Epistemic Responsibility
Trust is ubiquitous and necessary in a functioning society. We have to trust in others whenever we're driving on the road, for example.
It's true that trust in authority, especially institutional authority, is at an all time low. That's across the board, and well documented: media, government, business, academia. We're skeptical of politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, advertisements, salesmen, teachers, scientists, doctors, pollsters -- and even our neighbors.
People's lives are so crappy, despite having followed all the rules and done all the "right" things, that they're rightfully distrustful and looking for something or someone to blame.
And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before.
We're as dug-in about our beliefs as I can recall. So we're still clearly listening to someone. We're clearly "throwing in" with some group or religion or dogma or system of beliefs -- and so we're trusting something, even in the political or academic or medical realm.
A good example of this is polling. If a poll reflects what we want to believe, we "trust" it -- it's accurate. If someone says something we already want to believe, they're on our side. We see this manifest now in election claims: we don't like the result, so there must be fraud. Doesn't matter if there's no evidence of it and 3 audits find nothing -- there's still fraud.
So then the issue isn't really about trust, because we're all trusting someone or something. Whether it's Donald Trump or Sean Hannity or Thomas Sowell. The question is really about why we happen to trust this particular person or institution over others? Why do we refuse a vaccine? Why do we believe the election was stolen? Who are we listening to, exactly?
Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in?
[* Adapted from a previous post - I though it would be a good starting point for a broader conversation.]
It's true that trust in authority, especially institutional authority, is at an all time low. That's across the board, and well documented: media, government, business, academia. We're skeptical of politicians, religious leaders, corporate leaders, advertisements, salesmen, teachers, scientists, doctors, pollsters -- and even our neighbors.
People's lives are so crappy, despite having followed all the rules and done all the "right" things, that they're rightfully distrustful and looking for something or someone to blame.
And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before.
We're as dug-in about our beliefs as I can recall. So we're still clearly listening to someone. We're clearly "throwing in" with some group or religion or dogma or system of beliefs -- and so we're trusting something, even in the political or academic or medical realm.
A good example of this is polling. If a poll reflects what we want to believe, we "trust" it -- it's accurate. If someone says something we already want to believe, they're on our side. We see this manifest now in election claims: we don't like the result, so there must be fraud. Doesn't matter if there's no evidence of it and 3 audits find nothing -- there's still fraud.
So then the issue isn't really about trust, because we're all trusting someone or something. Whether it's Donald Trump or Sean Hannity or Thomas Sowell. The question is really about why we happen to trust this particular person or institution over others? Why do we refuse a vaccine? Why do we believe the election was stolen? Who are we listening to, exactly?
Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in?
[* Adapted from a previous post - I though it would be a good starting point for a broader conversation.]
Comments (366)
Not everyone is like that; and not everyone who isn't in one or the other camp is a "fence sitter".
But those who think in polarized, dichotomous terms don't see that; to such polarized thinkers, a person is either in one camp or another, or a deplorable fence sitter, and that's it.
Quoting Xtrix
It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms.
Of course. So who do we trust to tell us whether the thing we're believing in is going to lead to harmful actions?
As I said in the other thread, you can't use the evidence from an institution someone doesn't trust to prove that their not trusting them is harmful. They don't trust them. So they're not going to believe that evidence either are they?
We obviously have a responsibility to ensure our actions are not causing an unreasonable risk of harm to others. When we're not sufficiently expert ourselves, that responsibility is executed by deciding who to trust. But no real-time data can inform that decision because the decision about which data sources to trust obviously has to precede the use of any data from them.
This is the covid issue in a nutshell. The fanatics say "you must believe X because look at what's at stake", but the evidence for what's at stake invariably comes from aforementioned X, so it's a nonsense argument. Just begging the question of their trustworthiness.
...oh and also what said...
Quoting baker
...but then you never intended to meaningfully address this did you? Just another crowd-pleaser of a thread.
We are not responsible for what's in our minds, only for what we let out. And that's a good thing, for me at least. Being aware of what is going on inside us is another good thing. That includes what we know and believe, how we know know it, how certain we are of it, and what the consequences are if we are wrong. But, again, we are only responsible for our behavior.
Well put.
We are interested in topic Y, we go to certain sources dealing with Y, we read several opinions of professionals on the subject matter, we look at (some) data, we assume the data is not too distorted, we take our data to be better than other people's data due to what we take to be the reliability of the relevant source, yet unless we are experts in Y, we are at the mercy of always revisable information.
But experts can be, and often are wrong about subjects (more common in the social sciences), so we have to keep an open mind while not leaving it so open that garbage gets in "woo", or otheriwse.
This all pushes the main issue at hand back for me, which is, what reason do we have to think our intuitions are correct about any topic? At this point, we begin handwaving something about "this is just a fact" or "you're insane", "read a book", etc.
So, difficult. But we do it somehow. Though it's gotten worse in political discourse the last few years.
And yet...
Quoting Manuel
So easy, no?
These comments are from different threads.
Having said that, for me and you on this topic, yes.
To them, no, assuming you are referring here to people who died while denying they had Covid. They can "obviously" say that the evidence is "propaganda" or caused by Bill Gates or whatever. So, what to do?
I don't know.
Nor did I say that, notice.
Quoting baker
Stating the fact that we're more polarized now -- which has been well studied -- is not the same as thinking in "dichotomous terms." Nor am I "hostile." Your projections are about as accurate as your reading comprehension.
Quoting Isaac
I'm not sure anyone tells you that. Even if they knew they were spreading dangerous ideas, they'll insist that they aren't. The responsibility is on us, ultimately. Do we have good reasons to believe something or not? Is there good evidence to support the belief? If not, we should withhold judgment one way or another.
