3 ms·

> Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. All over? I'm not seeing it. With the exception of creationism, where it is the theologically-motivate

> Now amplify this all over mass media and social media. All over? I'm not seeing it. With the exception of creationism, where it is the theologically-motivated who are attempting to impose their dogma on society (and then mostly confined to parts of the USA), this appears to be a niche concern. WRT 'scientist': thanks for the information. Going back to the article, it is unclear to me whether it was Cowles or Rossi who introduced that largely irrelevant aside about scientists (then) being "most definitely male".

goblin89 5y ago
> All over? I'm not seeing it. One example was given by TFA, if you read it: the vax/anti-vax argument. From my limited exposure to this (I am vaccinated but increasingly not into arguing whether either choice is right or wrong), the vax side tends to refuse to acknowledge that the science may not be perfect, and the debate ends up reverting to whether one believes in science or not.
- mannykannot 5y ago
  I have, in fact, read TFA, and possibly more diligently than you have. Stop insinuating that I have not. I'm still not seeing cases where claims that vaccines (or the science behind them) are perfect, are being made to a significant degree. On the other hand, irrational, evidence-ignoring anti-vax claims and arguments, such as the one analyzed in the article, are commonplace.
  - goblin89 5y ago
    We must live in different worlds. I’ve watched US left-wing mass media a lot in the past year or so (news media like CNN and late night infotainment comedy), and saw this happening with some frequency. Hosts rarely claimed outright that science is perfect, no—they just ridiculed, scorned and separated into the outgroup of science-disbelievers those who didn’t want to get a jab under the argument that vaccines may have unknown side-effects. (Go figure the difference.) Saw similar sentiment in social media, too (jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on).
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      We apparently do live in somewhat different worlds, as I do not spend much time with the media you are complaining about, or their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum, who are at least as disparaging. I agree that it is unseemly and unfair (and counter-productive) to ridicule people who are genuinely confused (a position I hold regardless of whether the issue is scientific or not), but the preposterous claims, arguments and actions of those who are deliberately sowing confusion are fair game IMHO. In the case of vaccination, moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that it is both effective and safe for almost everybody, so this is not a case you can use to claim that science is making unjustified claims of infallibility (or even anything close.) It is especially not clear to me why the issue of relatives with strongly differing views over this particular issue should be off-limits.
      - goblin89 5y ago
        > We apparently do live in somewhat different worlds, as I do not spend much time with the media you are complaining about, or their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum What mass media do you watch, then? > I agree that it is unseemly and unfair (and counter-productive) to ridicule people who are genuinely confused (a position I hold regardless of whether the issue is scientific or not) By writing off, in passing, the people who refuse to get vaccinated due to possible side-effects of the vaccines as “genuinely confused” you’ve just ignored a large part of my point so far. Why—and I hope it’s obvious that I am excluding the mentally ill, chronic conspiracy theorists and propaganda bots in the entirety of my argument—is it not warranted for a person to be skeptical if they can’t validate a claim? I trust this claim myself, but I am painfully aware that any non-circular argument I can present in favour of that claim will ultimately hinge on an appeal to authority. To say “this is the claim, it is true, those people who don’t believe this claim are confused” is to exhibit the behaviour of a religious person (just replace “claim” with “God”). > It is especially not clear to me why the issue of relatives with strongly differing views over this particular issue should be off-limits. Do you believe those differing views should be off-limits, then? Because that is exactly the attitude I meant to bring in question. “I’m not going to engage with them, they are wrong and I am right because science is right.” This attitude arises from the aforementioned philosophical ignorance leading scientific findings to be treated as sacred and unthinkable to cast doubt upon; it shuts down the potential for dialogue and fuels further unnecessary polarization. Take the unconditional belief in science on one hand, combine it with certain lapses within scientific community itself (such as the outright politics played with respect to COVID origin—it seems impossible to really tell whether X or Y occurred so far, and yet we observe the pattern of members of scientific community being publicly dead-sure of X and ridiculing Y because they had vested interest in X) on the other, and the skepticism may be understandable. > moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that it is both effective and safe for almost everybody Please, you don’t need to preach this here.

