4 ms·

That means the advice reduces to "Pay attention to the real science, and ignore the pop science". Unfortunately that asks too much of a general audience (presup

That means the advice reduces to "Pay attention to the real science, and ignore the pop science". Unfortunately that asks too much of a general audience (presupposes the ability to differentiate, which we know even PhDs occasionally have trouble with).

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 11y ago
The real science is the stuff the powers that be will take care of for you. Just say "yes" when the doctor asks to vaccinate your kid or rush her to the NICU.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's IMO the core of the anti-vaxx issue. The real reason is not rejection of the real science (even if it manifests this way) - it's the lack of trust in the way "powers that be will take care of (...) you" will be good for you. Politicians, pharma companies and all those scientists publishing bullshit for career/grant money fucked that up.
  - rayiner 11y ago
    It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. Infant mortality rate is one-third of what it was even in 1970. And that didn't happen from "empowered parents" making decisions based on advice they read on the internet. It was the medical industrial complex--including those companies selling NICU equipment for a few hundred grand per bed--saved all those lives.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      I'm not denying that. Science, industry and politics did a hell of a great job. My point is, there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority - and this breeds all that anti-vaxx nonsense. I believe this rampant lying to be an actual existential threat to civilization - and I don't mean it as a hyperbole. How about we stop jailing people for cannabis possession and instead start putting behind the bars journalists, politicians and "scientists" that push the most obvious bullshit for money?
      - ska 11y ago
        "there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority" Assumes facts not in evidence. I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.
        TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Assumes facts visible to naked eye if you just go out and talk to normal people. > I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology. You know that, I know that. People who are not really into science/tech don't know that. Most people know only what they hear on the news. And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, because that same thing cures cancer on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. What they hear is that their government panicks about some flu, buys shots, those shots are not used and then questions are asked, politicians lose seats, etc. Add to that that almost every single company is out there to fuck you over (mom&pop are the worst, actually), there's shit ton of FUD in media about everything related to biology (GMOs, vaccines, drugs, etc.), and are you really going to tell me there is no loss of general trust in scientific establishment? Go ask your non-tech family members and friends. But yeah, it's easier to just assume instead that all "those people" must be just stupid.
        smtddr 11y ago
        >>And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-cancer-red-meat-probably-does-group-says-n451396 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-c... ...you're so right it's painful. =/
        11y ago
    - planfaster 11y ago
      > It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. As a lawyer, you should know it's pretty easy: "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results." Quod erat demonstrandum.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        It's simpler than that. Past performance is something you get used to, and if you grow up around something working, you sort of assume it's always been like that. Part of the reason why every new generation wants to dismantle the systems set up by their grandparents.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

rayiner 11y ago

The real science is the stuff the powers that be will take care of for you. Just say "yes" when the doctor asks to vaccinate your kid or rush her to the NICU.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's IMO the core of the anti-vaxx issue. The real reason is not rejection of the real science (even if it manifests this way) - it's the lack of trust in the way "powers that be will take care of (...) you" will be good for you. Politicians, pharma companies and all those scientists publishing bullshit for career/grant money fucked that up.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. Infant mortality rate is one-third of what it was even in 1970. And that didn't happen from "empowered parents" making decisions based on advice they read on the internet. It was the medical industrial complex--including those companies selling NICU equipment for a few hundred grand per bed--saved all those lives.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    I'm not denying that. Science, industry and politics did a hell of a great job. My point is, there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority - and this breeds all that anti-vaxx nonsense. I believe this rampant lying to be an actual existential threat to civilization - and I don't mean it as a hyperbole. How about we stop jailing people for cannabis possession and instead start putting behind the bars journalists, politicians and "scientists" that push the most obvious bullshit for money?
    - ska 11y ago
      "there were so many bad apples in those fields that society is rapidly losing its collective trust in authority" Assumes facts not in evidence. I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology.
      - TeMPOraL 11y ago
        Assumes facts visible to naked eye if you just go out and talk to normal people. > I think it's fair to say that some of the tribalism currently evident in social and political argument is expressed as a broad based distrust and disregard for science, but that doesn't seem to be based on any rational analysis or actual knowledge, but more on internally propagated mythology. You know that, I know that. People who are not really into science/tech don't know that. Most people know only what they hear on the news. And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer - on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, because that same thing cures cancer on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays. What they hear is that their government panicks about some flu, buys shots, those shots are not used and then questions are asked, politicians lose seats, etc. Add to that that almost every single company is out there to fuck you over (mom&pop are the worst, actually), there's shit ton of FUD in media about everything related to biology (GMOs, vaccines, drugs, etc.), and are you really going to tell me there is no loss of general trust in scientific establishment? Go ask your non-tech family members and friends. But yeah, it's easier to just assume instead that all "those people" must be just stupid.
        smtddr 11y ago
        >>And what they hear is that every single thing causes cancer http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-cancer-red-meat-probably-does-group-says-n451396 http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/processed-meat-causes-c... ...you're so right it's painful. =/
        11y ago
  - planfaster 11y ago
    > It's really hard to argue with the track-record of those politicians, pharma companies, and bought scientists. As a lawyer, you should know it's pretty easy: "Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results." Quod erat demonstrandum.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      It's simpler than that. Past performance is something you get used to, and if you grow up around something working, you sort of assume it's always been like that. Part of the reason why every new generation wants to dismantle the systems set up by their grandparents.