Quoting Isaac
That doesn't matter much, because the judgment has already taken place. In other words, this hypothetical person has already taken a position by trusting someone else, or a group of people, and the corresponding evidence offered there. Creationists are a good example -- they don't trust evolutionary biologists or any evidence they will present. Or, maybe a better example, is the media. It won't matter if we were to present an article from the New York Times to someone who believes they're "fake news."
In this case, the issue is simply "Why did this person take this position to begin with?"
Quoting Isaac
It's not always a matter of trusting sources. Sometimes the data is one's own life and experiences. Simply looking around would do it. If one closes oneself off to any person or argument that challenges their beliefs, this is simply dogmatism. This seems to be what you're talking about, exclusively.
Quoting T Clark
Right, but what's in our minds almost always gets "let out" in what we say or in how we behave -- i.e., in our actions. Which has an impact on the world around us, including others.
I think this matter is extremely complicated. Personally my trust in institutions is not at an all time low and my life doesn't feel crappy.
Many people seem to be constantly bubbling with hatred and bitterness, regardless of their position. It is simply the emotion that characterises our time. We live in the age of resentment.
I'm sure having a media that thrives on sensationalism and fermentation of hatred doesn't help. I'm also sure that being reared on endless TV shows and movies that take as a starting principle that the state is rotten and all institutions have been bought hasn't helped. People have felt this way for decades, social media has helped them organise. In 1988 Leonard Cohen evocatively encapsulated this weltschmerz in the song Everybody Knows.
Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich.
A lot of accuracy to this but it is not the whole story. Pessimism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you have determined that all is lost and all that is left to you is declarative complaint, things won't get better. The idea of truth in such a time may also be repellant.
:up:
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't know if it's resentment so much as hopelessness and anger. But perhaps I'm splitting hairs.
I think it's the concept that one has to be duplicitous to deal with duplicitous people. For a sum total of ubiquitous dishonor.
Or, the "common sense" of the media that more is more, the acceptance that these guys can't stick to the facts because the facts are dull and they HAVE to make money.
People can be conniving and totally self-centered, and such people are often pompous, self-important, and gravitate towards the spotlight of politics.
They poison the well. And people trust them, often, because they have no real world experience of just how truly insipid a person can be. All they can do is fall victim to being exposed to one of these people pointing the blame at others.
Capitalism and honesty don't exactly go hand-in-hand. There are people who are only concerned with their own benefit, and they climb the ladder of social influence and poison the well.
If people suffer from their beliefs, so much the better. It’s how we learn. But if we make them suffer for their beliefs, whether through censorship or campaigns of hatred, no credential or expertise will make our rhetoric palpable.
Figured this was worth sharing.
That doesn't sound like anything other than the status quo. I would say there is far more hype due to mass media and more access to poor/pseudo reports though.
Quoting Xtrix
Again, compared to when? I think people generally look to blame others as it helps to ignore personal faults that we wish not to face.
Quoting Xtrix
No, I don't think so. I think a comedian put this across well regarding surveys and such. Normal people usually don't waste time answering surveys. They are poor reflections of society as a whole.
Quoting Xtrix
Some people don't care (or simply cannot afford to care) about political nuances. Others are apathetic, and others overly enthused.
I'm not convinced that people 'act out' their beliefs either. I think it was Schopenhauer (maybe Rousseau?) that made a comical statement about people saying one thing and doing another.
I think this is one to keep at the forefront of our minds:
“The fundamental cause of the trouble in the modern world today is that the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.”—Bertrand Russell.
When it comes to 'following'/agreeing with someone or something I just ask myself if I can find fault in something they say. If I cannot find any fault I assume I am wrong because I've missed something. I seek out points that oppose me rather than ignore them (or so I like to believe!). This is basically along the lines of what Russell states. If I cannot find a flaw then I must be missing something. Any idea that I cannot oppose I am EXTREMELY wary of.
Quoting Xtrix
I would prefer to ask 'Do we have an epistemic responsibility in life?' simply because it is clearer. That is how I attempt 'responsibility' - through attempts at clarity where it seems to prevent misinterpretation.
I think this is an intriguing question. I have said I few times in my life that I care about what people think but I don't much care what they think about me.
When a physicist discovers something that throws out mainstream thinking people are excited. I try to foster this attitude towards life in general as what most refer to as 'seeking happiness' is just this I feel. the elation I gain from struggling over a certain problem is a very strange kind of elation. It is as if it has 'pain' in it yet when there is a crack of a breakthrough all that 'pain' turns out not to be 'painful' at all and I was just fooling myself into thinking I was 'frustrated,' 'angry' or 'upset'.
I prefer to express this thought more with another quote:
“The sacred tree, the sacred stone are not adored as stone or tree they are worshipped precisely because they are hierophanies, because they show something that is no longer stone or tree but sacred, the ganz andere or 'wholly other.”
- Mircea Eliade
This 'wholly other' is very much a part of human experience - or rather our conflict with, or avoidance of, it. 'Trust' - in respect it your item of driving - is not at the forefront of our minds in the moment. We don't expect drivers to make up their own rules. Our world is made up of 'driving rules' and if one was to travel to another country where things are a little different we will feel that 'they are wrong' and 'we are right' simply because our world view (in terms of driving) opposes theirs. They are 'stupid' and we are 'right'. This a perfectly natural reaction to an alien system because what is effectively being brought into question is our core founding of how the world around operates and is formed (I prefer the term/s Weltanschauung or Axis Mundi here). Some things we simply don't question like a balls rolling down hills instead of up hills or not sinking into the pavement. There are different levels of extremity as I see it that we parcel up as 'wrong' instead of taking the opportunity to broaden our horizons and learn more about the world we're about.