goblin89 5y ago

> All over? I'm not seeing it. One example was given by TFA, if you read it: the vax/anti-vax argument. From my limited exposure to this (I am vaccinated but increasingly not into arguing whether either choice is right or wrong), the vax side tends to refuse to acknowledge that the science may not be perfect, and the debate ends up reverting to whether one believes in science or not.

mannykannot 5y ago
I have, in fact, read TFA, and possibly more diligently than you have. Stop insinuating that I have not. I'm still not seeing cases where claims that vaccines (or the science behind them) are perfect, are being made to a significant degree. On the other hand, irrational, evidence-ignoring anti-vax claims and arguments, such as the one analyzed in the article, are commonplace.
- goblin89 5y ago
  We must live in different worlds. I’ve watched US left-wing mass media a lot in the past year or so (news media like CNN and late night infotainment comedy), and saw this happening with some frequency. Hosts rarely claimed outright that science is perfect, no—they just ridiculed, scorned and separated into the outgroup of science-disbelievers those who didn’t want to get a jab under the argument that vaccines may have unknown side-effects. (Go figure the difference.) Saw similar sentiment in social media, too (jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on).
  - mannykannot 5y ago
    We apparently do live in somewhat different worlds, as I do not spend much time with the media you are complaining about, or their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum, who are at least as disparaging. I agree that it is unseemly and unfair (and counter-productive) to ridicule people who are genuinely confused (a position I hold regardless of whether the issue is scientific or not), but the preposterous claims, arguments and actions of those who are deliberately sowing confusion are fair game IMHO. In the case of vaccination, moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that it is both effective and safe for almost everybody, so this is not a case you can use to claim that science is making unjustified claims of infallibility (or even anything close.) It is especially not clear to me why the issue of relatives with strongly differing views over this particular issue should be off-limits.
    - goblin89 5y ago
      > We apparently do live in somewhat different worlds, as I do not spend much time with the media you are complaining about, or their counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum What mass media do you watch, then? > I agree that it is unseemly and unfair (and counter-productive) to ridicule people who are genuinely confused (a position I hold regardless of whether the issue is scientific or not) By writing off, in passing, the people who refuse to get vaccinated due to possible side-effects of the vaccines as “genuinely confused” you’ve just ignored a large part of my point so far. Why—and I hope it’s obvious that I am excluding the mentally ill, chronic conspiracy theorists and propaganda bots in the entirety of my argument—is it not warranted for a person to be skeptical if they can’t validate a claim? I trust this claim myself, but I am painfully aware that any non-circular argument I can present in favour of that claim will ultimately hinge on an appeal to authority. To say “this is the claim, it is true, those people who don’t believe this claim are confused” is to exhibit the behaviour of a religious person (just replace “claim” with “God”). > It is especially not clear to me why the issue of relatives with strongly differing views over this particular issue should be off-limits. Do you believe those differing views should be off-limits, then? Because that is exactly the attitude I meant to bring in question. “I’m not going to engage with them, they are wrong and I am right because science is right.” This attitude arises from the aforementioned philosophical ignorance leading scientific findings to be treated as sacred and unthinkable to cast doubt upon; it shuts down the potential for dialogue and fuels further unnecessary polarization. Take the unconditional belief in science on one hand, combine it with certain lapses within scientific community itself (such as the outright politics played with respect to COVID origin—it seems impossible to really tell whether X or Y occurred so far, and yet we observe the pattern of members of scientific community being publicly dead-sure of X and ridiculing Y because they had vested interest in X) on the other, and the skepticism may be understandable. > moreover, there is strong empirical evidence that it is both effective and safe for almost everybody Please, you don’t need to preach this here.