Netphoria Message Board

Netphoria Message Board (http://forums.netphoria.org/index.php)
-   General Chat Message Board (http://forums.netphoria.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   You Know I'm Chat Thread (http://forums.netphoria.org/showthread.php?t=187148)

vixnix 03-13-2023 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets (Post 4619570)
Some additions: vaccines, baby-led weaning vs purees, daycare or not, medicating fevers or not, co-sleeping, "gentle parenting", food allergens....so much to fight about. I check them weekly for the shit show! I wasn't expecting bathing to be a hot topic, though

Oh yeah vaccines!

The group I mainly stayed in was NZ based and drawn together by a concern for sustainability - so it was middle class and educated, and after a few years everyone knew each other and there was no point arguing about kid-related stuff. So the debate shifted to religion, politics etc. and I guess there was a bit of debate around whether it was abusive to raise your kid within the confines of a particular religion and force a religious identity on them; and similarly with political leaning whether it was abusive to raise a kid and drill into them particular political ideology.

But mostly the arguments were around current events rather than parenting choices, by then. And the vibe was more about encouragement than debate

vixnix 03-13-2023 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets (Post 4619575)
I mean you can't eliminate one parent's undesirable biological traits through nurture

There is a longitudinal study still running in NZ that suggests this is not true. There is a genetic marker for violent criminality or something, and if you have it and also have a violent upbringing, you are four times as likely to engage in criminal violence as an adult. If you have a stable and loving upbringing, even with this genetic marker, your likelihood of engaging in criminal violence is a lot lower.

Genes are not entirely deterministic - the same genes in different environments might have differing phenotypes.

ovary 03-14-2023 12:59 PM

i don't really believe in genes. there are many areas of science that i think make claims way ahead of their understanding, and genetics is one of them. who knows what they're actually looking at in there. it's like how they used to think saturn's rings were solid, but then figure out that they're made up of particles. i think our understanding of human genetics is so limited that i don't really trust that any scientific "findings" in that area will stand up very long.

killtrocity 03-15-2023 02:05 PM

who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there
who knows what they're actually looking at in there

so you think your all that bc you know what they're actually looking at in there

topleybird 03-15-2023 02:25 PM

I heard the jury's still out on science.

reprise85 03-15-2023 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovary (Post 4619649)
i don't really believe in genes. there are many areas of science that i think make claims way ahead of their understanding, and genetics is one of them. who knows what they're actually looking at in there. it's like how they used to think saturn's rings were solid, but then figure out that they're made up of particles. i think our understanding of human genetics is so limited that i don't really trust that any scientific "findings" in that area will stand up very long.

this is pretty dumb

we definitely don't understand them very well and much of the research should be looked at with caution, but there's a lot of very good, solid research in some areas. for example, the APOE gene is very good at predicting who is at a very small risk of getting Alzheimer's Disease. It's not as good at predicting who will, but it's still pretty good at that, too. https://molecularneurodegeneration.b...24-020-00413-4

Having two APOE2 genes is also associated with longevity not related to Alzheimer's, and also some bad things, so who knows what exactly is going on. But I do know if you have two APOE2 genes you're unlikely to get AD, and if you do it will probably be later than those without 2 APOE2 genes:




If you have APOE4/4 you have an approx 50% chance of having AD by age 70. P<0.0001. And you almost certainly will have it by 80.

reprise85 03-15-2023 04:56 PM

There are others like this, but this is a very well-studied area I have 2xAPOE2 so I have read a bit.

yo soy el mejor 03-16-2023 12:46 PM

^ this gal knows her genes!

Disco King 03-16-2023 01:47 PM

I know that Ovary likes to be facetious but I can't tell here.

Assuming he's being serious, does he mean to say that we don't know exactly what many genes do/how they interact, or that we don't really know what "genes" even are/if they are even real things?

yo soy el mejor 03-16-2023 01:58 PM


ilikeplanets 03-16-2023 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disco King (Post 4619856)
I know that Ovary likes to be facetious but I can't tell here.

Assuming he's being serious, does he mean to say that we don't know exactly what many genes do/how they interact, or that we don't really know what "genes" even are/if they are even real things?

I interpreted it as the latter, and ignored it

ilikeplanets 03-16-2023 02:04 PM

Right, Ovie?

LaBelle 03-16-2023 02:20 PM

.

LaBelle 03-16-2023 02:22 PM

.

ovary 03-16-2023 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets (Post 4619860)
Right, Ovie?

yep yep. i dont believe in a lot of things.

ovary 03-16-2023 03:03 PM

i mean i believe scientists are seeing something that they have labeled genes but i dont believe they are what they say they are nor operate like they say they operate

ovary 03-16-2023 03:04 PM

i believe in trees a *lot* so i think on balance i am okay in terms of my magnitude of beliefs in things

yo soy el mejor 03-16-2023 03:20 PM

trees have genes, bozo!

topleybird 03-16-2023 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovary (Post 4619865)
i mean i believe scientists are seeing something that they have labeled genes but i dont believe they are what they say they are nor operate like they say they operate

But... why? I know there's a lot of shit published in science journals that aren't reviewed well or involve experimental results that turn out not to be reproducible/verifiable. There's been kind of a quiet uproar about this for a long time. But it kinda seems like you've zeroed in on the nature of genes specifically? Is that right? If so, do you have an alternate theory, or does the current one just like not sit right with you for reasons you can't explain, or, y'know, what's goin' on in that noggin of yours?

yo soy el mejor 03-16-2023 04:23 PM

de-ni-al yes
sci-en-ce no

redbreegull 03-16-2023 04:27 PM

Reminds me of how 28if didn’t believe in radio carbon dating

redbreegull 03-16-2023 11:54 PM

the nightly crying has begun

ilikeplanets 03-17-2023 12:00 AM

Sorry, breegz. I don't really have any great words of comfort, but don't want that kind of post to go unacknowledged. I hear you.

redbreegull 03-17-2023 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets (Post 4619890)
Sorry, breegz. I don't really have any great words of comfort, but don't want that kind of post to go unacknowledged. I hear you.

thanks planets. you're a good bud.

vixnix 03-17-2023 05:17 AM

Have you tried getting a haircut and new clothes?

vixnix 03-17-2023 05:29 AM

Sorry. I was mocking myself with that reply. I hope that was clear. Iím sorry I donít have any actual advice, either. I hope the crying is sort of cathartic.

