Daily Fail strikes again

[JohnnyWang]

Science = Hitler

I can't even start to dissect everything the article got wrong. Oh dear.

Ok, for substence, i could point out that what Nutt said wasn't just something deduced in a labratory; it was comparing statistics of actual real world use. As for the rest of the article? No. Just, no.

[Drakim]

I don't get exactly what the article is hinting at. That scientist should hide their findings if they are too conversal? Because that seems to be the point of the ramble. Don't bring out your scientific results into the public if we don't approve of the result you got you arrogant jerk.

[gumOnShoe]

"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts."

And apparently, doing so doesn't get you any truth according to this man. I wonder how he figures out what things are true?

Wow...

[ReiperX]

Wow, my eyes are open now.

The government knows what is best for the people and scientists are all whack jobs that should keep their mouths shut unless they have the President's approval to say something.

It's been long known that Cannibus is less unhealthy than smoking of drinking.

As far as ecstasy is concerned, it's around the same levels as pot, although it is very dangerous when used improperly (one reason why I don't support it's legalization).

So what is this newspaper anyways?

[Victory]

"To be governed by politicians is a necessary evil. To be governed by arrogant scientists would truly be hell on earth."

Yes, of course I'd rather place my faith in a group of taypayer-thieving, party-line-toers who represent mostly the corporate interests and party leaders they belong to instead of a group of factual, unbiased individuals who would decide policy in the most efficient manner possible.

'Mainly Bile'.

[Warforger]

Wow, whoever made the article is a religious nut, I mean for example "I am right, whatever proves me wrong no matter who reliable and credible it is is wrong and stupid, whatever proves me right, no matter how shaky or disproven it becomes/is is right". Seriously, this same person probably thinks God puts the fossils in the ground to test our faith.

[Sheizenhammer]

Damn you freedom of the press.... DAMN YOU I SAY!

Seriously, that doesn't even need ridiculing. Why the fuck do we give the biggest morons the greatest ability to voice themselves? How many newspaper columns have you seen be written by doctos / scientists / researchers / etc.? I mean, yeah, there's a few (there's quite a lot if you know where to look), but they always seem to be hidden behind this kind of sensationalist bullshit tabloid rambling.

And some people wonder why the state of education in some areas of the UK is so bad. If you want them to learn stuff, stop feeding them this caliber of counter-productive horseshit.

[TheStonePilot]

I..
I just..
I am literally half-crying right now because these people are so hilarious
It's.. just...

But he was not content simply to give advice, of course. What he appeared to want to do was to dictate to the Government, and when it refused to acknowledge his infallibility, Professor Nutt started to break ranks and to denounce the country's law on drugs.

Yes, someone voicing their own opinion... how deeevious.

But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that science is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that scientists must be listened to at all times.

Well y'know... since it's science and all. Science has never claimed to be 100% correct. Theories are always updating and changing.

I do think that these people are the ones who will lead the next witch hunt.

[gumOnShoe]

Having further considered the matter.

The only argument he seems to have any stand in is that unregulated science could lead to the abuse of human rights, but I fail to see how that's really connected to a scientist pointing out that death rates from other sources are higher. :/

Also, initially the way the article was broken I missed the real crazy bits thinking that the section break & photo was an advertisement...

[Dawnslayer]

Article says:

"The only difference between Hitler and previous governments was that he believed, with babyish credulity, in science as the only truth."

Statement reads: Hitler used real science (as opposed to pseudo-science) to support his views on purity and his war on the alleged "impurities" among mankind.

Anyone who has read Hitler's "On Nation and Race" and properly examined his arguments will realize this is not the case. And it should be noted that the article in question is not news, but rather an op-ed piece.

[Setzer85]

Science is correct 100% of the time... why is this? because when science is proven wrong... it is science that is proving itself wrong. Anyone whom feels that science should be PC should reexamine their views... Tons of actions in science have been taken that aren't 100% politically correct and the majority of the time, this action has saved lives.

SCIENCE FTW! YAY NERDS!

[Elfer]

I think my favourite part of the article is this:

"In fact, it is the arrogant scientific establishment which questions free expression. Think of the hoo-ha which occurred when one hospital doctor dared to question the wisdom of using the MMR vaccine.

The point here is not whether he was right or wrong - it was the way in which the scientific establishment closed ranks in order to assassinate him."

I love the subtext here that the author clearly was extremely concerned by the link between autism and the MMR vaccine (which nobody who actually knew anything about clinical trials was ever really concerned about), then once the person was proved wrong, changed his position to "It doesn't matter whether he was right or wrong, these things should be investigated anyway."

Of course, what he either fails to mention, or possibly fails to realize, is that the scientific community "closed ranks in order to assassinate him" not because they dismissed his claims out of hand, but because the paper didn't show anything about the vaccine or a possible link to autism, and the methods he used to do so were complete garbage. For example, he only examined cases in which the child's symptoms were thought to have started soon after receiving the vaccine, without any sort of examination of vaccine recipients in general (analysis of which, by the way, shows that there is no connection).

But the REAL issue was that it was dug up that this guy had received almost a million dollars from lawyers who were trying to show a dangerous link in order to sue the vaccine companies. This money was not only an enormous conflict of interest, but it came out of a legal aid fund intended to help the poor.

So basically, the author of this article is complaining that the scientific community is willing to point out when people are using bad methodology, and will expend a lot of effort to investigate and uncover any corruption in the system. Yeah, those are really bad policies if you want to benefit society.

And of course:

"There was a blanket denunciation of his heresy, just as there is if anyone dares to point out some of the mistakes made by that very fallible genius Charles Darwin."

Despite the fact that it's widely known in the scientific community that many of the ideas originally proposed by Darwin were incorrect, such as the mechanism for the acquisition of beneficial traits.

[D2Kvirus]

At 11/3/09 04:12 PM, ReiperX wrote:
So what is this newspaper anyways?

The second-highest selling paper in the UK, behind The Sun - which says a lot about the UK, doesn't it?

The Mail is best known for three things:
i.) Their support of both Hitler and Mussolini until 1939.
ii.) Being part of the definition of a Moral Panic in the UK - if the Mail reports it's bringing down society, it's an official Panic.
iii.) Being the paper of choice for Middle England due to its Conservative slant and casual isms. Especially their wives.

[AKACCMIOF]

Typical Daily Fail. They can make an anti-suicide group a suicide cult, the innocent death of a gay idol and the display of sympathy despite his sexuality a controversial case of rampant homophobia and now talk about how they beacons of knowledge are "not in the real world" "arrogant" "irrational" and (sic) "superstitious".

If only a respected medical journal ran the headline "Yes, The daily Mail does much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth"

"But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that The Daily Mail is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that The Daily Mail must be listened to at all times."%Pr

[homor]

the person writing this article is so stupid.

its like he just wrote down the first few stupid things that popped into his head and didn't think about them for even a second because that would make him "ARROGANT SCIENCE ARROGANT SCIENCE GRR"