Judgement is great. Being judgmental is usually self deceit. We're all prone to erring but that isn't an excuse for mistakes it is something should be willing to bring to the table when in a discussion with people we don't agree with or understand.
If they can 'obviously' say that, then dismissing them as 'insane' is exactly the hand-waiving you complained of. That's the point I'm making. Very few people are actually insane, if they believe something to be the case, even at the risk of their own health (and that of their loved ones) there's usually a very good reason why they do.
We live in a world which is on a path to mutually assured destruction (via climate change) and yet the vested interests of the super rich mean we do nothing about that. We live in a world where children are starving to death by the million and yet the vested interests of the super rich have us do nothing about that either. And yet you want to claim that a theory that the world's richest man can (and would) influence the current state of affairs, is so utterly inconceivable that the only possible explanation for anyone believing it is insanity? Look around you. Do the world's super rich appear to have a disproportionate amount of influence over the state of affairs or not?
What to do is exactly what's not being done here. Acknowledge that our institutions are flawed, that these people have perfectly normal (if not particularly good) reasons to disbelieve what they're being told, that we do in fact live in a world where the super rich have so much influence that their shaping affairs like like this is actually conceivable (again, although unlikely)... The more doubling down we do the more we make our 'side' seem completely ridiculous.
Of course we can't trust the pharmaceuticals - they're organisations with criminal convictions for lying. Of course we can't trust the FDA - they have a well known revolving door with the companies they're supposed to check, their former head is now at Pfizer, for God's sake. Of course we can't trust our governments - that politicians lie is such a truism it's a standing joke. And of course we can't trust our academic institutions - most are funded if not directly employed by industry and the replication rate in the medical sciences is less than half.
So to say to the Bill Gatesian conspiracy theorist that he's mad because the evidence from the pharmaceuticals, FDA, governments and academia is contradicts him is just as ridiculously dogmatic in the face of evidence to the contrary as he's being.
It is perfectly possible to make a case against the idea that vaccines contain 5G transmitters, or that Bill Gates manufactured it, without having to do so by falling back on the equally ludicrous idea that our institutions are simply so noble and incorruptible that such a set of events need not even be considered and everything they say can be treated as gospel truth.
The 'closing off' is irrelevant. I could refuse to read anything from the New York Times, or I could read everything from the New York Times and declare it all to be biased 'fake news'. What makes a difference to any kind of epistemic responsibility is having good reasons to select or dismiss evidence before weighing what is left in the 'accepted' pile, those reasons being other than that it's saying something you disagree with.
However, what's usually recommended is logic (rationality) and that's always been bothersome. Doesn't logic literally force beliefs down your throat? Whence responsibility when I had no choice but to accept the diktats of cold, impersonal, logic?
I could easily say, if I'm called out on my beliefs, "It's not my fault! I was simply following the rules of logic!" I'm not accountable for beliefs that I didn't choose freely.
Then there's irrationalism and the all the different kinds of logic that have spawned since Aristotle and Chrysippus first, 2500 years ago, worked out valid argument forms for classical logic.
Hand-waving wasn't a complaint actually. The "good reason" part can be debated, but I can see how people come around into believing these things. It's been developing particularly in the Republican party for some time. Democrats aren't exempt either.
Quoting Isaac
When did I say it was the only explanation? I think it's pretty wild that given that the whole world is going through the same problem with the pandemic and people next to you are dying and doctors are telling you that you have Covid, but you don't believe so is quite something. Me saying "insane" is not a clinical diagnosis, but if you prefer I don't have problems saying that this kind of behavior is "reckless" or "irrational".
Yes Bill Gates has some power. But to think he could influence the world to this degree is several steps too far.
Quoting Isaac
Sure. I can see that.
On the other hand: Of course we can trust Trump he's anti establishment (even though he is not), of course let's trust alternative medicine (because these people aren't making a killing), of course let's trust Tucker Carlson (because he isn't an elite who hasn't gotten vaccinated), of course we can trust the internet (because that did not come from the Pentagon).
The point is that if you are dying of Covid and you tell your doctor that you're not is still pretty mad.
Quoting Isaac
I haven't said such a thing. If you look at my original post from where you quoted me, I said the whole process is rather complex. Again, I can see the train of thinking that leads one down the rabbit hole. It's a dangerous path to go down.
And they often aren't "good reasons" at all. They usually come from exactly what I mentioned.
I try to be aware of how I behave toward other people. I try to treat them with kindness and respect, with some, imperfect, success. At the same time, my mind is full of dark emotions, prejudices, and lust and what's worse... philosophy. By which I mean, no, you're wrong. Even if you were right, it would only be what gets let out I would be responsible for, not what's kept inside.
Do you really see those as the only voices opposing vaccines?
No. There are various sources and many views on the topic.
But the ones I mentioned reach a lot of people, so they have broad reach, especially Fox, now that Trump can't use social media anymore. These people are the type of people who should cause most concern, in my view.
Why do you think they should cause any particular concern?
It has to do with the fact that they shout in public people who wear masks, have pride in not being vaccinated, risk others by not taking them into account (if you don't want to get vaccinated, fine, but keep to you and yours and leave other people alone), harass parents kids for wearing masks or being vaccinated, and on and on.
Also, these Trump supporters share a similar ideology to the people that stormed the capitol in January 6. So not only are they misinformed (as I think they are), they are dangerous.
