11 ms·

How should we counter coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism? I think everyone welcomes authentic concern, but what we're seeing with anti-vax/anti

How should we counter coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism? I think everyone welcomes authentic concern, but what we're seeing with anti-vax/anti-mask/anti-science itself is something else completely.

pumaontheprowl 5y ago
You counter all skepticism the same way: by a designing an experiment to test the skeptic's hypothesis and presenting the results of the experiment to the skeptic. Name-calling, censorship, and persecution are not going to bring the skeptic to your side, but they will almost certainly discourage future skeptics from presenting their findings. If we allow politicians to turn science into a dogma instead of an investigative process, progress will come to a grinding halt.
- josefresco 5y ago
  > You counter all skepticism the same way: by a designing an experiment to test the skeptic's hypothesis and presenting the results of the experiment to the skeptic. I've tried this (by sharing data) with friends and family members - it doesn't work/matter. They simply dismiss the data as "fake news" and shift to a new argument. This is why I classify it as "disingenuous skepticism". Their actions (anecdotally) are driven by culture and politics, not data.
  - liber8 5y ago
    This is not what pumaontheprowl said. You are right, simply presenting people with data doesn't work. If it did, you would never see a fat nurse, or a doctor who smokes, or... the list is endless. pumaontheprowl's suggestion is to design a (thought) experiment that involves the skeptic. There are various ways to do this, but history is literally built on this exact phenomena. Getting people to change their mind on an issue requires that you have a real conversation with them. You can't just shove data in their face and see "See, look dummy you're wrong I'm right!" There are all sorts of people that do this for a living: helping people leave cults/white supremacy groups/etc.
  - gotoeleven 5y ago
    I mean, very often "shared data" is fake news because we know that studies on politically charged topics are under intense pressure (via funding or public lynch mobs) to come out a particular way. In the past two years studies on crime rates by race, illegal immigration/amnesty, and many covid related topics have all been shaped by this. And remember, the way most people are finding out about this "shared data" is via the media that just got done spending 4 years accusing trump of being a russian agent. So, they're biased or they're liars. Hence the skepticism.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - over_the_raibow 5y ago
    Besides analytical skill, people also posses intuition which is a valid tool to interpret the world. A wife that is cheated on by her husband, intuitively knows that she s cheated on even though she has no proof. She might see the unusual behavior of her husband, the fact that he s secretive doesn't give her attention as he used to or comes home very late. She might even confront him about this only to be met with a lot of logical explanations and alibies(I had to work till late, I went on a teambuilding trip, etc). His reasons might be completely rational and logical but she knows something is wrong. He might even attempt to make it seems she s the hysterical and crazy one while he s the rational and calm guy. See where I m going? Your friends and family don t contest "the data",they couldn t do this even if they wanted. But they have serious reasons to believe something s off. Their intuition is telling that. They might not have the data, only a feeling. But that feeling is strong. They don t deny your good intentions,it s just that you made yourself the defender of a certain conclusion.They have an issue with the mainstream source of that data, with the government and the the industry behind, which academics ar legitimizing through skewed papers, paid research, etc. I suggest to take their skepticism more serious, since even I, from the other side of the world, can see they probably they are right. There is definitely something off and skepticism is reasonable these days.
  - spookthesunset 5y ago
    > Their actions (anecdotally) are driven by culture and politics, not data. I'd argue 40% of societies response to this pandemic is culture and politics. 30% is media fear mongering. 20% is intellectual error and 10% is actually disease mitigation. Requiring fully vaccinated individuals to wear masks is culture & politics. Shutting down outdoor restaurants is culture and politics Casting moral shame on people who get covid is culture and politics Saying it is totally okay to go to a BLM rally while not being able to attend a football game is culture and politics. Closing the birthday card isle in the grocery store is culture and politics. The list goes on and on... In fact the very core of lockdowns is premised in culture and politics and not science. Science doesn't create policy. Human values do. For example places that place more emphasis on living life instead of protecting life were probably the first to drop restrictions.... a perfectly valid stance. Science doesn't tell us what to do. It is merely a process for testing hypothesis in an attempt to get to the "truth" of something. That's all it does. Science didn't tell us to lockdown, it doesn't tell us to require vaccinated individuals to wear a mask, it doesn't tell us to shut down our borders, or any of that. All those decisions were driven by culture and politics.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rabuse 5y ago
