3 ms·

Observe: you have constructed a tribe out of whole cloth, described them as The Other, and made anyone who carries an arbitrary signifier of membership into tha

by patio11 14y ago

Observe: you have constructed a tribe out of whole cloth, described them as The Other, and made anyone who carries an arbitrary signifier of membership into that tribe into your automatic enemy. Rationally speaking, if you're very vexed about vaccinations, you should ask whether someone is in favor of vaccinations, rather than attempting to guess their opinion on vaccinations by asking something orthogonal. If someone is opposed to vaccinations, it matters to you little whether that is because they're in the Tribe of UnScience (as evidenced by being biblical literalists) or if they're, e.g., against vaccinations because they're strict vegans and morally opposed to anything which might, at any point, involve an animal protein.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
Fair point, attempting to respond to the parent question which was specifically "How it hurts science." My claim is that science is at its heart reasoned debate, and that belief in creationism is a rejection of reasoned debate, so it hurts science's ability to inform. Typically a counter example in creationism is to question dating methods, but without any reasoning as to how the dating methods are inaccurate (beyond the inaccuracies recognized by the community). Your counter example of animal proteins based on a preference for Veganism is fine, but if I showed you that the vaccination process never came close to an animal protein would you still reject it? And in rejecting it would you reject the entire herd immunity thesis or are you limiting to rejecting a belief in the efficacy of the vaccine on your personal health? Understanding reasoned debate is critical to understanding science and the process by which it comes to hold its beliefs. If you reject that then you both reject learning something new and the ability of science to be strengthened by your doubts.

by patio11 14y ago

ChuckMcM 14y ago

Fair point, attempting to respond to the parent question which was specifically "How it hurts science." My claim is that science is at its heart reasoned debate, and that belief in creationism is a rejection of reasoned debate, so it hurts science's ability to inform. Typically a counter example in creationism is to question dating methods, but without any reasoning as to how the dating methods are inaccurate (beyond the inaccuracies recognized by the community). Your counter example of animal proteins based on a preference for Veganism is fine, but if I showed you that the vaccination process never came close to an animal protein would you still reject it? And in rejecting it would you reject the entire herd immunity thesis or are you limiting to rejecting a belief in the efficacy of the vaccine on your personal health? Understanding reasoned debate is critical to understanding science and the process by which it comes to hold its beliefs. If you reject that then you both reject learning something new and the ability of science to be strengthened by your doubts.