How many of them still support Trump is not clear, but the beliefs now shared by "far right" grew out of this phenomenon.
This is an interesting article on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/breitbart-conservatives-john-nolte-vaccine/620189/
But, as you imply, there are other reasons and other parts of the population who don't get vaccinated for other reasons. And not every reason given is silly or not rational. It has become an overtly political topic.
No one gets up in the morning and says, "I think I'll just be wrong as hell today."
Because being wrong is not a choice, it can't be immoral.
Indeed, something you should try every now and then.
It's not only that; it's the vested interest of the average person in their accustomed prosperity, convenience and lifestyle, which means they won't vote for any government that presents plans to ameliorate global warming, if those plans involve any lessening of personal prosperity and comfort (like extra taxes or rising costs, etc)..
But how can you have such good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence, if you're not actually an expert in the field?
Believing in something without evidence is a choice, and in some views immoral. I generally agree with this view.
:lol:
Coming from you, this is hilarious.
[quote=Robert J. Hanlon]Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity[/quote]
Epistemic responsibility, due to its moral flavor, would mean that Donald Trump is an evil/bad person.
[quote=Socrates]No one knowingly does evil.[/quote]
Fools/buffoons/idiots are generally not considered culpable for their actions, no matter how immoral.
So, are we trying to, subconsciously, absolve evil folk of their fell deeds, choosing instead to treat them as mentally retarded in some way, to some degree?
It seems that fools can get away with anything - they're deemed innocent and therefore, can't be held accountable for their deeds.
Why are Hitler, Stalin and Mao and other genocidal characters also not viewed in the same light, as morons instead of fiends? If Donald Trump is stupid, Hitler, Stalin, and Mao must be treated as vegetables, totally devoid of intelligence, right?
A. The 3 Poisons (Buddhism)
1. Moha (Ignorance)
2. Raga (Attachment)
3. Dvesha (Hatred)
B. Intellectual Disability
[quote=Wikipedia]Although ancient Roman law had declared people with intellectual disability to be incapable of the deliberate intent to harm that was necessary for a person to commit a crime, during the 1920s, Western society believed they were morally degenerate.[/quote]
C. Innocence
[quote=Wikipedia]Innocence is a lack of guilt, with respect to any kind of crime, or wrongdoing. In a legal context, innocence is to the lack of legal guilt of an individual, with respect to a crime. In other contexts, it is a lack of experience.[/quote]
The Fool (ignorance) is both Good & Evil!
Epistemic responsibility: The fool is guilty if bad consequences follow from his idiotic beliefs but then he's, at the same time, innocent because he didn't know any better.
Isn't that obvious?
No, if you look at the news. He's painted as a comical character rather than a machaivellian rapscallion.
Makes sense. It's difficult with hypothetical threats. Like with terrorism - more people are killed by fridges falling on them, but the existential threat is different so create a different response. You'll do more damage to the health system by being overweight than you will by not being vaccinated, but being overweight doesn't lead anywhere - people are nervous about what the virus might do next and so I suppose, like terrorism and fridges, have different reactions to what they see as riskier strategies.
Quoting Manuel
I appreciate that. It doesn't seem like a very popular view here though.
And he likes being a cretin, and he wallows in it. Hence I agree, in his and many other cases, that true, limitless stupidity is chosen, embraced. It is not a natural state of man to be that stupid.
Perhaps we aren't sure, as we should be, about good, evil, and idiocy. They seem to be entangled with each other in a conceptual cloud of confusion.
I think that's self-evidently true to an extent, but then again people regularly make significant sacrifices for the sake of their children's comfort (going without to pay for education, for example), so it would be quite hard to reconcile that with a purely selfish greed outweighing a known risk to one's children's future. People are not inherently greedy and selfish to the point that they'd sacrifice their children's well-being for a flashier car. These behaviours are played upon by advertisers, corporartions and media influences to get the desired outcome.
Here I'm thinking of 'good' reasons as being those experience has taught us tend toward satisfactory results. Habits of thinking. If a person saying that tobacco is safe is paid by the tobacco industry, I don't need to be an expert in lung physiology to make a 'good' decision to take what he's saying with a pinch of salt. It's a habit of thinking I've developed to assess the possible conflicts of interest in those presenting me with evidence.
Evidence of previous bias (always coming down on one side of an ambiguous dichotomy), ideological commitments (politics, academic allegiances), publication biases (shock value, issue-of-the-day)...all of these can be used heuristically to weight evidence, or reject it entirely, without needing any expertise in the field at all.
The more one assesses evidence, the greater a bank of habits one develops. That's not to say that these habits are all right by any objective measure, only that they've proven themselves useful. The layman might rely on those things listed above, someone more versed in statistical techniques might additionally recognise signs of p-hacking or a suspiciously selected stratification - but still, none of these require expertise in the field being evaluated.
Exactly.
Quoting Xtrix
It is neurologically impossible to believe something without evidence.
Often the actual practical ways to manage certain problems is fairly counter intuitive.
But doesn't the problem of induction show that we all believe things without proof?
I think we ARE sure. It's just more convenient to ignore evil, less disturbing. More confortable to think he's just another moron than to accept the depth of moral corruption the country has sunk into.
I guess so.
How could you possibly know that? You've checked all the beliefs in all the world?
Yeah. Proof and evidence being two different things here. That the sun rose yesterday is evidence that it will rise tomorrow under certain modelling assumptions. The modelling assumptions might be hard-wired in some cases (ie not developed by evidence), but they don't themselves function without inputs (real time evidence). Beliefs are just too high level a structure to develop independant of inputs.
