A Party of Haters

[Dashinka 24,628]

6 hours ago, Orangesapples said:

I never said I go from doctor to doctor. Knock on wood, I don't need to for now. I'm just saying that that if it need a second opinion I will only trust another expert. Not my own research or Joe Shmoe. 

Going to the Dr., or doing anything else for that matter without doing your own research is just wrong.  I know when I go to the Dr., I value their advice, but by no means blindly trust it.  My Dr. actually enjoys our conversation, and I have been able to bring up things she did not consider.  

[Orangesapples 1,954]

2 hours ago, Dashinka said:

Going to the Dr., or doing anything else for that matter without doing your own research is just wrong.  I know when I go to the Dr., I value their advice, but by no means blindly trust it.  My Dr. actually enjoys our conversation, and I have been able to bring up things she did not consider.  

But the people here blindly trust non experts. That's a much bigger problem 

[yuna628 9,686]

11 hours ago, Voice of Reason said:

When I go to a doctor, I make sure I am fully informed ahead of time.  And being so, I have helped direct less-experienced doctors in the best treatment for me.  To each their own.

In my experience I will usually only go to a doctor that I'm confident that they have the qualifications to know what they are doing. We are rather spoiled for choice in this state, as we have doctors trained here at excellent hospitals and attract those with good overseas qualifications. Still, with my issues going on they typically will take a doctor 5 years to give a concrete diagnosis as the symptoms can be vague and mimic other things. That's why I've become quite annoyed with one doctor that sent me on a merry-go-round of testing for something I did not believe I had. I know why he thinks I did, it's a common misdiagnosis for people like me so he's got to cover his backside (but he's not thinking outside the box). I've done endless research on the subject but I certainly am not going to overstep my boundaries to his expertise and people with this issue across the globe have typically got to self-advocate for treatment. I humored him and got the tests done. I was right and he was wrong. If you're having to see a doctor that isn't experienced in a subject, it's usually best to seek someone else. I fired my father's endocrinologist last year. His actions nearly contributed to killing him and left a whole other team of shocked and angry doctors at his irresponsibility to clean up the mess created.

[Dashinka 24,628]

41 minutes ago, Orangesapples said:

But the people here blindly trust non experts. That's a much bigger problem 

So now it is blind trust to do research?  Of course not everything available is helpful, but that is part of doing research.

[sl1pstream 551]

20 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

So now it is blind trust to do research?  Of course not everything available is helpful, but that is part of doing research.

There's a difference between doing research and just reading conspiracy theories based on absolutely no factual numbers.

[Ban Hammer 13,420]

11 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

There's a difference between doing research and just reading conspiracy theories based on absolutely no factual numbers.

well only conservatives have conspiracy theories, i learned that this week in vj!

[sl1pstream 551]

1 minute ago, Ban Hammer said:

well only conservatives have conspiracy theories, i learned that this week in vj!

No, conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, doesn't matter where they come from. The whole anti-vax thing, for example, doesn't have a political party attached to it.

[Orangesapples 1,954]

13 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

There's a difference between doing research and just reading conspiracy theories based on absolutely no factual numbers.

Yeah, so many people think research means reading some questionable websites with an agenda on the internet and that's how they get their degrees in environmental science and medicine. 

[Dashinka 24,628]

1 hour ago, sl1pstream said:

There's a difference between doing research and just reading conspiracy theories based on absolutely no factual numbers.

Sure, that is why extensive research is needed along with the ability to understand what is real, and what is not and then actually discuss one’s research with one’s Dr.  If someone is making decisions based only on what they read on WebMD, or some other medical site, they would be wrong just like someone blindly following what a Dr. says.

[Dashinka 24,628]

1 hour ago, Orangesapples said:

Yeah, so many people think research means reading some questionable websites with an agenda on the internet and that's how they get their degrees in environmental science and medicine. 

So WebMD, Johns Hopkins, JAMA are questionable?  I guess I am not sure what websites you are reading.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 hours ago, yuna628 said:

In my experience I will usually only go to a doctor that I'm confident that they have the qualifications to know what they are doing. We are rather spoiled for choice in this state, as we have doctors trained here at excellent hospitals and attract those with good overseas qualifications. Still, with my issues going on they typically will take a doctor 5 years to give a concrete diagnosis as the symptoms can be vague and mimic other things. That's why I've become quite annoyed with one doctor that sent me on a merry-go-round of testing for something I did not believe I had. I know why he thinks I did, it's a common misdiagnosis for people like me so he's got to cover his backside (but he's not thinking outside the box). I've done endless research on the subject but I certainly am not going to overstep my boundaries to his expertise and people with this issue across the globe have typically got to self-advocate for treatment. I humored him and got the tests done. I was right and he was wrong. If you're having to see a doctor that isn't experienced in a subject, it's usually best to seek someone else. I fired my father's endocrinologist last year. His actions nearly contributed to killing him and left a whole other team of shocked and angry doctors at his irresponsibility to clean up the mess created.

So in the end, qualifications are meaningless without results. And in a doctor, you're looking for a heuristic and relationship based approach, not a "qualifications" based one, you admitted as much when you described someone doing things properly as a qualified person would, but not catering to what you find useful.