    The data conflicts within different nations across the globe. Some barely had lockdowns, with minimal impact to their healthcare system, and others are at a high vaccination rate with record cases. There's nothing concrete in this.
  - betwixthewires 5y ago
    If your goal is to convince them, and not come to a more clear understanding of the truth, this will be frustrating. Once you let go of convincing anyone of anything you are free to find the truth for yourself.
- theaeolist 5y ago
  If only. There's a nice flat-earth documentary on Netflix. Some scientifically-minded flat-earthers designed and carried out not one but two experiments to "prove" the earth is flat. Both of them came conclusively on the side that the earth is not flat, but is quasi-spherical with a radius and rotation rate consistent with the scientific consensus. Remember, these experiments were on their own terms. They repeated them several times and they declared them "inconclusive". This is not someone you can convince by any means.
  - thrwawy12345 5y ago
    Who are they hurting by believing that the Earth is flat?
    - WillDaSilva 5y ago
      The harm people cause by holding believing false beliefs is rather complicated at times, yet extremely important and impactful nonetheless. For flat earthers in particular this video sheds some light on why their way of thinking is harmful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 To be extremely reductive, allowing false beliefs into one's web of beliefs corrupts it. This typically gives rise to a multitude of other false beliefs. Flat earthers almost never only believe one obviously false conspiracy theory. They become epistemically susceptible, and worse still, they tend to spread these awful ways of thinking with great zeal. In the more general case, I recommend you learn about the ethics of belief. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on the topic is a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ Maybe someone can come along and answer your question in a more succinct yet equally (or ideally more) convincing way. This request that you commit several hours to educating yourself is the best I can do at this time.
      - deepnotderp 5y ago
        Well said. I propose therefore that we ban Boltzmann for his crime of false belief in statistical mechanics. /s
whatshisface 5y ago
We have to train people to have critical thinking skills in school so that they can tell the difference between truth and lies when they see them out in the wild. Of course, the government will have to stop making stuff up, but that's a small price to pay for insulating society against other forces who are way better at making propaganda than our government / our "institutions."
- JasonFruit 5y ago
  How does government benefit from teaching critical thinking in government schools? If there's no good answer to that, it won't happen.
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    The people running our society have more to lose from getting replaced by some kind of taliban-equivalent than they have to lose from inoculating the population against propaganda at the expense of limiting their own power in some cases. This is a plan where they can keep their money and their authority, and they'd only have to sacrifice a small amount of the effectiveness of the big papers, which are not effective anymore anyway.
    - JasonFruit 5y ago
      The problem with your reasoning here is that your two options are replacement by "a taliban-equivalent", or a slight limitation of their power. I think you've vastly overestimated the risk of a naïve population to government while underestimating the benefit. In my view, the U.S. government's propaganda system is essential to its survival in its current form. It uses it to maintain the war industry, to justify its spending power, to preserve the stability of the currency, to ensure the election of tame officials — there's a lot to lose.
      - whatshisface 5y ago