But it was flippant response to a stupid comment. Yours was all that was required really. No one deliberately decides to get it wrong. This whole thread is just @Xtrix having another stab a creating a version of epistemology in which it's impossible for him to be wrong. Last time we had that opposing views need not be engaged with, this time it's that opposing views are actually morally required to switch allegiance. I'm opening a book on what's next if you're interested in a wager...
No, you're right. I've checked quite a few, and the brains doing the believing, but I've not checked every single example. I kind of work on the principle that if I check a reasonable sample I can infer the properties of the population that sample is drawn from. But if you've a better approach...
Having an opposing view is the same as committing genocide
Having an opposing view is the same as blowing up the whole planet, causing time to stop, and covering the universe in feces.
Yep. I'm offering 4:1 on 'genocide', 8:1 on 'Armageddon' and 10:1 on the zombie apocalypse outsider.
2:1 favourite is that opposing views are actually signs of mental illness (not even a joke, we've already had that one).
1000000:1 on opposing views being neurologically impossible (as, of course, we all know that would be a ridiculous thing to say because, duh, you haven't tested all views). No one would be that stupid.
These people are simply liars. They lie to themselves and to others. They decide to remain ignorant, knowing very well at some deep level that it is what they do.
When on top of it they also insist on spreading their misinformed BS day in and day out, their bad faith becomes a real problem.
Do we really need an army (or several) of prolific bad faith crusaders? No, and yet that's exactly what the Gods of the Interwebs unleashed upon us.
There's always been people like that of course, but now they have this megaphones called Facebook and Twitter and co. Some of our ancestors used to write endless memoirs to newspapers and science academies across the globe about the possibility of perpetual movement or the rationality of Pi, about the earth being flat or tobacco as a cure for cancer... Strange obsessions leading to nowhere. It made for excellent dustbin or fire material back then. But their descendents now all have a YouTube channel.
I would say we have a responsibility to argue in good faith, to try and understand others rather than pretend ignorance or misunderstanding, and to remain open to the evidence presented to us by others. And if we can't be bothered to read or understand said evidence (something which I do a lot), at least we should be careful to not clairon our ignorance or mistrust of said evidence day in and day out. We should rather remain silent or honestly say "I don't know and I don't care", if that's the case.
They won't tell you that on Twitter, but nobody needs to have an opinion on strictly everything.
I remember seeing that in the DSM: Disagreementosis cum me.
It's true that people do make such sacrifices when the need is staring them in the face. People don't seem to be very good at genuinely, viscerally acknowledging threats until the reality can no longer be denied. And don't forget that the currently enjoyed prosperity, comfort, convenience, material wealth and so on of a family is such for the children of that family also.
Of course I agree that the common desires for comfort, convenience, material possessions and general prosperity are manipulated and exploited by advertisers, corporations and the media.
Perhaps it is neurologically impossible to believe something without what is thought to be evidence. Different people have very different ideas about what counts as evidence. Is there a reliable standard by means of which it could be judged that some conceptions of what constitutes evidence really don't add up?
Yes. Although I don't like "evil," too many Christian connotations. I never thought Trump was a complete idiot -- although he is certainly a buffoon.
Quoting Isaac
No, it isn't. It happens all the time.
Now please go on to dazzle me again with wordplay. Actually, don't - I'll save you the trouble: since what you're saying will be reduced to mere truism, I concede. In the same sense it can be argued for the opposite, as well -- but never mind.
Quoting Isaac
:lol:
Called it before reading it.
"Inputs." Well done.
Quoting Isaac
Yeah, they do. All the time.
Quoting Isaac
No, just agreeing with the following:
—?"The Ethics of Belief" (1879) W. Clifford
Quoting Olivier5
Agreed.
Kind of ironic really.
If you truly cannot fathom/believe how the rich can get richer whilst the poorest of the poor also get richer then look at the history of economic growth on a global scale over the course of human history. As for teh population growth this decreases when poverty decreases so it is in everyone’s interest to expand economic growth not inhibit it.
Like I said, these kind of things can be quite counter intuitive as what we believe in our gut to be the ‘wrong’ focus quite often turns out to be the right one. Greed, guilt and avarice are generally perceived as ‘sins’ so keep an eye out for them. They will cause your destruction and everyone else’s if left unchecked … they often appear in the hearts of the do goobers and have far more power there.
Similar to why we should ignore the rantings of people like you, who try to manufacture controversy where there is none to justify the fact that you’ve been duped into aligning yourself with anti-vaxxer stupidity, mostly due to displaced fear and distrust.
One thread was asking if it was worthwhile engaging with deluded individuals like yourself— and the answer was in the affirmative, mostly for the benefit of others.
This thread is about the responsibility to at least have sufficient evidence for believing something, especially when said belied has dramatic effects on others.
So much for your reading comprehension.
Yes but you see how this argument is often used to justify massively disproportionate growth. A good example is the 2017 tax cut. Yes, it’s true that middle class people got a modest (and temporary) cut to their taxes…but I think you know the rest.
I see the kind of thing Janus is saying far more often. That is more disconcerting.
Quoting Xtrix
No I don’t. The reason being I’m not from your country and don’t much care about what one single nation’s government does regarding taxes. I do know that the wealthiest nations (throughout history) always have the largest disparity when it comes to comparisons between the richest and the poorest.
None of this has anything to do with the point I made. The better the economy the lower the birthrate, the better the economy the more opportunities for individuals and the better the economy the more room for environmental concerns (because first and foremost people need to see the horizon before they care about what is over it).