Cool As Ice Cream 03-17-2023 05:40 AM

have you considered volunteering?

ovary 03-17-2023 09:24 AM

i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth.

2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts.

3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier.

4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them.

so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries.

and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

yo soy el mejor 03-17-2023 12:55 PM

a girl i met a couple weeks ago asked me to grab coffee but i'm not big into coffee so i responded with an email asking if i could one-up her with getting lunch. she hasn't said anything yet and i just keep thinking of her saying to herself, ''that's too much time. i don't want to spend that much time with you. lunch is too intimate" and regretting asking me at all in the first place. oy!

yo soy el mejor 03-17-2023 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cool As Ice Cream (Post 4619898)
have you considered volunteering?

it couldn't hurt!

ilikeplanets 03-17-2023 04:23 PM

Back home from an ER visit with my oldest kid. Stupid croup. She's fine now but is literally a 5 year old on steroids and that's quite the experience.

reprise85 03-17-2023 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovary (Post 4619907)
i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth.

2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts.

3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier.

4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them.

so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries.

and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

I'm not high enough for most of this rn (not an insult) but I want to clarify one thing. Science doesn't just change its answers. It refines its answers. For example, it might sound really stupid that not that long ago many people thought the Sun went around the Earth, but that was much closer to the truth than not even accepting Earth was moving, or thinking Earth wasn't a planet at all.

reprise85 03-17-2023 06:04 PM

Although I'm not clear if you believe that the earth goes around the sun, really, after that

topleybird 03-17-2023 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovary (Post 4619907)
i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

I think your four broad points here are worth considering, and are all things I've thought about, but I also think you need to, like, stop considering them at some point just to get through life. I could make very similar, and true, statements about the automobile industry, but at some point I need to drive to the store, you know?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ovary (Post 4619907)
i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand [Ö] but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

ilikeplanets 03-17-2023 07:08 PM

I hope you vaccinate your baby, ovary.

vixnix 03-17-2023 07:16 PM

I vaccinated my kids but not because I believe the scientific method produces reliable results. I donít understand a lot of science relevant to immunology, epidemiology, vaccines etc. so I canít make up my own mind about whether vaccinating my kids is a good idea. It requires specialist knowledge I donít have.

I vaccinate because those who are specialists in those areas seem in agreement that vaccination is worthwhile.

So I vaccinate - but I have never have strong enough opinions about vaccinating that I would enter into an argument about it.

duovamp 03-17-2023 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor (Post 4619464)

He seems like a treasure.

vixnix 03-17-2023 07:30 PM

There were specialists in the last 100 years who were agreed that the best position for a woman to give birth was on her back with her legs up in stirrups. We know thatís wrong now. And specialists who believed prefrontal lobotomies were an effective psychiatric treatment - we know thatís not true.

So, Iím open to the possibility that the specialists I place trust in are also wrong. I donít trust them because I think theyíre definitely right. I just donít have any better options (and I guess the parents who trusted specialists to give their kids prefrontal lobotomies were the same).

Thereís a lot of talk now about the ineffectiveness of SSRIs - for the last 20 years people have trusted medical professionals in taking these.

So I can appreciate ovaryís lack of confidence, I tend to share it. Itís just that trusting the experts often seems like the best option despite the strong possibility their advice will change in a few decades

ilikeplanets 03-17-2023 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vixnix (Post 4619945)
I vaccinated my kids but not because I believe the scientific method produces reliable results. I donít understand a lot of science relevant to immunology, epidemiology, vaccines etc. so I canít make up my own mind about whether vaccinating my kids is a good idea. It requires specialist knowledge I donít have.

I vaccinate because those who are specialists in those areas seem in agreement that vaccination is worthwhile.

So I vaccinate - but I have never have strong enough opinions about vaccinating that I would enter into an argument about it.

Well, the eradication of diseases sure seems like proof to me

vixnix 03-17-2023 07:46 PM

Though vaccination I didnít spend much time thinking about.

When one of my kids started having seizures I thought a lot more about specialist advice. Thereís a lot about epilepsy that nobody understands. And two specialists can disagree about diagnoses and treatment (this was the case for us). So maybe Iíve spent more time agonising over trusting the experts.

Actually, the first expert we spoke to (a paediatrician) didnít believe me about the seizures. I had to argue with him to get a referral to a neurologist for an EEG.

The story of Jill Viles really hit home after that https://www.thisamericanlife.org/577...only-i-can-see

And this story of medical error and negligence was so chilling
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeands...pital-mistakes

I guess I went to high school with enough people who are now doctors and scientists that I could never be 100% sure of anything. Everyone is human and prone to error or bias


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:42 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Smashing Pumpkins, Alternative Music
& General Discussion Message Board and Forums
www.netphoria.org - Copyright © 1998-2022