choice of premises are partial, and limited.
IN the case above the premises do not take account of trivial factors such as death rates.

[RJG]

Ok but that kind of logic only applies to hypotheses. But hypotheses have to be validated by experiments and observations otherwise it's not science.

Logic trumps science.

********

Indeed and even if logically sound there are serious problems with logic, if the premises upon which conclusions are built are weak or false, but more importantly the choice of premises are partial, and limited.

"Logically sound" means: 1. All premises are true, and 2. Argument structure is (mathematically) valid.

IN the case above the premises do not take account of trivial factors such as death rates.

"Death rates" have nothing to do with the soundness of the logic in the OP. If you believe it does, show your logic.

If you wish to look at "death rates" from a logical perspective then logically the "death rates" are tremendously LOWER when we allow immune people to save lives (via implementing herd immunity; unmasked socialization).

Immune people provide tremendous life saving 'protection' to vulnerable people, as do ambulance drivers; ambulance drivers provide tremendous life saving protection to vulnerable people.

Preventing (masking/isolating) Immune people from SAVING LIVES is not only highly IRRATIONAL, but is also despicably IMMORAL

Again, if you think I'm wrong, then show the error in my logic, ...instead of casting insults.

[AverageBozo]

# RJ

I have often revisited your claim regarding healthy people, with intact immune systems, and the life-saving effect they could have for the vulnerable.

You may recall that, initially, I was among your detractors until I approached your logic without prejudicially clinging to the so-called status quo or traditional thinking about herd immunity.

But now I’ve come to a crossroads again.

If the healthy among us were encouraged to go maskless and socialize ad lib, herd immunity would be achieved and some of the healthy ones will have got sick, even a few might die. Nonetheless, heard immunity would have been achieved.

On the other hand, if herd immunity were achieved through total vaccination of the human population, fewer healthy ones, by 80-something per cent, would get sick, and even fewer would die (assuming incidence and severity of the illness is ameliorated by vaccination).

The resulting herd immunity is identical by either approach. However, the toll in work days lost, and also lives lost, would favor vaccination.

Can you counter this for me, please?

[stevie]

Ok but that kind of logic only applies to hypotheses. But hypotheses have to be validated by experiments and observations otherwise it's not science.

Logic trumps science.

Maybe in your head but science progresses outside of your head.

[RJG]

Logic trumps science

Maybe in your head but science progresses outside of your head.

You are forgetting that the truths of science are "man-made" (subjective; created inside our head), whereas the truths of logic (and math) are "given-to-man" (objective; created outside our head).

Objectivity trumps Subjectivity.
Logic trumps Science.


****************

I have often revisited your claim regarding healthy people, with intact immune systems, and the life-saving effect they could have for the vulnerable.

You may recall that, initially, I was among your detractors until I approached your logic without prejudicially clinging to the so-called status quo or traditional thinking about herd immunity.

But now I’ve come to a crossroads again.

If the healthy among us were encouraged to go maskless and socialize ad lib, herd immunity would be achieved and some of the healthy ones will have got sick, even a few might die. Nonetheless, heard immunity would have been achieved.

On the other hand, if herd immunity were achieved through total vaccination of the human population, fewer healthy ones, by 80-something per cent, would get sick, and even fewer would die (assuming incidence and severity of the illness is ameliorated by vaccination).

The resulting herd immunity is identical by either approach. However, the toll in work days lost, and also lives lost, would favor vaccination.

Can you counter this for me, please?

Here is the short and simple counter:
Vaccinations don't protect vulnerable people. Herd immunity protects vulnerable people!

To add a little more clarity and logic:
P1. Vulnerable people are still 'vulnerable' to this virus even if multi-vaccinated and boostered.
P2. Vulnerable vaccinated people still die from this virus. The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
P3. Healthy vaccinated people (those with healthy fast-responding immune systems), in general, do not die from this virus.
P4. Healthy vaccinated people that "participate" in herd immunity (via unmasked socialization) protect vulnerable people by "running interference"; by blocking the transmission of the virus to the vulnerable person.