And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways)
I didn't say most economists ignore resources, I said they ignore ecology; the reality of limited resources and the cost, both to the environment and economically, of so-called externalities. If you think growth can continue with business as usual, without dire results, you are as deluded as those economists.The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy.
Ha!
Seems I missed...
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
No, that's exactly what the discussion is about. the identification of those people. Identifying a category doesn't constitute proof that any given entity is a member of it. That such people exist doesn't answer the question of which side in any discussion are behaving that way. Both sides will obviously accuse the other of such activities.
What's going wrong in all these threads is the assumption that only one side has the Solomonesque wisdom to 'step outside' of their role as proponent/opponent to judge the other side's evidence as if they were an impartial observer.
Everyone agrees that...
Quoting Olivier5
Everyone agrees that...
So it's disingenuous to present these as if they were live issues. I doubt you'll find a person on the planet to disagree with them. The issue is identifying when it is happening without simply declaring it of one's opponents as a cheap way of avoiding having to understand them. Or as Janus puts it...
Quoting Janus
What I've been lamenting in the Covid threads is that fact that I think there used to be a perfectly adequate standard (not perfect, by any means, but enough to filter out the crap). Matters regarding some field of expertise are discussed either by those experts or by reference to them. It's as simple as that. If you've met the threshold of epistemic responsibility to become an expert in some field, have no discoverable conflict of interest, no history of deep bias, then you have the right to be taken seriously and respectfully in any discussion within that field. Likewise laymen discussing that field are extended this right if they (in context) cite, or paraphrase the positions of these people who have met this standard.
I know I might sound like a typical old man, but this is how things used to be done (at least in my circles, which I admit are quite limited). The decay started before Covid but has been exaggerated massively during the crisis to the point we now find ourselves, where one's conclusions are all that matter, not the diligence with which one has arrived at them. Indeed, as here, one's conclusions are being used as a measure of the diligence one is assumed to have used arriving at them.
That happens but is not necessary or obvious. There are many discussions here or elsewhere between people in good faith. Seek them and you will find them.
Quoting Isaac
I happen to disagree; all of us believe many things without evidence, and it's not necessarily a bad thing.
Quoting Isaac
'We'? Speak for yourself. There's no fatality here, nobody is forcing anyone to become stupid. It's a choice 'we' make.
Your point was the population is an issue. It is. My point is that population growth reduces as GDP increases.
That is all.
Quoting Janus
How is that viable? Is it a realistic option? What happens to the poorest people in this process? What events in human history have raised living standards beyond mere survival?
A few pointers and indicators about people arguing in bad faith:
1. No data is good enough for them, except theirs. They are likely to disregard entire sciences and throw away vast amount of data just because they can (or must).
2. On the other hand, they choose to trust and accept uncritically any data that seems to buttress their view, without ever wondering if it's genuine or manipulative. They are eager to believe alternative views and that makes them easy to manipulate.
3. They misinterpret even their own data, like when you pretended to confuse an in vitro finding with an in vivo conclusion. This is done on purpose and is part of the lying.
4. They tend to essentialize their opponents, at least in their rhetoric. Whether it's the Jews, climate scientists, politicians, the CIA or the medical establishment, they pretend to believe that their (invented) enemies -- all of them or nearly all of them -- are essentially, fundamentally evil and will always remain so.
5. From 4, it follows that they see no solution. They will criticize any proposal or policy around, but can't propose anything cogent themselves. It's about denial and negativity, about lying and poisoning the well of knowledge for others, not about proposing new knowledge or constructively moving forward.
Is eternal economic growth viable?
Uh huh. So I think all those apply to you, you think all those apply to me. Now what?
I'm genuinely interested to learn about how a non-growth or shrinking economy will help.
You know it does not apply to me either, or rather, you know that I do not usually behave this way.
I don't see how a shirking economy helps pull more people out of poverty that it puts into it (proportionally). I'm happy to look and learn though if you can provide details about this.
Certainly, there are limits to what the environment can provide. You cannot eternally increase production.
Ah, good, now we're getting somewhere. Let's have the proof then.
Didn't you pretend to equate a finding about the presence of certain molecules in the blood stream of 38 individuals with the effective immunity of all of us against COVID?
What are you proposing we do about COVID?
If you have something to share about non-growth or shrinking economies that would be nice to hear.
No.
Quoting Olivier5
Nope.
Quoting Olivier5
A combination of vaccinating those at highest risk, strict lockdowns, mask wearing, hygiene, investment in community health services, testing, open data publication, strict rules about global vaccine allocation...
LOL
Quoting Isaac
Hahaha.
Quoting Isaac
I.e. pretty much what everybody else is saying, including me. So where is this big disagreement now? It vanishes as soon as you use a little good faith. :-)
I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided).
My point was that increasing the economic growth NOW will curb population growth (because it has everywhere) and improve living conditions (education and health) because it has everywhere. This is because people in poverty are not concerned about tomorrow because they're trying to survive - this is obvious.
When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet.
Negative growth will expand the population because when poverty increases the family unit increases in size - we know this it isn't a myth. The more developed economies in the world should be investing in improving more efficient energy options (nuclear for one) rather than feeding a broken mechanism that is going to do little to nothing in the long term.
If we wish to see the effects of an economic reduction we'll have all the evidence by looking at India (where 1 million a year die of starvation related causes prior to Covid). Now it is estimated that another 200 million will fall into poverty by the end of the year putting 50% of the entire population into poverty ... I don't see a 'shirking economy' as a viable solution for India. I see cheap fuel as a helping hand to those at the bottom.
Good argument.
Quoting Olivier5
I'm undone.
