If anyone is interested:
https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Hey, buffy, i have a tomatoes question for you. I’ll put it in ‘chat’.
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
I’ll believe that when I see some evidence.
The Rev Dodgson said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
I’ll believe that when I see some evidence.
I’ve had a look at the program and there don’t seem to be any sessions I haven’t got an interest in listening to.
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
My understanding is they are proper scientific skeptics, rather than pseudo-skeptics, not that I know anything about them.
The Rev Dodgson said:
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
My understanding is they are proper scientific skeptics, rather than pseudo-skeptics, not that I know anything about them.
There is usually plenty of room for a scientific skeptic to slip into a pseudo skeptic. It is all too easy to tear new ideas down unfairly.
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
There’s a meeting of them tonight I think, only a few k’s from here. We’re still avoiding crowds though so we aren’t going.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
You could just use the link to the program that is in my link…
buffy said:
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
You could just use the link to the program that is in my link…
Woooo, slow down a bit here, Poindexter :)
buffy said:
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
If anyone is interested:https://skepticon.org.au/
I am registered to attend online, so I won’t be around the forum much.
Which skeptic?
About religion? About government promises? About climate? About advertising? About vaccines? About the news? About the Twin Towers?
Might be worth registering just to see what they are and aren’t skeptical about.
You could just use the link to the program that is in my link…
Topics of talks.
Welcome and introduction
Testing truth and how feelings shape facts
Curtailing misinformation and disinformation: going beyond the sharing of facts
Pseudo-archaeology
The way forward – Skepticism’s role in a changed world
On being censored
Science fiction and security professionals
Radio Girl
Superstitions in sport
Pseudo law and the ‘sovereign citizen’
Skeptical motherhood – woos and woes between teething beads and cumin baths
How to know what’s really real
The education of a skeptical documentary maker
Sweden’s COVID-19 response – reviewing an outlier
Helping people make science-based decisions in politics
From forest to fork: myth-busting the impacts of plant-based diets
The European Skeptics Podcast
Health outcomes of e-cigarettes
GM crops and food security
Anti-epistemology! Unlearning everything!
Hard to know which way the speakers will jump on each topic.
> Pseudo-archaeology
Huh?
> On being censored
It’s called “peer review”
> Science fiction and security professionals
What?
> How to know what’s really real
How would he know?
> Sweden’s COVID-19 response – reviewing an outlier
Hardly an outlier. Sweden is just about midway between the response of America and Australia.
> Health outcomes of e-cigarettes
No tar, which is the most dangerous component.
> Anti-epistemology! Unlearning everything!
(Looking up epistemology)
“Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion”. Don’t need to unlearn it. Need to learn it.
mollwollfumble said:
…
> Pseudo-archaeology
Huh?> On being censored
It’s called “peer review”> Science fiction and security professionals
What?> How to know what’s really real
How would he know?> Sweden’s COVID-19 response – reviewing an outlier
Hardly an outlier. Sweden is just about midway between the response of America and Australia.> Health outcomes of e-cigarettes
No tar, which is the most dangerous component.> Anti-epistemology! Unlearning everything!
(Looking up epistemology)
“Epistemology is the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope, and the distinction between justified belief and opinion”. Don’t need to unlearn it. Need to learn it.
Ok, I’m skeptical about how valuable it is going to be.
But I’ve booked anyway. Thanks, buffy.
Yes, I’m very skeptical about the value of attending this skeptics conference.
So I have to attend.
mollwollfumble said:
Yes, I’m very skeptical about the value of attending this skeptics conference.So I have to attend.
I was right to be skeptical about the value of this skeptics conference.
>> Pseudo-archaeology
> Huh?
Indiana Jones, Atlantis, Chariot of the Gods etc.
I have the following saying:
If it’s false then it’s wrong.
If it’s wrong then it’s criticised.
If it’s criticised then it’s controversial.
If it’s controversial then it’s well-known.
If it’s well-known then it’s popular.
If it’s popular then it’s believed.
If it’s believed then it’s accepted as true.
If it’s accepted as true then it is true.
So if it’s false then it’s true.
Thus goes the way of mankind.
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
Yes, I’m very skeptical about the value of attending this skeptics conference.So I have to attend.
