I haven't been commenting recently because I feel like my comments will run minutes long and I would need to do a lot of my own research beforehand.
With that being said, I found it rather strange the level of repetition that came with the initial arrival of OAS onto Substack with many publishers invoking the religious subtext as if that religious subtext provides the hypotheses any credibility or any greater cultural power. If it's the latter, then we have a serious problem in which we are having the culture drive the science rather than have the science stand on its own merits.
When I posted my open thread a few months ago I posted it with questions that weren't meant to be rhetorical. They were questions that OAS had to address or acknowledge in some fashion. I got a lot of great answers, but many people sort of glossed (don't sue me!) over those questions and provided their own perspective sans addressing a few of the questions with respect to OAS. There were even a few commenters asking (and I'll say in good-faith) that if I can't quite explain OAS maybe it means that I don't understand it well enough. Even if this argument is true, I can also argue that OAS is a nuanced hypothesis that requires addressing several factors, and ones that can't be boiled down to the phrase, "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell". My god, I hate that phrase!
So without casting any aspersions to anyone, I do believe we have a widespread phenomenon of the Dunning-Kruger effect happening. Not in the sense that people who throw out OAS are low IQ or of low intelligence, but that those who speak of OAS may do so in a highly simplified manner, and when possibly pushed to examine it further they may pushback and criticize those with dissenting voices.
I suppose there's a bit of me that has been growing more distraught, as it appears more people would rather reach for conclusions rather than see where the evidence leads us.
I suppose on another note, we should address the current Ba.4/Ba.5 "pandemic of the vaccinated" that doesn't appear to have grown any legs. I guess we should see whether the predictions are modified to still be correct or if we address the failings of said hypothesis.
'a phrase that provoked the imagination of those who didn’t yet know what he meant by it.'
And also those who, despite reading endlessly about OAS, are still hopelessly confused. I understand and agree with your semantic arguments. Yes, it's a stupid name.
But what this plebeian would really like to know is: having been vaccinated against Wuhan, (or is it Delta)?, is my immune system going to be impaired when confronted with the follow-on variants, or not? Assuming no boosters.
Those who care can argue about the language. The rest of us need to proceed with tiling the bathroom floor.
I haven't been commenting recently because I feel like my comments will run minutes long and I would need to do a lot of my own research beforehand.
With that being said, I found it rather strange the level of repetition that came with the initial arrival of OAS onto Substack with many publishers invoking the religious subtext as if that religious subtext provides the hypotheses any credibility or any greater cultural power. If it's the latter, then we have a serious problem in which we are having the culture drive the science rather than have the science stand on its own merits.
When I posted my open thread a few months ago I posted it with questions that weren't meant to be rhetorical. They were questions that OAS had to address or acknowledge in some fashion. I got a lot of great answers, but many people sort of glossed (don't sue me!) over those questions and provided their own perspective sans addressing a few of the questions with respect to OAS. There were even a few commenters asking (and I'll say in good-faith) that if I can't quite explain OAS maybe it means that I don't understand it well enough. Even if this argument is true, I can also argue that OAS is a nuanced hypothesis that requires addressing several factors, and ones that can't be boiled down to the phrase, "the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell". My god, I hate that phrase!
So without casting any aspersions to anyone, I do believe we have a widespread phenomenon of the Dunning-Kruger effect happening. Not in the sense that people who throw out OAS are low IQ or of low intelligence, but that those who speak of OAS may do so in a highly simplified manner, and when possibly pushed to examine it further they may pushback and criticize those with dissenting voices.
I suppose there's a bit of me that has been growing more distraught, as it appears more people would rather reach for conclusions rather than see where the evidence leads us.
I suppose on another note, we should address the current Ba.4/Ba.5 "pandemic of the vaccinated" that doesn't appear to have grown any legs. I guess we should see whether the predictions are modified to still be correct or if we address the failings of said hypothesis.
You missed your chance to use the phrase OG Ag.
Well, this was interesting but I was looking for the Obvious Alcoholics Society.
'a phrase that provoked the imagination of those who didn’t yet know what he meant by it.'
And also those who, despite reading endlessly about OAS, are still hopelessly confused. I understand and agree with your semantic arguments. Yes, it's a stupid name.
But what this plebeian would really like to know is: having been vaccinated against Wuhan, (or is it Delta)?, is my immune system going to be impaired when confronted with the follow-on variants, or not? Assuming no boosters.
Those who care can argue about the language. The rest of us need to proceed with tiling the bathroom floor.