Quoting Olivier5
I'm not at high risk, so you'd agree there's no need for me to be vaccinated?
Sorry I failed to reach the quality of argument contained in your "nope".
Quoting Isaac
I do what I can do to protect myself. What you do is your problem, not mine. It's your body, it's your life. And if you end up infecting other folks, rest assured you won't be the only one doing that...
My problem is not with people who don't want to be vaccinated, in good faith. It is with people spreading disinformation and lies about the effectiveness or risks involved in vaccination.
I'm the one being accused of arguing in bad faith here. I deserve a little more than mud-slinging.
Quoting Olivier5
Yes, which is exactly what this discussion is about. Very few of these people are spreading disinformation and lies. They're spreading what they think is good information and truth. You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree.
It's pointless coming up with these virtue-signalling little aphorisms about how we all ought to argue in good faith. Who's going to dispute that?
The sticking point is always over people like you wanting to avoid any hard work by simply declaring your version to be self-evidently true and in no need of any debate. Once you remove the old thresholds of reasonableness, you open everybody up to the same claim.
As I said, this is a new development you're at the vanguard of where qualification and evidence no longer matter if your conclusions are not in agreement. I hope you're confident in the great New Dawn you see this process leading to, it sounds like hell to me.
I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith.
Quoting Isaac
Err... evidently you are, by saying it is pointless to call for good faith.
It is dooming the climate, rather, and that's a proven fact.
I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith. Now what?
Quoting Olivier5
It is pointless to call for something everyone already approves of.
Of course. Simple deceit. How could we have overlooked that?
You know something everybody approves of?
Quoting Isaac
End of conversation, I suppose.
Yes, it seems so obvious now. Everyone who disagrees with me must be a lair, it's the only realistic option - after all, intelligent people couldn't possibly reach different conclusions in good faith could they? That literally never happens. Well do I remember my first day as faculty - the corridors were blocked as we all agreed on where to go next. Only one textbook, obviously, with all the actual answers in it. The canteen was a nightmare - only one option on the menu of course (because we all agreed on what the optimum food item was for that day) but the queues for it...
And you couldn't have seen that coming a mile off?
If you have sources to support these claims I’d be interested. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve them— except I’m leery about the “more opportunity” part. That’s difficult to define.
Quoting I like sushi
I’m not sure I understand this remark. Learned much about what?
Yes, flat earthers, creationists, and Holocaust deniers also “disagree.”
Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people? Or should we say, beforehand: “What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”
The reasons for all this talk about mandates, vaccines, etc., is because of politicization. We’ve had mandates for DECADES. Why are they controversial now?
You answer that question, and it’s like answering the question posed above for Creationists: it’s because they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.
Why do some climate deniers, with scientific credentials, make their claims? They’re sponsored by fossil fuel money. Why did scientists “question” that smoking and cancer were linked? Because they were funded by tobacco companies.
And so on and so forth.
Every individual “questioning” and presenting “evidence” I’m sure are often sincere. I’m sure you’re sincere.
But what they fail to see, necessarily, is why they’re even questioning in the first place. Why this specific issue and not others?
Quoting Isaac
Evolution isn’t “self evidently true” either. Nor the Holocaust. I assume you don’t put in much “hard work” with people who deny either? Maybe you do — fine. Sometimes that’s necessary. But what’s important isn’t so much the content, but the reasons why they’re making these claims to begin with.
When it comes to a lot of these claims surrounding vaccines and mandates, which have been around for decades, a similar question should be asked. And there’s no secret as to why this is happening. There’s no secret why the unvaccinated, for example, are overwhelmingly concentrated in counties that voted for Trump. All of those people I’m sure feel they’re truth-seekers, freedom lovers, and righteously skeptical of government/big pharma.
But they fail to see that they wouldn’t be saying what they’re saying if they lived somewhere else. Creationists fail to see that the reasons they’re questioning the science isn’t because of some legitimate discovery of flaws or good faith confusion— it’s because they’re Christians.
This has been my basic point all along. You won’t think it applies to you, I know. You’ll say it applies to me, etc. I’ve heard that from creationists too. Perhaps you’re right— perhaps they’re right.
But from what I see, you’re just swept up in the manufactured controversy. But don’t get me wrong: I am too. How? By even engaging with it.
I mean, can you imagine the chaos and bloodshed that would overtake the world if we didn't all believe exactly the same things?
It shivers the timbers! :lol:
Nope. I'm saying that it's nonsensical to use the fact that people sometimes lie as an argument that this particular person in this particular instance is lying.
What you need for that is evidence of a sort that both parties already agree on. If we agree that saying "the sky is blue" and then later saying "the sky was green" is an example of lying, then you might have some purchase in accusing me of lying by providing those contradictory quotes.
What you're doing here is accusing me of lying for no reason at all other than that I've reached a conclusion you strongly don't agree with, since all the 'reasons' you give form part of our disagreement, rather than part of a shared agreement outside of it.
No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias.
Quoting Xtrix
No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias.
Quoting Xtrix
And you'd have insight into this how? Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons?
Hence the ridicule of your notion. You're saying that on no other grounds than that they disagree with you, you can somehow determine a person's motives. Do you seriously not see how utterly absurd and frankly messianic that sounds?
This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk
Yes, the horror. Of course, though, with our newfound abilities to discern motives from a few internet posts, I can confidently say that you're only saying that because you had an incident with a rocking horse when you were three, and the eight years of wearing braces has left you with a distrust of horses, which has grown during your time in the army into a distrust of people in general. Am-I-right?
