3 ms·

Fantastic. I would be thrilled to see other tech companies declare a holy war against this kind of misinformation. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they st

Fantastic. I would be thrilled to see other tech companies declare a holy war against this kind of misinformation. In fact, it would make me ecstatic if they started doing the same with other topics that have overwhelming scientific consensus, like climate change. I frankly don't care if it's censorship. It's a hill I'll happily die on.

_red 8y ago
You like "science" but can't actually read the insert. Why?
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  You responded to the wrong comment of mine, but to answer your question: I did read the insert you posted. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to interpret what it means. You posted a link with red boxes around things, and I'm inferring I'm supposed to make a new conclusion or challenge my beliefs on the subject. But I don't have sufficient context to follow what you're getting at without you explaining what claim you're making that is supported by the insert.
- Throw22276 8y ago
  In response to the insert you posted; Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu. Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children. The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others. Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.
ThrowawayR2 8y ago
Phlogiston, luminiferous aether, and Newtonian mechanics also once had "overwhelming scientific consensus". "The ends do not justify the means." Even for something as important as addressing climate change.
- yongjik 8y ago
  Yet, if you argue for the exist of Phlogiston in a physics conference they will politely but firmly show you the door, and make it known that your opinion is wrong and you are not welcome. Anti-Vaxx is basically like that.
- throwawaymath 8y ago
  Are you implying classical mechanics is comparable to the anti-vaccination movement? Are you aware we've successfully landed people on the Moon using calculations derived by classical mechanics? That example has harmed your argument, not supported it. Just because we have quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't make true statements about the world using Newtonian mechanics. As for phlogiston and luminiferous aether - yes, science is not omniscient. But those hypotheses are attributable to insufficiently precise instruments and knowledge. More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful). What else you got?
  - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
    > Just because we have quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't make true statements about the world using Newtonian mechanics. True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements. And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics. > More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful). That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves. [EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.") > What else you got? After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.

_red 8y ago

You like "science" but can't actually read the insert. Why?

throwawaymath 8y ago
You responded to the wrong comment of mine, but to answer your question: I did read the insert you posted. That doesn't mean I'm qualified to interpret what it means. You posted a link with red boxes around things, and I'm inferring I'm supposed to make a new conclusion or challenge my beliefs on the subject. But I don't have sufficient context to follow what you're getting at without you explaining what claim you're making that is supported by the insert.
Throw22276 8y ago
In response to the insert you posted; Have you read the insert? The first highlighted point may seem odd out of context, but the context is right in front of the highlighted section. It's not saying the vaccine is ineffective, it's saying it is for immunisation in people who currently do not have the flu. The lack of studies mentioned is in relation to its effectiveness in people who take the vaccine whilst already being infected with the flu. Highlighting the lack of proven effectiveness in children is odd too, since the very same insert states it is not for use in under 18s. It makes perfect sense it hasn't been tested on children. The Mercury part doesn't even say anything negative, simply that it is an ingredient. There are many things that we know are poisonous in some contexts/quantities, whilst being harmless in others. Im not sure if you're being disengenious on purpose, or if you simply lack the reading comprehension.

ThrowawayR2 8y ago

Phlogiston, luminiferous aether, and Newtonian mechanics also once had "overwhelming scientific consensus". "The ends do not justify the means." Even for something as important as addressing climate change.

yongjik 8y ago
Yet, if you argue for the exist of Phlogiston in a physics conference they will politely but firmly show you the door, and make it known that your opinion is wrong and you are not welcome. Anti-Vaxx is basically like that.
throwawaymath 8y ago
Are you implying classical mechanics is comparable to the anti-vaccination movement? Are you aware we've successfully landed people on the Moon using calculations derived by classical mechanics? That example has harmed your argument, not supported it. Just because we have quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't make true statements about the world using Newtonian mechanics. As for phlogiston and luminiferous aether - yes, science is not omniscient. But those hypotheses are attributable to insufficiently precise instruments and knowledge. More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful). What else you got?
- ThrowawayR2 8y ago
  > Just because we have quantum mechanics doesn't mean we can't make true statements about the world using Newtonian mechanics. True statements? A scientist would acknowledge them as adequate approximations, not true statements. And by the way, let's see you build GPS (relativity) or computers (QM by way of semiconductor physics) using Newtonian mechanics. > More importantly, they were positive statements about the world. You're comparing them to the demand for evidence that vaccinations are harmful, to which the best rebuttal is a counter-demand to prove a negative (that they're not harmful). That's precisely the point. Science doesn't need self-appointed police squashing silly ideas like anti-vax precisely because science makes "positive statements about the world." Repeatable results speak for themselves. [EDIT] To clarify further, allowing squashing of ideas because they don't agree with current scientific consensus will just make Planck's lament all the worse. ("A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.") > What else you got? After that last line, a slightly lower opinion of your ability to debate in a civil fashion.