Funny, but please don’t use the term “vaccine skeptics.” These people are not skeptics. By adopting their framing you are legitimizing their propaganda. Propaganda that costs lives.
Doubt, and by extension inquiry are at the heart of skepticism.
Anti-vaxxers are certain about their life-threatening and mistaken beliefs. No amount of scientific data will ever convince them that their fables aren't true. That is the antithesis of skepticism.
The bait-and-switch that deniers, be it holocaust, climate, vaxx, election etc, perform is that they twist the meaning of the concept that in science you can question everything. You can. However, the concept of 'questioning' in the scientific method means that if you have new insights, or new data to add that changes established knowledge. Then, you can, will and should be heard.
However, just asking "Is that true?" doesn't count as a serious question, especially when - in most cases in public discourse - the answer is a quick google search away. You can wonder whether something is true and look it up, but that's not doing science. That's checking an encyclopedia.
A similar bait-and-switch often happens with the word 'believe'. To believe has two meanings. (googles):
believed; believing transitive verb 1a: to consider to be true or honest 1b: to accept the word or evidence of 2: to hold as an opinion : suppose
When scientist talk about beliefs, they talk about meaning 1. Stuff has been studied, data was collected, theories were confirmed, and now we know something - until we learn more.
However, as soon as you ask a question like "Do you believe in X?" you move to meaning 2, which is fundamentally different.
Scientific beliefs (meaning 1) are true irrespective of your beliefs (meaning 2). Try it. Stop believing gravity. It won't go away.
Small amendment having thought a bit about the skepticism and how deniers get away with calling themselves skeptics.
It's another bait and switch. You see, the original skeptics were philosophers who did ask very hard questions, and who did seem to question reality. And they did. But with the purpose of seeing if reality would hold up. Why trying to deny things that seem obvious, they forced other thinkers (at the time natural science wasn't much of a thing) to work harder on making their case, by focusing on all the uncomfortable details.
Deniers pretend to do this as well, but what they tend to do is focus on intricate details that often haven't really been sorted out, then reduce them to silliness by twisting words and cherry-picking, and then claim they have found some great inconsistency that debases all other knowledge.
From a scientific point of view, this is not even cheating, this is just bullshit, the way prof Frankfurt defined it in his short booklet: making an argument that suits your needs, while not caring about the truth at all. Stephen Colbert named it truthiness. It feels true, so it must be true.
As Mehdi Hasan is relentlessly pushing his book 'How to win every argument', I want to point out that it is very hard to argue these deniers points, because to untangle their reductio-at-bullshit, scientists often have to get into the technical weeds, at which point they will lose any non-scientific audience.
And that is why deniers keep using this trick. It sounds good to a non-specialist audience that gets to hear what it wants to hear, while specialists just hear meaningless bullshit that is so weird there's very little to actually argue.
If you want to experience that feeling, the best I can suggest is to go read up on flat-earth arguments, because everybody remotely sane knows they're wrong. But they too, use the same type of arguments as other deniers. But in this case, virtually everybody knows they're wrong. Read their arguments, feel helpless in how to tackle them and then you may have some more compassion about how scientists feel dealing with other deniers where the arguments are a bit more complicated.
tldr: Stuff is complicated, often vastly more nuanced than you can imagine. You should distrust easy solutions.
I read bits like that, laugh and say that's pretty funny... then it hits me, wait, are they serious, it seems quite possible these days with all the wackos surfacing. xoxoxoBruce
When I was a child there were a lot more people around who were obviously polio survivors, and I can't remember anyone resisting taking the polio vaccine. Now we have all this suicidal/filicidal anti-vaccine idiocy, I think in part due to the success of vaccination in recent decades. Not terribly unlike how we have a new McCarthy because people have largely forgotten the old one.
I read something recently about how the countries with the highest vaccine acceptance, r.e. measles etc, tend to be low income ones where they still see the deadly and damaging impact of these preventable diseases.
People also used to gladly paint their homes with lead and burn leaded gasoline into the air because the government told them to. There were people screaming about the danger in the 1870s about lead and the US mandated it be used on section 8 housing built in in the 1960s. 90 years of knowledge ignored in order to save a buck. The government has not and will not ever have your interest held above theirs. That's why I don't drink it up.
