4 ms·

What makes you so sure you have all the right answers, since you mention their arguments are hard to counter? I don't think the truth is partisan at the moment,

by proc0 5y ago

What makes you so sure you have all the right answers, since you mention their arguments are hard to counter? I don't think the truth is partisan at the moment, and throughout history it's in moments like these, when people are extremely sure of the truth being partisan, that horrible things are allowed to happen. I mostly doubt when skepticism itself is demonized and made out to be the problem, and that seems to have be case lately.

telesilla 5y ago
Does skepticism take into account factual knowledge gained through rigorous study? ? Because there are many emperical facts that these so-called skeptics are not only ignoring but calling out as fake.
- muzani 5y ago
  Rigorous study would be years of research. We had months and it was rushed. We're still learning. What we have now is a best attempt. Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore but they once did. But for the same reason, it's important to let people question. It was once doctors who opposed the idea of sanitation.
  - kleer001 5y ago
    > it's important to let people question it's the implied answers that are the problem, the jumping to conclusions
  - alimw 5y ago
    > Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore... People are questioning exactly these things. Germ theory itself is under attack. Masks have been used for many years in healthcare settings to hinder the spread of airborne pathogens, yet now we hear they are useless...
    - charbonneau 5y ago
      > We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18) [1] The effectiveness of masks is complicated. It is not a black or white situation. [1] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full?contentLanguage=en https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
      - alimw 5y ago
        "The design of most trials assessed whether masks protected the wearer."
        charbonneau 5y ago
        The very next line: > Four trials were cluster-RCTs, with all participants in the intervention clusters required to wear masks, thus assessing both source control and personal protection > In two [of the four] trials the clusters were households with a member with new influenza; neither of these studies found any protective effect > In two [of the four] trials the clusters were college dormitories during the influenza season; neither study found any reduction I wouldn't go as far as saying that masks do not work. At the same time, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they do work. Reality is messy. If you want to wear a mask, do it. If not, don't.
        alimw 5y ago
        Nobody wants to wear a mask! > Reality is messy. I understand that in this era of "alternative facts" the view is not universally shared, but I do believe that reality contains objective truths if only we can get at them. Either masks hinder the spread of germs (in the prior this has high probability based on logic and the experience of many years) or they don't. We are down to four trials now instead of nine, and only three that count, since one was excluded by these authors for methodological shortcomings. Don't blame it on "reality" that none of these was sufficiently large to establish the truth either way.
- proc0 5y ago
  The problem is that even rigorous studies can be wrong, and it's not immediately obvious. This means people take intention into account as well. A good example here, is how decades ago the FDA recommended people avoid eating fat (butter, lard, etc). This is how the fat-free movement started, and then it turned out that eating fat is actually benefitial for one's health. This misguided the public and food companies into substituting fat for sugars and carbs, which was very bad for public health.
GRBurst 5y ago
Its not that I am sure of my answers and I do respect different opinions and I even welcome skepticism - can we ever be sure about something at all? But I wish they would take my skepticism as serious as mine, but I don't feel like this is the case.
- proc0 5y ago
  These are interesting times that's for sure. There is too much information circulating around for an individual to make sense of it on their own. I'd wager the majority of people are just going with what the people closest to them believe, and smaller subset are choosing sources of information to follow. A small minority will really look into the details, and even then one depends on others to be doing the actual research, which depends on funding from institutions, so even then it's about trusting institutions. I think what we're seeing is huge disagreements on the validity of the institutions themselves. We just experienced four years of defiance from one side, distrusting government, and now that same side is asking everyone to fall inline. This is what I believe is at the core of the disagreement.
jstx1 5y ago
One possiblity for those hard to counter points is unfalsifiability - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsi... Just because you can't immediately disprove something doesn't mean that it isn't bullshit.

by proc0 5y ago

telesilla 5y ago

Does skepticism take into account factual knowledge gained through rigorous study? ? Because there are many emperical facts that these so-called skeptics are not only ignoring but calling out as fake.

muzani 5y ago
Rigorous study would be years of research. We had months and it was rushed. We're still learning. What we have now is a best attempt. Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore but they once did. But for the same reason, it's important to let people question. It was once doctors who opposed the idea of sanitation.
- kleer001 5y ago
  > it's important to let people question it's the implied answers that are the problem, the jumping to conclusions
- alimw 5y ago
  > Actual facts would be something like washing your hands or boiling water preventing diseases. Nobody questions it anymore... People are questioning exactly these things. Germ theory itself is under attack. Masks have been used for many years in healthcare settings to hinder the spread of airborne pathogens, yet now we hear they are useless...
  - charbonneau 5y ago
    > We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster‐RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18) [1] The effectiveness of masks is complicated. It is not a black or white situation. [1] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD006207.pub5/full?contentLanguage=en https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
    - alimw 5y ago
      "The design of most trials assessed whether masks protected the wearer."
      - charbonneau 5y ago
        The very next line: > Four trials were cluster-RCTs, with all participants in the intervention clusters required to wear masks, thus assessing both source control and personal protection > In two [of the four] trials the clusters were households with a member with new influenza; neither of these studies found any protective effect > In two [of the four] trials the clusters were college dormitories during the influenza season; neither study found any reduction I wouldn't go as far as saying that masks do not work. At the same time, I wouldn't go as far as saying that they do work. Reality is messy. If you want to wear a mask, do it. If not, don't.
        alimw 5y ago
        Nobody wants to wear a mask! > Reality is messy. I understand that in this era of "alternative facts" the view is not universally shared, but I do believe that reality contains objective truths if only we can get at them. Either masks hinder the spread of germs (in the prior this has high probability based on logic and the experience of many years) or they don't. We are down to four trials now instead of nine, and only three that count, since one was excluded by these authors for methodological shortcomings. Don't blame it on "reality" that none of these was sufficiently large to establish the truth either way.
proc0 5y ago
The problem is that even rigorous studies can be wrong, and it's not immediately obvious. This means people take intention into account as well. A good example here, is how decades ago the FDA recommended people avoid eating fat (butter, lard, etc). This is how the fat-free movement started, and then it turned out that eating fat is actually benefitial for one's health. This misguided the public and food companies into substituting fat for sugars and carbs, which was very bad for public health.

GRBurst 5y ago

Its not that I am sure of my answers and I do respect different opinions and I even welcome skepticism - can we ever be sure about something at all? But I wish they would take my skepticism as serious as mine, but I don't feel like this is the case.

proc0 5y ago
These are interesting times that's for sure. There is too much information circulating around for an individual to make sense of it on their own. I'd wager the majority of people are just going with what the people closest to them believe, and smaller subset are choosing sources of information to follow. A small minority will really look into the details, and even then one depends on others to be doing the actual research, which depends on funding from institutions, so even then it's about trusting institutions. I think what we're seeing is huge disagreements on the validity of the institutions themselves. We just experienced four years of defiance from one side, distrusting government, and now that same side is asking everyone to fall inline. This is what I believe is at the core of the disagreement.

jstx1 5y ago

One possiblity for those hard to counter points is unfalsifiability - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsifiability https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Unfalsi... Just because you can't immediately disprove something doesn't mean that it isn't bullshit.