Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

[Dom]

What???

@Erin1971Texas

I'm uncertain as to what might be tripping you up here.

My comment was strait forward; that I believe scientific research is more competitive than collaborative. And, I used my example of three different COVID vaccines as an example to illustrate that belief.

Now, the reason for multiple entities researching the same problem has been explained and I agree, has its merits.

So what aren't you understanding?

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Are you serious? You want to argue the definition of a vaccine to prove it should be investigated to see if it works?

Here's the definition page from the CDC:

Immunization Basics | CDC

Immunization: The Basics

www.cdc.gov

Vaccine: A preparation that is used to stimulate the body’s immune response against diseases. Vaccines are usually administered through needle injections, but some can be administered by mouth or sprayed into the nose.

Your response indicates the problem with changing definitions to fit a current naritive. Polio and other disease would not have been stopped by a therapeutic meeting the current definition of a vaccine. These are the expectations of those of us in the population that lived through the periods of history when vaccines were actually designed to prevent disease and transmission of that disease.

So in your current view it is a success to only limit the possible impact of disease and still allow for rampant transmission through the world population? That by any measure is not effective or successful in controlling a pandemic but a temporary therapy. What benefit is it if we are required to get vaccines to travel that prevent infection and then bring back that disease to our respective countries? Malaria, Hepatitis, Typhoid Fever, and another long list of actual vaccines provide both protection from and prevent transmission of said disease otherwise what is the point of requiring them to travel to foreign countries?

Many diseases have been eradicated by successful vaccines so much so that until a new generation stopped using the vaccines those diseases were almost eradicated from the population. I believe in vaccines make no mistake about that. I have had a laundry list of vaccines in my lifetime. I do question the policy of endemnifying both companies, governments and others before the actual research is finished on its efficacy. These are things we should scratch our collective heads about is it not? Randy we should all ask ourselves why this current batch of vaccines are not effective at preventing disease not just reducing symptoms or the impact of the disease. Should we not try to discover better ways to combat this particular problem? That requires a review of the current policies and therapeutics.

This difference of opinion is an example of why we are talking past each other. You are willing to embrace policy that I see as failure based on past experiences in my life with what is acceptable and what is not. My wife is a medical professional, my son is a bioengineering major with a Masters in Data Science with a concentration in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. He was working at Fred Hutch Cancer center when the pandemic hit. This is the same place the virologist that was working with Washington University was employed. I have access to lots of resources that help guide my medical decisions. As a result we chose the newer Pfizer vaccine. We did take that vaccine only to discover after the fact that it provides limited protection for maybe six months and no protection against all the following variants. At this point much like the flu vaccine companies cannot keep up or anticipate the next mutations so this is a fact with Sars-CoV-2 and it's resulting disease Covid-19. I think we can all agree we need a better solution.

Please read my comments in the full context. We agree on much but I believe we need better in many areas. This includes the hobby. Emphasis on hobby. We are not all scientists like yourself. You are rather quick to dismiss those who disagree with you. Your writing can be quite abrasive at times as I am sure mine is as well. That is not my intention (to be abrasive). Exchange of ideas is important to arrive at better solutions.

Wishing you and yours well today and everyday!

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

Your response indicates the problem with changing definitions to fit a current naritive. Polio and other disease would not have been stopped by a therapeutic meeting the current definition of a vaccine. These are the expectations of those of us in the population that lived through the periods of history when vaccines were actually designed to prevent disease and transmission of that disease.

So in your current view it is a success to only limit the possible impact of disease and still allow for rampant transmission through the world population? That by any measure is not effective or successful in controlling a pandemic but a temporary therapy. What benefit is it if we are required to get vaccines to travel that prevent infection and then bring back that disease to our respective countries? Malaria, Hepatitis, Typhoid Fever, and another long list of actual vaccines provide both protection from and prevent transmission of said disease otherwise what is the point of requiring them to travel to foreign countries?

Many diseases have been eradicated by successful vaccines so much so that until a new generation stopped using the vaccines those diseases were almost eradicated from the population. I believe in vaccines make no mistake about that. I have had a laundry list of vaccines in my lifetime. I do question the policy of endemnifying both companies, governments and others before the actual research is finished on its efficacy. These are things we should scratch our collective heads about is it not? Randy we should all ask ourselves why this current batch of vaccines are not effective at preventing disease not just reducing symptoms or the impact of the disease. Should we not try to discover better ways to combat this particular problem? That requires a review of the current policies and therapeutics.

