You know, I can get behind the sentiment of MAHA. Fast foods literally killing people, and worse, making thier lives miserable and expensive. Healthy skepticism of big pharma is, err, healthy. Bring that on.
Research into cell phone health issues is fine. The physics suggest it shouldn’t be an issue, but still, data is good.
Agreed that there’s no such thing as “wasted” research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They’re quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.
Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research… everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in <current year>, not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.
Faraday never told the prime minister asking what use his electrical party tricks had with, “I don’t know but someday you will tax it.” But it’s fairly un-intuitive that some weirdos arguing about Newton’s gravity equations not working in very specific circumstances would lead to precision worldwide location / mapping / guidance technology (Special relativity / GPS). Or that the abstract work in what atoms are and how they work would lead to incredibly dense handheld digital storage devices (quantum mechanics / SSDs). Seeing what organs could be removed from a living dog lead to the development of insulin.
Limiting research to what will pay off in ~5-10 years is like only taking day-trips and wondering why you never discover new continents.
Sure but I’d argue an example of wasted research is someone investigating the harm of mercury caused by vaccinations. Again. After it’s long been settled. Overwhelmingly
So part of the problem is it’s easy to believe some research is ridiculous, especially if you don’t understand it or don’t have context. And especially when there are politicians or lobbyists who find it profitable to mischaracterize or cast doubt. I really think the only answer is to restore respect for science, trust in whatever committee vets the research proposals. While that can be the road to wasted research, it’s much better than the current method of manipulated public opinion
I agree that the utility of revisiting an already well-researched question is low, but I don’t think it’s entirely wasted. Replication and in particular failure to replicate existing results is when a team can learn good things, rarely a breakthrough, often just that their procedures need refinement.
Absolutely there are much higher priority work to which public funds should go.
I mean at this point I’m not 100% sure I’m not talking with a bot that just responds to my first sentence.
5G / anti-vax / etc. aren’t research movements, they’re justifications. Conspiracy “science” is not science, it’s (fairly fringe) religion attempting to use alternate language to appear more respectable.
Stuff like the Netflix / Folding Ideas documentaries on Flat Earthers are still interesting for showing the application of ideas and how critical thinking is useful and how rejecting proof because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis, instead of adjusting your hypothesis, is farcical when viewed outside the lens of belief.
The usual refrain that only ionizing radiation can affect DNA is valid for the far-field, where photons are “fully formed” as it were, and therefore e=hf applies. In the near-field, you can transfer energy efficiently at far lower frequencies than you’d expect. But that works well in gases. Not entirely sure how much effect that can have on a bag of water, ie you and me. But it’s there. Does that count as an “issue” or an issue?
Do you think the science that’s been done to understand health effects from cell phones/towers have so far failed to account for the near and far fields?
You’d be surprised. People think microwaves work by making water molecules resonate. And I’ve heard that from engineers and physicists. So they must believe that the near-field of low frequency RF affects liquids.
To say that the thousands upon thousands of hours spent doing good science trying to understand how cell phones/towers affect health were in vain because they failed to account for one of the most fundamental concepts of EM is an extraordinary claim. It’s up to you now to support this extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence that all of these scientists were doing bad science.
An issue with focusing too much on a single topic, is, “if you look for it, you will find it”. With enough time and effort spent, you will find a signal. Not a true signal, just one that appeared from randomness, and if you would do an analysis of all the studies, the signal would disappear again, but they’re definitively not beyond pick and choosing their studies
The thing is, those same fucknuggets who clamor “data is good”, etc. in bad faith like this worm-host in the meme are the quack “medicine”…and their indirect harm to millions worldwide is going on wildly uncontested —much less punished. 🤌🏼🤷🏼♂️
You know, I can get behind the sentiment of MAHA. Fast foods literally killing people, and worse, making thier lives miserable and expensive. Healthy skepticism of big pharma is, err, healthy. Bring that on.
Research into cell phone health issues is fine. The physics suggest it shouldn’t be an issue, but still, data is good.
…But can we please take the quack medicine out?
Agreed that there’s no such thing as “wasted” research. But there is no medicine to take out of the quack medicine. They’re quacks because they refuse to accept results of research on emotional grounds and just keep squawking the same things their minds are made up about.