C1. Therefore, even if we could vaccinate 100% of the population, vulnerable people would still get infected and their weak immune systems would continue to replicate the virus back out into the environment, creating more infections and deaths, and further allowing new mutations to develop. These new mutations would then require new vaccines to be developed and "on and on we would go" into our never-ending death spiral of mutation after mutation because of our inability to recognize what truly stops this virus and protects our vulnerable population.

One of the great tragedies of this covid era is the inability by many to recognize the tremendous life saving benefits of unmasked socialization. We have been so brainwashed into separating and masking people, that we are blinded to the massive damage it causes.

[AverageBozo]

Logic trumps science

Maybe in your head but science progresses outside of your head.

You are forgetting that the truths of science are "man-made" (subjective; created inside our head), whereas the truths of logic (and math) are "given-to-man" (objective; created outside our head).

Objectivity trumps Subjectivity.
Logic trumps Science.

Science is objectivity.

****************

I have often revisited your claim regarding healthy people, with intact immune systems, and the life-saving effect they could have for the vulnerable.

You may recall that, initially, I was among your detractors until I approached your logic without prejudicially clinging to the so-called status quo or traditional thinking about herd immunity.

But now I’ve come to a crossroads again.

If the healthy among us were encouraged to go maskless and socialize ad lib, herd immunity would be achieved and some of the healthy ones will have got sick, even a few might die. Nonetheless, heard immunity would have been achieved.

On the other hand, if herd immunity were achieved through total vaccination of the human population, fewer healthy ones, by 80-something per cent, would get sick, and even fewer would die (assuming incidence and severity of the illness is ameliorated by vaccination).

The resulting herd immunity is identical by either approach. However, the toll in work days lost, and also lives lost, would favor vaccination.

Can you counter this for me, please?

Here is the short and simple counter:
Vaccinations don't protect vulnerable people. Herd immunity protects vulnerable people!

To add a little more clarity and logic:
P1. Vulnerable people are still 'vulnerable' to this virus even if multi-vaccinated and boostered.
P2. Vulnerable vaccinated people still die from this virus. The empirical evidence is overwhelming.
P3. Healthy vaccinated people (those with healthy fast-responding immune systems), in general, do not die from this virus.
P4. Healthy vaccinated people that "participate" in herd immunity (via unmasked socialization) protect vulnerable people by "running interference"; by blocking the transmission of the virus to the vulnerable person.

C1. Therefore, even if we could vaccinate 100% of the population, vulnerable people would still get infected and their weak immune systems would continue to replicate the virus back out into the environment, creating more infections and deaths, and further allowing new mutations to develop. These new mutations would then require new vaccines to be developed and "on and on we would go" into our never-ending death spiral of mutation after mutation because of our inability to recognize what truly stops this virus and protects our vulnerable population.

One of the great tragedies of this covid era is the inability by many to recognize the tremendous life saving benefits of unmasked socialization. We have been so brainwashed into separating and masking people, that we are blinded to the massive damage it causes.

I don’t think you understand my post. I am not talking about the plight of the vulnerable. I am only remarking that more healthy unvaccinated people will suffer from the morbidity and mortality of Covid than will healthy vaccinated people. That’s the difference I want to see countered. The results as far as the vulnerable are concerned are no different from one approach to the other, but the price to be paid is greater for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated. More people with intact immune systems will suffer if unvaccinated than those who are vaccinated.

[RJG]

Science is objectivity.

"In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity (bias caused by one's perception, emotions, or imagination). A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. - Wikipedia

• The truths of Science are "man-made" (a posteriori; subjective) truths.
  The truths of Math/Logic are "given-to-man" (a priori; objective) truths.
  
  The truths of Science evolve and change.
  The truths of Math/Logic never change.
  
