|
Ogmius815 posted:Mostly because some people were claiming they didn't need to explain how the research would be beneficial and that rubbed me the wrong way. They don't, though. That's an absolutely true statement. Basic science does not--and really should not--be held to standards of 'how will this be useful'? I didn't provide any explanation of how understanding those lateral bodies would be useful, either. Nothing in my post described 'useful' research. If we limited scientific research to things that were just useful, we would be a hundred years or more behind where we are. The usefulness of basic science is shown in retrospect most of the time. Over and over again, the validity of basic science research has been proven.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I tried to ignore that for a few minutes because I don't like to lose arguments on the internet okay guys?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I didn't see any clear benefits explained until E-tank's post like an hour ago. I tried to ignore that for a few minutes because I don't like to lose arguments on the internet okay guys? Sorry. A few minutes? You ignored it for days. We posted that a long time ago. Again, I apologize if I thought you were intelligent and saw 'ALTERING THE IMMUNE SYSTEM' and thought you'd understand exactly how big that is without going "Well that's just of no use whatsoever." Edit: What was it you said? Oh right this. Ogmius815 posted:This is just science fetishism; E-Tank fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:"I'm a stubborn idiot who can't imagine the idea that research itself is not evil and that it's only how its applied that is good or evil. Also the fact that I demand people literally see the future and tell me what good benefits might be had from something in the future with new tools, scientific discoveries and things like that. Never once imagining that because they don't know, does not mean they're just holding onto it because they want to literally jerk off with the virus." No this is wrong. The research is a bad idea if there are no clear benefits. If there were no clear benefits, the research would be a bad idea. We shouldn't do dangerous research just because it might be helpful somehow, which was your position in this thread for a long time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No this is wrong. The research is a bad idea if there are no clear benefits. This is absolutely wrong and absolutely counter to science. There have been no clear benefits for the majority of basic science research, except in retrospect. To put it another way, we have done enough basic science research by now that we know that all basic science research is an unclear, but very definite, benefit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They don't, though. That's an absolutely true statement. Basic science does not--and really should not--be held to standards of 'how will this be useful'? I didn't provide any explanation of how understanding those lateral bodies would be useful, either. Nothing in my post described 'useful' research. Most science shouldn't be held to a usefulness standard. But research on dangerous pathogens should.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Most science shouldn't be held to a usefulness standard. But research on dangerous pathogens should. Did you watch Outbreak when you were too young or something? Why are pathogens different than anything else in science? Why this special standard just for DUN DUN DUNNNNN PATHOGENS?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Most science shouldn't be held to a usefulness standard. But research on dangerous pathogens should. You missed out the bit where you explained why that would be true. This is also a goalpost move of magnificent proportions. I've been direct and straightforward with you, and I was hopeful that with your reaction we were getting somewhere. But you still seem to jut have this irrational fear of 'dangerous pathogens' (even though you don't actually know much, if anything, about pathogens) that imbue them with supernatural powers. Can you explain why research on pathogens should be held to a 'usefulness' standard? If you're going to talk about research into pathogens being 'dangerous', then I'm going to ask you why you, someone who is ignorant about pathogens, think that you can evaluate the dangers of pathogen research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did you watch Outbreak when you were too young or something? Why are pathogens different than anything else in science? Why this special standard just for DUN DUN DUNNNNN PATHOGENS? Because there has to be an expected reward large enough to outweigh any potential risk. EDIT: That's my answer to the above too. It's fine to do research, and it's fine to do dangerous research, but it isn't fine to do dangerous research if you can't even explain what good it will do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Most science shouldn't be held to a usefulness standard. But research on dangerous pathogens should. But all research has the potential to be *bad*. do you not understand that? Newton's research on gravity and inertia were used to calculate the range and how much gunpowder was needed to fire a bullet, or launch a cannon ball. Madam Curie's research lead to a better understanding of radiation, and how to harness atomic energy! And was used to make the atomic bomb. If we acted like you did, we'd still be in the stone ages because someone researching how to make iron should be stopped because what if they made a sword, or a dagger? That'd be *bad*.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Because there has to be an expected reward large enough to outweigh any potential risk. Why do you think you understand the potential risk, since you don't have a good knowledge of pathogens?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Because there has to be an expected reward large enough to outweigh any potential risk. Again WHY some special standard of reward for pathogens and not anything else? Wait let me skip ahead a bit: Ogmius815 posted:I don't like to lose arguments on the internet okay guys? Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why do you think you understand the potential risk, since you don't have a good knowledge of pathogens? Because he's an idiot. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Why do you think you understand the potential risk, since you don't have a good knowledge of pathogens? I've linked you to cases where lab accidents have occurred. This is a matter of public record. Are you really going with the fishmech "there is literally zero risk" thing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Again WHY some special standard of reward for pathogens and not anything else? It isn't a special standard. It's a standard of "don't do risky things if you can't expect a reward good enough to outweigh that risk". This is a basic principle of rational decision making.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
