4 ms·
> Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available But it's not me who is shifting, right? The claim was: > Science and technology, I feel
by selcuka 5mo ago
> Now, if we’re shifting to why advances are often generally available
But it's not me who is shifting, right? The claim was:
> Science and technology, I feel, has always had a certain apathy towards the plight [of] the people at the bottom rungs.
not
> The claim was that average people don’t benefit from medical advances
My point is to reject the claim that the high availability of vaccines is a counter-example. It's a political decision, not a science/technology related one.
- brookst 5mo agoYou’re still getting at motives rather than facts, which means it’s unfalsibisble. If you’re going to say that fact X is not a counter/example because [subjective, speculative reasons] then I’m confident you’ll never find a fact that contradicts your beliefs. There will always be some “oh, well the bridge collapsed, but it wasn’t bad engineering it was political reasons, so it doesn’t count as a collapse.”
- selcuka 5mo agoWhat I said is not subjective/speculative. It is not even unfalsifiable. To restate, COVID vaccine can't be used as an example of "science/technology's sympathy towards the bottom rungs". They were only accessible because governments purchased those vaccines from science/technology companies and gave away for free. Companies developed it to make profit. If the governments didn't purchase billions of doses at a subsidised price, most people wouldn't be able to afford it [1]. I don't see how this conclusion is subjective, speculative, or unfalsifiable? [1] https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-is-the-future-in-australia-and-how-much-could-they-cost-you/epl6ql9a4 https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/covid-19-vaccines-what-i...