I was right to be skeptical about the value of this skeptics conference.
>> Pseudo-archaeology
> Huh?Indiana Jones, Atlantis, Chariot of the Gods etc.
I have the following saying:
If it’s false then it’s wrong.
If it’s wrong then it’s criticised.
If it’s criticised then it’s controversial.
If it’s controversial then it’s well-known.
If it’s well-known then it’s popular.
If it’s popular then it’s believed.
If it’s believed then it’s accepted as true.
If it’s accepted as true then it is true.So if it’s false then it’s true.
Thus goes the way of mankind.
Tom Carruthers on science communications was a good speaker though.
In the following, “atheist movement” means in religious countries.
mollwollfumble said:
In the following, “atheist movement” means in religious countries.
Good heavens…was Clive Hamilton put in there as a test?
I may have to buy a book. This author did a damn decent job of winging his talk at the conference. He was to present live, his wife has COVID, so he had to change to online at short notice, and then his presentation notes were not available on the cloud. So he just chatted about this book and also his book on Ned Kelly and then took some questions. This woman sounds very interesting.
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50815135-radio-girl
His half hour talk was supposed to be about Mrs Mac.
buffy said:
I may have to buy a book. This author did a damn decent job of winging his talk at the conference. He was to present live, his wife has COVID, so he had to change to online at short notice, and then his presentation notes were not available on the cloud. So he just chatted about this book and also his book on Ned Kelly and then took some questions. This woman sounds very interesting.https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50815135-radio-girl
His half hour talk was supposed to be about Mrs Mac.
Ta. Thanks for the explanation.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
I may have to buy a book. This author did a damn decent job of winging his talk at the conference. He was to present live, his wife has COVID, so he had to change to online at short notice, and then his presentation notes were not available on the cloud. So he just chatted about this book and also his book on Ned Kelly and then took some questions. This woman sounds very interesting.https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/50815135-radio-girl
His half hour talk was supposed to be about Mrs Mac.
Ta. Thanks for the explanation.
He did explain at the beginning of his talk. I quite enjoyed Bruce Baer Arnold on sovereign citizens. I don’t think I’ve actually heard anything today that I’ve not come across before. But several of the talks were interesting anyway.
And just gone live for day 2. Shortly they will do the welcome and tell us who got the Bent Spoon last night at the dinner.
buffy said:
And just gone live for day 2. Shortly they will do the welcome and tell us who got the Bent Spoon last night at the dinner.
Uri?
roughbarked said:
buffy said:
And just gone live for day 2. Shortly they will do the welcome and tell us who got the Bent Spoon last night at the dinner.
Uri?
The award is made of gopher wood, has a spoon bent by Uri Geller….you get the joke. It was won by some woman who was selling vaccination exemption certificates in Queensland.
Just listened to the talk on “Sweden’s COVID19 response – Reviewing and Outlier”.
Pretty straightforward:
Anders Tegnell is not humble, but was working with a backing of an agency of 500 people with broad expertise.
They had a pandemic plan prepared over decades and used that.
There were legal limitations because of guaranteed freedom of assembly and movement.
In Sweden health authorities take care of health decisions not politicians, there is no ministerial interference.
Swedes generally trust authorities and experts and do as they are told.
The piece in The Conversation that I linked in the COVID19 thread for December here was recommended reading.
Something I didn’t know is that Our World in Data updates its numbers retrospectively over time, so the deaths per million numbers for, for example, the first few weeks of the pandemic, now look different from what was reported at the time.
buffy said:
Just listened to the talk on “Sweden’s COVID19 response – Reviewing and Outlier”.Pretty straightforward:
Anders Tegnell is not humble, but was working with a backing of an agency of 500 people with broad expertise.
They had a pandemic plan prepared over decades and used that.
There were legal limitations because of guaranteed freedom of assembly and movement.
In Sweden health authorities take care of health decisions not politicians, there is no ministerial interference.
Swedes generally trust authorities and experts and do as they are told.
The piece in The Conversation that I linked in the COVID19 thread for December here was recommended reading.
Something I didn’t know is that Our World in Data updates its numbers retrospectively over time, so the deaths per million numbers for, for example, the first few weeks of the pandemic, now look different from what was reported at the time.
