4 ms·

> The risk of covid and the vaccination are now sufficiently well understood that being anti vaxx is just nonsensical. What process do you use to evaluate how

> The risk of covid and the vaccination are now sufficiently well understood that being anti vaxx is just nonsensical. What process do you use to evaluate how well risks are understood by experts?

BizarroLand 5y ago
By your own words, they are experts. Expert, (noun): a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Only idiots think they know more than experts do. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
- mikeblackson 5y ago
  >Only idiots think they know more than experts do. So when experts disagree with other experts, who is the idiot?
  - BizarroLand 5y ago
    Idiot, (noun): A foolish or stupid person. In the case of 2 experts arguing over an issue, the answer is neither, that is, assuming actual experts and not armchair experts.
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    There are a variety of strategies tractable to people who may not have a high degree of expertise in a given topic. - Ask an expert you have developed substantial trust with for example your own general practitioner. - Look at what the broad consensus in the field is amongst credible subject matter experts especially ones foremost and respected in their field. Look for institutions that are widely respected by people in the field which have both a history of integrity and longevity. - Learn enough of the basics of science to know when people are presenting complete nonsense - Learn enough of the basics of logic and persuasion to know when people are using THAT on you in place of good arguments or evidence. On the last point look at this quip. It carefully avoids expressing a position although a probable position can be inferred. It implies there is credible disagreement amongst experts insofar as whether to get vaccinated. There is none. There is a clear consensus bucked by crackpots with a political ax to grind. It achieves this while asking an obvious question you knew the answer to. It is entirely manipulative. When you see posts like this assume the party advancing the argument has no real ammo.

> The risk of covid and the vaccination are now sufficiently well understood that being anti vaxx is just nonsensical. What process do you use to evaluate how well risks are understood by experts?

BizarroLand 5y ago

By your own words, they are experts. Expert, (noun): a person who has a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of or skill in a particular area. Only idiots think they know more than experts do. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

mikeblackson 5y ago
>Only idiots think they know more than experts do. So when experts disagree with other experts, who is the idiot?
- BizarroLand 5y ago
  Idiot, (noun): A foolish or stupid person. In the case of 2 experts arguing over an issue, the answer is neither, that is, assuming actual experts and not armchair experts.
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  There are a variety of strategies tractable to people who may not have a high degree of expertise in a given topic. - Ask an expert you have developed substantial trust with for example your own general practitioner. - Look at what the broad consensus in the field is amongst credible subject matter experts especially ones foremost and respected in their field. Look for institutions that are widely respected by people in the field which have both a history of integrity and longevity. - Learn enough of the basics of science to know when people are presenting complete nonsense - Learn enough of the basics of logic and persuasion to know when people are using THAT on you in place of good arguments or evidence. On the last point look at this quip. It carefully avoids expressing a position although a probable position can be inferred. It implies there is credible disagreement amongst experts insofar as whether to get vaccinated. There is none. There is a clear consensus bucked by crackpots with a political ax to grind. It achieves this while asking an obvious question you knew the answer to. It is entirely manipulative. When you see posts like this assume the party advancing the argument has no real ammo.