5 ms·

The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, because the position is completely impossibl

The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, because the position is completely impossible to support with either. Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to religion.

yters 8y ago
Such broad dismissal does not sound entirely reasonable either.
- fake-name 8y ago
  I'll tell you what. You provide a decent science-based argument for antivaccine beliefs that's not trivially falsifiable with 5 minutes of research, and I'll change my mind.
  - bArray 8y ago
    Devil's advocate (not my actual position): I don't want my child to risk getting measles, mumps, bruises, seizures or a severe allergic reaction [1]. I believe the number of these cases to be under-reported (not everybody goes to the doctor after getting ill) and the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine (treats measles) to be greater than the benefits. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/
briantakita 8y ago
The problem is we assume pro-vaccine advocates being reasonable, arguing from a position of logic & science. If they have truth on their side, the logic & reason of their arguments should be undeniable; without a need of ad hominem & censorship. Provaccine beliefs are fundamentally very similar to mass-delusion & religion. But, I'll take a reasoned argument either way. Problem is, there is no effective forum for a debate because it gets shut down with propaganda & censorship because some people are "unreasonable". Sounds legit</sarc>
bArray 8y ago
> The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. And you assume they are unreasonable? Almost everybody has the ability to reason, the problem is that their reasoning system is grounded differently from yours. To begin common reasoning, we must first find common ground, even if we have to go all the way back to "I think therefore I am". > No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, > because the position is completely impossible to support > with either. There are plenty of ways to argue a point from an anti-vaxxer perspective (which I don't support FYI): 1. There is not enough data to draw conclusions about negative long-term effects. This argument is also used for radio signals (cellular/wifi/bluetooth/etc), smoking (at the time where it was unclear whether there was harm) and many others. 2. Some organization has an incentive to hide known issues. Whilst you might say "conspiracy", just look at the poor ladies who were painting with radium and how their companies hid the effects. Or asbestos. There is a long history of covering up issues to aid profits. 3. The default logical or scientific position is to be skeptical of all claims. If a mass of people say "this is good", it is important for at least a small number of people to challenge this. If people didn't go against the grain, perhaps we would still believe that the earth is at the center of the Universe and if we sail too far, one will simply fall off. As I'm sure you are aware, for many (including myself), it's not possible to read every paper on a subject, hence some of our biases are based on things we haven't confirmed ourselves directly. I didn't personally take a picture of a black hole, but people I trust say that they have and it fits my model of reality. It's unlikely that more than a handful of people with strong positions on vaccines have read years of dense academic articles on vaccine research. They probably get their information from sources they trust, probably different sources from you and I. > Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to > religion. I'm not sure that's true, the reason to be an anti-vaxxer or religious could be completely different. Perhaps anti-vaxxers can be considered as fighting an authoritative figure and religious persons as wanting to follow some authoritative figure? I'm sure the reasons are many and varied. I imagine the reasons for being religious are more socially based though.
tomjen3 8y ago
Really? I figure the following: at a certain point the negative utility of getting a disease is greater than the negative utility of an allergic or worse reaction. This has already happened to smallpox, as we assume the only two remaining places that have them won't release theirs. At some point the same was likely the case for measles in the US, and is the case for polio and malaria in the US.

yters 8y ago

Such broad dismissal does not sound entirely reasonable either.

fake-name 8y ago
I'll tell you what. You provide a decent science-based argument for antivaccine beliefs that's not trivially falsifiable with 5 minutes of research, and I'll change my mind.
- bArray 8y ago
  Devil's advocate (not my actual position): I don't want my child to risk getting measles, mumps, bruises, seizures or a severe allergic reaction [1]. I believe the number of these cases to be under-reported (not everybody goes to the doctor after getting ill) and the risk of side effects from the MMR vaccine (treats measles) to be greater than the benefits. [1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-side-effects/

briantakita 8y ago

The problem is we assume pro-vaccine advocates being reasonable, arguing from a position of logic & science. If they have truth on their side, the logic & reason of their arguments should be undeniable; without a need of ad hominem & censorship. Provaccine beliefs are fundamentally very similar to mass-delusion & religion. But, I'll take a reasoned argument either way. Problem is, there is no effective forum for a debate because it gets shut down with propaganda & censorship because some people are "unreasonable". Sounds legit</sarc>

bArray 8y ago

> The problem here is that you assume they're reasonable. And you assume they are unreasonable? Almost everybody has the ability to reason, the problem is that their reasoning system is grounded differently from yours. To begin common reasoning, we must first find common ground, even if we have to go all the way back to "I think therefore I am". > No one is antivaccine from a position of logic or science, > because the position is completely impossible to support > with either. There are plenty of ways to argue a point from an anti-vaxxer perspective (which I don't support FYI): 1. There is not enough data to draw conclusions about negative long-term effects. This argument is also used for radio signals (cellular/wifi/bluetooth/etc), smoking (at the time where it was unclear whether there was harm) and many others. 2. Some organization has an incentive to hide known issues. Whilst you might say "conspiracy", just look at the poor ladies who were painting with radium and how their companies hid the effects. Or asbestos. There is a long history of covering up issues to aid profits. 3. The default logical or scientific position is to be skeptical of all claims. If a mass of people say "this is good", it is important for at least a small number of people to challenge this. If people didn't go against the grain, perhaps we would still believe that the earth is at the center of the Universe and if we sail too far, one will simply fall off. As I'm sure you are aware, for many (including myself), it's not possible to read every paper on a subject, hence some of our biases are based on things we haven't confirmed ourselves directly. I didn't personally take a picture of a black hole, but people I trust say that they have and it fits my model of reality. It's unlikely that more than a handful of people with strong positions on vaccines have read years of dense academic articles on vaccine research. They probably get their information from sources they trust, probably different sources from you and I. > Antivaccine beliefs are functionally very similar to > religion. I'm not sure that's true, the reason to be an anti-vaxxer or religious could be completely different. Perhaps anti-vaxxers can be considered as fighting an authoritative figure and religious persons as wanting to follow some authoritative figure? I'm sure the reasons are many and varied. I imagine the reasons for being religious are more socially based though.

tomjen3 8y ago

Really? I figure the following: at a certain point the negative utility of getting a disease is greater than the negative utility of an allergic or worse reaction. This has already happened to smallpox, as we assume the only two remaining places that have them won't release theirs. At some point the same was likely the case for measles in the US, and is the case for polio and malaria in the US.