        The stability of the currency is mainly decided by countries outside the reach of the US's internal propaganda, because of the enormous debts and reserve currency status. I agree that a population which wouldn't go for Qanon would also make them quit invading countries in the middle east and south america, but depending on how this crazy business plays out, leaving Iran alone may be a small price for them to pay. I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but business people loved Hitler all around the world right up until his propaganda machine shut out their influence and he started invading the other half of their markets and supply chains. If the people running our country have learned anything from history they will quit encouraging irrationality and gullibility some time before the curtains close, so to speak.
jjcon 5y ago
> coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism We stop trying to ascribe malicious motives to their actions and try to have genuine conversation with them. If they aren't convinced after that then we have more work to do.
- cde-v 5y ago
  Hanlon's razor
- hallway_monitor 5y ago
  Thank you. The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. If someone believes masks don't work, or that a vaccine could have risks, they are skeptical; they haven't seen evidence that convinces them otherwise. It's interesting how much time and effort is spent trying to win people over to another way of thinking or opinion.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    I also think misconceptions about Occam's razor are to blame. It's a good heuristic for choosing which hypotheses to test first, but a lot of people seem to misuse it as a heuristic for which of two propositions is more likely to be true, which is unfounded and very often leads to incorrect conclusions. It's basically on par with "there's no smoke without fire". People tend to assume that if they cannot prove P and cannot prove ¬P, then ¬P must be assumed to be true. This is of course not correct at all, and most propositions can be rephrased so that Q=¬P and ¬Q=P. If there is no evidence either way, then neither P nor ¬P is supported, and we should remain uncertain.
  - bduerst 5y ago
    I don't know how many of these conversations you've tried to have, because the confirmation bias is very real. We're not discussing skepticism of nematode behavior, but of the politicization of a pandemic, which makes it opinion. You can't reason with someone out of an opinion who didn't reason themselves into it to begin with. Rational bad actors abuse this notion that they have the right to play, to be heard, to have a discourse; when in reality they're repeating the same disinformation ad nausea to profit for themselves.
sjwalter 5y ago
Do you mean people who question the vaccine at all are "something else completely"? Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning the logic in mass vaccinating with an experimental vaccine, built with experimental technologies, which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. What about just questioning the policies themselves? What about the fact that from where I'm sitting there's zero "science" supporting the use of cloth masks, yet they're attack vector numero uno when it comes to bifurcating the populace into angels and demons?
- ipspam 5y ago
  Science is only one piece of the puzzle. Ultimately it's a political game, so science is only part of the equation. Masks are to signal that I care about you, and to make you feel safe. Bullshit of course, but it's way to hard to make people understand that they are overestimating the risk of death and hospitalization by factors of 10x and 20x. Much easier to not correct the record and pretend masks reduce the risk 10-20x. Back to basics: The government doesn't care about you. Any interventions are likely to sacrifice long term success for short term success.
  - sjwalter 5y ago
    Lying to people in some kind of psychological game to manipulate their feelings in the way you're describing is despicable and anyone participating willfully in such bullshit deserves zero respect. Many scientists and doctors out there are obviously either completely uninterested in the truth or just toadies for the elite, if what you're describing is correct. If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention.
    - angelzen 5y ago
      It's more complicated than that. Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. They do honest work within the constraints of their profession. As an example, take covid antibody studies. It is interesting and useful to learn how covid vaccines elicit antibody production. OTOH, the immune system is not limited to antibodies. Extrapolating long-term immunity conclusions from an antibody study is unwarranted. Alas, the scientists performing antibody studies don't have the resources to perform long term studies. This creates an over-abundence of antibody studies, which are cheap and likely to produce measurable results. These studies are then used as incontrovertible evidence that 'science says' there is no such thing as natural immunity, and even if it were, vaccines are much better.
psychlops 5y ago
> anti-vax/anti-mask/anti-science I'd like to define what these terms mean. Right now, I think the mainstream technique is anyone who questions vax/mask/science gets the anti- prefix.
