2 ms·

It's new, but it's not obvious that it actually changes what people believe, because those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolki

It's new, but it's not obvious that it actually changes what people believe, because those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. If someone came to you 20 years ago claiming that the chickenpox vaccine doesn't work because cases were up 60% after the rollout in Israel, how would you even begin to find contrary evidence? (How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams?)

helen___keller 5y ago
> those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust. I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc. In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death. At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”. This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams? 1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature. 2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again. 3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.

helen___keller 5y ago

> those trying to argue against misinformation also have a much better toolkit. The point of the OP is that skeptics have powerful and robust toolkits and my point is that conspiracists use these toolkits Example: the question is whether Dr Fauci knowingly conspired to let hundreds of thousands die because he is colluding with the Chinese on enacting the great reset The conclusion seems obviously bogus, yet you can pick a ton of arguments in favor from any skeptic of US Covid response. These tend to be very robust. I’ve seen tons of convincing arguments on this very site about issues with US Covid response, eg that we had strong information about the risks of Covid and should have had lockdowns much earlier, that we should have advised to wear masks from the beginning, etc. In the context of the conspiracy, each argument that US response was bungled also becomes a weapon to argue that Fauci intentionally bungled US Covid response to enact an evil agenda of widespread death. At that point you can either argue with very well reasoned skeptic talking points, or you can dive down the ideological rabbit hole of “ok he bungled it but it wasn’t intentional / malicious”. This is what I mean by weaponizing skeptic talking points

wizzwizz4 5y ago

> How would you prove that jet fuel can compromise the integrity of steel beams? 1. Acquire some jet fuel, burn it, and measure its burning temperature. 2. Acquire a steel beam, hit it with a hammer, heat it up to the burning temperature of jet fuel, then hit it with a hammer again. 3. Wonder why I just wasted $1000 and a hammer on something that the conspiracy theorists will label “doctored footage”.