6 ms·

So, how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? Can they cite the list of publications that convinced them to give or not give you the

So, how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? Can they cite the list of publications that convinced them to give or not give you the vaccinations? This is not how it works the real world. Saying "research is out there" is absolutely meaningless in convincing people, especially if you don't even post actual links/citations (which most people never do).

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. If one wishes to disagree with said authorities, i.e. with the status quo, the burden of proof is on the person bringing the disagreement. The problem with anti-vaxers and climate deniers is their rejection of the status quo without any proper evidence. (Also making decisions that negatively impact other people.)
- colllectorof 8y ago
  >They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. Exactly. This directly contradicts the notion that "the research out there" is by itself sufficient to convince anyone of anything. People rely on authorities, and different groups of people have different entities they consider authoritative. >So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. Sure. Like, uh, elected politicians? Who benefit from politicization of science, no matter which side of each issues they end up on? It it remarkable how oblivious most people are to the social dynamics of these issues.
  - edanm 8y ago
    I completely agree with your points, and wish you weren't being downvoted for them. I'm completely on the "climate change is real" side (sad that I feel I have to declare my loyalty), but I think most people simply aren't engaging with how people actually form opinions, which is why so much of politics becomes simply impossible. And I mean understanding this from both sides - recognizing how other people form invalid opinions, but also understanding that how you form (hopefully valid) opinions is usually also a "pick which experts I listen to" kind of thing. Hopefully, you're picking the right experts because you understand reasoning and the scientific process - but to pretend you're only going by the science, or rather, that "your side" is only going by the science, is to ignore the fact that 99% of people can't tell you any argument or counterargument for any belief they hold.
canhascodez 8y ago
I find that taking a historical perspective on scientific topics is quite useful, but particularly on this topic. How did we discover all of this? Why are people so sure that this is real? This is the best history I've found: The Discovery of Global Warming https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm It's very well-referenced, and should provide a useful perspective on the history of climate research.
saudioger 8y ago
So you're ignoring the variety of ways the data has been presented by news outlets, artists, and filmmakers. There are few mediums where this information hasn't been expressed in some form.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

> how many research papers did your parents read when bringing you up? They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. If one wishes to disagree with said authorities, i.e. with the status quo, the burden of proof is on the person bringing the disagreement. The problem with anti-vaxers and climate deniers is their rejection of the status quo without any proper evidence. (Also making decisions that negatively impact other people.)

colllectorof 8y ago
>They listened to their doctors. Modern life is too complex for everyone to understand everything fully. Exactly. This directly contradicts the notion that "the research out there" is by itself sufficient to convince anyone of anything. People rely on authorities, and different groups of people have different entities they consider authoritative. >So we delegate decisions to reliable authorities. Sure. Like, uh, elected politicians? Who benefit from politicization of science, no matter which side of each issues they end up on? It it remarkable how oblivious most people are to the social dynamics of these issues.
- edanm 8y ago
  I completely agree with your points, and wish you weren't being downvoted for them. I'm completely on the "climate change is real" side (sad that I feel I have to declare my loyalty), but I think most people simply aren't engaging with how people actually form opinions, which is why so much of politics becomes simply impossible. And I mean understanding this from both sides - recognizing how other people form invalid opinions, but also understanding that how you form (hopefully valid) opinions is usually also a "pick which experts I listen to" kind of thing. Hopefully, you're picking the right experts because you understand reasoning and the scientific process - but to pretend you're only going by the science, or rather, that "your side" is only going by the science, is to ignore the fact that 99% of people can't tell you any argument or counterargument for any belief they hold.

canhascodez 8y ago

I find that taking a historical perspective on scientific topics is quite useful, but particularly on this topic. How did we discover all of this? Why are people so sure that this is real? This is the best history I've found: The Discovery of Global Warming https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm It's very well-referenced, and should provide a useful perspective on the history of climate research.

saudioger 8y ago

So you're ignoring the variety of ways the data has been presented by news outlets, artists, and filmmakers. There are few mediums where this information hasn't been expressed in some form.