The government has not and will not ever have your interest held above theirs.
That is a debatable point, but perhaps consider believing scientists who generally just report what they find, without considering your interests.
In other words, it's fine if you don't believe certain people, because you think they have other interests. However, make sure you trust some people, because trusting no one is not sustainable.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-is-kiviaq Inside Greenland’s Misunderstood Winter Delicacy - Kiviaq, a mainstay on many “weird foods” lists, is an incredible feat of fermentation and cultural touchstone. Made by fermenting tiny seabirds inside a seal carcass, kiviaq is a special dish among the Inughuit.
Natural immunity here, had COVID once and never since. I'm not a denier, I bet the vaccine works, however the CDC and the FDA both agree with me that natural immunity is AT LEAST as good as vax+boosters. But my model doesn't come with a subscription price so I'll stick with it while you SMART people keep buying boosters once the government isn't footing the bill. Never let the fear of death turn you into someone else's cash cow
You're talking about COVID. But I'll add (for clarification, but not in defense of anon above) that when I needed rabies vaccination I had to pay I think $600 out of pocket because it wasn't free and wasn't covered by Medicare and a Medicare supplement policy. Preventive care not covered sounds ridiculous, but that's the way it was. Also I think the Shingrix for shingles maybe not covered or applied to a deductible.
I received rabies shots 2 years ago (January 2021) after being bitten by a dog that was attacking my dog. Medicare (with an Advantage plan) covered the cost completely, not even a deductible. Also received the pneumococcal vaccine(Prevnar) at no cost.
I received the Shingrix shot before I started Medicare, so my private insurance paid for that.
Funny, but please don’t use the term “vaccine skeptics.” These people are not skeptics. By adopting their framing you are legitimizing their propaganda. Propaganda that costs lives.
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your point of view.
Delete"Skeptic: Someone who doubts beliefs, claims, plans, etc that are accepted by others as true or appropriate, especially one who habitually does so."
Why are they not skeptics?
Doubt, and by extension inquiry are at the heart of skepticism.
DeleteAnti-vaxxers are certain about their life-threatening and mistaken beliefs. No amount of scientific data will ever convince them that their fables aren't true. That is the antithesis of skepticism.
The bait-and-switch that deniers, be it holocaust, climate, vaxx, election etc, perform is that they twist the meaning of the concept that in science you can question everything. You can. However, the concept of 'questioning' in the scientific method means that if you have new insights, or new data to add that changes established knowledge. Then, you can, will and should be heard.
However, just asking "Is that true?" doesn't count as a serious question, especially when - in most cases in public discourse - the answer is a quick google search away. You can wonder whether something is true and look it up, but that's not doing science. That's checking an encyclopedia.
A similar bait-and-switch often happens with the word 'believe'. To believe has two meanings. (googles):
believed; believing
transitive verb
1a: to consider to be true or honest
1b: to accept the word or evidence of
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose
When scientist talk about beliefs, they talk about meaning 1. Stuff has been studied, data was collected, theories were confirmed, and now we know something - until we learn more.
However, as soon as you ask a question like "Do you believe in X?" you move to meaning 2, which is fundamentally different.
Scientific beliefs (meaning 1) are true irrespective of your beliefs (meaning 2). Try it. Stop believing gravity. It won't go away.
Small amendment having thought a bit about the skepticism and how deniers get away with calling themselves skeptics.
DeleteIt's another bait and switch. You see, the original skeptics were philosophers who did ask very hard questions, and who did seem to question reality. And they did. But with the purpose of seeing if reality would hold up. Why trying to deny things that seem obvious, they forced other thinkers (at the time natural science wasn't much of a thing) to work harder on making their case, by focusing on all the uncomfortable details.
Deniers pretend to do this as well, but what they tend to do is focus on intricate details that often haven't really been sorted out, then reduce them to silliness by twisting words and cherry-picking, and then claim they have found some great inconsistency that debases all other knowledge.
From a scientific point of view, this is not even cheating, this is just bullshit, the way prof Frankfurt defined it in his short booklet: making an argument that suits your needs, while not caring about the truth at all. Stephen Colbert named it truthiness. It feels true, so it must be true.
