Comments by "roidroid" (@roidroid) on "friendlyjordies"
channel.
-
30
-
28
-
22
-
15
-
11
-
***** If we could devise a test to identify good vs bad voters, then we wouldn't need democratic processes at all, as the test would also identify good and bad policies. Obviously such a test is impossible. It's as rediculous as having comedians pass a test of "what is and isn't funny", it's completely subjective, always dynamic with the culture, changing constantly, it simply can't be done. Also those who control/write/maintain/etc the test would become the defacto rulers of society, so the test itself would become the primary target for those who wish to exert political influence, it's just moved the goalposts. Democracy's advantage is that it can change as fast as popular opinion can, the government is never outof line with it's voters for longer than 1 election cycle (generally less). As society changes, nothing in democracy has to be re-designed to adapt, it adapts itself.
6
-
5
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
+Cayden Normanton I can understand your reaction, but we live in a world where there are a lot of people trying to pull a fast one on you. Science is a huge target for this, there's countless people trying to pass their work off as legit unbiased science when it's not, trying to pretend they are an authority they're really not. This is one of those "if it sounds too good to be true" situations where it's best to assume the worst.
There's enough scientific work being done that DOESN'T have red flags like this, so it's best to prioritize the work that has no red-flags, and ignore everything questionable. I agree it's a sad state of affairs where some scientific work can get ignored just because it's not PERFECT, but we're spoiled for choice and shortstaffed.
When bad science makes it's way into the media (and it very often does), it's often stuff which was riddled with red-flags from the get-go. So if you put the bar so high that no questionable red-flag science gets through, you cut out a disproportionate amount of bad science in the media as well.
re: your Water-Tap example: If none of the taps in my house ever had a problem in 40 years, i would be amazed. It would be strange, even though my taps are of high quality - i still would have honestly expected at least some normal problems like a leaky seal here or there, i wouldn't expect a 100% success rate over 40 years.
Sometimes a farm crop gets wiped out by a flood, or locust plague, or some sortof blight. There are countless outside forces which can effect crop trials, which is why they have to do a lot of them to average out the results. If results are PERFECT 100% success rate it's very very suspicious. Over 40 years, with so many farms, you would have to have some failures.
1
-
+Cayden Normanton My breathing record is not 100%. i have had congestive illnesses, coughing fits, momentary choking hazards, mistakes in the surf, etc.
I'm not saying stop trying, i'm saying try harder. Improve the design & quality of your trials, improve your methodology, seek criticism, iterate & eliminate problems. Error-check your results, get your peers to do likewise, look for suspicious activity that may indicate a problem (ding ding ding!). You can do better, step it up.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1