4 ms·

> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or a

> That’s not how this works, anywhere: the burden of proof, of presenting facts, is on those who say “yes”. Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? > In the former case, we have only appeal to authority (some book says) You are incorrect - we also have epistemology, logic, ontology, neuroscience/psychology/anthropology and various other fields which contain discoveries that are relevant to the psychological phenomenon (~"reality") you are currently experiencing. > and to personal belief, neither of which are facts. If you and your epistemology-ignorant and denying crew can treat your beliefs as facts (as is regularly done in these conversations), why can religious people not do the same? I mean come on man, double standards are bad, no? > In the latter case, we have a proven medical fraud committed by a person with financial interest in rival treatments, said person having lost their medical license as a result of said fraud. Which proves nothing. I am genuinely curious: do you believe that Wakefield being discovered to be a fraud PROVES there is ZERO causal association between vaccines and autism? Because there sure are a lot of people who believe that, including a lot of people right here on HN.

XorNot 3y ago
> Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? What if the number of pirates in the world is in fact linked to the increase in mean global temperature? Can you present any evidence it isn't?
- vacuity 3y ago
  Parent and GP were talking about where the burden of proof lies. That's a matter of opinion, but one that should generally be considered settled on Hacker News. Apparently it isn't. Anyways, while parent made a somewhat snarky reply, yours isn't better. If parent was shown discussing "actual" points (for example, the vaccine question) with an absurdly high bar for proof from the other side, your reply would be relevant. As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything egregiously wrong about parent's reply about the vaccine question. Perhaps the evidence or reasoning is wrong, but you didn't address that.
- mistermann 3y ago
  If I'd made this claim you would have a fine point. However, I have not made that claim, so I think I must be missing a point? Possibly relevant: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2xGsh3U/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2xGsh3U/
vacuity 3y ago
> I am genuinely curious: do you believe that Wakefield being discovered to be a fraud PROVES there is ZERO causal association between vaccines and autism? Because there sure are a lot of people who believe that, including a lot of people right here on HN. That's not a good argument. If someone believes in anything then it should either be a moral axiom or they should have some kind of reasoning for it. Now, is this reasoning based on Wakefield and co. or something else that hasn't been discussed much? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, so while that isn't a proof, it's the only reasonable starting point for a discussion. Science is the only tool for applying reason to reality. Not all scientists are correct, of course, but your own reasoning is flimsy if you don't acknowledge the corpus of studies which strongly favor the theory that vaccines don't cause autism. Epistemology is appropriate for your question about God but not really for this topic. If there was more reasonable division in the scientific consensus, then you would have a point.
- mistermann 3y ago
  > That's not a good argument. Oh ya? Well whath this: it's an excellent argument. Wow, that was easy, I guess that's why it's so popular?? > If someone believes in anything then it should either be a moral axiom or they should have some kind of reasoning for it. Agreed - that's why it's so funny that science (and its fan base) which sells itself as being the paragon of reason has to resort to unture, misinformative rhetoric to "win" arguments where their proposition is not technically true. Reality is complicated, if they are so smart why can they not understand simple logic and epistemology? Ironically, science itself has provided many answers to this sort of question, but like religious folk, they tend to not be able to extensively read &/or live up to their scriptures, or realize that they have that problem. > Now, is this reasoning based on Wakefield and co. or something else that hasn't been discussed much? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, so while that isn't a proof, it's the only reasonable starting point for a discussion. Sure, no problem. And I will simply point out it's not a proof, and then record the intuitive, meme-based reactions to store in my files. Scientists and scientific thinkers sure do love their memes when push comes to shove! > Science is the only tool for applying reason to reality. What's funny is you have no proof for this, making it a faith based belief, but you (presumably) perceive it as rational. I'm curious: as the person who it is happening to, what's your take on this phenomenon? > Not all scientists are correct, of course, but your own reasoning is flimsy if you don't acknowledge the corpus of studies which strongly favor the theory that vaccines don't cause autism. Agreed - I fully acknowledge it. And thanks for explicitly noting that it is not known whether vaccines cause autism. Do you think it is funny that so many otherwise intelligent people right here on HN are unable to realize this? I think it is hilarious. > Epistemology is appropriate for your question about God but not really for this topic. You are not able to objectively prove this subjective opinion - I predict you are unable to even try. > If there was more reasonable division in the scientific consensus, then you would have a point. That there is no division is a huge part of my point. Institutionalized delusion & deceit, which is then used as a basis of a propaganda campaign on the citizens of the entire planet, yielding what we see all around us.