  The truths of Science are fallible.
  The truths of Math/Logic are not fallible.

I am only remarking that more healthy unvaccinated people will suffer from the morbidity and mortality of Covid than will healthy vaccinated people.

I don't necessarily disagree. Though some healthy un-vaccinated people may have better immune responses than some healthy vaccinated people. But to your point, vaccinations, in general, help improve the response of the immune system. The healthier and faster responding one's immune system, the less likely to be susceptible to the ill effects of covid, and the less likely to replicate and emit viral particles back out into the environment.

Vulnerable people, those with weak immune systems (including those that have been vaccinated) will suffer the ill effects of covid, and replicate and emit viral particles proportionally more (in general) than those with healthier immune systems (vaccinated or not).

The health and responsiveness of one's immune system is the important "key criteria", ...it is not one's vaccination status!

...but the price to be paid is greater for the unvaccinated than the vaccinated.

Yes, in general this is true. But again the key is not necessarily one's "vaccination status" but instead, one's "immune system status". - It is the health of our immune system (not our vaccination status) that generally determines if we are of the "vulnerable" or "healthy" classification.

[stevie]

Logic trumps science

Maybe in your head but science progresses outside of your head.

You are forgetting that the truths of science are "man-made" (subjective; created inside our head), whereas the truths of logic (and math) are "given-to-man" (objective; created outside our head).

Objectivity trumps Subjectivity.
Logic trumps Science.

I am not forgetting that our views, yours and mine, are - as you say - "man-made" (subjective; created inside our head) but that applies to "logic (and math)" as well, and it applies to scientific knowledge as well.

But you are neglecting conventions. Your logic may be your private logic or based on the conventions of logic. And the same applies to science. And as to scientific conventions logic may be applied to hypotheses which however have to be validated through experiements, otherwise it's not science.

[RJG]

Your logic may be your private logic or based on the conventions of logic.

Again it is not "my" logic. I am referring to "deductive" logic. It appears that you do not understand deductive logic. Deductive logic is mathematics (in words). None of us created logic or math. So it cannot be "my" or "your" math or "my" or "your" logic. These are "given" to us; are a prior truths.

Logic (and math) are "objective" truths because they are rationally impossible to deny. Arguing that (deductive) logic does not provide us with truth is a futile (and foolish) argument because any (logical) argument that tries to defeat logic, only defeats itself (the argument). And any illogical argument that tries to defeat logic defeats nothing.

For if we argue that logic is invalid, then we only invalidate our own argument. We cut off the very legs upon which we make our stand.

And as to scientific conventions logic may be applied to hypotheses which however have to be validated through experiments, otherwise it's not science.

Again, contrary to indoctrinated belief, we don't get objective truths through science. The truths of science are experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential).

*******************

TRUTH HIERARCHY:
1. Absolute truth -- undeniable/undoubtable (…Descartes foundation of all knowledge)
2. Objective truth -- logically derived - via logic/math (a priori; pre-experiential)
3. Subjective truth -- experientially derived - via subjective experiences (a posteriori; post-experiential)
4. Religious truth -- via blind faiths
5. Non-truth -- via logical impossibilities

An Absolute Truth (#1) is the highest level of ‘certainty’ (real-ness); it is the singular premise/conclusion statement (that Descartes was searching for) that does not require supporting premises to vouch for its truthfulness. It is not 'derived'. It is the beginning, the ‘seed’, upon which to build and grow all ‘true’ knowledge.

Objective Truths (#2) are the next highest level of ‘certainties’; these are “logically derived” via deduction. These truths are known and qualified as “logical truths”.

Subjective Truths (#3) (“experientially derived”), and Religious Truth (#4) are not trustworthy to yield ‘true’ (real; certain) knowledge. Those truths reliant upon the uncertain nature of experiential objects, or from blind faiths, can never be certain, or known as truthful. Non-truths (#5) are not logically possible.