4 ms·

Making claims without scientific backing probably shouldn't be a bannable offence. The spirit of science is about discussion and counter arguments and being ope

by hwers 5y ago

Making claims without scientific backing probably shouldn't be a bannable offence. The spirit of science is about discussion and counter arguments and being open to being wrong or even the idea that the consensus might be invalid, not about coercion.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> spirit of science is about discussion and counter arguments and being open to being wrong or even the idea that the consensus might be invalid I have seen very few antivax arguments made in the spirit of science. Those that were got repeated lacking the original comment’s nuance. Keep in mind that the spirit of science was developed with the gates of wealth, literacy and education in mind. Remove those, add in anonymity, or even pseudonymity, and the system veers towards chaos. We are far more open, today, than the Enlightenment-era West was. That requires new tools and guardrails. (What this discussion, broadly, is about.)
- scurraorbis 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    Well now you're just making a "no true vaccine skepticism" argument. We heard concerns about massive increases in blood clots, in infertility, that it would kill more people than covid, that it changed your DNA, that it increased rates of miscarriage, a ton of wild and crazy things and even more mundane things like because you could still get COVID afterwards the shot was worthless. You can't just say "well, us REAL sceptics (sic) only believed a and b, but not c-z, therefore all the skepticism was correct."
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Indeed. The only way any of the sceptics' claims have even a sliver of validity is as a motte-and-bailey fallacy of their original claims. For example, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work morphed into the claim that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission—a claim which wasn't even true until the delta strain showed up. Omicron has been a substantial challenge to vaccine efficacy (vaccines which, it's important to remember, are still only tuned to wild type COVID-19) but they're still providing significant protection as proven in large scale statistics.
      - scurraorbis 5y ago
        [flagged]
        simondotau 5y ago
        https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1503420660869214213?s=21 https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1503420660869214213?... End of story.
        scurraorbis 5y ago
        [flagged]
        simondotau 5y ago
        In reply to the dead post— > The Scottish and UK data (which they'll now stop publishing) show that the effectiveness against hospitalization and death of those with only two shots is now negative. You don't know how to read statistics. https://twitter.com/simondotau/status/1444537141413888003 https://twitter.com/simondotau/status/1444537141413888003
    - scurraorbis 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
        I certainly can't address all your points as we're quickly spiraling into incomprehensibility, but I don't think it's unfair to say that for the majority of those points as "there's at least a small chance they are possible". That doesn't warrant a victory lap as any sort of triumph of the skeptical viewpoint. You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true to your doubts still existing, which is incredibly fitting for the your initial argument and vaccine skepticism in general.
        scurraorbis 5y ago
        Incomprehensibility? Where exactly is what I write incomprehensible? And the response to not understanding some points is that you don't address any points and declare victory? That's bad faith. Meanwhile my post fades into grey soon to be invisible and then the next person like you can claim that they just don't see those science-minded vaccine skepticism comments / posts. > You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true No, that's not what I did. I showed that there is actually evidence for each of the points you brought up.
- bavell 5y ago
  Keep in mind, Merriam-Webster changed the definition of 'anti-vax' to include being against vaccine mandates [0]. So if you are against mandatory COVID vaccines for 5 year olds, you are technically an 'antivaxer'. I don't know how many people have gotten banned over this (though I'd guess nonzero) but it shows just how easy it is to fall under the new draconian speech policies enacted by the majority of social media. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer

by hwers 5y ago

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> spirit of science is about discussion and counter arguments and being open to being wrong or even the idea that the consensus might be invalid I have seen very few antivax arguments made in the spirit of science. Those that were got repeated lacking the original comment’s nuance. Keep in mind that the spirit of science was developed with the gates of wealth, literacy and education in mind. Remove those, add in anonymity, or even pseudonymity, and the system veers towards chaos. We are far more open, today, than the Enlightenment-era West was. That requires new tools and guardrails. (What this discussion, broadly, is about.)

scurraorbis 5y ago
[flagged]
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  Well now you're just making a "no true vaccine skepticism" argument. We heard concerns about massive increases in blood clots, in infertility, that it would kill more people than covid, that it changed your DNA, that it increased rates of miscarriage, a ton of wild and crazy things and even more mundane things like because you could still get COVID afterwards the shot was worthless. You can't just say "well, us REAL sceptics (sic) only believed a and b, but not c-z, therefore all the skepticism was correct."
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Indeed. The only way any of the sceptics' claims have even a sliver of validity is as a motte-and-bailey fallacy of their original claims. For example, the claim that the vaccine doesn't work morphed into the claim that the vaccine doesn't stop transmission—a claim which wasn't even true until the delta strain showed up. Omicron has been a substantial challenge to vaccine efficacy (vaccines which, it's important to remember, are still only tuned to wild type COVID-19) but they're still providing significant protection as proven in large scale statistics.
    - scurraorbis 5y ago
      [flagged]
      - simondotau 5y ago
        https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1503420660869214213?s=21 https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1503420660869214213?... End of story.
        scurraorbis 5y ago
        [flagged]
        simondotau 5y ago
        In reply to the dead post— > The Scottish and UK data (which they'll now stop publishing) show that the effectiveness against hospitalization and death of those with only two shots is now negative. You don't know how to read statistics. https://twitter.com/simondotau/status/1444537141413888003 https://twitter.com/simondotau/status/1444537141413888003
  - scurraorbis 5y ago
    [flagged]
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      I certainly can't address all your points as we're quickly spiraling into incomprehensibility, but I don't think it's unfair to say that for the majority of those points as "there's at least a small chance they are possible". That doesn't warrant a victory lap as any sort of triumph of the skeptical viewpoint. You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true to your doubts still existing, which is incredibly fitting for the your initial argument and vaccine skepticism in general.
      - scurraorbis 5y ago
        Incomprehensibility? Where exactly is what I write incomprehensible? And the response to not understanding some points is that you don't address any points and declare victory? That's bad faith. Meanwhile my post fades into grey soon to be invisible and then the next person like you can claim that they just don't see those science-minded vaccine skepticism comments / posts. > You've shifted your argument from your doubts have been proven true No, that's not what I did. I showed that there is actually evidence for each of the points you brought up.
bavell 5y ago
Keep in mind, Merriam-Webster changed the definition of 'anti-vax' to include being against vaccine mandates [0]. So if you are against mandatory COVID vaccines for 5 year olds, you are technically an 'antivaxer'. I don't know how many people have gotten banned over this (though I'd guess nonzero) but it shows just how easy it is to fall under the new draconian speech policies enacted by the majority of social media. [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer