4 ms·

> It is a continuous process prone with errors that eventually evolves into getting us closer to understanding processes. If people take that as a sign that eve

by md224 12y ago

> It is a continuous process prone with errors that eventually evolves into getting us closer to understanding processes. If people take that as a sign that everything is junk instead of having a healthy skepticism and reasoning for themselves, they have themselves to blame. Can't argue with stupid. A couple points: 1) The average person probably lacks the necessary background (knowledge of statistics, methodological concerns, etc.) to independently evaluate scientific research. So blaming them for not going and evaluating the research themselves is a bit unreasonable. 2) You also have to realize that this is not an abstract question for new mothers. When you're injecting something into the precious bundle of joy they carried in their bodies for 9 months, asking them to trust the current conclusions of a "continuous process prone with errors" is not going to be the easiest thing. Accepting the scientific consensus, one which you yourself admit is no magical source of truth, is a leap of faith for these parents; they're committing their child to a medical procedure based on that consensus. And they should take that leap of faith, in my opinion. But let's not pretend like faith doesn't enter into the equation just because it's science.

eshvk 12y ago
You make some fair points. I am not sure what the right answer then is. I agree that the average lay person is probably not going to know how to reason on these matters. However, if we are building faith as an abstraction, how do we deal with the fact that the abstraction is leaky. There will be errors. How do we communicate that the errors don't necessarily mean that the system as a whole is broken but that it is the nature of the system, whilst maintaing this abstraction of faith?
- md224 12y ago
  It's definitely complex and may never be completely solved. The biggest thing in my mind is learning how to talk to these people; if someone is trying to make sense of competing opinions with no good standard to judge them by, going up to them and saying "Fuck you idiot, clearly we're right and you're stupid for thinking otherwise" is not productive (granted, this is a straw-man, but some of the vitriol I've seen comes pretty close). You run the risk of creating a serious blowback effect, where your condescension drives them further away from accepting what you're trying to tell them. It's like a Chinese finger trap: if you want to convince an anti-vaxer, you can't treat them like they're crazy, even if you have an impulse to judge. You have to be able to meet them halfway, and from that point get them to understand the safety profile of vaccines. You don't have to throw numbers in their face, but there has to be some way of speaking to them as a fellow human being: "I know you're scared and you don't know if this is safe, but we don't want your child being hurt either. We've done an incredible amount of testing to make sure vaccines are safe, and we firmly believe they will keep your child as healthy as possible, as well as improving the overall health of the community." Of course, this is just my opinion. But I really think that empathy will make it much easier to mend these kinds of fissures in our beliefs.
  - eshvk 12y ago
    > if you want to convince an anti-vaxer, you can't treat them like they're crazy, even if you have an impulse to judge. > You run the risk of creating a serious blowback effect, where your condescension drives them further away from accepting what you're trying to tell them. This is exactly what I am coming from too. In my few years in the programming community, one thing I have noticed is a large population of people who pursue science as a religion. (I mentally tag them the r/atheism crowd.) When you treat something as canon and go up on people's faces as to why they are stupid and wrong, you are not creating a productive discussion.

by md224 12y ago

eshvk 12y ago

You make some fair points. I am not sure what the right answer then is. I agree that the average lay person is probably not going to know how to reason on these matters. However, if we are building faith as an abstraction, how do we deal with the fact that the abstraction is leaky. There will be errors. How do we communicate that the errors don't necessarily mean that the system as a whole is broken but that it is the nature of the system, whilst maintaing this abstraction of faith?

md224 12y ago
It's definitely complex and may never be completely solved. The biggest thing in my mind is learning how to talk to these people; if someone is trying to make sense of competing opinions with no good standard to judge them by, going up to them and saying "Fuck you idiot, clearly we're right and you're stupid for thinking otherwise" is not productive (granted, this is a straw-man, but some of the vitriol I've seen comes pretty close). You run the risk of creating a serious blowback effect, where your condescension drives them further away from accepting what you're trying to tell them. It's like a Chinese finger trap: if you want to convince an anti-vaxer, you can't treat them like they're crazy, even if you have an impulse to judge. You have to be able to meet them halfway, and from that point get them to understand the safety profile of vaccines. You don't have to throw numbers in their face, but there has to be some way of speaking to them as a fellow human being: "I know you're scared and you don't know if this is safe, but we don't want your child being hurt either. We've done an incredible amount of testing to make sure vaccines are safe, and we firmly believe they will keep your child as healthy as possible, as well as improving the overall health of the community." Of course, this is just my opinion. But I really think that empathy will make it much easier to mend these kinds of fissures in our beliefs.
- eshvk 12y ago
  > if you want to convince an anti-vaxer, you can't treat them like they're crazy, even if you have an impulse to judge. > You run the risk of creating a serious blowback effect, where your condescension drives them further away from accepting what you're trying to tell them. This is exactly what I am coming from too. In my few years in the programming community, one thing I have noticed is a large population of people who pursue science as a religion. (I mentally tag them the r/atheism crowd.) When you treat something as canon and go up on people's faces as to why they are stupid and wrong, you are not creating a productive discussion.