OK, but you've been shown how it's not particularly dangerous.Ogmius815 posted:I've linked you to cases where lab accidents have occurred. This is a matter of public record. Are you really going with the fishmech "there is literally zero risk" thing? No I think we're all pretty much going with the "  an ape stumbled into the courtyard, lets throw sticks at it and watch it scream" right now
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No I think we're all pretty much going with the " I mean you're the one who doesn't seem to believe in cost-benefit analysis. I don't know what to tell you...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I've linked you to cases where lab accidents have occurred. This is a matter of public record. Are you really going with the fishmech "there is literally zero risk" thing? This is getting tiresome, since I already addressed the 'zero risk' thing. Lab accidents have occurred. Lab accidents have also occurred involving liquid nitrogen, hydrogen gas, etc. etc. So what? You seem to be operating under the bizarre assumption that if smallpox escaped into the wild it would be uncontainable. It wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This is getting tiresome, since I already addressed the 'zero risk' thing. Lab accidents have occurred. Lab accidents have also occurred involving liquid nitrogen, hydrogen gas, etc. etc. So what? You seem to be operating under the bizarre assumption that if smallpox escaped into the wild it would be uncontainable. It wouldn't. Here, Obdicut, I'll show you what exactly he's saying. Ogmius815 posted:This is the same stupid logic that leads to scientists producing superstrains of influenza to no discernibly useful end. Apparently learning how to produce super strains of flu, thereby learning more about how others might attempt to produce super strains of flu and therefore be able to better prepare and defend against super strains of flu, is no useful end. He literally believes that if you cannot, right now, tell you what you're going to learn from something, and how that'll benefit mankind right the gently caress now, you should not do research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I didn't see any clear benefits explained until E-tank's post like an hour ago. I tried to ignore that for a few minutes because I don't like to lose arguments on the internet okay guys? Sorry. Correction: you ignored all celar benefits explanations over the past few days until E-Tank's post. SedanChair posted:Did you watch Outbreak when you were too young or something? Why are pathogens different than anything else in science? Why this special standard just for DUN DUN DUNNNNN PATHOGENS? Look as you can clearly see in the scientific documentary Jurassic Park, bringing exterminated species back to life always results in mass death. Therefore we must destroy all smallpox. Ogmius815 posted:I've linked you to cases where lab accidents have occurred. This is a matter of public record. Are you really going with the fishmech "there is literally zero risk" thing? Lab accidents have occurred, but none of them have involved smallpox for over 35 years, despite some of them occuring at facilities also hosting smallpox. There is 1 minus 0 point 9 repeating risk of smallpox causing an outbreak. Ogmius815 posted:It isn't a special standard. It's a standard of "don't do risky things if you can't expect a reward good enough to outweigh that risk". This is a basic principle of rational decision making. There is 49 minus 7 squared risk from researching smallpox in current methods.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I mean you're the one who doesn't seem to believe in cost-benefit analysis. I don't know what to tell you... People here do understand cost-benefit analysis. The problem is that you, an admittedly ignorant person where pathogens, virology, and apparently the sciences in general are concerned, have a really terrible understanding of the various costs and benefits surrounding research. Pussy Cartel fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:
The biggest producer of superstrains of flu will be the natural world for the foreseeable future, too. We can say with absolute certainty that new flu pandemics will occur and we should research the gently caress out of superstrains because we've actually been quite lucky since the Spanish Influenza that we haven't had a larger pandemic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Correction: you ignored all celar benefits explanations over the past few days until E-Tank's post. Don't forget how I had to loving shame him for moving the goal posts so blatantly.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:He literally believes that if you cannot, right now, tell you what you're going to learn from something, and how that'll benefit mankind right the gently caress now, you should not do research. This isn't what I believe at all. I believe that dangerous research should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, something some individuals in this thread have denied.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:He literally believes that if you cannot, right now, tell you what you're going to learn from something, and how that'll benefit mankind right the gently caress now, you should not do research. Ogmius, are you in Congress?! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This isn't what I believe at all. I believe that dangerous research should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, something some individuals in this thread have denied. No, they haven't. They've said that your cost-benefit analysis is horrible, and they're completely correct. What I'm wondering is why you think you have the competency to make such an analysis about pathogen research when you don't really know much about the subject. Can you explain? You also keep calling smallpox research 'dangerous' for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Ogmius you're literally a court fop in the time before circumnavigation. "Ahahaha should not my lord be expected to prove that there shall be some reward, such to balance against the terrible dangers of serpents which goe beneath the waves, and of the end of the seas, which border the land and are flat like a table?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:This isn't what I believe at all. I believe that dangerous research should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis, something some individuals in this thread have denied. And who's going to be the one doing the cost-benefit analysis, you or a scientist? Hint: it isn't you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:No, they haven't. They've said that your cost-benefit analysis is horrible, and they're completely correct. What I'm wondering is why you think you have the competency to make such an analysis about pathogen research when you don't really know much about the subject. Can you explain? I guess my cost benefit analysis has been wrong, yeah. But some people in this thread have said we shouldn't even bother doing it, and that's wrong. This is the current extent of my position in this thread. If I've gotten people to accept "hey we should subject scientific research to a cost-benefit analysis to consider and manage risk", then I'll have done good work. That might have been your position all along, but it wasn't everyone's. You know who you are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
