Re: [silk] War on Science?

harry wrote on 3/24/19 10:06 AM March 24, 2019> I have lived in communities where polio was prevalent - and I have seen people from a couple of generations crippled and maimed with the after effects of polio (and not the unseen others who died for the lack of a vaccine). I know one guy whose

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 10:07, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 9:37 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > > > > > WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern > > > > "The politics of polio" by Dr. Pushpa Bhargava an eminent microbiologist > who returned his

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:49, Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Or treating scientists as priests, which is possibly worse (Jordan Peterson). Even worse is when reputation in one field somehow confers scientific credentials (Gwyneth Paltrow). Saw this [1] on my feed

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 12:56, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > So is the placebo effect science? It is greater than expected by chance, > isn't it? > AFAIK, most (all?) drug trials have control, experiment *and* placebo[1]. Authorities don't approve drugs that underperform the placebo. I'm not sure

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 03:23, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Things like vaccination are tricky because they are not strictly science. > Science is repeatable, and things that don't work on everyone the same > don't strictly deserve the label of science. What? That's not right. It's perfectly

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:41 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > On the other hand, where would any of us be without drug companies producing > antibiotics and painkillers? I am not anti-science - obviously a great many things are better off due to it, and I owe my own life to science but at the same time

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:32, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:24 PM Deepa Agashe > wrote: >> >> >> Scientists are not the same as pharma companies. I don’t understand exactly >> what would you like scientists to do. > > A couple of

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> It is what keeps for example homeopathy in business so .. It is the favorite whipping boy of pseudo science for the moment. Which reminds me of the water memory experiments done by another Nobel Laureate, Luc Montagnier. I don't think the science is quite settled there.

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:24 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > > > Scientists are not the same as pharma companies. I don’t understand exactly > what would you like scientists to do. A couple of Southernisms come to mind, you can't waller with the pigs and not get dirty, or you can't sleep with the dogs

Re: [silk] War on Science?

It is what keeps for example homeopathy in business so .. On 05/02/19, 12:56 PM, "silklist on behalf of Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater > repeatability than

Re: [silk] War on Science?

As long as a Martin Shkrell-esque big pharma is a convenient whipping boy that nobody objects to why at all spoil the argument by bringing cold logic into it? On 05/02/19, 1:24 PM, "silklist on behalf of Deepa Agashe" wrote: > On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:02, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote:

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:02, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe > wrote: > >> and the fact that vaccines fail in 1% (or some such small fraction) of >> humans does not make this understanding unscientific. > > > 1% of a 100

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 1:15 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > Yes, it is. And a very useful one, actually. Indeed, yet medical systems that rely on it (in addition to other active agents) are dismissed as quackery, unless it is from a big drug company of course.

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> On 05-Feb-2019, at 12:56, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe > wrote: > >> As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater >> repeatability than expected by chance- i.e. the signal to noise ratio is >>

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:32 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: > Known measurable failure rates > It's not the same as building a bridge that comes crashing down - the fundamental problem is understood in bridge building but due to human error these failures can occur. However in medicine the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > and the fact that vaccines fail in 1% (or some such small fraction) of > humans does not make this understanding unscientific. 1% of a 100 million children is 1 million. Even 0.1% is 100,000 kids that will definitely have an adverse

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe wrote: > As I see it, scientific understanding means that we have greater > repeatability than expected by chance- i.e. the signal to noise ratio is > high. So is the placebo effect science? It is greater than expected by chance, isn't it?

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Known measurable failure rates Failure rates that reduce based on periodic improvements in a vaccine + in clinical protocols I fail to see what is unscientific here. On 05/02/19, 11:53 AM, "silklist on behalf of Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: Thanks to the many who wrote in to say that

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> Things like vaccination are tricky because they are not strictly science. > Science is repeatable, and things that don't work on everyone the same > don't strictly deserve the label of science. That doesn't mean they should > never be made mandatory, there merely has to be a very very high

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Thanks to the many who wrote in to say that science is not the last word on reality, we now see that science can be wrong, is always only the partial truth, and the key is to be open to new ideas. If we see that all of us; scientists and non-scientists alike are in the business of understanding

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Last bits of information on vaccines: My kids are grown, and current on their MMR, chickenpox, HPV, tetanus, and flu shots. They've also had the rabies series. I have severe egg allergy and am delighted that egg-free flu shots became available a few years ago. The co-evolution of

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 00:23, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: As for crowd diseases being benign and immunity, I'd suggest looking at > either whooping cough or polio for counter examples. Or German measles > (rubella) - which, if a pregnant woman contracts it, is mild for her, but > can and will

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Mon, 4 Feb 2019 at 01:50, Heather Madrone wrote: > It's also the reason to question science and its findings, warts and > all. It's the scientific method all the way down. Checking past work and > assumptions is part of it. > > "Measure three times and cut once" is from carpentry, not

Re: [silk] War on Science?

