4 ms·

The thing is, being well informed on vaccinations tells you that there are real risks. While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome bu

by Varcht 9y ago

The thing is, being well informed on vaccinations tells you that there are real risks. While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome but at an individual level are they? For instance, if 1 in 100 will be harmed, 98 get the vaccine and are fine, 1 is harmed and the other forgoes the vaccine with zero risk from the vaccine and near zero risk of contracting the target of the vaccination.

thaumaturgy 9y ago
It took just 32 minutes for someone to show up and demonstrate my example of vaccinations and false information. Good job, HN.
- nkurz 9y ago
  1) Your probably take your nickname for granted at this point, but it's a little rich for a user named 'thaumaturgy' to (implicitly) accuse others of magical thinking. :) 2) How exactly did 'Varcht' demonstrate that "people aren't equipped to sort out fact from fiction"? Do you disagree that vaccines have both benefits and risks? I thought he made a good point.
  - thaumaturgy 9y ago
    This is not the time nor thread for a debate on the merits of vaccination, and I'm not in a good enough mood for it right now anyway. If someone honestly believes that 1 in 100 people is going to be harmed by a vaccine, and that the number harmed by refusing vaccinations is less than 1 in 100, then there's probably nothing I could say nor any literature I could cite which would change their mind.
    - nkurz 9y ago
      OK, but I think your "mood" may have caused you to lash out at an innocent bystander. 'Varcht' prefaces his comment with "While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome", which implies that he agrees that the number who benefit is greater than the number who are harmed. Instead, he's raising the subtler (and I think reasonable) issue of whether despite the societal benefit there may be individuals within the population for whom the risk/reward ratio is reversed. If your goal is persuasion, I think it's better to engage rather than resorting to sarcastic responses of "Good job, HN". Your comments are usually excellent, but I thought this one fell short.
      - thaumaturgy 9y ago
        > Instead, he's raising the subtler (and I think reasonable) issue of whether despite the societal benefit there may be individuals within the population for whom the risk/reward ratio is reversed. FWIW, this is a variant of a debate tactic known as "just asking questions" (on rationalwiki) or the "loaded question" (wikipedia). I won't accuse ~Varcht of doing this intentionally, because I don't know them well enough to assume bad faith, but the end result is the same: the question, appearing innocent enough, is based on false premises and derails the conversation. It's especially common coming from people who have been misinformed on some controversial subject and have developed vague doubts towards established science on that subject, but don't have a sufficient library of information at-hand to argue directly. Instead, they just try to raise the same doubts in others. Their conversations follow the form, "Okay, but what if...?" It works because people in civilized forums don't want to be seen as unkind towards people asking innocent-looking questions. For instance, here we are being distracted by ~Varcht's 1-in-100 question, but the patently false statement they started with is being ignored. To bring this back to the subject of the thread, ~Varcht unintentionally -- I assume -- made themselves an excellent example of a victim of the modern problems of misinformation. I would wager that they don't regularly read the National Enquirer, and probably wouldn't believe most or any of the stuff in one, but here they are to raise the spectre of the dangers of vaccination -- a popular belief, I would add, that kills people, especially young children. So that we don't let ourselves become too emotionally detached from the consequences people suffer from this pandemic of misinformation, here's a reminder of what infant whooping cough looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw > If your goal is persuasion, I think it's better to engage rather than resorting to sarcastic responses of "Good job, HN". Sometimes persuasion is a reasonable goal. Other times, bad ideas should be mercilessly mocked before they have an opportunity to germinate in fertile ground. You were around here then, do you remember what HN's attitude towards established science was shortly after the CRU email compromise? But yeah, I could've left that last part off. But I can't -- and shouldn't -- be dispassionate all the time, either. > Your comments are usually excellent, but I thought this one fell short. Thanks, and fair 'nuff.

by Varcht 9y ago

thaumaturgy 9y ago

It took just 32 minutes for someone to show up and demonstrate my example of vaccinations and false information. Good job, HN.

nkurz 9y ago
1) Your probably take your nickname for granted at this point, but it's a little rich for a user named 'thaumaturgy' to (implicitly) accuse others of magical thinking. :) 2) How exactly did 'Varcht' demonstrate that "people aren't equipped to sort out fact from fiction"? Do you disagree that vaccines have both benefits and risks? I thought he made a good point.
- thaumaturgy 9y ago
  This is not the time nor thread for a debate on the merits of vaccination, and I'm not in a good enough mood for it right now anyway. If someone honestly believes that 1 in 100 people is going to be harmed by a vaccine, and that the number harmed by refusing vaccinations is less than 1 in 100, then there's probably nothing I could say nor any literature I could cite which would change their mind.
  - nkurz 9y ago
    OK, but I think your "mood" may have caused you to lash out at an innocent bystander. 'Varcht' prefaces his comment with "While on a societal level the risks are clearly well worth the outcome", which implies that he agrees that the number who benefit is greater than the number who are harmed. Instead, he's raising the subtler (and I think reasonable) issue of whether despite the societal benefit there may be individuals within the population for whom the risk/reward ratio is reversed. If your goal is persuasion, I think it's better to engage rather than resorting to sarcastic responses of "Good job, HN". Your comments are usually excellent, but I thought this one fell short.
    - thaumaturgy 9y ago
      > Instead, he's raising the subtler (and I think reasonable) issue of whether despite the societal benefit there may be individuals within the population for whom the risk/reward ratio is reversed. FWIW, this is a variant of a debate tactic known as "just asking questions" (on rationalwiki) or the "loaded question" (wikipedia). I won't accuse ~Varcht of doing this intentionally, because I don't know them well enough to assume bad faith, but the end result is the same: the question, appearing innocent enough, is based on false premises and derails the conversation. It's especially common coming from people who have been misinformed on some controversial subject and have developed vague doubts towards established science on that subject, but don't have a sufficient library of information at-hand to argue directly. Instead, they just try to raise the same doubts in others. Their conversations follow the form, "Okay, but what if...?" It works because people in civilized forums don't want to be seen as unkind towards people asking innocent-looking questions. For instance, here we are being distracted by ~Varcht's 1-in-100 question, but the patently false statement they started with is being ignored. To bring this back to the subject of the thread, ~Varcht unintentionally -- I assume -- made themselves an excellent example of a victim of the modern problems of misinformation. I would wager that they don't regularly read the National Enquirer, and probably wouldn't believe most or any of the stuff in one, but here they are to raise the spectre of the dangers of vaccination -- a popular belief, I would add, that kills people, especially young children. So that we don't let ourselves become too emotionally detached from the consequences people suffer from this pandemic of misinformation, here's a reminder of what infant whooping cough looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3oZrMGDMMw > If your goal is persuasion, I think it's better to engage rather than resorting to sarcastic responses of "Good job, HN". Sometimes persuasion is a reasonable goal. Other times, bad ideas should be mercilessly mocked before they have an opportunity to germinate in fertile ground. You were around here then, do you remember what HN's attitude towards established science was shortly after the CRU email compromise? But yeah, I could've left that last part off. But I can't -- and shouldn't -- be dispassionate all the time, either. > Your comments are usually excellent, but I thought this one fell short. Thanks, and fair 'nuff.