- angelzen 5y ago
  Or the -phobe suffix. This isn't isolated.
  - marginalia_nu 5y ago
    Labeling people as part of some group of undesirables seems to be a very popular way of not having to meet legitimate criticism these days. I wish we would be better at calling it out.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      What, exactly, is "legitimate criticism"?
  - thrwawy12345 5y ago
    In common parlance it usually means “is disgusted by” rather than the traditional “is afraid of”.
marginalia_nu 5y ago
They reason they are thriving is this doctrinal view of science where anything that gets published is holy gospel. It opens up for these fringe movements is to present themselves as scientific, since they too have papers they can point to, and arguments that mirror the form of the scientific establishment. The way to beat them is to be very clear about the limitations of science, and stop trying to misrepresent it as having a larger degree of certainty than it has. Science is demonstrably wrong sometimes, especially early research like the stuff that was circulating in the beginning of the C19-pandemic, and to make matters worse, a large part of science is dedicated to identifying instances where science is wrong. That clashes with the official message is "trust the science" and makes devastating ammunition for undermining its credibility, especially nowadays when it is very easy to go back and check what claims were made in the past against which claims are made today.
- dolni 5y ago
  I wish we would stop talking about science as a singular authority. Science is what you get if you follow the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced by imperfect people with biases and external motivators. That is why thorough peer review is required (and sadly lacking).
- jrm4 5y ago
  Correct. Look, I didn't get vaccinated because I was told to by pharmaceutical companies. Those shady bastards are on TV all the time selling stuff that seems super sketchy. ALSO, I didn't get vaccinated because I was told to by doctors; I've had enough experiences with them getting things wrong in what they tell you to do. I got vaccinated because doctors and health professionals THEMSELVES got vaccinated without hesitation. Was lucky enough to see a good friend, a quasi-famous black doctor, get the jab on TV, which sealed it pretty quickly for me.
  - pauldenton 5y ago
    Why are there mass firings of nurses for refusing to get the shot?
0xBA5ED 5y ago
>coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism There is certainly some of this happening as with every issue, but echo chambers can easily emerge and sustain themselves without the need for coordinated bad actors. I believe the larger issue is simply lack of education rather than bad guys doing bad things.
willcipriano 5y ago
> How should we counter coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism? Isn't this really asking "how do you have ideas that stand up to the Socratic method?"
- thephyber 5y ago
  No. You are making categorical error by equating emotional messages with cognitive messages. Coordinated inauthentic ideas are not intended to withstand rigorous review. They are intended to tickle the limbic system and to get retweeted before the reader’s cognitive mind has a chance to weigh in. The author will shed that idea or identity and move to another. For this reason, they are also called a “disinformation firehouse”.
spookthesunset 5y ago
Being anti-mask isn't "unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism". I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a fully vaccinated individual has any business wearing a mask. I've also yet to see any real data that shows that most masks worn do anything beyond being a placebo. All these studies conducted around masks are being done in the heat of the moment in a highly politically charged environment. Releasing a study that says masks don't work will get the authors labeled as "anti-science" and probably destroy their careers. All the studies performed prior to this mess were inconclusive, at best. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't make that person anti-science and doesn't make them dangerous, "disingenuous" or "unauthentic". People have plenty of good reasons to call BS on almost all of our mitigations.
- rabuse 5y ago
  There is no compelling argument. They constantly keep shifting the goal posts whenever asked genuine questions. The definition of "vaccine" is even being redefined by a couple of these radical groups.
nickthemagicman 5y ago
Labotomies won the Nobel prize. Descartes was excommunicated. Semmelweis was mocked. How you should approach anti-vax/anti-mask people is to consider that they may have a point. But your FAITH in the science of your narrative precludes you.
rabuse 5y ago
Who's welcoming authentic concern? The media, who labels parents as "domestic terrorists" for concerns over a mandate that may have detrimental social effects of their children down the line?