The rabies vaccine has gone a long way from the 6 dose goat brain cultured vaccine to the new (as of 3 decades ago or more) chicken embryo cultured ones. As for crowd diseases being benign and immunity, I'd suggest looking at either whooping cough or polio for counter examples. Or German

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Kiran K Karthikeyan wrote on 2/3/19 2:44 AM February 3, 2019: This leads me to the point I'm trying to make - the reason to accept science and its findings, warts and all, is simply because we are human and the scientific method is the best method of enquiry we have at our disposal. This

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:25, Alok Prasanna Kumar wrote: > Thanks Kiran. I think that's a really great way to put things. I've been > thinking about this in multiple contexts, especially when scientific > research and findings are reported in mass media. It's quite easy for > people to "debunk"

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 16:14, Kiran K Karthikeyan < kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> wrote: > This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for > a while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper > discussion on the various nuances of each cited

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Thanks Kiran. I think that's a really great way to put things. I've been thinking about this in multiple contexts, especially when scientific research and findings are reported in mass media. It's quite easy for people to "debunk" claims when they haven't understood them in the first place and

Re: [silk] War on Science?

This thread has had me huffing and puffing (or perhaps hand wringing) for a while, but the topic is such that any response can be countered. A proper discussion on the various nuances of each cited instance where science has apparently failed is one I am woefully inadequate for. Therefore, I say

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 9:37 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian > WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern > "The politics of polio" by Dr. Pushpa Bhargava an eminent microbiologist who returned his Padma Bhushan in protest.

Re: [silk] War on Science?

How easy is it for parents (ALL parents) to find the UN protocol? If an organization had sexual harrassment protocol on paper and it was not very easy to find it, and there was an instance of sexual harrassment in that organization, what happens? On Sun, Feb 3, 2019, 09:37 Suresh Ramasubramanian

Re: [silk] War on Science?

WHO has defined vaccine protocols that address your concern Also the supposed individual risk from vaccines is vanishingly rare and this is well documented too Plus some of the things most vaccine deniers allege have never yet been backed with data

Re: [silk] War on Science?

I think the main problem in the vaccine 'system' is that there is the collective societal benefit and risk and there is individual benefit and risk and the two are conjoined. But unlike some other systems, the collective societal benefit can only be realized by people forcibly taking on the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2019 at 10:36 PM Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Similarly there are kids who get polio solely because of the vaccine, > Vaccine-derived > polioviruses (VDPVs). No one disputes this, but now it becomes a > philosophical question whether even one victim is one too many. Guess which >

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Add to what Charles said - Science is observable, testable and repeatable. Which means you can observe x, test your hypothesis of what (y) causes x and you can + others can repeat y leading to x. This means that for something like vaccination for which you have several generations of

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Sat, 2 Feb 2019 at 14:23, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of > "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized: > this can be called technology or engineering but not science. > So you're saying the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Srini RamaKrishnan wrote on 2/2/19 9:06 AM February 2, 2019: I don't think I'm qualified to make sense of all the medical literature, but here's what is obvious to me. Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the truth until it is conclusively found with no room for

Re: [silk] War on Science?

The goal of applied science is not the truth. Since world war 1 the goal of "science" has been subverted to find applications that can be monetized: this can be called technology or engineering but not science. Those with the real scientific temper cannot accept a solution that still has open

Re: [silk] War on Science?

I don't think I'm qualified to make sense of all the medical literature, but here's what is obvious to me. Science is fundamentally about healthy disagreement and debate over the truth until it is conclusively found with no room for argument. There's a club of 500 eminent researchers in the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

one study indicates that measles can "erase" a person's other immunities, leaving them vulnerable to infections for 2-3 years afterwardhttps://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2015/05/07/404963436/scientists-crack-a-50-year-old-mystery-about-the-measles-vaccine

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Research says that even malnourished kids benefit by the  way https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527386/ And that's not the only nonsense hegde spouts besides quoting other charlatans in this space like Gary Null Here are a couple of rebuttals you can read 