XorNot 3y ago

> Can you cite any authoritative source on this, or are you able to only claim that it is correct (and perhaps, expect me to disprove)? What if the number of pirates in the world is in fact linked to the increase in mean global temperature? Can you present any evidence it isn't?

vacuity 3y ago
Parent and GP were talking about where the burden of proof lies. That's a matter of opinion, but one that should generally be considered settled on Hacker News. Apparently it isn't. Anyways, while parent made a somewhat snarky reply, yours isn't better. If parent was shown discussing "actual" points (for example, the vaccine question) with an absurdly high bar for proof from the other side, your reply would be relevant. As it is, there doesn't seem to be anything egregiously wrong about parent's reply about the vaccine question. Perhaps the evidence or reasoning is wrong, but you didn't address that.
mistermann 3y ago
If I'd made this claim you would have a fine point. However, I have not made that claim, so I think I must be missing a point? Possibly relevant: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2xGsh3U/ https://vm.tiktok.com/ZM2xGsh3U/

vacuity 3y ago

> I am genuinely curious: do you believe that Wakefield being discovered to be a fraud PROVES there is ZERO causal association between vaccines and autism? Because there sure are a lot of people who believe that, including a lot of people right here on HN. That's not a good argument. If someone believes in anything then it should either be a moral axiom or they should have some kind of reasoning for it. Now, is this reasoning based on Wakefield and co. or something else that hasn't been discussed much? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, so while that isn't a proof, it's the only reasonable starting point for a discussion. Science is the only tool for applying reason to reality. Not all scientists are correct, of course, but your own reasoning is flimsy if you don't acknowledge the corpus of studies which strongly favor the theory that vaccines don't cause autism. Epistemology is appropriate for your question about God but not really for this topic. If there was more reasonable division in the scientific consensus, then you would have a point.

mistermann 3y ago
> That's not a good argument. Oh ya? Well whath this: it's an excellent argument. Wow, that was easy, I guess that's why it's so popular?? > If someone believes in anything then it should either be a moral axiom or they should have some kind of reasoning for it. Agreed - that's why it's so funny that science (and its fan base) which sells itself as being the paragon of reason has to resort to unture, misinformative rhetoric to "win" arguments where their proposition is not technically true. Reality is complicated, if they are so smart why can they not understand simple logic and epistemology? Ironically, science itself has provided many answers to this sort of question, but like religious folk, they tend to not be able to extensively read &/or live up to their scriptures, or realize that they have that problem. > Now, is this reasoning based on Wakefield and co. or something else that hasn't been discussed much? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccines don't cause autism, so while that isn't a proof, it's the only reasonable starting point for a discussion. Sure, no problem. And I will simply point out it's not a proof, and then record the intuitive, meme-based reactions to store in my files. Scientists and scientific thinkers sure do love their memes when push comes to shove! > Science is the only tool for applying reason to reality. What's funny is you have no proof for this, making it a faith based belief, but you (presumably) perceive it as rational. I'm curious: as the person who it is happening to, what's your take on this phenomenon? > Not all scientists are correct, of course, but your own reasoning is flimsy if you don't acknowledge the corpus of studies which strongly favor the theory that vaccines don't cause autism. Agreed - I fully acknowledge it. And thanks for explicitly noting that it is not known whether vaccines cause autism. Do you think it is funny that so many otherwise intelligent people right here on HN are unable to realize this? I think it is hilarious. > Epistemology is appropriate for your question about God but not really for this topic. You are not able to objectively prove this subjective opinion - I predict you are unable to even try. > If there was more reasonable division in the scientific consensus, then you would have a point. That there is no division is a huge part of my point. Institutionalized delusion & deceit, which is then used as a basis of a propaganda campaign on the citizens of the entire planet, yielding what we see all around us.