pumaontheprowl 5y ago

You counter all skepticism the same way: by a designing an experiment to test the skeptic's hypothesis and presenting the results of the experiment to the skeptic. Name-calling, censorship, and persecution are not going to bring the skeptic to your side, but they will almost certainly discourage future skeptics from presenting their findings. If we allow politicians to turn science into a dogma instead of an investigative process, progress will come to a grinding halt.

josefresco 5y ago
> You counter all skepticism the same way: by a designing an experiment to test the skeptic's hypothesis and presenting the results of the experiment to the skeptic. I've tried this (by sharing data) with friends and family members - it doesn't work/matter. They simply dismiss the data as "fake news" and shift to a new argument. This is why I classify it as "disingenuous skepticism". Their actions (anecdotally) are driven by culture and politics, not data.
- liber8 5y ago
  This is not what pumaontheprowl said. You are right, simply presenting people with data doesn't work. If it did, you would never see a fat nurse, or a doctor who smokes, or... the list is endless. pumaontheprowl's suggestion is to design a (thought) experiment that involves the skeptic. There are various ways to do this, but history is literally built on this exact phenomena. Getting people to change their mind on an issue requires that you have a real conversation with them. You can't just shove data in their face and see "See, look dummy you're wrong I'm right!" There are all sorts of people that do this for a living: helping people leave cults/white supremacy groups/etc.
- gotoeleven 5y ago
  I mean, very often "shared data" is fake news because we know that studies on politically charged topics are under intense pressure (via funding or public lynch mobs) to come out a particular way. In the past two years studies on crime rates by race, illegal immigration/amnesty, and many covid related topics have all been shaped by this. And remember, the way most people are finding out about this "shared data" is via the media that just got done spending 4 years accusing trump of being a russian agent. So, they're biased or they're liars. Hence the skepticism.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- over_the_raibow 5y ago
  Besides analytical skill, people also posses intuition which is a valid tool to interpret the world. A wife that is cheated on by her husband, intuitively knows that she s cheated on even though she has no proof. She might see the unusual behavior of her husband, the fact that he s secretive doesn't give her attention as he used to or comes home very late. She might even confront him about this only to be met with a lot of logical explanations and alibies(I had to work till late, I went on a teambuilding trip, etc). His reasons might be completely rational and logical but she knows something is wrong. He might even attempt to make it seems she s the hysterical and crazy one while he s the rational and calm guy. See where I m going? Your friends and family don t contest "the data",they couldn t do this even if they wanted. But they have serious reasons to believe something s off. Their intuition is telling that. They might not have the data, only a feeling. But that feeling is strong. They don t deny your good intentions,it s just that you made yourself the defender of a certain conclusion.They have an issue with the mainstream source of that data, with the government and the the industry behind, which academics ar legitimizing through skewed papers, paid research, etc. I suggest to take their skepticism more serious, since even I, from the other side of the world, can see they probably they are right. There is definitely something off and skepticism is reasonable these days.
- spookthesunset 5y ago
  > Their actions (anecdotally) are driven by culture and politics, not data. I'd argue 40% of societies response to this pandemic is culture and politics. 30% is media fear mongering. 20% is intellectual error and 10% is actually disease mitigation. Requiring fully vaccinated individuals to wear masks is culture & politics. Shutting down outdoor restaurants is culture and politics Casting moral shame on people who get covid is culture and politics Saying it is totally okay to go to a BLM rally while not being able to attend a football game is culture and politics. Closing the birthday card isle in the grocery store is culture and politics. The list goes on and on... In fact the very core of lockdowns is premised in culture and politics and not science. Science doesn't create policy. Human values do. For example places that place more emphasis on living life instead of protecting life were probably the first to drop restrictions.... a perfectly valid stance. Science doesn't tell us what to do. It is merely a process for testing hypothesis in an attempt to get to the "truth" of something. That's all it does. Science didn't tell us to lockdown, it doesn't tell us to require vaccinated individuals to wear a mask, it doesn't tell us to shut down our borders, or any of that. All those decisions were driven by culture and politics.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rabuse 5y ago
  The data conflicts within different nations across the globe. Some barely had lockdowns, with minimal impact to their healthcare system, and others are at a high vaccination rate with record cases. There's nothing concrete in this.
- betwixthewires 5y ago
  If your goal is to convince them, and not come to a more clear understanding of the truth, this will be frustrating. Once you let go of convincing anyone of anything you are free to find the truth for yourself.
theaeolist 5y ago
If only. There's a nice flat-earth documentary on Netflix. Some scientifically-minded flat-earthers designed and carried out not one but two experiments to "prove" the earth is flat. Both of them came conclusively on the side that the earth is not flat, but is quasi-spherical with a radius and rotation rate consistent with the scientific consensus. Remember, these experiments were on their own terms. They repeated them several times and they declared them "inconclusive". This is not someone you can convince by any means.
- thrwawy12345 5y ago
  Who are they hurting by believing that the Earth is flat?
  - WillDaSilva 5y ago
    The harm people cause by holding believing false beliefs is rather complicated at times, yet extremely important and impactful nonetheless. For flat earthers in particular this video sheds some light on why their way of thinking is harmful: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTfhYyTuT44 To be extremely reductive, allowing false beliefs into one's web of beliefs corrupts it. This typically gives rise to a multitude of other false beliefs. Flat earthers almost never only believe one obviously false conspiracy theory. They become epistemically susceptible, and worse still, they tend to spread these awful ways of thinking with great zeal. In the more general case, I recommend you learn about the ethics of belief. The Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy page on the topic is a good starting point: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/ Maybe someone can come along and answer your question in a more succinct yet equally (or ideally more) convincing way. This request that you commit several hours to educating yourself is the best I can do at this time.
    - deepnotderp 5y ago
      Well said. I propose therefore that we ban Boltzmann for his crime of false belief in statistical mechanics. /s

whatshisface 5y ago

We have to train people to have critical thinking skills in school so that they can tell the difference between truth and lies when they see them out in the wild. Of course, the government will have to stop making stuff up, but that's a small price to pay for insulating society against other forces who are way better at making propaganda than our government / our "institutions."

