4 ms·

And my general experience with anti vaxers is that they generally look into more resources and research and put much more thoughts into their decisions than a r

And my general experience with anti vaxers is that they generally look into more resources and research and put much more thoughts into their decisions than a regular person. Which I generally view as a positive quality. I put much more value on the process by which a person reached his decisions than whether they were correct in one particular instance. Ah. The, “they did their research” and “read lots of words” retort. It’s ok that almost all of it is wrong. What matters is that they read a lot. They thought a lot about it! The thoughts were completely wrong but quantity over quality, right? Consider this. What does it say about you that you think people with no knowledge of or training in virology can legitimately said to have conducted research into the efficacy of vaccines? I have not successfully been fooled into thinking that people are dumb. All of us are dumb in certain areas. All of us can be manipulated. All of us are susceptible to false information. (Read up on the Gell-Mann amnesia effect as an example of this.) It is absolutely an intelligent trait to rely on the expert knowledge of others. Hence, flat earthers are incredibly dumb. The knowledge that the Earth is spheroidal has been known for many hundreds of years. Another example. Almost everyone knows that 1+1=2 despite the fact that very few people can actually prove it. It is not intelligence to question this fact. It is intelligence to ask how to prove it and even more intelligence to understand the proof. An intelligent person doesn’t question the efficacy of vaccines. The evidence of their efficacy is plain to see by the fact that polio is virtually nonexistent. An intelligent person asks why are vaccines effective. How do they work? Etc. Any fool can ask questions. Asking the right questions requires some perspicacity.

machina_ex_deus 3y ago
There are no right questions, only right answers. A question, by definition, isn't right or wrong. That's why it's a question, not an answer. The very first step to being an intelligent person is not being afraid to ask questions. The second step is trying to understand it even if you might reach the wrong result. Only if you passed those first two steps you even have the hope of answering the question correctly. And even a child can prove that 1+1=2, and if you're such an NPC you think it's hard to prove, I honestly find flat earthers more intelligent. Ironically, you're acting like such a bot that you're actually quite good at contradicting my point. You're begging the question (like "why are vaccines effective"). You don't look for understanding but for knowledge to remember then repeat. I always value more the person who tried and failed than the person who never tried. I don't think a layperson can conduct academic research, but I think they can try to understand. And I think that those who tried to understand yet reached the wrong conclusion are still much better than those who never tried.
- synetic 3y ago
  A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions. There are dumb questions though. There are insightful questions. There are probing questions. There are nonsensical questions too. Like this question, “If vaccines are good for us then why do we have a bicameral legislative branch?” A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. Such a person can’t possibly do anything that can be reasonably ascribed to “having done the research”. A person who has “done the research” and concludes that vaccines are bad is a fool no matter how many thousands of words or thoughts they devoted to the topic.
  - giardini 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - synetic 3y ago
      The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system. In this system an axiom says that each element has a successor. 1 is called the successor of 0. 2 is called the successor of 1. So on and so forth. Now we need to define a binary operation called +. Now show that the successor of 0 plus the successor of 0 is the successor of the successor of 0. How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking? People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design. The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.
rbreaves 3y ago
But let me tell you.. that flat earther did their research!!

machina_ex_deus 3y ago

There are no right questions, only right answers. A question, by definition, isn't right or wrong. That's why it's a question, not an answer. The very first step to being an intelligent person is not being afraid to ask questions. The second step is trying to understand it even if you might reach the wrong result. Only if you passed those first two steps you even have the hope of answering the question correctly. And even a child can prove that 1+1=2, and if you're such an NPC you think it's hard to prove, I honestly find flat earthers more intelligent. Ironically, you're acting like such a bot that you're actually quite good at contradicting my point. You're begging the question (like "why are vaccines effective"). You don't look for understanding but for knowledge to remember then repeat. I always value more the person who tried and failed than the person who never tried. I don't think a layperson can conduct academic research, but I think they can try to understand. And I think that those who tried to understand yet reached the wrong conclusion are still much better than those who never tried.

synetic 3y ago
A child can’t prove 1+1 = 2 because a child doesn’t know enough mathematics to prove it. Doesn’t even understand the basics of mathematical logic or set theory. You know so little about what it means to prove 1+1=2 that you think proving this is easy. Your grasp on the limits of your mathematical knowledge is greatly lacking. There are no right questions, only right answers. A point that does not pertain to what I said. I said nothing about “right” questions. There are dumb questions though. There are insightful questions. There are probing questions. There are nonsensical questions too. Like this question, “If vaccines are good for us then why do we have a bicameral legislative branch?” A person not trained in virology or microbiology is absolutely unqualified to discern the difference between good information and bad information on the topic of vaccines. Such a person can’t possibly do anything that can be reasonably ascribed to “having done the research”. A person who has “done the research” and concludes that vaccines are bad is a fool no matter how many thousands of words or thoughts they devoted to the topic.
- giardini 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - synetic 3y ago
    The widely accepted axiomatic basis for the natural numbers is the first order Peano Axioms. Very few children are capable of understanding how to prove 1+1=2 in this axiomatic system. In this system an axiom says that each element has a successor. 1 is called the successor of 0. 2 is called the successor of 1. So on and so forth. Now we need to define a binary operation called +. Now show that the successor of 0 plus the successor of 0 is the successor of the successor of 0. How many children are capable of this level of abstract thinking? People without training in statistics don’t understand how to properly design trials. I’m a mathematician and I don’t understand this since it is not something I’ve studied. I need to rely on the expert knowledge of others to tell what is and is not a good study design. The large group of people that distrust certain vaccines rather than all of them are ignoramuses.

rbreaves 3y ago

But let me tell you.. that flat earther did their research!!