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

[JCB]

Why does nobody in her scientific audiences seem to spot it? Her ridiculous performances are usually followed by tweets of support. She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.

The tweets are probably few compared to the audience.

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

 

[Wonko]

Projection is incredibly common. How people interpret the behaviour of others invariably says more about themselves than those they think they understand.

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

 

[Trish]

I don't understand how she keeps being invited to give keynote addresses at so many conferences at which she seems to present variations on the same theme, and every time she seems to be completely believed by her audiences. Why does no one ever ask to see the evidence? Why do they never invite anyone to give a different perspective. Why do they lose their scientific objectivity? What can we do?

She talks about how wonderful Bristol University have been in supporting her. Where has their objectivity gone? Why have they not investigated? I don't understand how she gets away with it, along with the terrible quality of her research. How on earth can anyone stop her?

Well, that's got that off my chest.

 

[Liv aka Mrs Sowester]

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.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Why does nobody in her scientific audiences seem to spot it? Her ridiculous performances are usually followed by tweets of support. She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.

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.

 

[Wonko]

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

 

[Barry]

The beauty of the word infer is that it can mean imply as well.

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

 

[Trish]

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.

And yet I watched some of the shorter presentations at the same conference and they were really interesting - people from all sorts of fields all sharing how they are using pretty sophisticated systems to share data across the world, in, for example, seismology, crop research, astronomy etc. I guess that's part of the problem, none of them had any experience in medicine, so they just accepted EC at face value. Though you'd think they might notice how content free her talk was.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

And yet I watched some of the shorter presentations at the same conference and they were really interesting - people from all sorts of fields all sharing how they are using pretty sophisticated systems to share data across the world, in, for example, seismology, crop research, astronomy etc. I guess that's part of the problem, none of them had any experience in medicine, so they just accepted EC at face value. Though you'd think they might notice how content free her talk was.

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.

 

[Daisybell]

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

 

[Adrian]

Why does nobody in her scientific audiences seem to spot it? Her ridiculous performances are usually followed by tweets of support. She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.

I think her audience were starting to get the feeling that something is up from twitter responses. The question is how long Bristol university and her colleagues continue to support her. Having met her as a doctor she does come across as convincing before you think about what she is saying.

 

[Barry]

I think it is up to her to be reasonably clear. Scientists should be somewhat pedantic about statements (which is why maths is used as a language for most science).

I doubt if she actually stated a lie because she knew she was being recorded. But when accusing people extra care needs to be taken.

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.

 

[Barry]

And yet I watched some of the shorter presentations at the same conference and they were really interesting - people from all sorts of fields all sharing how they are using pretty sophisticated systems to share data across the world, in, for example, seismology, crop research, astronomy etc. I guess that's part of the problem, none of them had any experience in medicine, so they just accepted EC at face value. Though you'd think they might notice how content free her talk was.

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

 

[Barry]

Having met her as a doctor she does come across as convincing before you think about what she is saying.

Exactly. Bull sh*t baffles brains.

 

[TiredSam]

Language develops, changes are accepted, methinks yon stuff happens. There are quite a lot of words where meanings have reversed from their "correct" meaning.

Sick post.

 

[JCB]

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

And to get paid presumably.

 

[JCB]

Sick post.

Wicked, man.

 

[Barry]

She seems to know something we don't about getting away with this kind of stuff.

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

 

[Woolie]

The beauty of the word infer is that it can mean imply as well.

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' ".

 

[Cheshire]

my insufferably correct use of the plural possessive in "pedants'

Damn it. I've been insufferably correct all these years without knowing. I always use the plural possessive because I was taught at school that's how you do it, didn't know it looks suspiciously too correct.