5 ms·

> It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in t

> It's not based in truth of how the scientific community worked. If there's "mocking and ostracization" then it's in some sort of other social space, not in the evaluation of the vaccine safety studies. You seem to be doing just what the OP is complaining about. You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. That's not how science should work, at least in a functional system. If only insiders have the privilege of asking "why?", then we'll be forever trapped in orthodoxy, or worse, trapped in authoritarianism. Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem.

epistasis 11mo ago
> You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. No, I absolutely have not. I'm representing what actually happened, in practice. The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. Trying to come back and say "that's too perfect, you're trying to establish them as a priesthood" is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do. All the critique is out there in the open, available to look for anybody who wants to. However, people prefer to be spoonfed stuff in YouTube videos, prefer to imagine a conspiracy oppressing them. You are spreading an image of the scientific community that is simply untrue and easy to disprove just by looking at what actually happened.
- CWuestefeld 11mo ago
  > The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. See, that's my whole point: "examined and critiqued inside the scientific community". If you didn't want the rest of society to accept "the rest of the scientific community" as a separate, privileged authority, then why did you even make this part of your reply?
  - epistasis 11mo ago
    I guess if you think the very idea of science is invalid, the idea that people can study and learn a lot about a topic and discuss it using their knowledge, then perhaps your comment makes sense. Is it "privilege" to study something and look at it in detail? Why would that be "privilege"? If you want to critique them, then please do! But please do it with honesty, rather than saying "I hate those nerds and they seem like elites" merely because they spent a lot of their life trying to understand biology.
    - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
      Is it "privilege" to study something and look at it in detail? Why would that be "privilege"? That's not at all what I said. The privilege you seem to be reserving for the scientific establishment is that the rest of us should accept their pronouncements without question. The implication of your prior statement was that "The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety and this should be sufficient for us to follow without challenging them."
      - danaris 11mo ago
        Everyone has the right to question scientific findings. If they actually have scientific expertise to back it up. Dropping that qualifier means you have to answer, forever, to every crank with an axe to grind, and treat them as if their criticism is just as valid as that of someone who's spent their life studying what you do. Your* ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge, and I'm sick and tired of people acting like it is. *: not "you" personally; the general "you"
        CWuestefeld 11mo ago
        Yeah, I agree that sucks. If you go back to my first reply in the thread, I said: Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem. Sometimes that ignorant schmuck annoying us is the only thing pulling us out of a hole. Consider Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. He was a meteorologist with no formal training in geology, and his ideas were rejected with what I've seen described as "militantly hostile" reactions. Before Barry Marshall, it was doctrine that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, and stomach acid. His theory that the real cause was bacterial led to cancelled speaking slots, blocked grant applications, and so forth. He finally resorted to intentionally infecting himself with H. Pylori and developing gastritis, then curing himself with antibiotics. Ignaz Semmelweis offended surgeons - seen as "holy" men in noble work - by suggesting that their unwashed hands were killing patients. Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science, said "When a shift does happen, it's almost invariably the case that an outsider or a newcomer, at least, is going to be the one who pulls it off... Insiders are highly unlikely to shift a paradigm and history tells us they won't do it". I agree that people repeatedly making you (again, the general "you") explain can slow down progress quite a lot. But this seems to be the price for having a democracy rather than a technical oligarchy.

epistasis 11mo ago

> You've set up the scientific establishment as some sort of priesthood, which the great unwashed masses should not question. No, I absolutely have not. I'm representing what actually happened, in practice. The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. Trying to come back and say "that's too perfect, you're trying to establish them as a priesthood" is exactly the opposite of what I'm trying to do. All the critique is out there in the open, available to look for anybody who wants to. However, people prefer to be spoonfed stuff in YouTube videos, prefer to imagine a conspiracy oppressing them. You are spreading an image of the scientific community that is simply untrue and easy to disprove just by looking at what actually happened.

CWuestefeld 11mo ago
> The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety. See, that's my whole point: "examined and critiqued inside the scientific community". If you didn't want the rest of society to accept "the rest of the scientific community" as a separate, privileged authority, then why did you even make this part of your reply?
- epistasis 11mo ago
  I guess if you think the very idea of science is invalid, the idea that people can study and learn a lot about a topic and discuss it using their knowledge, then perhaps your comment makes sense. Is it "privilege" to study something and look at it in detail? Why would that be "privilege"? If you want to critique them, then please do! But please do it with honesty, rather than saying "I hate those nerds and they seem like elites" merely because they spent a lot of their life trying to understand biology.
  - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
    Is it "privilege" to study something and look at it in detail? Why would that be "privilege"? That's not at all what I said. The privilege you seem to be reserving for the scientific establishment is that the rest of us should accept their pronouncements without question. The implication of your prior statement was that "The vaccines studies were heavily examined and critiqued inside the scientific community, and scientists found that they established safety and this should be sufficient for us to follow without challenging them."
    - danaris 11mo ago
      Everyone has the right to question scientific findings. If they actually have scientific expertise to back it up. Dropping that qualifier means you have to answer, forever, to every crank with an axe to grind, and treat them as if their criticism is just as valid as that of someone who's spent their life studying what you do. Your* ignorance is not as valid as my knowledge, and I'm sick and tired of people acting like it is. *: not "you" personally; the general "you"
      - CWuestefeld 11mo ago
        Yeah, I agree that sucks. If you go back to my first reply in the thread, I said: Unfortunately, the insurance policy against that trap - that annoying people will keep asking "why?" - itself has a steep price, sometimes almost turning into a heckler's veto. It's a tough problem. Sometimes that ignorant schmuck annoying us is the only thing pulling us out of a hole. Consider Alfred Wegener and his theory of continental drift. He was a meteorologist with no formal training in geology, and his ideas were rejected with what I've seen described as "militantly hostile" reactions. Before Barry Marshall, it was doctrine that peptic ulcers were caused by stress, and stomach acid. His theory that the real cause was bacterial led to cancelled speaking slots, blocked grant applications, and so forth. He finally resorted to intentionally infecting himself with H. Pylori and developing gastritis, then curing himself with antibiotics. Ignaz Semmelweis offended surgeons - seen as "holy" men in noble work - by suggesting that their unwashed hands were killing patients. Thomas Kuhn, a philosopher of science, said "When a shift does happen, it's almost invariably the case that an outsider or a newcomer, at least, is going to be the one who pulls it off... Insiders are highly unlikely to shift a paradigm and history tells us they won't do it". I agree that people repeatedly making you (again, the general "you") explain can slow down progress quite a lot. But this seems to be the price for having a democracy rather than a technical oligarchy.