This difference of opinion is an example of why we are talking past each other. You are willing to embrace policy that I see as failure based on past experiences in my life with what is acceptable and what is not. My wife is a medical professional, my son is a bioengineering major with a Masters in Data Science with a concentration in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. He was working at Fred Hutch Cancer center when the pandemic hit. This is the same place the virologist that was working with Washington University was employed. I have access to lots of resources that help guide my medical decisions. As a result we chose the newer Pfizer vaccine. We did take that vaccine only to discover after the fact that it provides limited protection for maybe six months and no protection against all the following variants. At this point much like the flu vaccine companies cannot keep up or anticipate the next mutations so this is a fact with Sars-CoV-2 and it's resulting disease Covid-19. I think we can all agree we need a better solution.

Please read my comments in the full context. We agree on much but I believe we need better in many areas. This includes the hobby. Emphasis on hobby. We are not all scientists like yourself. You are rather quick to dismiss those who disagree with you. Your writing can be quite abrasive at times as I am sure mine is as well. That is not my intention (to be abrasive). Exchange of ideas is important to arrive at better solutions.

Wishing you and yours well today and everyday!

Everyone wishes medical therapies of almost every sort were more effective, cheaper to produce, and with fewer side effects.

That applies to Covid vaccines, flu vaccines, antibiotics, and even the medications that I have co-invented.

I’m sorry that you feel you were misinformed by relying on the definition of a vaccine to understand what it will do for you. In a perfect world, every treatment would be perfect.

In the real world, we use what we have, and most people are grateful we have therapies.

 

[Lowell Lemon]

Wow. I'm sorry, but you're completely off base...

Death settles the pursuit of science does it not? I did use the term many areas did I not? It was not a statement of absolutes. We all seem to speed read and miss context sometimes.

 

[WVNed]

Today I searched on the net for plans for a lovebird nest box. I used 3 different search engines and phrased the question several different ways.
I found nothing that interested me.

I did buy 5 used books today from an online retailer. I will go back to the old ways.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Just a reminder to folks to be sure to keep politics and religion out of this discussion.

I understand this thread may directly relate to some political and religious topics, but such comments are against the REEF2REEF terms of service and risks the thread being locked or moved out of view.

I’m curious if removing the word truth from the original statement, and replacing it with something like widely accepted principles, would have any effect on the outcome of this discussion? For some reason I feel that the word truth may be more provocative to some than others. Thus bringing in the political and religious aspects.

 

[areefer01]

some than others. Thus bringing in the political and religious aspects.

This forum has a prayer thread. It is already here.

 

[WVNed]

If it okay to sell chicken nuggets made from plants I suppose selling gold coins made from plastic would be okay.

I’m curious if removing the word truth from the original statement, and replacing it with something like widely accepted principles, would have any effect on the outcome of this discussion? For some reason I feel that the word truth may be more provocative to some than others. Thus bringing in the political and religious aspects.

Depending on what era you where educated in words now have tremendously different definitions. It makes general
discussion difficult.
English was once a beautiful language with a huge specific vocabulary for items and even esoteric concepts. No more.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

If it okay to sell chicken nuggets made from plants I suppose selling gold coins made from plastic would be okay.



Depending on what era you where educated in words now have tremendously different definitions. It makes general
discussion difficult.
English was once a beautiful language with a huge specific vocabulary for items and even esoteric concepts. No more.

I prefer hieroglyphics myself, even pop up books

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I’m curious if removing the word truth from the original statement, and replacing it with something like widely accepted principles, would have any effect on the outcome of this discussion? For some reason I feel that the word truth may be more provocative to some than others. Thus bringing in the political and religious aspects.

I have to say that to me, and I think most scientists, there is a single thing called truth. Reality is an equally suitable word, as would be "that which is correct". It does not require that any human understand it or recognize it, and it does not, I think, have a religious or political nature (IMO). It has nothing to do with what should be, only what is, and what is not. Some truths might even be statistical in nature (where is that electron?), but still are straightforward facts. That is the context for the title of this thread:

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

If I were to change it to

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject widely accepted principles​

then I think it has a different meaning. Many reefers may not know the principles involved and so are not really making an assessment about underlying principles. They are making an assessment about the reality of something.

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

I have to say that to me, and I think most scientists, there is a single thing called truth. Reality is an equally suitable word, as would be "that which is correct". It does not require that any human understand it or recognize it. That is the context for the title of this thread:

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

If I were to change it to

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject widely accepted principles​

then I think it has a different meaning. Many reefers may not know the principles involved and so are not really making an assessment about underlying principles. They are making an assessment about the reality of something.

