3 ms·

The problem is that too many in the US define "scientific dissident" as "Willing to extol my positions even in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence." Wh

by bsder 3y ago

The problem is that too many in the US define "scientific dissident" as "Willing to extol my positions even in the face of a mountain of contrary evidence." Which would be fine, except for the fact that these people can do great harm. For example, measles was declared gone from the US in 2000. And now it's back because "anti-vax" is considered a valid "scientific dissent" (and note this is not just MAGAs--the Marin dippy-hippies are just as bad). Even in spite of the fact that the people involved in the anti-vax movement were exposed as charlatans. The scientfic community learned the hard way from anti-vax that if you don't stomp the ever living shit out of the charlantans hard, fast and immediately, you will wind up stuck with the aftermath. So, now they immediately circle the wagons and start attacking any time something gives off even a whiff of heading into the wingnuts.

oneshtein 3y ago
> "anti-vax" is considered a valid "scientific dissent" Anti-vaxers are against science in general. First, it's part of Russian disinformation campaign: > This week, we also heard that Ukrainian authorities are too stupid to deal with the measles outbreak in their country. The epidemic allegedly threatens not only the lives of children in Ukraine, but also the country’s visa-free regime with the EU. Thus, the disinformers helpfully suggest using Russian-made vaccines. The European and American vaccines, especially those available in Georgia, were reported as unreliable, since they might be manufactured in the infamous Lugar lab (the very same one that brought you the toxic mosquitos). But Georgians, according to pro-Kremlin sources, have even bigger things to worry about, as the UN and its partner organisation are deliberately spreading HIV in the country and planning for Georgian genocide. See https://euvsdisinfo.eu/fatal-distraction https://euvsdisinfo.eu/fatal-distraction (2019). However, this disinformation succeed because science is opaque, so general population cannot verify claims, any claims. General public MUST BELIEVE to an authority. We need to make science more accessible to general public, for example, by utilizing AI to explain complex topics in simple enough terms and charts. However, it should not be like «hey, you, stupid, eat this, because you cannot understand what we are doing anyway». It should be accessible form of the same content, not a separate content. Something like: «Hey, AI, I cannot understand this paragraph, formula, or chart, so rewrite it to make it accessible for me (and translate it to my native language)».
- saikia81 3y ago
  step one stop putting publicly funded studies behind paywalls. Or give journalists more access to the material.
toomim 3y ago
I haven't seen anti-vax being considered "scientific dissent." Science is about evaluating theories; not being "for" or "against" anything. Any group that is "pro-X" or "anti-Y" is not a scientific group—it's a political group. Anti-vax is a political group. Not a scientific dissent group. Scientific dissent is when people say "X is not true" or "Y is true."
- logicchains 3y ago
  Anti-vax isn't a term anti-vaxers came up with themselves, it's a term pro-vaxers came up with as a pejorative term for anyone who questions the safety of any vaccine. People who only questioned the covid vaccine and were fine with other vaccines were still smeared as anti-vax, even though the COVID vaccines were qualitatively different from all other vaccines in practically every way possible.
  - bsder 3y ago
    > it's a term pro-vaxers came up with as a pejorative term for anyone who questions the safety of any vaccine. Anti-vax predates Covid and goes back at least to the fraud committed by Wakefield. It certainly was discussed back in the 2015 measles outbreak in Marin. I'm not letting you getting away with revisionism. What you also selectively omit is "questioning the safety of the vaccine" at the same time as promulgating things like "taking of horse dewormer"--which is actually more dangerous than any side effects from any vaccine (kidney failure is one of the ivermectin side effects, for example). In addition, it wasn't "not take the vaccine but also take precautions" like the immunocompromised did; it was "ignore the vaccine and any and all precautions and restrictions." The only difference with Covid anti-vax vs MMR anti-vax was that your own personal actions had a not small chance of coming home to roost directly rather than only on your children. Covid anti-vax eventually became a self-correcting problem. So it goes.

by bsder 3y ago

oneshtein 3y ago

> "anti-vax" is considered a valid "scientific dissent" Anti-vaxers are against science in general. First, it's part of Russian disinformation campaign: > This week, we also heard that Ukrainian authorities are too stupid to deal with the measles outbreak in their country. The epidemic allegedly threatens not only the lives of children in Ukraine, but also the country’s visa-free regime with the EU. Thus, the disinformers helpfully suggest using Russian-made vaccines. The European and American vaccines, especially those available in Georgia, were reported as unreliable, since they might be manufactured in the infamous Lugar lab (the very same one that brought you the toxic mosquitos). But Georgians, according to pro-Kremlin sources, have even bigger things to worry about, as the UN and its partner organisation are deliberately spreading HIV in the country and planning for Georgian genocide. See https://euvsdisinfo.eu/fatal-distraction https://euvsdisinfo.eu/fatal-distraction (2019). However, this disinformation succeed because science is opaque, so general population cannot verify claims, any claims. General public MUST BELIEVE to an authority. We need to make science more accessible to general public, for example, by utilizing AI to explain complex topics in simple enough terms and charts. However, it should not be like «hey, you, stupid, eat this, because you cannot understand what we are doing anyway». It should be accessible form of the same content, not a separate content. Something like: «Hey, AI, I cannot understand this paragraph, formula, or chart, so rewrite it to make it accessible for me (and translate it to my native language)».

saikia81 3y ago
step one stop putting publicly funded studies behind paywalls. Or give journalists more access to the material.

toomim 3y ago

I haven't seen anti-vax being considered "scientific dissent." Science is about evaluating theories; not being "for" or "against" anything. Any group that is "pro-X" or "anti-Y" is not a scientific group—it's a political group. Anti-vax is a political group. Not a scientific dissent group. Scientific dissent is when people say "X is not true" or "Y is true."

logicchains 3y ago
Anti-vax isn't a term anti-vaxers came up with themselves, it's a term pro-vaxers came up with as a pejorative term for anyone who questions the safety of any vaccine. People who only questioned the covid vaccine and were fine with other vaccines were still smeared as anti-vax, even though the COVID vaccines were qualitatively different from all other vaccines in practically every way possible.
- bsder 3y ago
  > it's a term pro-vaxers came up with as a pejorative term for anyone who questions the safety of any vaccine. Anti-vax predates Covid and goes back at least to the fraud committed by Wakefield. It certainly was discussed back in the 2015 measles outbreak in Marin. I'm not letting you getting away with revisionism. What you also selectively omit is "questioning the safety of the vaccine" at the same time as promulgating things like "taking of horse dewormer"--which is actually more dangerous than any side effects from any vaccine (kidney failure is one of the ivermectin side effects, for example). In addition, it wasn't "not take the vaccine but also take precautions" like the immunocompromised did; it was "ignore the vaccine and any and all precautions and restrictions." The only difference with Covid anti-vax vs MMR anti-vax was that your own personal actions had a not small chance of coming home to roost directly rather than only on your children. Covid anti-vax eventually became a self-correcting problem. So it goes.