Posted on 05/22/2020 12:10:24 PM PDT by knighthawk
Addiction specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky argued on Friday that United States governors are falsely justifying stay-at-home orders under the pretense of using scientific reasoning to mitigate the spread of the coronavirus.
“There is no science of lockdown, there is not. We don’t have that science. It’s all models, conjecture, theory, this isn’t science,” Pinsky told “The Brian Kilmeade Show.”
Pinsky said there has been "absolutely" an uptick in mental health issues and substance abuse -- especially alcohol -- as people spend weeks in their homes. He disputed the notion that there is settled science behind implementing mass quarantines of healthy people, calling it an unprecedented step.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Good for Dr Drew.
Oh! The same sort of things that prove Global Warming?
That's a rhetorical question.
Following science is similar to following the rule of law.
Pick the case that supports the outcome you want, and run with that.
Those governors are absolutely following ‘science’.
Their science is called ‘anti-Trump’.
They want the lockdown to continue as long as possible, in order to keep the economy tanking. A real bad economy, they hope, will reflect very badly on Trump. So, they can use the bad economy against Trump in November.
It’s called, ‘political’ science.
actually, Dr. Drew make a really good point, which we should all remind people of, when discussing anything scientific topic:
Computer models are not science. They can be used to support a given scientific theory, but actual science ultimately must be based on observations, and any theories must be verified by observations.
When it comes to climate models, amazingly, their computer models are terrible at simulating the observed temperature record.
Finally someone who gets it. As a scientist I have been trying to listen to what science tells me for most of my life. To my great horror and disappointment, I have never heard this great font of all knowledge and truth, science, utter a single word. Scientists on the other hand are a cantankerous lot, each with 10 different opinions on a subject. Take one side of an issue and they will take the other 7 sides. These people who claim to be listening to the science must be communing with Joe Biden who knows lots of people who smoke dope.
Dr. Drew Pinsky Is missing the elephant in the room addiction — Democrat governors addicted to unlawful power and control of peoples’ lives.
That is both inaccurate and unfair. Computer models are built on mathematical models of mechanisms of interaction and generate predictions of outcomes under various circumstances.
They fail to provide accurate predictions for numerous reasons. 1. They don't have all important mechanisms. 2. The description of the mechanisms is simplistic or inaccurate 3. The thing being simulated is an independant agent with its own mind and given choice to do a. or b. will do x,y or z instead.
In many cases the data used to feed the models is very suspect.
and epstein didn’t kill himself
Point taken.
However, there are computer models that can reproduce real-world observations, and computer models that cannot. Just because a bunch of smart people get together and create a model, that doesn’t make it “science”.
So we have to make a distinction. Computer models that have been verified to accurately reproduce real-world phenomena, those can be viewed as scientific and predictive tools. But computer models that have not been able to reproduce any of the real world phenonena that they were designed to reproduce, they are little more than video games.
Computer models are dependent on the data that’s input to it and assumptions that are built into the computer program. To simplify: garbage in, garbage out.
Actually, that isn't how computer models are generally built.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.