Smallpox fun fact! Ever wonder why we were able to eradicate it? Well friends and neighbors, smallpox almost exclusively spreads by way of prolonged human to human contact. It's not able to form a reservoir in animal populations, and has extremely minimal ability to spread by air or water contamination. As such, once a vaccine safe enough to deploy to effectively everyone - because old methods had rates of lethality as high as 10% - we were able to handily bring the hammer down, and in case of someone attempting to deliberately spread it somehow could be easily controlled once again. This is why smallpox is not dangerous to research. Ogmius815 posted:I believe that dangerous research should be subject to a cost-benefit analysis No you do not. You have repeatedly advocated destruction of stocks that real cost-benefit analysis proves is worth keeping. What you do advocate is using CBA as a rhetorical shield because you can't be arsed to come up with any real justification for what you want. Ogmius815 posted:I guess my cost benefit analysis has been wrong, yeah. But some people in this thread have said we shouldn't even bother doing it, and that's wrong. The only person who said this is YOU.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess my cost benefit analysis has been wrong, yeah. But some people in this thread have said we shouldn't even bother doing it, They haven't, though. Nobody has said that an analysis shouldn't be done. quote:and that's wrong. This is the current extent of my position in this thread. So you're conceding that you were wrong for the last umpteen pages. Do you feel any embarrassment at all at this point at having argued in ignorance for so long? Edit: This isn't a rhetorical question. I write to educate a populace, and that involves understanding people who argue even when they know they're ignorant about the subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
"Wee shall surely anger these serpents, who may not stop at destroying my lord's own ships for the crime of hubris, but may follow the trail of seaborne debris back to our very shores, and clime onto the beaches spitting fyre." *poops into a bowl*
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess my cost benefit analysis has been wrong, yeah. But some people in this thread have said we shouldn't even bother doing it, and that's wrong. Nobody has said that you twit. We've said the risks are mathematically insignificant. Literally less than 1% of a chance. The possible benefits outweigh that by so much, even if we hadn't pointed out how the immune system is altered by the virus.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Do you feel any embarrassment at all at this point at having argued in ignorance for so long? No? Sometimes I'm wrong. It happens. I can change my mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Nobody has said that you twit. We've said the risks are mathematically insignificant. Literally less than 1% of a chance. The possible benefits outweigh that by so much, even if we hadn't pointed out how the immune system is altered by the virus. No. For pages and pages all I could get was "well guys I can't explain how this research might be useful, it just might be okay?"
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No. For pages and pages all I could get was "well guys I can't explain how this research might be useful, it just might be okay?" Only because you were incapable of understanding or were ignoring everything else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:Nobody has said that you twit. We've said the risks are mathematically insignificant. Literally less than 1% of a chance. The possible benefits outweigh that by so much, even if we hadn't pointed out how the immune system is altered by the virus. To be even harsher, it's less than 1% of a chance of a risk of something that would be easily controllable and lead to a small, if any, number of deaths. Ogmius815 posted:No? Sometimes I'm wrong. It happens. I can change my mind. But why did you argue in the first place when you knew that you didn't actually have any competence in the subject at all? You don't appear to really know much of anything about pathogens, or about scientific research. So what drove you to argue on this subject? Really, honestly, I'm not just trying to slap you around, I'm interested in what made you, while knowing that you didn't understand the topic, make strong statements about it. Is it because 'this is just the internet', and you're not taking the discussion at all seriously, or do you think scientists are reckless and foolish, or what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No? Sometimes I'm wrong. It happens. I can change my mind. You have argued in bad faith, you've ignored what we've said, and even implied that the CDC is just holding onto it because it likes its toys. You have no regrets, do not feel like you've made a fool of yourself? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No. For pages and pages all I could get was "well guys I can't explain how this research might be useful, it just might be okay?" And that's a perfectly fine thing to say. I can't say how the research into the lateral bodies would be useful, but the entire history of science shows us that basic science research is tremendously useful even when we can't point to immediate benefits. Do you still really not understand this fundamental point about science?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 15:16 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:And that's a perfectly fine thing to say. I can't say how the research into the lateral bodies would be useful, but the entire history of science shows us that basic science research is tremendously useful even when we can't point to immediate benefits. He doesn't understand that when science discovers something, no matter what, no matter what 'benefit' it might have, the entire scientific world benefits.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:10
|
|