I didn’t like his misuse of statistics.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that statistics based on one week of data are less reliable than statistics based on six months of data.
He also totally ignored the fact that Covid comes in waves, waves that are not necessarily synchronised between countries.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
Just listened to the talk on “Sweden’s COVID19 response – Reviewing and Outlier”.Pretty straightforward:
Anders Tegnell is not humble, but was working with a backing of an agency of 500 people with broad expertise.
They had a pandemic plan prepared over decades and used that.
There were legal limitations because of guaranteed freedom of assembly and movement.
In Sweden health authorities take care of health decisions not politicians, there is no ministerial interference.
Swedes generally trust authorities and experts and do as they are told.
The piece in The Conversation that I linked in the COVID19 thread for December here was recommended reading.
Something I didn’t know is that Our World in Data updates its numbers retrospectively over time, so the deaths per million numbers for, for example, the first few weeks of the pandemic, now look different from what was reported at the time.
I didn’t like his misuse of statistics.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that statistics based on one week of data are less reliable than statistics based on six months of data.
He also totally ignored the fact that Covid comes in waves, waves that are not necessarily synchronised between countries.
> Something I didn’t know is that Our World in Data updates its numbers retrospectively over time, so the deaths per million numbers for, for example, the first few weeks of the pandemic, now look different from what was reported at the time.
I can check that.
I have a spreadsheet giving the numbers as reported during the first weeks of the pandemic.
I can compare that with what is known now.
There were some real retrospective changes from some governments. For instance, in the time before China had a reliable test for Covid, the numbers reported had to be corrected when a reliable test became available. With the reliable test, two people thought to have Covid didn’t, and some dozen or more people not thought to have covid were found to have it. Also in China, near the end of the first wave, Covid data had to be corrected to take into account all the deaths that had not managed to get to major hospitals in time to be tested.
China was good in that. I only know of two other countries that retrospectively changed their statistics when better data regarding the earlier cases arrived.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
Just listened to the talk on “Sweden’s COVID19 response – Reviewing and Outlier”.Pretty straightforward:
Anders Tegnell is not humble, but was working with a backing of an agency of 500 people with broad expertise.
They had a pandemic plan prepared over decades and used that.
There were legal limitations because of guaranteed freedom of assembly and movement.
In Sweden health authorities take care of health decisions not politicians, there is no ministerial interference.
Swedes generally trust authorities and experts and do as they are told.
The piece in The Conversation that I linked in the COVID19 thread for December here was recommended reading.
Something I didn’t know is that Our World in Data updates its numbers retrospectively over time, so the deaths per million numbers for, for example, the first few weeks of the pandemic, now look different from what was reported at the time.
I didn’t like his misuse of statistics.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that statistics based on one week of data are less reliable than statistics based on six months of data.
He also totally ignored the fact that Covid comes in waves, waves that are not necessarily synchronised between countries.
>>It doesn’t take a genius to realise that statistics based on one week of data are less reliable than statistics based on six months of data.<<
But at the time, they were the statistics being widely touted. Did you know/realize the differences backdating of more data made? I probably hadn’t thought about it, even though it is obvious.
Just about to go into the last session.
Health outcomes of e-cigarettes.
GM crops and food security.
Anti-epistomology! Unlearning everything!
In the following, the poisoning would be of people who spray insecticide, not people who eat plants.
Dang. The last talk topic has been changed. It was supposed to be about “reject epistemology, unlearn everything”.
mollwollfumble said:
In the following, the poisoning would be of people who spray insecticide, not people who eat plants.
Dang. The last talk topic has been changed. It was supposed to be about “reject epistemology, unlearn everything”.
I suspect some people do not wash their plant matter before eating them so it’s possible that some of the incidents are from those who eat the plants too
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon
“Morton’s demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the person to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by all the facts that the demon allows in.”
Yes.
;-)
mollwollfumble said:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Morton%27s_demon“Morton’s demon makes it possible for a person to have his own set of private facts which others are not privy to, allowing the person to construct a theory which is perfectly supported by all the facts that the demon allows in.”
Yes.
;-)
I was just about to look up Morton’s Demon. I’d not heard of it before.