6 ms·
> One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on. Two sides/devil's advocate is the basis of philosophy, thought, learning
by qiskit 5y ago
> One thing we need to step away from is this framing that there are "sides" to be on.
Two sides/devil's advocate is the basis of philosophy, thought, learning, etc. To claim otherwise is to demand blind obedience to authority.
> As an example, are there two sides to the flat earth debate? If you say yes, then you're admitting that people who think the earth is flat have an equal standing with someone who knows that the earth is round.
Nobody is saying they are on equal footing. They have a right to their opinions. But the facts are what matters.
800 years ago, you'd be demanding everyone believe the earth is the center of the universe and that anyone who says otherwise is a heretic. You'd be saying we shouldn't legitimize indefensible things like heliocentrism. In my opinion, the side that is trying to stifle debate/opinions/etc is the wrong side. If someone says they are a flat earther, just show them a video of the earth.
Do you realize that just a few decades ago, the idea of vaccination was viewed as indefensible and anti-science? Much of the scientific community viewed vaccine advocates as charlatans. After all, you'd have to be a lunatic to infect yourself with disease right? Almost everything you hold dear and absolutely true today were once "indefensible things". Including almost everything medical and scientific.
Instead of trying to stifle debate, just bring facts with you and you'll be fine. Nothing is gained by zealotry.
- ericmay 5y agoWhat debate is being stifled? It's settled science. This is equivalent to going back and claiming that the earth is the center of the universe and then being upset when presented facts to the contrary. You have a right to an opinion. I have a right to dismiss that opinion off-hand like I would dismiss someone saying the earth is flat. Would you host a debate with someone at a university about whether or not the earth is flat? If I went to a Python conference and have a lecture on how strings in Python work which were completely contrary to how the language operates would you suggest that this is a matter of two sides, or that it's the basis of philosophy and learning? I don't think so.
- _3u10 5y agoScience isn’t settled. That’s the whole idea of it. It also doesn’t work by consensus.
- ericmay 5y agoWhat specific aspect of vaccine science is unsettled?
- klhutchins 5y agoIf we look at vaccine science 40 years ago and thought that it was settled, we wouldn't be where we are now. If we believe it is solved, how will it get better than today, why would anyone look into it anymore?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- qiskit 5y ago> What debate is being stifled? Everything you deem to be wrong? " Allowing for there to be these separate "sides"... " > It's settled science. Everything is "settled science" until it isn't. Like the earth being the center of the universe. Like newtonian physics. Like einsteinian physics. Etc. It was settle science that Lamarckianism was scientific charlatanism until epigenetics. > You have a right to an opinion. I have a right to dismiss that opinion off-hand We are agreed. Except you don't want to even allow others their opinions. > If I went to a Python conference Someone once compared python to a tricycle. > or that it's the basis of philosophy and learning? I don't think so. Then you don't know philosophy, science and most importantly the history of science/philosophy. Why is it that the people with the least knowledge/wisdom/etc are the most sure about things they know nothing about? As I said, if you run into a flat earther, just show them a video of the earth. Or don't waste your time with them. Who do you think you are to say whether they should be "allowed or not" to have their opinion or say?
- ericmay 5y agoI don't care if someone is just wrong about some belief. I care when they have a megaphone and they're convincing other people of their reality and that leads those people to their own early death. If you sat at home and did this, nobody would really care.
- qiskit 5y ago> I don't care if someone is just wrong about some belief. You sound like you care very much. I've known many zealots who want everyone to adopt their orthodoxy. > I care when they have a megaphone and they're convincing other people of their reality and that leads those people to their own early death. Every preacher, pope, cult leader and zealot of all kinds says the same thing. They want "heresy" silenced in order to save souls. How noble and virtuous. Ever consider that people have their own agency? Ever consider whether you are in the wrong? What happens if someone says the earth is flat on a megaphone? They get laughed at. As long as you have the facts and data, what are you so afraid of?
- 5y ago
- rhino369 5y agoNone of the science of Covid is settled. It took over a year for scientific bodies to recognize it was an airborne virus. The medical field made a basic aerodynamics mistake for about 50 years that lead them astray. There is a ton we don't know about it.
- ericmay 5y agoCan you specifically point to the things we don't know about COVID as it relates to the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine? What are the exact details that you are referencing?
- rhino369 5y agoWhat is the efficiency of the 4th shot vs a third shot after 5 months? What is the risk of a 4th shot? There is a reason we don't approve vaccines on an ad hoc basis in normal times. It's an emergency so you gotta take some risks. But trying to shut down dissent with THE SCIENCE IS SETTTLED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is bullshit.
- anamax 5y agoWe're not just ignorant about covid-19. We're ignorant about all coronaviruses and flus in general. It's not exactly surprising that they've been killing 35-75k Americans every year for decades. This is despite spending decades and hundreds of billions of dollars on public health. You remember the public health folk. When they ask for money, they say how it's needed so we're ready for the next spanish flu.
- mschuster91 5y ago> It took over a year for scientific bodies to recognize it was an airborne virus. Indications of covid being airborne were available very early on, particularly as its genetic predecessor "OG Covid" / SARS-CoV-1 was also known to be airborne. The problem was politicians who feared a run on masks and thus refused to follow science. On the other hand, the increased hygienic measures - particularly regular hand washing and disinfection - contributed to the eradication of at least one flu strain and prevented the spread of countless other infectious agents, leading to a reduction of load on the hospital systems, so it was not entirely pointless (and in fact should be kept even when the pandemic condition ends).
- philwelch 5y ago> This is equivalent to going back and claiming that the earth is the center of the universe and then being upset when presented facts to the contrary. Physical motion is fundamentally relative and there is nothing in the laws of physics that says you can’t construct a frame of reference in which everything else moves relative to the Earth. Heliocentrism is certainly easier to reason about and much simpler, but it’s no more true in any fundamental sense.