JasonFruit 5y ago
How does government benefit from teaching critical thinking in government schools? If there's no good answer to that, it won't happen.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  The people running our society have more to lose from getting replaced by some kind of taliban-equivalent than they have to lose from inoculating the population against propaganda at the expense of limiting their own power in some cases. This is a plan where they can keep their money and their authority, and they'd only have to sacrifice a small amount of the effectiveness of the big papers, which are not effective anymore anyway.
  - JasonFruit 5y ago
    The problem with your reasoning here is that your two options are replacement by "a taliban-equivalent", or a slight limitation of their power. I think you've vastly overestimated the risk of a naïve population to government while underestimating the benefit. In my view, the U.S. government's propaganda system is essential to its survival in its current form. It uses it to maintain the war industry, to justify its spending power, to preserve the stability of the currency, to ensure the election of tame officials — there's a lot to lose.
    - whatshisface 5y ago
      The stability of the currency is mainly decided by countries outside the reach of the US's internal propaganda, because of the enormous debts and reserve currency status. I agree that a population which wouldn't go for Qanon would also make them quit invading countries in the middle east and south america, but depending on how this crazy business plays out, leaving Iran alone may be a small price for them to pay. I hate to invoke Godwin's law, but business people loved Hitler all around the world right up until his propaganda machine shut out their influence and he started invading the other half of their markets and supply chains. If the people running our country have learned anything from history they will quit encouraging irrationality and gullibility some time before the curtains close, so to speak.

jjcon 5y ago

> coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism We stop trying to ascribe malicious motives to their actions and try to have genuine conversation with them. If they aren't convinced after that then we have more work to do.

cde-v 5y ago
Hanlon's razor
hallway_monitor 5y ago
Thank you. The phrase "disingenuous skepticism" is difficult to imagine. If someone believes masks don't work, or that a vaccine could have risks, they are skeptical; they haven't seen evidence that convinces them otherwise. It's interesting how much time and effort is spent trying to win people over to another way of thinking or opinion.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  I also think misconceptions about Occam's razor are to blame. It's a good heuristic for choosing which hypotheses to test first, but a lot of people seem to misuse it as a heuristic for which of two propositions is more likely to be true, which is unfounded and very often leads to incorrect conclusions. It's basically on par with "there's no smoke without fire". People tend to assume that if they cannot prove P and cannot prove ¬P, then ¬P must be assumed to be true. This is of course not correct at all, and most propositions can be rephrased so that Q=¬P and ¬Q=P. If there is no evidence either way, then neither P nor ¬P is supported, and we should remain uncertain.
- bduerst 5y ago
  I don't know how many of these conversations you've tried to have, because the confirmation bias is very real. We're not discussing skepticism of nematode behavior, but of the politicization of a pandemic, which makes it opinion. You can't reason with someone out of an opinion who didn't reason themselves into it to begin with. Rational bad actors abuse this notion that they have the right to play, to be heard, to have a discourse; when in reality they're repeating the same disinformation ad nausea to profit for themselves.

sjwalter 5y ago

Do you mean people who question the vaccine at all are "something else completely"? Seems strange to be called "anti-vax" and, presumably, "anti-science" for questioning the logic in mass vaccinating with an experimental vaccine, built with experimental technologies, which since its deployment has been demonstrated through various data to be a spectacular failure in terms of safety and efficacy. What about just questioning the policies themselves? What about the fact that from where I'm sitting there's zero "science" supporting the use of cloth masks, yet they're attack vector numero uno when it comes to bifurcating the populace into angels and demons?

ipspam 5y ago
Science is only one piece of the puzzle. Ultimately it's a political game, so science is only part of the equation. Masks are to signal that I care about you, and to make you feel safe. Bullshit of course, but it's way to hard to make people understand that they are overestimating the risk of death and hospitalization by factors of 10x and 20x. Much easier to not correct the record and pretend masks reduce the risk 10-20x. Back to basics: The government doesn't care about you. Any interventions are likely to sacrifice long term success for short term success.
- sjwalter 5y ago
  Lying to people in some kind of psychological game to manipulate their feelings in the way you're describing is despicable and anyone participating willfully in such bullshit deserves zero respect. Many scientists and doctors out there are obviously either completely uninterested in the truth or just toadies for the elite, if what you're describing is correct. If so, they don't deserve our respect, our trust, or even our attention.
  - angelzen 5y ago
    It's more complicated than that. Most scientists do not set out to willfully participate in bullshit. They do honest work within the constraints of their profession. As an example, take covid antibody studies. It is interesting and useful to learn how covid vaccines elicit antibody production. OTOH, the immune system is not limited to antibodies. Extrapolating long-term immunity conclusions from an antibody study is unwarranted. Alas, the scientists performing antibody studies don't have the resources to perform long term studies. This creates an over-abundence of antibody studies, which are cheap and likely to produce measurable results. These studies are then used as incontrovertible evidence that 'science says' there is no such thing as natural immunity, and even if it were, vaccines are much better.

