5 ms·

"Most of the points in this article I'd be comfortable asking to a room of PhD scientists with expertise on Covid and vaccines." How about discussing those poi

"Most of the points in this article I'd be comfortable asking to a room of PhD scientists with expertise on Covid and vaccines." How about discussing those points with a roomful of non-PhD, non-scientists, with no particular knowledge of medicine in general?

COGlory 5y ago
I think its important we have the same conversations in public as we do behind closed doors in academia. Especially when we are asking people to inject medicine in their bodies.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Are you wanting to invite the public as spectators or participants?
  - janto 5y ago
    If they get injected they are participants already.
    - igetspam 5y ago
      They're participants in society but not the scientific community. They're not even part of a study. What makes their opinions on the science worth entertaining? Do you think John and Jane Q Public should be involved in network architecture because they have phones? Or civil engineering of bridges because sometimes they drive over one? I cannot find th logic in these arguments.
      - 6510 5y ago
        This is exactly what the article [that you didn't read] talks about. The end user can usefully participate in the network architecture debate if enough of their messages are vanishing. If the expert then says: "oh, but 1 in 2680 is rare" other professionals may adjust their opinion about them personally. If they then go on a crusade to get the exchange scrubbed from the record it would make them more credible to you?
      - janto 5y ago
        Their doubts are worth entertaining because their health and freedom is directly on the line. They correctly suspect they are being fed only specific information and all counter discussion is getting labeled as "misinformation" by what is supposedly the Fourth Estate. If I drive across a bridge I should have the right to question the competency and the trust being put in the engineers. If something looks like a crack, I would ask detailed questions and I hope my fellow citizens would do the same. Can you really not find the logic, in good faith?
      - inter_netuser 5y ago
        Should we cut off people below certain h-index? What’s yours?
      - COGlory 5y ago
        Are you part of the scientific community? If not, I'd ask you defer to my opinion on this matter, thanks.
nostromo 5y ago
When the public is discussing if we should mandate vaccines or not, and at what age, and in order to do what activities... including important activities like receiving an education... yes, you need to have these conversations outside of the ivory tower.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Should we let the uninformed masses make decisions based on wild speculation? Should non experts get to weigh in in the technical merits of your field? What value do people with no prior knowledge and no expertise add to scientific discussions?
  - foxes 5y ago
    - janto 5y ago
      If you keep the fine technical points from the general public, everyone will remain uninformed and will correctly suspect a conspiracy to suppress information. Having contempt for them (calling everyone who disagrees an "anti-vaxers") is not doing your position any good. In a few years the other political party will be elected and make decisions on your behalf. Will you be as keen on their mission to fight misinformation from this perspective of "people are sheep"? I'm personally delighted whenever "the general public" is interested in participating in my field of expertise. I love describing how we scientifically approach the unknown with models and attempts at falsification. And how we make engineering decisions and for what reasons. You've never talked with non-technical people about browser standards and programming language design? If you can't present good counterpoints to uninformed statements then you don't understand your own field.
      - mcguire 5y ago
        In the fall and early winter of 2020, all of the news reporting I saw claimed 80-90+% effectiveness for the COVID vaccines against the initial strain of the virus (and all pointed out that that was quite good for a vaccine). And yet, today, you have people like the author of the original article and several commenters here on HN complaining about how the vaccines don't provide "perfect protection" and claiming that they are useless if they don't that, even though that is physically impossible. I've talked to non-technical people about technical subjects, to some success. But presenting good counterpoints to people who have no intention of playing the game honestly is wasting your breath.

COGlory 5y ago

I think its important we have the same conversations in public as we do behind closed doors in academia. Especially when we are asking people to inject medicine in their bodies.

igetspam 5y ago
Are you wanting to invite the public as spectators or participants?
- janto 5y ago
  If they get injected they are participants already.
  - igetspam 5y ago
    They're participants in society but not the scientific community. They're not even part of a study. What makes their opinions on the science worth entertaining? Do you think John and Jane Q Public should be involved in network architecture because they have phones? Or civil engineering of bridges because sometimes they drive over one? I cannot find th logic in these arguments.
    - 6510 5y ago
      This is exactly what the article [that you didn't read] talks about. The end user can usefully participate in the network architecture debate if enough of their messages are vanishing. If the expert then says: "oh, but 1 in 2680 is rare" other professionals may adjust their opinion about them personally. If they then go on a crusade to get the exchange scrubbed from the record it would make them more credible to you?
    - janto 5y ago
      Their doubts are worth entertaining because their health and freedom is directly on the line. They correctly suspect they are being fed only specific information and all counter discussion is getting labeled as "misinformation" by what is supposedly the Fourth Estate. If I drive across a bridge I should have the right to question the competency and the trust being put in the engineers. If something looks like a crack, I would ask detailed questions and I hope my fellow citizens would do the same. Can you really not find the logic, in good faith?
    - inter_netuser 5y ago
      Should we cut off people below certain h-index? What’s yours?
    - COGlory 5y ago
      Are you part of the scientific community? If not, I'd ask you defer to my opinion on this matter, thanks.

nostromo 5y ago

When the public is discussing if we should mandate vaccines or not, and at what age, and in order to do what activities... including important activities like receiving an education... yes, you need to have these conversations outside of the ivory tower.

igetspam 5y ago
Should we let the uninformed masses make decisions based on wild speculation? Should non experts get to weigh in in the technical merits of your field? What value do people with no prior knowledge and no expertise add to scientific discussions?
- foxes 5y ago
  - janto 5y ago
    If you keep the fine technical points from the general public, everyone will remain uninformed and will correctly suspect a conspiracy to suppress information. Having contempt for them (calling everyone who disagrees an "anti-vaxers") is not doing your position any good. In a few years the other political party will be elected and make decisions on your behalf. Will you be as keen on their mission to fight misinformation from this perspective of "people are sheep"? I'm personally delighted whenever "the general public" is interested in participating in my field of expertise. I love describing how we scientifically approach the unknown with models and attempts at falsification. And how we make engineering decisions and for what reasons. You've never talked with non-technical people about browser standards and programming language design? If you can't present good counterpoints to uninformed statements then you don't understand your own field.
    - mcguire 5y ago
      In the fall and early winter of 2020, all of the news reporting I saw claimed 80-90+% effectiveness for the COVID vaccines against the initial strain of the virus (and all pointed out that that was quite good for a vaccine). And yet, today, you have people like the author of the original article and several commenters here on HN complaining about how the vaccines don't provide "perfect protection" and claiming that they are useless if they don't that, even though that is physically impossible. I've talked to non-technical people about technical subjects, to some success. But presenting good counterpoints to people who have no intention of playing the game honestly is wasting your breath.