6 ms·

> 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 s

> 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.
- goblin89 5y ago
  > what is wrong with pointing out that good empirical evidence exists, where it does? I think it’s OK to just point out that empirical evidence exists, although it’s better to reference an exact source. The strength of evidence hinges on many things, including the methodology for its collection, etc. If my counterparty doesn’t share my confidence in that evidence, I wouldn’t consider them “confused”. What constitutes “good” evidence, by the way? How is this suddenly a question of morality? > 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? “Appeal to authority” is a type of argument. I personally consider the relevant scientific knowledge base trustworthy, but if I were to present an argument in favour of a statement derived from that knowledge base to a person who does not share my confidence then yes, to them my argument will essentially be a fallacious appeal to authority that they don’t inherently trust. It’s not always a bad argument, though—if both sides agree to trust the authority in question, the argument would be convincing and logical. > 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 very familiar with the culture of such tensions. The only example that immediately comes to mind is the racist relative trope—but it’s not really the same, or at least I hope you were not equating racism with unwillingness to subject one’s own body to a procedure due to skepticism with regards to a scientific prediction (and if you were, I hope you are seeing the problem now). > I'm not preaching, I am pointing out a fact that presents a problem for your argument, and which you are trying very hard to ignore. Which fact am I trying to ignore? The existence of a prediction is a fact, don’t think I have ever questioned that. But still, it’s a prediction. After weighing the odds and possibilities of an error skewing them one way or the other, I decided that so far I am satisfied with them enough to get a jab myself. Yes, I am sometimes frustrated that not everyone shares my position (and indirectly causes various lockdowns and other inconveniences to continue), but if they don’t then I can’t (or, rather, do my best not to) blame them—scientific models are never complete and are routinely found suboptimal as time passes, and so are predictions based on those models.
  - mannykannot 5y ago

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.

goblin89 5y ago
> what is wrong with pointing out that good empirical evidence exists, where it does? I think it’s OK to just point out that empirical evidence exists, although it’s better to reference an exact source. The strength of evidence hinges on many things, including the methodology for its collection, etc. If my counterparty doesn’t share my confidence in that evidence, I wouldn’t consider them “confused”. What constitutes “good” evidence, by the way? How is this suddenly a question of morality? > 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? “Appeal to authority” is a type of argument. I personally consider the relevant scientific knowledge base trustworthy, but if I were to present an argument in favour of a statement derived from that knowledge base to a person who does not share my confidence then yes, to them my argument will essentially be a fallacious appeal to authority that they don’t inherently trust. It’s not always a bad argument, though—if both sides agree to trust the authority in question, the argument would be convincing and logical. > 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 very familiar with the culture of such tensions. The only example that immediately comes to mind is the racist relative trope—but it’s not really the same, or at least I hope you were not equating racism with unwillingness to subject one’s own body to a procedure due to skepticism with regards to a scientific prediction (and if you were, I hope you are seeing the problem now). > I'm not preaching, I am pointing out a fact that presents a problem for your argument, and which you are trying very hard to ignore. Which fact am I trying to ignore? The existence of a prediction is a fact, don’t think I have ever questioned that. But still, it’s a prediction. After weighing the odds and possibilities of an error skewing them one way or the other, I decided that so far I am satisfied with them enough to get a jab myself. Yes, I am sometimes frustrated that not everyone shares my position (and indirectly causes various lockdowns and other inconveniences to continue), but if they don’t then I can’t (or, rather, do my best not to) blame them—scientific models are never complete and are routinely found suboptimal as time passes, and so are predictions based on those models.
- mannykannot 5y ago