I get it and am not stating that it was a misuse of the term. My thoughts are that some might, possibly have a different interpretation of the term. As with quote science. For some reason that term is often thrown around in political slash religious circles. I have noticed, with no data other than observation, that the words science and truth often become trigger words so to speak. I do agree with your statement. Just curious is all

 

[sixty_reefer]

I have to say that to me, and I think most scientists, there is a single thing called truth. Reality is an equally suitable word, as would be "that which is correct". It does not require that any human understand it or recognize it, and it does not, I think, have a religious or political nature (IMO). It has nothing to do with what should be, only what is, and what is not. Some truths might even be statistical in nature (where is that electron?), but still are straightforward facts. That is the context for the title of this thread:

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

If I were to change it to

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject widely accepted principles​

then I think it has a different meaning. Many reefers may not know the principles involved and so are not really making an assessment about underlying principles. They are making an assessment about the reality of something.

For ease of the discussion could you clarify for me what field of science are we discussing here? If it’s chemistry I must agree with all you said so far although if it’s biology for example it may be different, I say that as I read many paper and most of of them will finish with a conclusion based on observation and will almost never end with a absolute truth. For example many scientists have thoughts and theories on what a dendronephtya (carnation coral) may eat although there isn’t a absolute truth to it to date.
I ask as I feel that folks may be confusing fields of science although we are in the chemistry forum.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

I get it and am not stating that it was a misuse of the term. My thoughts are that some might, possibly have a different interpretation of the term. As with quote science. For some reason that term is often thrown around in political slash religious circles. I have noticed, with no data other than observation, that the words science and truth often become trigger words so to speak. I do agree with your statement. Just curious is all

Yes, I do understand that different people have different world views and those views will color their interpretation. We are all products of what we have been exposed to in life.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

For ease of the discussion could you clarify for me what field of science are we discussing here? If it’s chemistry I must agree with all you said so far although if it’s biology for example it may be different, I say that as I read many paper and most of of them will finish with a conclusion based on observation and will almost never end with a absolute truth. For example many scientists have thoughts and theories on what a dendronephtya (carnation coral) may eat although there isn’t a absolute truth to it to date.
I ask as I feel that folks may be confusing fields of science although we are in the chemistry forum.

I am not referring to any specific field of science. Regardless of the field, the more complicated it is, the less likely is a scientist to think he or she has a complete understanding.

Nevertheless, there is a truth about anything, whether people are able to grasp it or not. In your example, there is a single absolute truth about what every individual dendro consumed in its life, and how much of what types of nutrition it got from every bit of food, whether biologists can figure it out or not.

 

[WVNed]

I have to say that to me, and I think most scientists, there is a single thing called truth. Reality is an equally suitable word, as would be "that which is correct". It does not require that any human understand it or recognize it, and it does not, I think, have a religious or political nature (IMO). It has nothing to do with what should be, only what is, and what is not. Some truths might even be statistical in nature (where is that electron?), but still are straightforward facts. That is the context for the title of this thread:

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject truth

If I were to change it to

Reefers may over-rely on personal experience to accept or reject widely accepted principles​

then I think it has a different meaning. Many reefers may not know the principles involved and so are not really making an assessment about underlying principles. They are making an assessment about the reality of something.

So scientists are arbiters of truth

I think I read that book in about 1972

 

[PeterC99]

Is this still a Reefer website?

 

[areefer01]

So scientists are arbiters of truth

Scientists, just like non, are still fallible.

• Note 1: I understand in the context of the OPs post I fully understand they are not stating that
• Note 2: I have to say after 239 posts I'm actually shocked that we are having this discussion here although I believe the opening post and conversation needed to take place. The noise between post 2 and 239 not so much.
• Note 3: I hope all who have participated at least have a running marine system be it FOWLR or Reef

 

[A_Blind_Reefer]

Is this still a Reefer website?

 

[sixty_reefer]

I am not referring to any specific field of science. Regardless of the field, the more complicated it is, the less likely is a scientist to think he or she has a complete understanding.

Nevertheless, there is a truth about anything, whether people are able to grasp it or not. In your example, there is a single absolute truth about what every individual dendro consumed in its life, and how much of what types of nutrition it got from every bit of food, whether biologists can figure it out or not.

I agree that there is truth to some extent, if all fields of science were to be added to the discussion then the truth would change as technology advances, if we were to discuss archeology, biology and astronomy for example there is only a few truths, most current answers are just theoretical.
string theory also comes to mind, in the field of science (physics) that is basically all theoretical.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley]

So scientists are arbiters of truth

I think I read that book in about 1972

What? No, we try to understand it, but it is what it is whether we are there or not. We don’t decide what is truth.