3 ms·

The problem as I see it is that the anti-vax zealots do not appear to want to be scientifically rigorous; their entire energy is directed towards the search for

The problem as I see it is that the anti-vax zealots do not appear to want to be scientifically rigorous; their entire energy is directed towards the search for anything that appears to back up their position. Anything credible that refutes their position inevitably results in them claiming that nothing has been proven and that more research is required. It's clearly bad faith and obvious that there is no amount of evidence that will close the book on the subject for them. It's all just exhausting, and if it wasn't for the growing outbreaks of preventable diseases I would encourage people to break the cycle and stop arguing with them.

softwaredoug 1y ago
People have a hard time thinking probabilistically. What is more likely, (1) the scientists/doctors in the world genuinely believe vaccines are safe AND we see in front of our own eyes routine, safe vaccination. The odd medical issue that happens at the same time is actually mostly coincidence - autism is often diagnosed at the same age that routine childhood vaccination happens. Or (2) these scientists are all in cahoots with Big Pharma and a disease happening rarely at the same age as vaccination is NOT coincidental. All the supposed vaccine safety boards that try to find safety issues are corrupt and we can’t trust them. Add to (2) oh but we can trust this guy over here RFK Jr. My prior would be (1) and I would need a lot of evidence to move to 2. I think a lot of people fall for the Cynical Genius illusion where non trusting people look smarter https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/the-myth-the-cynical-genius/amp https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/t...
- peteforde 1y ago
  Thanks for that link, it's genuinely interesting. The weird thing for me reading this is that I have never, ever defaulted to assuming that cynical people are smart(er). I grew up reading WIRED cover to cover, back when that meant something, and if anything I was slightly on the side of naive optimism so I tend to perceive cynics as having an unsettling vibe. Anyhow, I feel like your hot take is generally reasonable. I have very little patience for people who say "question everything" but in reality they only seem to question things that tend to have fringe conferences in airport hotels. Again: exhausting, and the older I get, the more inclined I am to just let them die of dysentery on the trail.
nomolimit 1y ago
> The problem as I see it is that the anti-vax zealots do not appear to want to be scientifically rigorous You're not wrong here. However, this criticism applies to a vast majority of individuals involved in the discussion, no matter what side they're on. As an example, take the other comments on this post about how "aluminum is ingested by people all the time" -> it is absolutely safe in all forms and interactions. This lack of rigor from the pro-vax hoi polloi gives an anti-vax-inclined individual possessing the slightest amount of critical thinking a great vaulting point.

softwaredoug 1y ago

People have a hard time thinking probabilistically. What is more likely, (1) the scientists/doctors in the world genuinely believe vaccines are safe AND we see in front of our own eyes routine, safe vaccination. The odd medical issue that happens at the same time is actually mostly coincidence - autism is often diagnosed at the same age that routine childhood vaccination happens. Or (2) these scientists are all in cahoots with Big Pharma and a disease happening rarely at the same age as vaccination is NOT coincidental. All the supposed vaccine safety boards that try to find safety issues are corrupt and we can’t trust them. Add to (2) oh but we can trust this guy over here RFK Jr. My prior would be (1) and I would need a lot of evidence to move to 2. I think a lot of people fall for the Cynical Genius illusion where non trusting people look smarter https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/the-myth-the-cynical-genius/amp https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/trust-games/202111/t...

peteforde 1y ago
Thanks for that link, it's genuinely interesting. The weird thing for me reading this is that I have never, ever defaulted to assuming that cynical people are smart(er). I grew up reading WIRED cover to cover, back when that meant something, and if anything I was slightly on the side of naive optimism so I tend to perceive cynics as having an unsettling vibe. Anyhow, I feel like your hot take is generally reasonable. I have very little patience for people who say "question everything" but in reality they only seem to question things that tend to have fringe conferences in airport hotels. Again: exhausting, and the older I get, the more inclined I am to just let them die of dysentery on the trail.

nomolimit 1y ago

> The problem as I see it is that the anti-vax zealots do not appear to want to be scientifically rigorous You're not wrong here. However, this criticism applies to a vast majority of individuals involved in the discussion, no matter what side they're on. As an example, take the other comments on this post about how "aluminum is ingested by people all the time" -> it is absolutely safe in all forms and interactions. This lack of rigor from the pro-vax hoi polloi gives an anti-vax-inclined individual possessing the slightest amount of critical thinking a great vaulting point.