|
SedanChair posted:Ogmius you're literally a court fop in the time before circumnavigation. SedanChair posted:"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* SedanChair, proven colonialism apologist.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:12
|
|
"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?"
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
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. I guess "it might be useful at some point in the future for something" is a pretty weak argument. I wanted a specific argument and eventually I got one. Sorry I made people go through the process of debating in the debate forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess "it might be useful at some point in the future for something" is a pretty weak argument. It's not a very weak argument. Again: 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? You also haven't explained why you've been making specific comments about pathogen research (like it being 'dangerous') when you don't actually have any competency to analyze the dangers of pathogen research. And I really honestly am interested in why you felt like you had the standing to make those claims, while also knowing that you were ignorant about the science of pathogen research.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:21
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I don't like to lose arguments on the internet okay guys? Sorry. This basically sums it all up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's not a very weak argument. Again: If it were the case that pathogen research were riskier than it is, and were it the case that there were no immediately clear benefits for pathogen research, it might be that the risk would outweigh the expected reward. If that were the case, then research should not be conducted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If it were the case that pathogen research were riskier than it is, and were it the case that there were no immediately clear benefits for pathogen research, it might be that the risk would outweigh the expected reward. If that were the case, then research should not be conducted. But that's not the case. As you were repeatedly told. What I am asking you are these two questions, and I'd really appreciate it if you could answer them: You don't know much about pathogens. You don't know much about scientific research. But you just spent pages and pages, and a lot of time, and a lot of effort, talking about pathogens, and scientific research. You accused the CDC of being a kind of conspiratorial organization that wanted the virus as a 'toy'. Why did you feel that, given that you were ignorant on the subject, anything you were saying was even remotely likely to be true or accurate? And do you, really, understand that basic science research, research with no discernable benefit, is the absolute bedrock of scientific advancement and discovery and that the 'what is it good for' question you asked repeatedly is completely erroneous and has no place in a debate about scientific inquiry? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:If it were the case that pathogen research were riskier than it is, and were it the case that there were no immediately clear benefits for pathogen research, it might be that the risk would outweigh the expected reward. If that were the case, then research should not be conducted. But we don't live in Bizarro world, so it isn't relevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But we don't live in Bizarro world, so it isn't relevant. But the point is that there is a possible world in which we should destroy Variola. So the analysis matters. Therefore, "no shut up why do you hate science I don't have to say why the research will be useful it just is" is an inadequate argument.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But the point is that there is a possible world in which we should destroy Variola. So the analysis matters. Therefore, "no shut up why do you hate science I don't have to say why the research will be useful it just is" is an inadequate argument. You are ignorant on scientific theory, and you need to shut up before you make yourself look any dumber.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:42
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But the point is that there is a possible world in which we should destroy Variola. So the analysis matters. Therefore, "no shut up why do you hate science I don't have to say why the research will be useful it just is" is an inadequate argument. It is not our world so it does not matter. The analysis was performed decades ago, and redone continuously since, the results keep coming back the same. You are actively anti-science, which is why you are being ragged on for being so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:You are ignorant on scientific theory, and you need to shut up before you make yourself look any dumber. I guess I prefer being ignorant on scientific theory to being ignorant of the basic principles of how reasonable people make decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:44
