5 ms·

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long hi

Interesting you are downvoted, this is precisely what is happening. The contradicting experts are quickly labelled as quacks and loonies, yet we have a long history of the early critical voices being eventually proved right (cholesterol, sugar, cigarettes, asbestos, Oxycodone, bio-labs, roundup, DDT, radium, etc). It's a long list and yet we behave the same every single time. This time I'm sure the consensus/"the science" has got it right though.

cudgy 5y ago
The same thought came to mind regarding how easily manipulated the US population is regarding wars. They keep falling for the same fallacy of making conclusions without enough evidence.
odonnellryan 5y ago
I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing. Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong. Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are. So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity. Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream. You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.
- headsoup 5y ago
  That wasn't quite my point. The point is not to immediately devalue experts critical of the consensus, but keep informed and considered. To dismiss either side whole-handedly is ignorant. What is happening especially now is precisely that, this whole 'misinformation' drive is to encourage the dismissal of critical opinion (on more and more topics it seems). This is a bad road to go down. And you make a good example of the overall point: there should not be this 'mainstream' vs 'not-mainstream' and we just pick a side. We should all be mature enough not to fall for that silly manipulation and instead try to fully inform ourselves from a range of sources and challenge ourselves.
  - odonnellryan 5y ago
    There wasn't any real evidence for the use of Ivermectin. Some public policies were not perfect or misguided (lockdowns) some were inconsistent with both messaging and implementation (masks) some were really good and people are against them for no logical reason (vaccines, though maybe requirements are totalitarian in cases). I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole. Also, there's no real way for us to know what would have happened if we did nothing. Maybe another 1-2m dead - or maybe we'd be just where we are today.
    - headsoup 5y ago
      All of your points have no certainty. I'm not sure what you're attempting to show here? > I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole I think a more salient point is perhaps that because so much effort was put into covering the 'holes' (not to mention the coining and dissemination of the label 'misinformation') rather than be honest about them, distrust was created. It is sensible to question when any groups make concerted efforts to dismiss and censor alternative views, regardless of the merits. Evidence and transparency on the side of the reason/truth should not need such measures. The authorities and press infantalised the population on the assumption people are too stupid to process information and make their own informed choices. This is bad precedent.
- Jtype 5y ago
  I believe that you're misinterpreting the point. It's not dismissing the mainstream because it's mainstream, but ignoring the mainstream that completely dismisses and mislabels contradicting views and evidence as "misinformation." Relying solely on the judgement of mainstream media is putting all your faith in science not in science itself but on reporters(and activists) choosing what is "science." This recent trend of treating science as an unquestionable reminds me much more of religion than of science. At this point in the covid game where quite a bit of the accepted science has changed, it seems that only people's egos are keeping them from seeing this.
nostoc 5y ago
Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place. Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true. But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.
- headsoup 5y ago
  That's not my point. My point is don't dismiss all alternative views just because someone told you to. Consider a range of views and make your own informed decisions. This should not be about being on teams, but acting like adults. The 'misinformation' label has made it really easy to just ignore a range of views through not wanting to be in 'that group.' > But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics That's an incredibly broad generalisation, you're going to have to back that up with evidence. Does that also include those over-enthusiastically pushing the 'right' science that is in fact later proved wrong? Or are they not lunatics, just 'the science changed' on them?
- coldtea 5y ago
  >Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place. Neither would some that disagreed were quasks so all who disagree with the mainstream are quacks, which is how they are treated.
gadders 5y ago
Not to mention Frances Oldham Kelsey and thalidomide. She'd be slated as anti-science on CNN etc today for sure.
- headsoup 5y ago
  And more-so, have any of the scientists and politicians that supported and promoted thalidomide early on been pilloried since? Are they now whackos supporting pseudo/incorrect science?
- dekhn 5y ago
  Thalidomide is still used as a drug, it's very successful. Parts of the narrative around the FDA and Kelsey make it sound more heroic than it really was.
civilized 5y ago
You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right. Why would you mention only one list and not the other? Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind? You're playing yourself for a fool.
- headsoup 5y ago
  No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic. People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you. Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility. You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.
  - civilized 5y ago
    The topic is cherry-picking experts (outsider experts in Rogan's case). The person you replied to said it can be justified because some experts are better than others, implying that outsider experts are better in this case. You supported that by saying there's a long list of cases where outsider experts are right and establishment experts are wrong. In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universally the case. The establishment is often correct as well. That's why you don't want to cherry pick all your experts from one side. Especially if you yourself lack the ability to tell which experts are more expert, which is definitely true in Rogan's case.
    - headsoup 5y ago
      The person I replied to was quite obviously being sarcastic I thought, and if not then I misread, apologies. As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on. We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.
dTal 5y ago
"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan Point is we also have a long history of genuine quacks and loonies, and they outnumber the genuine Cassandras to such an extent as to invalidate your heuristic. Statistically, if someone disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus, they aren't a brave voice fighting the tide of darkness - just wrong.

cudgy 5y ago

The same thought came to mind regarding how easily manipulated the US population is regarding wars. They keep falling for the same fallacy of making conclusions without enough evidence.

