4 ms·

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 an

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.

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.