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:But the point is that there is a possible world in which we should destroy Variola. So the analysis matters. That doesn't make the least amount of sense. This is like saying there's a possible world in which variola is the cure to all mankind's woes. Sure. It's not this world, though. quote:Therefore, "no shut up why do you hate science I don't have to say why the research will be useful it just is" is an inadequate argument. Please, I would really like to know what is preventing you from grasping that basic science resarch, divorced from 'usefulness', is the bedrock of all scientific advancement. Can you offer any sort of explanation for why you're still not grasping this? I'm at a loss as to how it can be better explained to you. Applied science follows theoretical science. We had, for example, absolutely no idea of how it would be useful to understand what the structure of DNA is before we discovered it. We had no idea how it would be useful to understand how the elements are composed. Etc. Where did you get this idea that scientific research ought to be arguably 'useful' before it occurs, and how do you square it with the actual reality of scientific research, which demonstrates that you are wrong?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess I prefer being ignorant on scientific theory to being ignorant of the basic principles of how reasonable people make decisions. Scientific theory is the basic principles of how people make decisions, in science.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
loving hell, if I had an idea of how smallpox could be potentially researched and knew what good it'd do, I'd be loving doing it now, you dumbass. But I don't, so I'm not. On the other hand, there are a shitton of people smarter and better at this topic than I am, especially if we count people in the future. Which is why we should keep it. Hey, by the way, tell me what the implications of looking at mouse heart cells are with regard to how neural tubes close in humans during early fetal development? Because there's a connection that some labs are working on. AFAIK, we don't fully understand the regulatory mechanism behind cell-cell adhesion, and yet this is a fundamental process. Want to tell me that there's absolutely nothing we could ever learn from smallpox again? Something that isn't even directly related to virology? Because we keep finding things that are totally tangential (at best) to the topic being studied. Ogmius815 posted:I guess "it might be useful at some point in the future for something" is a pretty weak argument. I wanted a specific argument and eventually I got one. Sorry I made people go through the process of debating in the debate forum.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess I prefer being ignorant on scientific theory to being ignorant of the basic principles of how reasonable people make decisions. And there we have the crux of the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
E-Tank posted:And there we have the crux of the issue. It's kind of the old "Common sense is superior to science" position. However, I've never understood why common sense doesn't tell people that people who actually know something about a subject make better decisions than people ignorant about a subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It's kind of the old "Common sense is superior to science" position. However, I've never understood why common sense doesn't tell people that people who actually know something about a subject make better decisions than people ignorant about a subject. Because common sense is much better than stuff you read in a book.  Hopefully now everyone, we'll have our anti-vaxx thread back. Sorry for the disturbances. E-Tank fucked around with this message at 07:19 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:04
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No. People were literally saying that wanting to do a risk-reward comparison made me anti-science. That's loving retarded. For the record, you were described as anti-science when you kept slamming on basic scientific research as "science fetishism", as though mankind's eternal search for knowledge is somehow a bad thing. And insisting that all scientific research should only be subject to risk/reward analysis where you need to figure out all of the benefits right now, before the research can be done just illustrates that you don't know much about the history of scientific breakthroughs and think that it's like a big game of Civilization Ogmius815 posted:I'll concede that I don't know enough about that research to say whether or not it's of any benefit. Because I'm a reasonable person, I'll even agree that if a reasonable expectation of benefit exists, then we should keep the samples. However, if that research can at all be conducted with other viruses or if that research is actually worthless for some reason, I stand by my previous position. We all thank you for conceding that some smallpox samples should be kept around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Holy poo poo ogmius stop posting
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
I guess I should say what about Ogmious' arguments have been bothering me. Really it's not even a question of researching smallpox anymore, rather, what's really sticking me is how much he seems to fear all of virology, and a signifacant amount of microbiology. And what makes me angry about this is that it isn't an uncommon viewpoint. Now I'm not saying there's some sort of "media conspiracy" because that's stupid, what I'm saying is that the state of science writing in most major media publications is abysmal. And because of poo poo reporting, and sensationalism, and all sorts of fearmongering over what is regular scientific research, people seem to have begun to hate the entire field of microbiology, a field that I love, and that you should love too. I'm going to walk through what I've linked to starting with the documentary "Threading the NEIDL". Now the NEIDL is pertinent to this discussion because of the protests it faced a while back. During its development the NEIDL has faced a lot of attention and handwringing over whether or not it poses a threat to people in the nearby area. People have made it out to be some sort of major existential threat, like the LHC was not too long ago, and really these fears are unfounded. There are at least 15 BSL-4 labs in America today, and I mention this because this is another example of making a big deal out of nothing. I'll drop the links to both the NEIDL website which has some very interesting and relevant information, and the documentary I previously mentioned. NEIDL website: http://www.bu.edu/neidl/ "Threading the NEIDL": http://www.twiv.tv/threading-the-neidl/ Next up is The Shooter report. Now I didn't bring you a 300 page document for fun. I brought it out to show you something important, something that I feel you've been overlooking. What I'm trying to show you is how far we've come. Now as a reminder the Shooter Report is the investigation was launched after the the smallpox death of Janet Parker. What it taught is that not only was that accident caused by lack of proper safety, but a near criminal level of negligence. The laboratory in question was not only unsafe by today's standards, but unsafe by the standards of 1978 as well. Regulations went unenforced in that laboratory, and as a result Janet died of smallpox and Henry Bedson, head of the microbiology department, committed suicide. I brought out this story because it's relevant to the previous documentary I linked. The BSL-4 lab exists because of what happened to Janet Parker, without her death the "culture of safety" we have in modern microbiology research could not exist today. It was her passing that has saved others and that we still learn from today. Wikipedia on Janet Parker: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Parker Shooter Report: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228654/0668.pdf.pdf Now for my last point, "Are We There Yet? The Smallpox Research Agenda Using Variola Virus". I still maintain that you should read this article, but I'll try to get the main idea across. Essentially what it asserts is that our research on live variola isn't complete yet. Although the criteria WHO laid out has been met, what this article shows is that there is research to be done that can't be learned with just a substitute, such as cow or monkeypox, and that the variola virus holds certain properties that are of interest to future research, such as the underlying mechanics of how it infects human cells and why in nature it only infects humans. Variola is unique in that, unlike the other orthopox viruses, it's preferred host is humans, rather than being zoonotic. In essence it shows that the statement "there's nothing to be learned from smallpox" is not only inaccurate, it's wrong and detrimental to our understanding of this unique disease. Link to said article: http://www.plospathogens.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1004108 Finally, I'm going to say that the reason I've been debating this topic isn't because I'm particularly emotional about a couple hundred smallpox vials in a freezer in Atlanta, I'm debating this topic because I genuinely love virology and microbiology. And because it kills me to see people so uninformed and afraid of a field of science I want them to know more about. The same fear that protests the NEIDL is the same fear that keeps parents from vaccinating children, stops the exploration of nuclear power, or even leads to religious communities from avoiding medical treatment altogether. The fear I'm referring to is the fear of the unknown. People are afraid of virology because they don't know about viruses, and about what makes viruses such a special and constantly exciting subject to think about. Please Ogmius, learn about viruses. Read the things I posted, not so you can debate my arguments, but to understand why I'm making them in the first place. And if you're not going to bother to learn about the most basic aspects of a field of science, don't debate it. If you don't know anything about what you're saying, don't say it at all. Thanks for reading this. If anyone would like to learn more about virology, This Week In Virology by professor Vincent Racaniello is a good place to start. He also posts his lectures about virology on itunesU. He's the person who turned me onto virology in the first place and I think you would like him too. His blog where he posts most of his stuff: http://www.virology.ws Sorry for the derail guys, it's just that I really love the subject. edit-typo Cercadelmar fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 12:38
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Furthermore, it seems like exposure to any pathogen could alter the immune system. That's kind of how the immune system works. It's not clear to me why variola is special. I'm not even sure your explanations are worth anything, I just don't have the expert knowledge to say. You are a pedantic twit. Ogmius815 posted:Most science shouldn't be held to a usefulness standard. But research on dangerous pathogens should. Why? Ogmius815 posted:I guess I prefer being ignorant on scientific theory to being ignorant of the basic principles of how reasonable people make decisions. No, you are also ignorant of the basic principles of how reasonable people make decisions. Also your ego wont help you win discussions on the internet which are definitely ~serious business~.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:33
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Ogmius, the world's first techpriest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
We should go back to making fun of chiropractors http://youtu.be/ULOPHbgT5aM
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Holy poo poo that top comment, broken clocks and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Where did you get this idea that scientific research ought to be arguably 'useful' before it occurs, and how do you square it with the actual reality of scientific research, which demonstrates that you are wrong? We certainly require scientific research to be "useful" (novel, informative, etc) before it occurs. Especially when it involves risk to human life, and in these cases we require the human risk to be strictly minimized. That's a basic feature of all ethical research protocols. quote:Study goals and objectives The funny thing is Ogimus is abolutely right here that you guys stray way far into fetishism of science as an abstract concept. Of course science proceeds on a goal-based framework, if you don't have goals and testable hypotheses you're not doing science, you're playing with germs and chemicals. If you disagree, go to the CDC and tell them that you want to play with Smallpox but you don't have any specific theory you want to test, you just want to generally advance science, and see what they say. You literally have to deal with basic versions of these concepts to even perform basic research in un-related fields, so I can only conclude that a lot of you guys lack any sort of advanced education. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Ogmius were you also one of those guys arguing that we shouldn't turn on the LHC because there was a small (miscalculated) chance that it would turn everyone into taffy or whatever the gently caress those idiot people were saying?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:38
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Ogmius were you also one of those guys arguing that we shouldn't turn on the LHC because there was a small (miscalculated) chance that it would turn everyone into taffy or whatever the gently caress those idiot people were saying? The difference there, of course, is that the LHC is testing stuff that can't be tested in any other, potentially less risky fashion, whereas we can perform Poxvirus research just fine using far less risky surrogates such as Cowpox. Also, there's a fundamental difference between testing physics stuff where we don't know if our models are correct or not, and assessing the real-world risk (however unlikely) of an accidental or deliberate pathogen release. It's well understood what happens when you release virulent and deadly pathogens into un-vaccinated populations. Again this is where you cross the line from making a different call on the risk-benefit analysis into just spouting bullshit about how great science is as an abstract concept. We do particle physics research, therefore the risks of all pathogenic research is absolutely zero! Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 19:49 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The difference there, of course, is that the LHC is testing stuff that can't be tested in any other, potentially less risky fashion, whereas we can perform Poxvirus research jsut fine using far less risky surrogates such as Cowpox. Hello fellow forumsposter have you considered reading a thread recently??
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The difference there, of course, is that the LHC is testing stuff that can't be tested in any other, potentially less risky fashion, whereas we can perform Poxvirus research just fine using far less risky surrogates such as Cowpox. But we can't do smallpox virus research, which is what we are doing. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:We certainly require scientific research to be "useful" (novel, informative, etc) before it occurs. Novel and informative isn't the same as 'useful', especially not in the way he's using it. quote:The funny thing is Ogimus is abolutely right here that you guys stray way far into fetishism of science as an abstract concept. Of course science proceeds on a goal-based framework, if you don't have goals and testable hypotheses you're not doing science, you're playing with germs and chemicals. That's not what he was saying, though. He was rejecting the idea of basic science research. Please re-read his posts. quote:Also, there's a fundamental difference between testing physics stuff where we don't know if our models are correct or not, and assessing the real-world risk (however unlikely) of an accidental or deliberate pathogen release. It's well understood what happens when you release virulent and deadly pathogens into un-vaccinated populations. What happened last time someone got smallpox after a lab accident? quote:If you disagree, go to the CDC and tell them that you want to play with Smallpox but you don't have any specific theory you want to test, you just want to generally advance science, and see what they say. Again, it's not about not having a theory. He was repeatedly saying that the research had to be 'useful', in that it had to have a definite goal. If someone had a theory about what the lateral bodies did, but did not foresee that it would in any way be immediately useful, the CDC would say "Go for it." They might not fund the hell out of it--that's where the 'usefulness' metric comes somewhat into play and those doing basic science have to over and over tell the narrative of how basic science connects with applied, but they wouldn't say that it was pointless. And really, just the fact that smallpox doesn't infect animals is clearly enough to distinguish it from cowpox, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:But we can't do smallpox virus research, which is what we are doing. Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus, that's what we have surrogate poxviruses for. Since there are no animal models using smallpox virus itself, such research would be tremendously difficult anyway. Hope that clears up your misuse of terminology and/or misconceptions about research 
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Jul 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus, that's what we have surrogate poxviruses for. Since there are no animal models using smallpox virus itself, such research would be tremendously difficult anyway. Do you think that it's worth investigating how smallpox infects humans but not animals, as opposed to cowpox?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus, that's what we have surrogate poxviruses for. Since there are no animal models using smallpox virus itself, such research would be tremendously difficult anyway. However, effects on the host immune system only in smallpox, etc.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:We certainly require scientific research to be "useful" (novel, informative, etc) before it occurs. Especially when it involves risk to human life. That's a basic feature of all ethical research protocols. You don't need to prove that research has immediate discernible benefits before conducting it, from a scientific perspective. You can always guess at what benefits an endeavor may provide, but many cutting-edge research efforts are performed for the sake of seeking knowledge itself, without a priori knowledge of any tangible benefits. This is called "basic research". You have to have goals, obviously, but those goals don't need to have a tangible benefit, which is the crux of Ogimus' argument. If we had held all scientific research efforts to a cost-benefit analysis where the benefits must be stated before the research may be done, as Ogmius suggests should be done, then we'd have missed out on countless amazing discoveries. "What happens when I move this magnet into a coil of wire?" is a basic research question with no obvious tangible benefit, yet it's an experiment that gave us Faraday's Law as well as the electric generator and the electric motor. But at the time of the experiment, there was no way to know that this experiment would later lead to so many tangible benefits. People like Ogimus argue that basic research, research that has no obvious tangible benefit, should not be conducted because it lacks obvious tangible benefits. People with this viewpoint are shortsighted and are unaware of the history of scientific research. If we could somehow predict the future, then they'd be onto something. Oh, you want to talk about credentials? I have a PhD in Physics. Unlike many PhD physicists, I actually get to do postdoc-level research for a living. What do you do?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus, that's what we have surrogate poxviruses for. Since there are no animal models using smallpox virus itself, such research would be tremendously difficult anyway. How many degrees do you hold in the scientific realm of virology? If your answer is less than one, you don't know what you're talking about, and need to shut up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:The difference there, of course, is that the LHC is testing stuff that can't be tested in any other, potentially less risky fashion, whereas we can perform Poxvirus research just fine using far less risky surrogates such as Cowpox. Oh, I see what the problem is, you just haven't been reading the thread. The epidemiologists who actually perform virology research argue that there are potentially beneficial research avenues that require smallpox specifically, not other Poxviruses. Links to these arguments have been posted throughout the thread. quote:Again this is where you cross the line from making a different call on the risk-benefit analysis into just spouting bullshit about how great science is as an abstract concept. We do particle physics research, therefore the risks of all pathogenic research is absolutely zero! That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you and Ogmius are misinformed people that have a misunderstanding of the actual risks of smallpox research, and that you believe that they are far greater than they actually are, just as misinformed people had a misunderstanding of the risks of turning on the LHC. And also just as misinformed people have a misunderstanding of the risks of vaccinating their children
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
I find bagpipes offensive. Most music doesn't use bagpipes, therefore none of the musicians would mind if we destroyed all of the bagpipes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Most smallpox virus research does not involve live smallpox virus, that's what we have surrogate poxviruses for. Since there are no animal models using smallpox virus itself, such research would be tremendously difficult anyway. I've already posted my a collection of the links and information I've put forward during this thread http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?noseen=0&threadid=3619508&perpage=40&pagenumber=30#post432127637 I would really appreciate if you were to respond to some of them and tell me how you feel about them. I like to talk about virology, so if you'd like some more links or information I'd be glad to share.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:09 |
|
|
Smallpox Debate Thread: Sometimes, we also talk about the anti-vaccination movement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2014 15:58
|
|
