Donald Trump and US politics

https://twitter.com/i/videos/878964397217009665

Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/878964397217009665

WTF do we call this? Outright lies? Doublespeak? Gaslight?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Being fake news also means simply not covering essential stuff.

Propaganda

"

Xavderion wrote:

Being fake news also means simply not covering essential stuff.

I want to see that contrasted with coverage of Donald Trump's ice cream habits.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Xavderion wrote:

Being fake news also means simply not covering essential stuff.

I want to see that contrasted with coverage of Donald Trump's ice cream habits.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Whos protecting Christians and other secs in the middles east? Muslims thats who. While USA tries to overthrow the protectors. Like saddam and assad.


[Removed by Support]

Christians druze jews and other survived 1400 years of Islam...will they survive neocons ...not so much

do you know any muslims personally?

[Removed by Support]

Oh yeah, survived as a second class citizen under islamic laws while paying a tax to live.
What's sad is that is more likely the future, due to western society being full of weaklings who in their cowardice, suicide their culture. Walking trash who sticks their head in the sand, too afraid to offend, they ignore their murder. Puppets mentally ill to a point that will probably curse their demons (right wing and whatnot) while they are bleeding in the street after a terrorist attack, forever blind to a real danger.

Which takes me to the following question: You seem intelligent enough, more intelligent than these SJWs and whatnot. yet why are you for islam? are you a coward yourself or is that the limit of your intelligence?

Oh btw, I wouldnt ever trust any group that have concepts such as taqiyya (sure SJWs might be naive/stupid enough to just listen and believe but not everybody is). Have caught muslims lying inumerous times, my favourite was a group of Algerians trying to convince me that islam is peaceful and their country has no problem with extremists. holy shit I swear muslims are another type of zombie just remotely controlled by a meteorite in a black box (tune in to it everyday at 12 to receive the daily orders BEEP BOOP)

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Falsifiable is the term - there must be a way for others to test the hypothesis and potentially prove it false. In the case of historical data, you can't go back and repeat history. What they can do is ask for the raw data to study. In the case of climate studies, we have refusal to share raw data to verify studies. We have deletion of raw data, and we have falsification of raw data, just as with the clone doctor and with cold fusion. If science were working properly, current theories of Climate change would have been exposed as fraudulent and the guilty scientists removed from the community.

Your long post was interesting, but the above caught my eye in particular. I have some questions for you.

Are you directly connected to the scientific research community such that you have ongoing knowledge of what is happening in the community? Or are you, like many of us, self taught amateurs, doing internet research on what interests us? What makes you particularly qualified and worth believing in this topic?

How many climate change studies have been done in the pat 20 years?
Of those studies, how many have refused to share or deleted data?
How many have been proven to have falsified results?

Your post seems to implicate all scientific research into climate change as fraudulent. It that your position? Is all of the NASA research fraudulent?

So rather than just make broad condemning statements, I'd like you to actually produce some evidence of wide spread collusion or falsifying of results. It is easy to cherry pick a few bad apples and then say "see...they all lie". Is 10% of the published data wrong or false? 25%? 50%? or 2%?

Thanks.

"

ChanBalam wrote:

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Falsifiable is the term - there must be a way for others to test the hypothesis and potentially prove it false. In the case of historical data, you can't go back and repeat history. What they can do is ask for the raw data to study. In the case of climate studies, we have refusal to share raw data to verify studies. We have deletion of raw data, and we have falsification of raw data, just as with the clone doctor and with cold fusion. If science were working properly, current theories of Climate change would have been exposed as fraudulent and the guilty scientists removed from the community.

Your long post was interesting, but the above caught my eye in particular. I have some questions for you.

Are you directly connected to the scientific research community such that you have ongoing knowledge of what is happening in the community? Or are you, like many of us, self taught amateurs, doing internet research on what interests us? What makes you particularly qualified and worth believing in this topic?

How many climate change studies have been done in the pat 20 years?
Of those studies, how many have refused to share or deleted data?
How many have been proven to have falsified results?

That bold part DL is talking about extends far beyond any particular discipline. Academic/Published research suffer from this problem of being reproducible. It's especially prevalent in computer science.

As an example, suppose I write a subroutine for a machine learning algorithm, and test it against some large database. In terms of being able to reproduce the results, I would need: the raw data, the source code for the subroutine, the source code for the statistical software tests, etc.

You can imagine all of this is neither volunteered nor readily available. Not sure if it's absolutely true in the instance of climate science as DL says, but in the abstract it's a general problem among high volume data, high complexity research. Stated differently, many times when you read through a paper you're forced to take the author(s) word for it.

Remember that over half of psychology papers failed to reproduce results as published at the end of 2015.

Saying that modern science is in a "reproducibility crisis" is pretty apt. It's frustratingly difficult to reproduce results in most fields, and moreover, not many people are willing to pay to run the same experiment again even though it's necessary.

I'm not sure I would call it purposeful falsification of data. I don't think there needs to be an evil act of changing numbers and laughing maniacally, just a bunch of doctors and their grad students running from grant to grant trying to make ends meet. Corners will be cut, results left unchecked, negative findings selectively unpublished, and so on.

I'll certainly say that if you think everyone in science is in it for "ultimate truths", you'll be sorely mistaken. It's very hard to find people like that in science... or anywhere.

"

pneuma wrote:

I'll certainly say that if you think everyone in science is in it for "ultimate truths", you'll be sorely mistaken. It's very hard to find people like that in science... or anywhere.

Actually, those people aren't very hard to find though. They are most often the ones labeled as "crazy" or "conspiracy theorists" if they haven't already died due to suspicious circumstances.

"

pneuma wrote:

Remember that over half of psychology papers failed to reproduce results as published at the end of 2015.

Saying that modern science is in a "reproducibility crisis" is pretty apt. It's frustratingly difficult to reproduce results in most fields, and moreover, not many people are willing to pay to run the same experiment again even though it's necessary.

I'm not sure I would call it purposeful falsification of data. I don't think there needs to be an evil act of changing numbers and laughing maniacally, just a bunch of doctors and their grad students running from grant to grant trying to make ends meet. Corners will be cut, results left unchecked, negative findings selectively unpublished, and so on.

I'll certainly say that if you think everyone in science is in it for "ultimate truths", you'll be sorely mistaken. It's very hard to find people like that in science... or anywhere.

That is my point. Broad inflammatory statements are often not backed up by real data. The fact that psychological studies are difficult to reproduce in not very related to studies of ocean temperatures or changes in arctic sea ice, etc.

I'd like to see hard data on the validity of climate change studies over time. It is too easy to say xyz study was lazy and poorly done so all such studies are also false.

You say "It's frustratingly difficult to reproduce results in most fields, and moreover, not many people are willing to pay to run the same experiment again even though it's necessary." Where does that come from? Who says it? Which scientists in which fields say its too difficult to try to reproduce finds? We tend to extrapolate nonsense when we think it is in our best interest. Science research is getting more and more expensive so we encourage cutting corners to save money. Are there any sources that we still consider truthful?