As Mehdi Hasan is relentlessly pushing his book 'How to win every argument', I want to point out that it is very hard to argue these deniers points, because to untangle their reductio-at-bullshit, scientists often have to get into the technical weeds, at which point they will lose any non-scientific audience.
And that is why deniers keep using this trick. It sounds good to a non-specialist audience that gets to hear what it wants to hear, while specialists just hear meaningless bullshit that is so weird there's very little to actually argue.
If you want to experience that feeling, the best I can suggest is to go read up on flat-earth arguments, because everybody remotely sane knows they're wrong. But they too, use the same type of arguments as other deniers. But in this case, virtually everybody knows they're wrong. Read their arguments, feel helpless in how to tackle them and then you may have some more compassion about how scientists feel dealing with other deniers where the arguments are a bit more complicated.
tldr: Stuff is complicated, often vastly more nuanced than you can imagine. You should distrust easy solutions.
Title amended from "skeptics" to "deniers"
ReplyDeleteThat's good skepticism! Open up for new ideas, then change your mind....
DeleteThere is an essential oil that will work. It's called MMR, and it must be taken internally.
ReplyDeleteI read bits like that, laugh and say that's pretty funny... then it hits me, wait, are they serious, it seems quite possible these days with all the wackos surfacing.
ReplyDeletexoxoxoBruce
When I was a child there were a lot more people around who were obviously polio survivors, and I can't remember anyone resisting taking the polio vaccine. Now we have all this suicidal/filicidal anti-vaccine idiocy, I think in part due to the success of vaccination in recent decades. Not terribly unlike how we have a new McCarthy because people have largely forgotten the old one.
ReplyDeleteI read something recently about how the countries with the highest vaccine acceptance, r.e. measles etc, tend to be low income ones where they still see the deadly and damaging impact of these preventable diseases.
DeletePeople also used to gladly paint their homes with lead and burn leaded gasoline into the air because the government told them to. There were people screaming about the danger in the 1870s about lead and the US mandated it be used on section 8 housing built in in the 1960s. 90 years of knowledge ignored in order to save a buck. The government has not and will not ever have your interest held above theirs. That's why I don't drink it up.
DeleteThe government has not and will not ever have your interest held above theirs.
DeleteThat is a debatable point, but perhaps consider believing scientists who generally just report what they find, without considering your interests.
In other words, it's fine if you don't believe certain people, because you think they have other interests. However, make sure you trust some people, because trusting no one is not sustainable.
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/what-is-kiviaq Inside Greenland’s Misunderstood Winter Delicacy - Kiviaq, a mainstay on many “weird foods” lists, is an incredible feat of fermentation and cultural touchstone. Made by fermenting tiny seabirds inside a seal carcass, kiviaq is a special dish among the Inughuit.
ReplyDeleteYes. Lots more information here -
Deletehttps://tywkiwdbi.blogspot.com/2012/02/kiviaq-auk-fermented-in-seal.html
I should have known that you had already written about kiviaq! I will add my recent comment above to your original in the next few minutes.
DeleteNatural immunity here, had COVID once and never since. I'm not a denier, I bet the vaccine works, however the CDC and the FDA both agree with me that natural immunity is AT LEAST as good as vax+boosters. But my model doesn't come with a subscription price so I'll stick with it while you SMART people keep buying boosters once the government isn't footing the bill. Never let the fear of death turn you into someone else's cash cow
ReplyDeleteI get my vaccinations for free...
ReplyDeleteYou're talking about COVID. But I'll add (for clarification, but not in defense of anon above) that when I needed rabies vaccination I had to pay I think $600 out of pocket because it wasn't free and wasn't covered by Medicare and a Medicare supplement policy. Preventive care not covered sounds ridiculous, but that's the way it was. Also I think the Shingrix for shingles maybe not covered or applied to a deductible.
DeleteI received rabies shots 2 years ago (January 2021) after being bitten by a dog that was attacking my dog. Medicare (with an Advantage plan) covered the cost completely, not even a deductible. Also received the pneumococcal vaccine(Prevnar) at no cost.
DeleteI received the Shingrix shot before I started Medicare, so my private insurance paid for that.