Thinking of getting vaccinated?

[Katman]

To ask that question, is to demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding as to the Nature of Science.

Well that didn't really answer the question though, did it?

[husaberg]

Well that didn't really answer the question though, did it?

He did answer it, the problem is you don't seem to grasp what, for most people is a very simple concept of what science is.

[Virago]

Well that didn't really answer the question though, did it?

Very occasionally a question is asked which is so spectacularly silly, it defies all attempts at furnishing a sensible answer.

[Katman]

Very occasionally a question is asked which is so spectacularly silly, it defies all attempts at furnishing a sensible answer.

Well the reason I asked was, I'm trying to figure out why the Institute of Medicine would say something as spectacularly unscientific as "no further testing should be done" with regards to investigating any sort of link between vaccines and neurological disorders.

'Cos I'm assuming that the correct answer to my question is that Science is never 'done'.

(But I was giving him another chance to think he was educating me. It seems to give him a boost).

[Katman]

Whoa, this looks like a worthwhile read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4046551/

[husaberg]

Well the reason I asked was, I'm trying to figure out why the Institute of Medicine would say something as spectacularly unscientific as "no further testing should be done" with regards to investigating any sort of link between vaccines and neurological disorders.

'Cos I'm assuming that the correct answer to my question is that Science is never 'done'.

(But I was giving him another chance to think he was educating me. It seems to give him a boost).

Well maybe you need to become a scientist and prove them wrong, or better still just chase down blind alleys the rest of your life.
Maybe you should show them where they have exhausted all the avenues of through educated research conducted by peer reviewed professionals and yet somehow still came up with answers you don't agree with based on your own paranoia that’s based on one fraudulent trial conducted by a conman.
Lets be honest here you don't agree that Wakefeild is a conman do you? Do you think that's becuase you deperately want to buy the idea he was selling.

[TheDemonLord]

Well the reason I asked was, I'm trying to figure out why the Institute of Medicine would say something as spectacularly unscientific as "no further testing should be done" with regards to investigating any sort of link between vaccines and neurological disorders.

'Cos I'm assuming that the correct answer to my question is that Science is never 'done'.

(But I was giving him another chance to think he was educating me. It seems to give him a boost).

Law of Diminishing Returns.

[Katman]

Law of Diminishing Returns.

The only returns Science should be interested in is knowledge.

And even negative tests can add to knowledge.

[TheDemonLord]

The only returns Science should be interested in is knowledge.

And even negative tests can add to knowledge.

But since we have limited resources (such as Time), there comes a point where the expected return is so small or negligible and the investment of Time, Money etc. So large that other things where the gaps in knowledge are larger and the required investment is smaller.

[Katman]

But since we have limited resources (such as Time), there comes a point where the expected return is so small or negligible and the investment of Time, Money etc. So large that other things where the gaps in knowledge are larger and the required investment is smaller.

And that answer would suggest it's you that has the 'fundamental misunderstanding as to the Nature of Science'.

[TheDemonLord]

And that answer would suggest it's you that has the 'fundamental misunderstanding as to the Nature of Science'.

No, Try again.


I'll give you a hint - despite your attempts to assert it so - those 2 answers are NOT mutually exclusive.

[Ocean1]

The only returns Science should be interested in is knowledge.

And even negative tests can add to knowledge.

Bollox, it's not "science" that funds scientific knowledge, it's commercial entities. And strangely enough they tend to drop dead if they spend more than they earn.

Go ahead, try it, flog all your tyres at cost.

And as far as the cost of adding knowledge by "answering" the deluge of mindless Big Pharma conspiracy accusations is concerned it's long since exceeded any rational budget in terms of it's value. Worse, the associated anti-science bullshit can really only be expressed in terms of "negative knowledge".

[Katman]

Bollox, it's not "science" that funds scientific knowledge, it's commercial entities. And strangely enough they tend to drop dead if they spend more than they earn.

Go ahead, try it, flog all your tyres at cost.

And as far as the cost of adding knowledge by "answering" the deluge of mindless Big Pharma conspiracy accusations is concerned it's long since exceeded any rational budget in terms of it's value. Worse, the associated anti-science bullshit can really only be expressed in terms of "negative knowledge".

Refer post #3040.

[Katman]

No, Try again.


I'll give you a hint - despite your attempts to assert it so - those 2 answers are NOT mutually exclusive.

Please explain how time, as a resource, is limited.

[Ocean1]

Refer post #3040.

Refer post #3041