5 ms·

> 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 i

> 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.
      - mannykannot 5y ago
        Nowhere have I suggested that it is that it is not warranted for a person to be skeptical if they can’t validate a claim. The issue here is this: what is wrong with pointing out that good empirical evidence exists, where it does? And that empirical evidence, furthermore, means that claims about the efficacy and safety of vaccination rest on a good deal more than an appeal to authority (as someone who claims to favor science, and to trust this claim, you are not now going to claim that all empirical knowledge is ultimately just an appeal to authority, are you?) > Do you believe those differing views should be off-limits, then? I have no idea what led you to write that. You were complaining about "jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on", but this is just one example of the many familial tensions that have always been staples for comedy - why should this one be any different? > “I’m not going to engage with them, they are wrong and I am right because science is right." You are just inventing dialog and attributing attitudes to imaginary people here. I imagine people sometimes say things like this (sometimes out of frustration), but it is a bad argument, and there are much better ones based on empirical evidence. You cannot make a case for there being a pervasive view of science being infallible from a bad argument that need not have been made. > Please, you don’t need to preach this here. I'm not preaching, I am pointing out a fact that presents a problem for your argument, and which you seem to be trying very hard to ignore.

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.
    - mannykannot 5y ago
      Nowhere have I suggested that it is that it is not warranted for a person to be skeptical if they can’t validate a claim. The issue here is this: what is wrong with pointing out that good empirical evidence exists, where it does? And that empirical evidence, furthermore, means that claims about the efficacy and safety of vaccination rest on a good deal more than an appeal to authority (as someone who claims to favor science, and to trust this claim, you are not now going to claim that all empirical knowledge is ultimately just an appeal to authority, are you?) > Do you believe those differing views should be off-limits, then? I have no idea what led you to write that. You were complaining about "jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on", but this is just one example of the many familial tensions that have always been staples for comedy - why should this one be any different? > “I’m not going to engage with them, they are wrong and I am right because science is right." You are just inventing dialog and attributing attitudes to imaginary people here. I imagine people sometimes say things like this (sometimes out of frustration), but it is a bad argument, and there are much better ones based on empirical evidence. You cannot make a case for there being a pervasive view of science being infallible from a bad argument that need not have been made. > Please, you don’t need to preach this here. I'm not preaching, I am pointing out a fact that presents a problem for your argument, and which you seem to be trying very hard to ignore.