Focusing on problems that are fairly settled now because a 70+ year old heard they were mysterious and a problem at the age of six is so inefficient as to be regressive. Yes we should continue to research… everything but we should do so on the foundation of all the research available in <current year>, not on vaguely remembered tabloid scares from decades ago.
Oh my sweet summer child.
Faraday never told the prime minister asking what use his electrical party tricks had with, “I don’t know but someday you will tax it.” But it’s fairly un-intuitive that some weirdos arguing about Newton’s gravity equations not working in very specific circumstances would lead to precision worldwide location / mapping / guidance technology (Special relativity / GPS). Or that the abstract work in what atoms are and how they work would lead to incredibly dense handheld digital storage devices (quantum mechanics / SSDs). Seeing what organs could be removed from a living dog lead to the development of insulin.
Limiting research to what will pay off in ~5-10 years is like only taking day-trips and wondering why you never discover new continents.
Sure but I’d argue an example of wasted research is someone investigating the harm of mercury caused by vaccinations. Again. After it’s long been settled. Overwhelmingly
So part of the problem is it’s easy to believe some research is ridiculous, especially if you don’t understand it or don’t have context. And especially when there are politicians or lobbyists who find it profitable to mischaracterize or cast doubt. I really think the only answer is to restore respect for science, trust in whatever committee vets the research proposals. While that can be the road to wasted research, it’s much better than the current method of manipulated public opinion
“replication crisis”
I agree that the utility of revisiting an already well-researched question is low, but I don’t think it’s entirely wasted. Replication and in particular failure to replicate existing results is when a team can learn good things, rarely a breakthrough, often just that their procedures need refinement.
Absolutely there are much higher priority work to which public funds should go.
Oh come on. “Studying” 5G and anti-vax conspiracy theories is hardly in same league as the stuff Faraday was researching.
I mean at this point I’m not 100% sure I’m not talking with a bot that just responds to my first sentence.
5G / anti-vax / etc. aren’t research movements, they’re justifications. Conspiracy “science” is not science, it’s (fairly fringe) religion attempting to use alternate language to appear more respectable.
Stuff like the Netflix / Folding Ideas documentaries on Flat Earthers are still interesting for showing the application of ideas and how critical thinking is useful and how rejecting proof because it doesn’t fit your hypothesis, instead of adjusting your hypothesis, is farcical when viewed outside the lens of belief.
aka, pseudoscience, its sounds sciency enough but its based on beliefs.
Well, the only physics in EM that could be an issue is that the near-field isn’t the same as the far-field.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_and_far_field
What is the issue?
That the E field is very strong in the near-field.
Yes, as your Wikipedia entry eloquently explains. Understood.
But what is the actual “issue” you’ve identified?
The usual refrain that only ionizing radiation can affect DNA is valid for the far-field, where photons are “fully formed” as it were, and therefore e=hf applies. In the near-field, you can transfer energy efficiently at far lower frequencies than you’d expect. But that works well in gases. Not entirely sure how much effect that can have on a bag of water, ie you and me. But it’s there. Does that count as an “issue” or an issue?
Do you think the science that’s been done to understand health effects from cell phones/towers have so far failed to account for the near and far fields?
You’d be surprised. People think microwaves work by making water molecules resonate. And I’ve heard that from engineers and physicists. So they must believe that the near-field of low frequency RF affects liquids.
To say that the thousands upon thousands of hours spent doing good science trying to understand how cell phones/towers affect health were in vain because they failed to account for one of the most fundamental concepts of EM is an extraordinary claim. It’s up to you now to support this extraordinary claim with extraordinary evidence that all of these scientists were doing bad science.
Until then, all you’re doing is FUD.
An issue with focusing too much on a single topic, is, “if you look for it, you will find it”. With enough time and effort spent, you will find a signal. Not a true signal, just one that appeared from randomness, and if you would do an analysis of all the studies, the signal would disappear again, but they’re definitively not beyond pick and choosing their studies
Basically, this https://xkcd.com/882/
As always, XKCD is spot on…
Like, I wish that was pasted below every Kennedy interview aired.
but he also pedalls Ultra processed food company.
The thing is, those same fucknuggets who clamor “data is good”, etc. in bad faith like this worm-host in the meme are the quack “medicine”…and their indirect harm to millions worldwide is going on wildly uncontested —much less punished. 🤌🏼🤷🏼♂️