odonnellryan 5y ago

I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing. Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong. Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are. So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity. Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream. You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.

headsoup 5y ago
That wasn't quite my point. The point is not to immediately devalue experts critical of the consensus, but keep informed and considered. To dismiss either side whole-handedly is ignorant. What is happening especially now is precisely that, this whole 'misinformation' drive is to encourage the dismissal of critical opinion (on more and more topics it seems). This is a bad road to go down. And you make a good example of the overall point: there should not be this 'mainstream' vs 'not-mainstream' and we just pick a side. We should all be mature enough not to fall for that silly manipulation and instead try to fully inform ourselves from a range of sources and challenge ourselves.
- odonnellryan 5y ago
  There wasn't any real evidence for the use of Ivermectin. Some public policies were not perfect or misguided (lockdowns) some were inconsistent with both messaging and implementation (masks) some were really good and people are against them for no logical reason (vaccines, though maybe requirements are totalitarian in cases). I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole. Also, there's no real way for us to know what would have happened if we did nothing. Maybe another 1-2m dead - or maybe we'd be just where we are today.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    All of your points have no certainty. I'm not sure what you're attempting to show here? > I think the reality is that because there are holes in the response to covid, people dismiss the whole I think a more salient point is perhaps that because so much effort was put into covering the 'holes' (not to mention the coining and dissemination of the label 'misinformation') rather than be honest about them, distrust was created. It is sensible to question when any groups make concerted efforts to dismiss and censor alternative views, regardless of the merits. Evidence and transparency on the side of the reason/truth should not need such measures. The authorities and press infantalised the population on the assumption people are too stupid to process information and make their own informed choices. This is bad precedent.
Jtype 5y ago
I believe that you're misinterpreting the point. It's not dismissing the mainstream because it's mainstream, but ignoring the mainstream that completely dismisses and mislabels contradicting views and evidence as "misinformation." Relying solely on the judgement of mainstream media is putting all your faith in science not in science itself but on reporters(and activists) choosing what is "science." This recent trend of treating science as an unquestionable reminds me much more of religion than of science. At this point in the covid game where quite a bit of the accepted science has changed, it seems that only people's egos are keeping them from seeing this.

nostoc 5y ago

Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place. Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true. But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.

headsoup 5y ago
That's not my point. My point is don't dismiss all alternative views just because someone told you to. Consider a range of views and make your own informed decisions. This should not be about being on teams, but acting like adults. The 'misinformation' label has made it really easy to just ignore a range of views through not wanting to be in 'that group.' > But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics That's an incredibly broad generalisation, you're going to have to back that up with evidence. Does that also include those over-enthusiastically pushing the 'right' science that is in fact later proved wrong? Or are they not lunatics, just 'the science changed' on them?
coldtea 5y ago
>Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place. Neither would some that disagreed were quasks so all who disagree with the mainstream are quacks, which is how they are treated.

gadders 5y ago

Not to mention Frances Oldham Kelsey and thalidomide. She'd be slated as anti-science on CNN etc today for sure.

headsoup 5y ago
And more-so, have any of the scientists and politicians that supported and promoted thalidomide early on been pilloried since? Are they now whackos supporting pseudo/incorrect science?
dekhn 5y ago
Thalidomide is still used as a drug, it's very successful. Parts of the narrative around the FDA and Kelsey make it sound more heroic than it really was.

civilized 5y ago

You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right. Why would you mention only one list and not the other? Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind? You're playing yourself for a fool.

headsoup 5y ago
No. It's not about sides. It's about listening to a range of views. I'm talking about 'only' one list because that was the topic. People gotta stop with this whole "you're either with the science or against it" rubbish. Be adults, inform yourself and make decisions. Don't just let media, politicians or fringe dwellers define your 'label' for you. Complex issues need complex thought, but it's easy to just fall for paternalism and externalise your responsibility. You're playing yourself the fool by thinking this is just a game of being on the winning team.
- civilized 5y ago
  The topic is cherry-picking experts (outsider experts in Rogan's case). The person you replied to said it can be justified because some experts are better than others, implying that outsider experts are better in this case. You supported that by saying there's a long list of cases where outsider experts are right and establishment experts are wrong. In this topic, it's clearly relevant that this is far from universally the case. The establishment is often correct as well. That's why you don't want to cherry pick all your experts from one side. Especially if you yourself lack the ability to tell which experts are more expert, which is definitely true in Rogan's case.
  - headsoup 5y ago
    The person I replied to was quite obviously being sarcastic I thought, and if not then I misread, apologies. As in my other responses, I agree and my view is not to just dismiss a view just because of which 'side' it is on. We must keep reprosecuting the evidence, data and opinions over time to try to maintain objectivity while avoiding being swayed by manipulation, fraud and/or populist consensus.

dTal 5y ago

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan Point is we also have a long history of genuine quacks and loonies, and they outnumber the genuine Cassandras to such an extent as to invalidate your heuristic. Statistically, if someone disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus, they aren't a brave voice fighting the tide of darkness - just wrong.