3 ms·

> "...the best source...has been, and remains, their public health authorities." a contradictory conclusion, and somehow both falling for and denying the appea

> "...the best source...has been, and remains, their public health authorities." a contradictory conclusion, and somehow both falling for and denying the appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. you discount doctors being 'experts' but then claim another group of 'experts' being the right ones (with no justification, no less). there is no shortcut when it comes to triangulating reality. all the data must be considered, not just your favored sources. otherwise, you will be biased and very likely incorrect (you shouldn't even have favored sources). note that the original article literally points out a bias/fallacy that public health officials have fallen prey to.

CamperBob2 5y ago
Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. The authorities are more likely to be correct than an individual physician with a Twitter account, a bunch of junk-science citations, and an axe to grind. It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion, but somehow, it never is.
- timr 5y ago
  > Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. Prasad is routinely interviewed & quoted by the "left-wing media". You are eager to fixate on the "wing" of the media coverage, but not engage with the argument being made. Public health "authorities" are groups of people with opinions. Other people with expertise are no more or less qualified to have opinions, even if you don't agree with those opinions. If those opinions are backed by evidence and reason, and your opinions are backed by appeals to authority, then you lose. > It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion Close, but wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person advancing a hypothesis, whether that person is within the consensus or outside of it. Citing an authority does not excuse you from the burden of proof, any more than it excused the church in the time of Gallileo.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    You keep using that phrase, "appeal to authority." Are you sure you understand what it means?

CamperBob2 5y ago

Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. The authorities are more likely to be correct than an individual physician with a Twitter account, a bunch of junk-science citations, and an axe to grind. It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion, but somehow, it never is.

timr 5y ago
> Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. Prasad is routinely interviewed & quoted by the "left-wing media". You are eager to fixate on the "wing" of the media coverage, but not engage with the argument being made. Public health "authorities" are groups of people with opinions. Other people with expertise are no more or less qualified to have opinions, even if you don't agree with those opinions. If those opinions are backed by evidence and reason, and your opinions are backed by appeals to authority, then you lose. > It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion Close, but wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person advancing a hypothesis, whether that person is within the consensus or outside of it. Citing an authority does not excuse you from the burden of proof, any more than it excused the church in the time of Gallileo.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  You keep using that phrase, "appeal to authority." Are you sure you understand what it means?