A debate on the efficacy of masks

Laughing said:
Yes arguing all over the place ST! Let me go find the relevant article and post on this thread.

Bear I am no statistician, but statistically significant means greater than chance
Click to expand...
It's used in hypothesis testing to see if at least two variables are related other than by chance. Wearing a mask reduces infection rates and that is not by chance. It is because masks are worn.
 
bear66 said:
It's used in hypothesis testing to see if at least two variables are related other than by chance. Wearing a mask reduces infection rates and that is not by chance. It is because masks are worn.
Click to expand...
I think I will leave it there Bear, the evidence you relate to does not take in to account any other factors as far as I can see. Yes it is statistically relevant if you ignore everything else.
 
I feared this thread would descend into "you've insulted me" "come back when you've read the evidence" . Interpretation of both sides of the debate it is impossible to say that "one side won"

Im as confused as ever.
 
.
Laughing said:
Watch it, it is very entertaining, particularly when they get to the wrap up. I suspect at that point it will give a new perspective on Kyle Johnsons qualifications.
Click to expand...

So, having watched the whole thing now, my conclusion is it was a waste of time. It's not a good format for deciding this kind of thing. The only good way is to actually pore over the papers and referenced studies.

I agree that Johnson loses his composure, but the whole thing reminds me of the difficulty of doing these kinds of debates for scientists against creationists, pseudoscientists, climate change deniers and the like. It's just impossible against a skilled debater who can throw stuff out there and sound impressive, but it takes painstaking detail to refute such nonsense. You can't do that in a few minutes on a stage or video link. Most of the time scientists these days won't give them the platform. I note Johnson says up front he thought very hard about even doing the debate and I suspect this was why. I bet he wishes he did not now, as he got far too exasperated at someone he clearly has no regard for. Another tactic these fringe position debaters use is to kind of accuse the other of the actual things they are guilty of and it seemed a bit of that might have been going on. It's unlikely the specialist in logic and critical thinking did that, but hey everyone has their biases and Johnson's dislike of Rancourt might have blinded him to appreciating what he was actually saying.
 
Lefty said:
.


So, having watched the whole thing now, my conclusion is it was a waste of time. It's not a good format for deciding this kind of thing. The only good way is to actually pore over the papers and referenced studies.

I agree that Johnson loses his composure, but the whole thing reminds me of the difficulty of doing these kinds of debates for scientists against creationists, pseudoscientists, climate change deniers and the like. It's just impossible against a skilled debater who can throw stuff out there and sound impressive, but it takes painstaking detail to refute such nonsense. You can't do that in a few minutes on a stage or video link. Most of the time scientists these days won't give them the platform. I note Johnson says up front he thought very hard about even doing the debate and I suspect this was why. I bet he wishes he did not now, as he got far too exasperated at someone he clearly has no regard for. Another tactic these fringe position debaters use is to kind of accuse the other of the actual things they are guilty of and it seemed a bit of that might have been going on. It's unlikely the specialist in logic and critical thinking did that, but hey everyone has their biases and Johnson's dislike of Rancourt might have blinded him to appreciating what he was actually saying.
Click to expand...
You are right in terms of finding a winner to the debate, it was a waste of time.

I have since gone on and read a few of the linked documents and the research they were based on. Johnson repeatedly said that the quotes were out of context. Some were, loosely based, but a couple he highlighted were actually not out of context at all.

Overall I thought it was quite entertaining, but for all the wrong reasons. It was like watching someone have a mental breakdown on live telly. What it did provide me was some additional reading I probably would not have found.
 
red_harrington said:
Found the problem

I see the 'philosopher' as the 'scientist' ie Kyle and the other guy, the physicist, as the 'philosopher'

It was Laughing who made this confusing distinction early on - confusing because they are in effect both scientists, and philosophers for that matter
Click to expand...

It used to confuse me how many maths degree courses were combined maths and philosophy, or the philosophy of maths etc. I kept thinking to myself 'what an odd combination, that's like combining animal psychology and helicopters'.
 
Lefty said:
.


So, having watched the whole thing now, my conclusion is it was a waste of time. It's not a good format for deciding this kind of thing. The only good way is to actually pore over the papers and referenced studies.

I agree that Johnson loses his composure, but the whole thing reminds me of the difficulty of doing these kinds of debates for scientists against creationists, pseudoscientists, climate change deniers and the like. It's just impossible against a skilled debater who can throw stuff out there and sound impressive, but it takes painstaking detail to refute such nonsense. You can't do that in a few minutes on a stage or video link. Most of the time scientists these days won't give them the platform. I note Johnson says up front he thought very hard about even doing the debate and I suspect this was why. I bet he wishes he did not now, as he got far too exasperated at someone he clearly has no regard for. Another tactic these fringe position debaters use is to kind of accuse the other of the actual things they are guilty of and it seemed a bit of that might have been going on. It's unlikely the specialist in logic and critical thinking did that, but hey everyone has their biases and Johnson's dislike of Rancourt might have blinded him to appreciating what he was actually saying.
Click to expand...


Or Johnson was simply out debated in this occurrence and when asked literally to point out how rancourt was wrong he couldn't do so and attempted to lie.

And the reason he was worried about debating was because he has a shallow debating position and had been slandering the other debaters work.
 
Alvez_48 said:
Or Johnson was simply out debated in this occurrence and when asked literally to point out how rancourt was wrong he couldn't do so and attempted to lie.

And the reason he was worried about debating was because he has a shallow debating position and had been slandering the other debaters work.
Click to expand...

Possibly. I did say 'but hey everyone has their biases and Johnson's dislike of Rancourt might have blinded him to appreciating what he was actually saying'.

Rancourt has some credibility problems though.
 
He does Lefty, but I did read a fair bit of the literature he quoted from, not all of it. It had scientific credibility when applied to "flu like viruses". Therein lies the one big weakness, of course.
 
Trump ended the press conference by defending one particular doctor in the video he retweeted, Dr. Stella Immanuel. Immanuel has claimed that illnesses such as fibroid tumors and cysts are caused by demon sperm.
“There was a woman who was spectacular in her statements about it, that she’s had tremendous success with it, and they took her voice,” Trump lamented.

When informed that the same doctor believes doctors make medicine from DNA, Trump said: “I thought she was very impressive...I don’t know which country she comes from, but she said that she’s had tremendous success with hundreds of different patients. And I thought her voice was an important voice, but I know nothing about her.”
 
Laughing said:
He does Lefty, but I did read a fair bit of the literature he quoted from, not all of it. It had scientific credibility when applied to "flu like viruses". Therein lies the one big weakness, of course.
Click to expand...


It goes to show really that views are already deeply entrenched on this and essentially all topics.

Sadly it does not bode well for the future in general.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top