 

That's not uncommon in what people look for in "scientists" either. Is what they're doing useful? Is it producing outcomes? Is it proving things beyond doubt? Or is it facilitating a means to an end, wasting our time, and simply being a tool for confirmation bias?

 

It's not difficult to discern.

 

2 hours ago, sl1pstream said:

No, conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories, doesn't matter where they come from. The whole anti-vax thing, for example, doesn't have a political party attached to it.

That's true, and the repeated idea that we have this much control over the Earth's climate systems like it's a home central air to turn up and down as we please is clearly false. The insistence that model world is like the Earth despite clearly very flawed modeling assumptions and failed outcomes that endlessly fails in its demonstration of understanding the complexity of climate is also makes such positive conclusions deriving from them a conspiracy. Likewise, the idea that the Earth's climate has anything to do with the usual litany of free stuff, demonstrates the climate issue is nothing more than a means to an end, and not something the left actually care about beyond the preferred social/economic/political outcomes. Thus, cudgel, not science. 

Edited April 9, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[sl1pstream 551]

10 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

and the repeated idea that we have this much control over the Earth's climate systems like it's a home central air to turn up and down as we please is clearly false. 

It's more like we're leaving the oven open after turning it on. Sure, that's not the only reason it's that warm in the kitchen, but it's definitely part of it. It's not going back to normal the moment we turn the heat off, but it'll definitely help in the long run.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

8 minutes ago, sl1pstream said:

It's more like we're leaving the oven open after turning it on. Sure, that's not the only reason it's that warm in the kitchen, but it's definitely part of it. It's not going back to normal the moment we turn the heat off, but it'll definitely help in the long run.

We don't know that. We have no proof. It's an assumption. Erroneous assumptions are what governs climate models and their conclusions, but without them, they (climatologists) can't make them at all, which is the rub (for them). It unfortunately happens way too often in modeling (climate isn't the only area where modeling is done) and mostly because people want specific outcomes. Difference is, where some of us simply want the truth, and knowledge, beyond reasonable doubt, others simply want confirmation bias. You can't go to people who want results and tell them that it takes time to understand complex things, if we ever figure it out at all. They want what they want and they want it now. When one makes certain assumptions, it's very easy to cater to the desire for a specific outcome and deliver, without having real world results. You see this in polling, in PR. Their data is fact, is it not? Sure, in their model world, it's factual. Science! Of course, as people regularly prove, models are like lie detectors. They're only what they say they are if you believe it, and that's key to getting one's way, which is why the left like them right now. Before that, they didn't.

Edited April 9, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[sl1pstream 551]

1 minute ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

We don't know that. We have no proof. It's an assumption. Erroneous assumptions are what governs climate models, but without them, they (climatologists) can't make them at all, which is the rub (for them). It unfortunately happens way too often in modeling (climate isn't the only area where modeling is done) and mostly because people want specific outcomes. Difference is, where some of us simply want the truth, and knowledge, beyond reasonable doubt, others simply want confirmation bias. When one makes certain assumptions, it's very easy to cater to the desire for a specific outcome and deliver, without having real world results. You see this in polling, in PR. Their data is fact, is it not? Sure, in their model world, it's factual. Science! Of course, as people regularly prove, models are like lie detectors. They're only what they say they are if you believe it, and that's key to getting one's way, which is why the left like them right now. Before that, they didn't.

But that's like saying the theory of evolution is just a guess.

[yuna628 9,686]

15 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

So in the end, qualifications are meaningless without results. And in a doctor, you're looking for a heuristic and relationship based approach, not a "qualifications" based one, you admitted as much when you described someone doing things properly as a qualified person would, but not catering to what you find useful.

 

That's not uncommon in what people look for in "scientists" either. Is what they're doing useful? Is it producing outcomes? Is it proving things beyond doubt? Or is it facilitating a means to an end, wasting our time, and simply being a tool for confirmation bias?

 

It's not difficult to discern.

 

I wouldn't say that. Qualifications are important in knowing that a doctor is better than the average bear. Does the doctor know his stuff? Have they had unique potential training to understand rarer diseases that might not be considered by others? My disease is an old one, but it's also rare and not commonly thought about or taught by doctors any more. In the UK people die from it because of a lack of proper training and protocol. One doctor got into quite a bit of trouble saving the lives of many hundreds of persons that were misdiagnosed and in wheelchairs, all because he was seemingly the only one that had the unique training enough to recognize what was going on. He took a different approach to treatment. Then a broad advocacy group started to make the government aware of proper protocols. We don't have that kind of group in the US, and it's where I've studied a lot about the condition. So I knew to expect that the doctor was likely going to send me down the rabbit hole to test for things that had a possibility of existing but likely was not the cause. Yes I wasn't happy that my doctor sent me for numerous tests for a condition I didn't have, but I understood why he did it. There was a possibility I did indeed have it afterall, based on my symptoms and bloodwork. It would be irresponsible of him probably not to test for it, because I could die otherwise and then he'd be in trouble. Alternatively though I could also die from the condition I have. The doctor either has enough specific training to recognize what's going on or they need to eliminate possibilities.