Better Science through Better Data 25th October 2017 - Esther Crawley!

The tweets are probably few compared to the audience.

Medicine has deferral to authority and ties of allegiance. Favours granted, favours wanted.

 

Your projection of this behaviour onto others....this could get quite complex, and not a little absurd, really quite rapidly

 

Yeah Wonko, I thought something along those lines as I posted that comment. Of course I like to think I never make assumptions and always ask questions, but I'm as deluded as everyone else tbh.

 

Because they are not scientific audiences. These 'conferences' she speaks at are more or less invariably phoney meetings set up by dubious sponsors who operate much like Fox News. When colleagues speak a lot at such meetings it gets noticed in the end - or at least it used to. Nobody with any sense is going to go to a meeting entitled 'Better Science Through Better Data. They would be too busy doing some work.

 

I suspect it may be coz she's not Tony Blair, got speaker vacancy to fill, who we got, ......well at least it's not TB

 

She does an awful lot of imp-lying. P*ss poor at drawing sensible/sane inferences though.

 

These conferences often invite good people along, who are happy to have expenses paid. It is the audiences who are idiots, (unless they are just general public with time on their hands) because there is no reason to go to a conference of this sort other than having so little idea of your own what to do with your time that you think it might be useful. This one was probably sponsored by an IT company or something, wanting to sell software or whatever. Although there might be some sort of pseudo-academic middle-man organisation.

 

So is she presenting just to have her ego bolstered?
In which case, she must be in trouble......

 

But some people - her very much included - are very good at telling partial truths, that imply powerful lies due to their ambiguity, and then they state they never said anything that was untrue ... which is itself another partial truth.

 

Basically, she tells a really good convincing story. It 's one of the great skills of some bull sh*tters.

 

Exactly. Bull sh*t baffles brains.

 

Sick post.

 

And to get paid presumably.

 

Wicked, man.

 

Oh she does! But you wouldn't want to be the kind of person who knows.

 

Pedants' corner.

Inferring is something a listener does. A listener can infer things from a statement that the speaker did not deliberately intend. Implying is something a speaker does. There is intentionality: the speaker deliberately sets up the statement so that the average listener is able to understand the implication.

Edit: I hope you also noticed my insufferably correct use of the plural possessive in "pedants' ".