5 ms·

This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.

by V__ 5y ago

disambiguation 5y ago
No this isn't whataboutism. My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value. Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.
- ziddoap 5y ago
  > "Here is the scientific consensus." >> "What about sugar." Is the definition of whataboutism. >Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified. Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
  - lolsal 5y ago
    I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
    - ziddoap 5y ago
      In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
      - kcplate 5y ago
        And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later. I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.
        ziddoap 5y ago
        >And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it. The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?". I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it. The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.
        kcplate 5y ago
        To me “scientific consensus” is a wave of the hand response too. It’s generally dropped in these discussions by non-experts without much knowledge of who makes up that consensus or why they disagree with the dissent. At any rate, I see both sides. I don’t trust big pharma or government, but I trust my doctor. If tomorrow he tells me “don’t get the next booster”, I’m not going to get it.

This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.

by V__ 5y ago

This is such a dumb whataboutism point. Either discredit the data or the argument.

No this isn't whataboutism. My point is simply that "scientific consensus" has lost some of its brand value. Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified.

ziddoap 5y ago
> "Here is the scientific consensus." >> "What about sugar." Is the definition of whataboutism. >Further, I'm not an "expert" so even if I did challenge the data or argument, I would be dismissed for being unqualified. Not always true. You just need to provide data (or identify an error in their data/methodology/etc.) that is convincing enough to overcome the difference in weight afforded to an expert opinion and non-expert opinion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is not to say that you are wrong, you very well could be correct, but the onus is on you to prove why your non-expert opinion should be weighted higher than hundreds of experts from various countries.
- lolsal 5y ago
  I don't think the parent is saying "what about sugar?", I think the parent is saying "why should we buy that this is consensus when consensus can be bought and paid for, as evidenced by this story about sugar and scientific consensus?"
  - ziddoap 5y ago
    In other words, "what about the the time when consensus was bought?". And my reply would be: if you have evidence that the current consensus has been purchased, I am all ears.
    - kcplate 5y ago
      And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. The commenter’s point was that due to other scandal, “scientific consensus” doesn’t hold the same weight it once might have held. Especially when powerful industries and Lot’s O’Money are involved. Not just sugar, but energy, tobacco, and yes…even other pharmaceuticals. TBH there seems to be a pretty direct correlation between any industry that tends to be regularly described as “Big [name of industry]” and these sort of scientific oopsies that turn up a decade or so later. I’m fully vaccinated and boosted, but I am not going to be at all surprised if 10 years from now there is an “oops” with this too.
      - ziddoap 5y ago
        >And my reply would be that evidence is not always immediately apparent, but that doesn’t mean evidence doesn’t exist. I agree, evidence may exist and if it does, I hope to see it. The parent poster, in contrast, simply gave a sarcastic "Yep, case closed" and then, with no context, placed a link to the sugar scandal. Effectively, as I read it, "Yeah sure... but what about that thing with sugar?". I'm not even arguing that the stance is wrong. Your middle paragraph, while holding a similar view, actually invites discussion around the topic. Hand-waving to an article with a sarcastic remark is just a deflection. Proposing an equivalence between two disparate situations with nothing behind it. The other portion of my comment just suggests that you should have strong evidence (or argument that the strong evidence exists) when making strong claims, and that if you're a non-expert in the field you need to demonstrate why your non-expert opinion is equivalent to that of many experts. I'm not even sure how that is controversial, but apparently it is.
        kcplate 5y ago
        To me “scientific consensus” is a wave of the hand response too. It’s generally dropped in these discussions by non-experts without much knowledge of who makes up that consensus or why they disagree with the dissent. At any rate, I see both sides. I don’t trust big pharma or government, but I trust my doctor. If tomorrow he tells me “don’t get the next booster”, I’m not going to get it.