Scientists are usually wise people. After all, various professions have different member profiles, and I’m sure some intelligent men and women find the career journey of a scientist to be greatly appealing.
Advertisement
Of course, professionals are often very clever people, too. Same with physicians, accountants, engineers, and security experts. Actually, the top earners in most industries are almost always beautiful, ready, creative people: I absolutely guarantee you that the top 1 % of garbagemen are considerably smarter than the lowest 1 % of lawyers and doctors.
I’ll wager you any amount of money.
Hey, half of all doctors, lawyers, and academics finished in the lower third of their group! ( Have fun figuring out who’s who, next time you’re in the waiting room. ) What do you visit a doctor who finished last in his school, according to the adage?
You call him a physician.
A great tool is the scientific method. It’s accountable for so much societal development. Just a fool would get anti-science. But it’s still only a tool, and not every tool is valuable in every situation.  ,
The nail is also a great tool, but think what? A nail will do a terrible task if you need a hacksaw or a screwdriver. Because it’s the wrong tool for the job, it’ll ruin everything in the end.
The medical method is unmatched when it comes to reproducible experimentation, where all the various factors can be taken into account. It’s a valuable resource for reshaping the universe’s true character. Best of all, it’s a self-correcting mechanism: More experiments lead to more ( and better ) data, validating truths and exposing false assumptions.
Advertisement
But if an experiment is n’t replicable and you ca n’t account for all the variables, your “experiment” tends to be riddled with false-positives, because it’s more about finding clusters of statistical associations than anything definitive. It’s the wrong tool for the job.
And in large adequate data-sets, you can always cherry-pick information so it “proves” anything you want. Furthermore the other old pun,” There are lies, damned lies — and statistics”.
When researchers manipulate the scientific method to “prove” social factors, they destroy their industry’s trust. It’s the” Boy Who Cries Wolf” Syndrome. And last night, when scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson debated Bill Maher about medical bias, this disorder was at its most prominent on HBO’s” True Time with Bill Maher.”
The picture is above:
THIS IS VERY RECORDED BY BILL MAHER.
Bill Maher does n’t often get angry with his guests, but it happened tonight with Neil deGrasse Tyson, on the subject of transgender athletes.
Wait for Maher’s last line. photograph. twitter.com/TTLMRw5581
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres ) November 23, 2024
The writer of Scientific American, a respectable, nonpartisan scientific journal that has been around since 1845, resigned in humiliation after launching a obscene, profanity-filled diatribe against Trump voters, as my dear partner Chris Queen pointed out a few days ago. Under her view, Scientific American newspaper, which had NEVER made a political support before ( that, as a medical journal, why do they? ), made their first two: In 2020 ( for Joe Biden ) and in 2024 ( for Kamala Harris ).
Advertisement
However, Neil DeGrasse Tyson and other defenders do n’t believe it to be significant.
Consider about that paradox: Tyson has dedicated himself to educating people about technology! He’s never a brand because of his scientific work, solely on the basis of his scientific work, he’s not a particularly remarkable professor. In 50 years, there wo n’t be any books about him that children will read. Rather, it’s his job as a “science popularizer” in press that’s earned him his popularity, prosperity, and oodles of revenues.
But somehow, he overlooks the sensory risks of Scientific American publication adopting a political anti-Trump stance? Or reclaiming “science’s trust” to advance skewed social views? Or is it that their director denies fascism in the entire nation? !
Tyson might be holding his mouth deliberately to protect himself from the liberal outcry. After all, his closet is n’t exactly spotless.  ,
But I suspect his obtuseness is less owing to vulgar, deep self-preservation, and more symbolic of largescale institutional discrimination within the medical neighborhood:” How could it be biased if *I* agree with the partiality”?
Which, surprisingly enough, just proves how rampant the medical bias is.
On the” Overtime” segment of Maher’s show, Tyson was asked about NASA strategies for deflecting an asteroid, and he gave a good, scientific-based answer:
Advertisement
When experts stay in their driveway, the whole world thrives. And when they do n’t, they discredit their entire profession. Politicians is not on their side.
Frankly, I’d rather listen to the top 1 % of garbagemen.
