Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 75 of 75

Thread: What does “ the science” say about Coronavirus 19 at the moment?

  1. #71
    Senior Member herbgeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    2,461
    What I've read is that ivermectin binds to the ACE2 receptor, which is where covid would bind, giving the virus no way to enter the cell and reproduce.

  2. #72
    Senior Member JaneV2.0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13,394
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    That article also reminds me of the very old joke in the LGBT world that is based off of the supposed evolutionary influences of men wanting to spread their seed far and wide and women wanting someone to help raise a kid.

    A: What does a lesbian bring to a second date?

    A: A uhaul.

    A: What does a gay man bring on a second date?

    A: What’s a second date?’
    And yet, there you are.
    Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.

  3. #73
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,714
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneV2.0 View Post
    And yet, there you are.
    Stereotypes are seductive, but crude. And not much use in the real world.
    I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.

  4. #74
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,240
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post
    I’ve often thought that when people talk about “privilege” or “fragility” in connection with a particular race. Or the stereotype of the homicidal cop.
    Some stereotypes are more equal than others.

  5. #75
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Always logged in
    Posts
    19,240
    Quote Originally Posted by befree View Post
    iris lilies, the article from "buzzfeed" (not at all what I would consider a reliable source, unlike Harvard, CDC, and other actual SCIENTIFIC sources) references b.s. papers submitted from people in the humanities field - gender studies would fall under psychology or sociology fields, not hard science. And even then, most of the reputable journals in the humanities field rejected these nonsense papers. That's why I say look at reputable sources - buzzfeed and most laypeople don't even begin to understand the concepts of validity, reliability, reproducibility, and other components of scientific method. Giving equal credence to science and not-science is comparing apples to oranges. If people think an article quoted on reddit is "scientific proof" no wonder they're confused. This leads to another, larger issue. Americans are not being taught critical thinking skills in order to evaluate what they read/hear. And they, like the rest of the world, need to develop special computer evaluation skills, in this age of Internet disinformation, deep fakes, and out and out lies.
    Yes, I’m aware that BuzzFeed is a popular website. The same summary appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Forbes, the Atlantic, etc. — popular press with more established credentials.

    My fault for referring to this hoax as “the Science “ a phrase I use sarcastically although academics in (what I call) soft sciences would likely take offense at your term “not-science.”

    To better summarize:
    The Center for Disease Control would not, of course, have reviewed the hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian et al because the CDC has nothing to do with “the Science “ of the hoax.

    Boghossian’s team hoaxed academic journals that represent themselves as engaging in objective research in important fields of race, gender, ethnicity. The team’s premise was “critical” studies scholars will validate anything in line with their bias, their worldview.

    They wrote ridiculous articles within that worldview after studying the literature of these disciplines to see what would fly.

    I disagree with your characterization of their success. They wrote 20 articles. 7 were published. 7 were rejected. The others were in some phase of acceptance when the hoax was revealed. But really, the fact that they got 2 faux articles with ridiculous content accepted is concerning for academic freedom and scholarly standards, I dont need more examples.The team characterized one publication that accepted their article about canine rape culture in dog parks as being a leading journal in the field of feminist and gender studies.Is it a “leading journal?” I dont know, do you? Seems like it takes itself pretty seriously. It is Gender, Place and Culture.

    You may think the hoax team didnt prove their case. Maybe they didn’t (and I link a good evaluation of their hoax below with that point of view.)

    What they DID do was point out to me and to the general public who enjoyed the whole episode:

    1) there is apparently a lack of verification of supposed factual research by scientific method coming into the publication stream of at least this esteemed journal, if not others

    2) this is representative, not a one-off example

    2) nonsense, obvious ridiculous material, is treated seriously, carefully, and even at times held up as good scholarship

    To myself and many in the general populace who were amused and possibly appalled by the hoax, this is representative of a lack of true scholarship and critical thinking. They make dumb ideas acceptable. Academia is SUPPOSED to be engaging in critical thinking, but if they aren’t who is? The Twitterverse?

    https://slate.com/technology/2018/10...c-scandal.html

    this is a good counter of the hoax team although I can’t help but laugh at the author finding that the team has underlying sexist (or genderist?) intent.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •