Oh, it's definitely likely to be more than just saturated fats at play. My post was a) a gross oversimplification, and b) probably missing some nuance that I'm not informed on. My doctorate is in cognitive psychology, not nutrition science :)
The thing that tastes "creamy" is the saturated fat, the same type of fat in butter and cheese. Peanuts are around 6.3% saturated fat by mass, and cashews are 7.9%.
It won't replace entire ground crews, because the machines will break down. You'll need someone to service them, and a small team to act in case there are no backups.
Thanks for the information. Each of these are indeed troubling. But I think it's disingenuous to say "science" is at fault for these. Shitty people doing shitty things for their own shitty reasons seems to be at play. Some of those reasons are for scientific funding or clout, but I think I comfortably speak for a lot of scientists when I say the scientific output is not worth it.
I think we're mainly on the same page with a lot of this, we just have different descriptions of who we think the bad guy is. My view is that humans have the capacity for great evil, especially when motivated by profit or fame, but that science itself isn't the root cause of this evil but is instead a catalyst enabling people to become famous as a result of it. It's the fame, in my opinion, that drives people to do these terrible things. Science itself doesn't really benefit, and is arguably hurt, by these actions, since there are likely other less harmful ways to research these topics.
Of course, I am biased. I have a career in science, after all. But I do genuinely believe that science does not require these terrible actions to thrive.
Every single time someone does a report on crime and breaks down data by race you’re seeing racist social science in action
Maybe I'm misinterpreting but... is your solution to ignore race and pretend it doesn't exist? That we should be ignorant of how different groups are being treated and pretend everyone is the same? I think we both agree that minorities in many countries are more likely to be poor and have lower social mobility, and so it's important to study them. As an example from my field: Alzheimer's is significantly more likely if you're a minority, especially black or hispanic, due to their reduced ability to access healthy food (food deserts) and quality healthcare due to past redlining. The only way we know this is by studying it.
Forced hysterectomies
That's not science, that's horrible treatment of minority groups and medical malpractice. No scientist with any degree of repute supports that shit.
I'm unfamiliar with the others: genetics being politically correct (this statement makes no sense to me), Mauna Kea, or Guam.
Ah, yes. Good catch, I did mention that there is no scientific evidence to support any widespread negative effects of the vaccines, and there continues to not be. You're more than able to put yourself in the running for the Nobel prize for saving millions of lives by finding and publishing this evidence, though, since it seems that you're so confident in it.
I did not state that "no one credible would believe them", and your links about slavery are irrelevant because the discussion was about vaccines, not racism.
And I didn't lie. Literally none of my colleagues thinks there is any merit to antivax scaremongering.
I'm happy to have this conversation but you really need to contribute more. I've described numerous ways we currently combat racism in science. Would you like to provide a recent example of racist science that we can discuss?
You're very good at putting words into people's mouths (I didn't even mention antivax theories), and that point is where I end the conversation. Good day
I'm not saying trust any random person who calls themself a scientist. Myself included.
I'm saying people should trust reputable scientists at the top of their field. Ideally, journalists should do the leg work to identify these people and give them a voice, and describe why they should be trusted.
That doesn't happen with nearly all right-leaning journalistic publications, unfortunately, resulting in a huge population not knowing who to trust or just mistrusting scientists in general.
Edit: I realize I didn't answer your point on freedom of access. I do firmly believe all science should be accessible, because no single study should ever be taken as fact. Science works through repetition, and if you have a study that disagrees with nearly everything else then it's either a brand new way of looking at things (and will be supported in the future) or is junk (and will be ignored). But just because something is junk doesn't mean we should prevent people from accessing it.
Intentional racism is no longer an issue due to nearly every (reputable) publication's requirement of a institutional review board. This is to prevent exactly what you describe.
Unintentional racism, yes I agree that's a problem.
But come on. We've made huge strides in this over the past few decades.
I understand the historical context but many of us scientists strive to prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Nearly every grant I apply to has a secondary version that prioritizes racially and ethnically diverse applicants. Half of articles I see published are now acknowledging the racial divide in science and striving to recruit more minority populations.
I'm applying to a federal grant now (K01) and I am required to state my strategy for ensuring representation of gender, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status in my recruitment population. I have a section of my grant discussing how the presentation of Alzheimers differs in black communities.
We definitely have more work to do, but it's not like we're pretending the racial divide doesn't exist.
Good. There isn't a single scientific organization, given the whole point of science is democratizing information research.
General populace are supposed to rely on the top researchers in their field to disseminate information. These top researchers are usually the least controversial which is why they are trusted by the (again) democratized scientific community. I'll say this because a lot of people don't realize it: if you have any controversy in your past regarding misinformation or "fixing" results, and it ever gets out, you are immediately shunned and your work will never be looked at seriously again. You will lose your job and all credibility immediately. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it is heavily discouraged.
If we want to combat misinformation we should be encouraging people to trust scientists and not get information from organizations with ulterior motives.
Strong disagree, given the vaccine hysteria was on the part of the deniers. The science supported and continues to support the vaccines effectiveness and safety. It's primarily people who aren't scientists and don't know how to interpret medical studies that are claiming that they are dangerous or ineffective.
Nice to meet you, I'm a medical scientist that specializes in Alzheimer's research. Absolutely none of my colleagues think vaccines are dangerous.
Dr Cog @ Dr_Cog @mander.xyz Posts 1Comments 282Joined 2 yr. ago
Two cuties*
Always get cats in pairs. They tire themselves out instead of constantly needing attention from you