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 4:05 PM Srini RamaKrishnan > https://www.moneylife.in/article/science-and-politics-of-vaccines/36886.html > > > > I thought you had done your research Suresh, so I didn't check earlier > I apologize, I'll retract that, I see comments by you in the article from a while back

Re: [silk] War on Science?

https://www.moneylife.in/article/science-and-politics-of-vaccines/36886.html The more I read I find his stand on vaccination very reasonable, he merely says giving vaccines to malnourished children is dangerous. A full stomach is better than a vaccine at preventing infection. I thought you had

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 1:32 PM Suresh Ramasubramanian There is absolutely no open mind possible for vaccine deniers. And they > cause far too much harm to be anything other than dismissed outright. I am > sorry if we disagree on that matter. > Before you completely close your mind I'd like to know

Re: [silk] War on Science?

There is absolutely no open mind possible for vaccine deniers. And they cause far too much harm to be anything other than dismissed outright. I am sorry if we disagree on that matter. Doctor qualifications or not, he's now a full blown quack. On 01/02/19, 1:04 PM, "silklist on behalf of Srini

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 1:00 PM Srini RamaKrishnan You've got to keep an open mind about these things, listen to his talks, he's astonishingly bright. I have to add that he's ethical and noble in his quest to find the truth, something I'd never accuse drug companies of. >

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Fri, Feb 1, 2019, 11:56 AM Suresh Ramasubramanian > BM Hegde is a full blown anti vaxxer Why is any credence at all > being paid to his claims? You've got to keep an open mind about these things, listen to his talks, he's astonishingly bright. I think the truth in these cases lies

Re: [silk] War on Science?

BM Hegde is a full blown anti vaxxer Why is any credence at all being paid to his claims? --srs On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 9:35 AM +0530, "Srini RamaKrishnan" wrote: The respected medical journal Lancet is named after the

Re: [silk] War on Science?

The respected medical journal Lancet is named after the knife used to lance boils - and this was the specific metaphor the journal founder intended to convey, to bring a modicum of scientific rigor to the work of medicine which he felt was a messy boil on the face of humanity, full of half truths

Re: [silk] War on Science?

cf https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html And yet Oregon State's Pauling institute still publishes nonsense like this https://lpi.oregonstate.edu/mic/health-disease/common-cold --srs On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at

Re: [silk] War on Science?

I was about to say that I'm very much reminded of Linus Pauling, when he mentioned that he's a disciple of Linus Pauling. It's quite sad when a respected intellect in one field thinks that makes them an expert in unrelated fields and then promulgates nonsense like Pauling did. -- Charles On

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 9:52 AM Vani Murarka wrote: > Deeply appreciative of the discussion going on here at present, the muck > in science and in religion being called out. > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es5lfOeobAs I came across this excellent talk by Dr. Rustum Roy today. He's a

Re: [silk] War on Science? / Philosophy

The original article for this thread (http://www.atimes.com/indias-war-science/) had a simple point -- science is a threat to the inherent wisdom of the ages. Given that the discussion has broadened I'm including something I wrote a while back in response to a different Facebook thread about

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Deeply appreciative of the discussion going on here at present, the muck in science and in religion being called out. Haven't read Srini RamaKrishnan's post "Building a better world" yet. Maybe it isn't a very great time for me to open my mouth, because I am feeling so deeply immersed in beauty

Re: [silk] War on Science?

I am not saying science done well isn't worthwhile, just as politics done well is beautiful, but the real world practice of both leaves much to be desired - unless one accepts that that's just how things are. There is a virtue signalling with regards to science in some kinds of political debate

Re: [silk] War on Science?

> > On Feb 21, 2018 6:24 PM, "Biju Chacko" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan > wrote: > > > > > > Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an > > > indication of quality. Neither is questioning

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Feb 21, 2018 6:24 PM, "Biju Chacko" wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > > > Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an > > indication of quality. Neither is questioning science

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: > > Paying respect to science is good form, but doesn't always mean it's an > indication of quality. Neither is questioning science inherently a bad > idea. Erm, there's a hell of a difference between questioning

Re: [silk] War on Science?

On Feb 21, 2018 9:17 AM, wrote: https://www.facebook.com/lynn.wheeler/posts/10214578899241825 (which points to http://www.atimes.com/indias-war-science/) Please join the discussion and add comments if you know more about this? I don't use Facebook, I'm even

Re: [silk] War on Science?

Says "content not available now". Either that post is private or it has been removed. With the BJP in power there's enough of our local version of creationists and other assorted idiots who have suddenly found themselves in charge of education boards, ministries and such. So, entirely