psychlops 5y ago

> anti-vax/anti-mask/anti-science I'd like to define what these terms mean. Right now, I think the mainstream technique is anyone who questions vax/mask/science gets the anti- prefix.

angelzen 5y ago
Or the -phobe suffix. This isn't isolated.
- marginalia_nu 5y ago
  Labeling people as part of some group of undesirables seems to be a very popular way of not having to meet legitimate criticism these days. I wish we would be better at calling it out.
  - mcguire 5y ago
    What, exactly, is "legitimate criticism"?
- thrwawy12345 5y ago
  In common parlance it usually means “is disgusted by” rather than the traditional “is afraid of”.

marginalia_nu 5y ago

They reason they are thriving is this doctrinal view of science where anything that gets published is holy gospel. It opens up for these fringe movements is to present themselves as scientific, since they too have papers they can point to, and arguments that mirror the form of the scientific establishment. The way to beat them is to be very clear about the limitations of science, and stop trying to misrepresent it as having a larger degree of certainty than it has. Science is demonstrably wrong sometimes, especially early research like the stuff that was circulating in the beginning of the C19-pandemic, and to make matters worse, a large part of science is dedicated to identifying instances where science is wrong. That clashes with the official message is "trust the science" and makes devastating ammunition for undermining its credibility, especially nowadays when it is very easy to go back and check what claims were made in the past against which claims are made today.

dolni 5y ago
I wish we would stop talking about science as a singular authority. Science is what you get if you follow the scientific method. The scientific method is practiced by imperfect people with biases and external motivators. That is why thorough peer review is required (and sadly lacking).
jrm4 5y ago
Correct. Look, I didn't get vaccinated because I was told to by pharmaceutical companies. Those shady bastards are on TV all the time selling stuff that seems super sketchy. ALSO, I didn't get vaccinated because I was told to by doctors; I've had enough experiences with them getting things wrong in what they tell you to do. I got vaccinated because doctors and health professionals THEMSELVES got vaccinated without hesitation. Was lucky enough to see a good friend, a quasi-famous black doctor, get the jab on TV, which sealed it pretty quickly for me.
- pauldenton 5y ago
  Why are there mass firings of nurses for refusing to get the shot?

0xBA5ED 5y ago

>coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism There is certainly some of this happening as with every issue, but echo chambers can easily emerge and sustain themselves without the need for coordinated bad actors. I believe the larger issue is simply lack of education rather than bad guys doing bad things.

willcipriano 5y ago

> How should we counter coordinated unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism? Isn't this really asking "how do you have ideas that stand up to the Socratic method?"

thephyber 5y ago
No. You are making categorical error by equating emotional messages with cognitive messages. Coordinated inauthentic ideas are not intended to withstand rigorous review. They are intended to tickle the limbic system and to get retweeted before the reader’s cognitive mind has a chance to weigh in. The author will shed that idea or identity and move to another. For this reason, they are also called a “disinformation firehouse”.

spookthesunset 5y ago

Being anti-mask isn't "unauthentic or disingenuous skepticism". I've yet to hear a compelling argument why a fully vaccinated individual has any business wearing a mask. I've also yet to see any real data that shows that most masks worn do anything beyond being a placebo. All these studies conducted around masks are being done in the heat of the moment in a highly politically charged environment. Releasing a study that says masks don't work will get the authors labeled as "anti-science" and probably destroy their careers. All the studies performed prior to this mess were inconclusive, at best. Just because you disagree with somebody doesn't make that person anti-science and doesn't make them dangerous, "disingenuous" or "unauthentic". People have plenty of good reasons to call BS on almost all of our mitigations.

rabuse 5y ago
There is no compelling argument. They constantly keep shifting the goal posts whenever asked genuine questions. The definition of "vaccine" is even being redefined by a couple of these radical groups.

nickthemagicman 5y ago

Labotomies won the Nobel prize. Descartes was excommunicated. Semmelweis was mocked. How you should approach anti-vax/anti-mask people is to consider that they may have a point. But your FAITH in the science of your narrative precludes you.

rabuse 5y ago

Who's welcoming authentic concern? The media, who labels parents as "domestic terrorists" for concerns over a mandate that may have detrimental social effects of their children down the line?