I'm just a retrobate liar. :fear:
1. Epistemic responsibility is, well, a really good idea. Beliefs have moral consequences - they can either be fabulously great for our collective welfare or they could cause a lot of hurt.
2. Epistemic responsibility seems married to rationality for good, there's little doubt that that isn't the case. Rationality is about obeying the rules of logic and, over and above that, having a good handle on how to make a case.
So far so good.
3. Now, just imagine, sends chills down my spine, that rationality proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that immoralities of all kinds are justified e.g. that slavery is justified, racism is justified, you get the idea. This isn't as crazy as it sounds - a lot of atrocities in the world have been, for the perps, completely logical.
Here we have a dilemma: Either be rational or be good. If you're rational, you end up as a bad person. If you're good, you're irrational.
As you can see this messes up the clear and distinct notion of epistemic responsibility as simulataneously endorsing rationality AND goodness.
Thoughts...
That's not my point, which is rather that one cannot expect every one to agree on an issue nor even to have an opinion on it, so there is no epistemic responsibility in that sense: nobody can be morally condemned for being honestly wrong. However, one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, and even more so when one is not professionally qualified.
Let's call it the "do no harm principle". If you know shit about a vitally important topic, treat it as an opportunity to remain silent.
It's easy to say but hard to enforce. I know that.
Yeah, but you're only saying that because...
No, I'm not going to flog that any further.
(Although, I'm only saying that because...)
Yep. Again, did you think anyone would disagree with such an obviously true statement? Or were you looking for brownie points? Here...4 gold stars for clarifying that we shouldn't be complicit in killing each other.
Now, do you actually have some mechanism we can agree on by which we can judge whether that responsibility has been executed in any particular case? Or would you just like another gold star for pointing out that we ought try?
Quoting Isaac
Not openly, no. Nobody can openly deny that, even those who actually disagree. Although someone a bit contrarian could disagree with the need to say it.
And the same or another individual could very well demonstrate by his or her practice how he or she ignores the principle in reality in spite of formally expressing agreement. For instance, if a fellow with no knowledge of climatology was harping forever about how climate change is x, y or z, that would be a telltale sign.
Or if a guy with no knowledge of immunology would start to talk to no end of vaccines and immunity and stuff, and discuss countless scientific articles, as if he could understand what them immunologists are talking about in those articles.
Now of course, this guy would often deny any wrong doing through a series of rationalizations. These people are typically not internally coherent. They can say something and do something else without even noticing. But other people can notice their inconsistencies.
That's literally all of us. No one here is an immunologist, yet we've just had massive long conversations about "vaccines and immunity and stuff", including you. We've all "discuss[ed] scientific articles to no end", including you.
It's just more 'I'm right but everyone else is wrong, because I says so' bollocks. [I]You're[/i] allowed to repeat what you believe to be an honest, unbiased summary of what the experts are saying, but anyone else doing so (and disagreeing with you) is speaking out of turn.
Some of us know more than some others about immunology, or climate, but when we speak we are not always listened to. And for this reason, there are no obvious reason for any competent poster to engage you on the matter of immunology here. For that to happen, you'd have to pay any serious attention first.
I for one haven't occupied the TPF bandwidths with countless arguments about immunology. TPF isn't a medical journal.
In any case, each member can come to his or her conclusion and we can all decide to take our medical advice from our medical doctor, or from Fauci, or from Trump, or from you or anyone else here for that matter. I know who I trust and who I don't.
Maybe, but how would anyone know (and trust) who those people were such as to ensure they paid sufficiently serious attention to them? I haven't read anyone declaring a professional or academic qualification in immunology.
Quoting Olivier5
Then what's...
Quoting Olivier5
...an argument about?
Quoting Olivier5
Of course. But that's not what you're arguing here. Your claim is that people here argue in bad faith and I'm one of them. That's the claim I'm asking you to defend. Nothing to do with where we get our medical advice from.
They would disagree with you. It's as if you think you've stumbled upon just the right wording, or the magical principle upon which we can finally ground a criterion for truth.
Creationists, infamously, tout their credentials and often point to the "conflicts of interest and biases" of "evolutionists" (as they call them). They say that "evolutionists" are working from a framework or "model," and that they are working from a different one -- the "creation model."
Given this, do we just ignore them? Isn't it wrong to assume because others are ridiculous that this INDIVIDUAL making claims is also ridiculous?
Quoting Isaac
It's not insight -- they tell you outright. But aside from that, ask yourself the question: exactly what "insight" do you have for determining someone's "conflicts of interests or histories of bias"?
Quoting Isaac
Your views are enough. As for your intentions or motives, of course I can't be 100% certain. I can make an educated guess -- as I can for creationists, and as you can for those with a "history of biases" or whatever criteria you want to use. Remember: everyone claims to be the "exception." Unlike those other people, you don't fit the mold and it's absolutely wrong of me to lump you in with anti-vaxxers or creationists or anyone like that.
It's the same objection I hear from Christian or Muslim people when I point out that they come from areas that are predominantly Christian or Muslim, hence their belief. They want to believe they've decide things on their own, that while it may be true of others it's not true of them, etc.
Quoting Isaac
But I haven't once said that. It's not simply that they "disagree with me." Nor can I ever say for certain what their intuitions or motives are -- what I care about is actions, decisions, and evidence. As I said before -- I think you, and many others I disagree with, are sincere people. I'm sure you think the same about many creationists or 9/11 truthers despite disagreeing with them.
But in the same way we shouldn't be shocked that those counties that voted for Trump are more likely to be unvaccinated, or that someone from India is more likely to be Hindu than Christian, or that someone who says the Bible is the inerrant and literal word of god believes the earth is 6,000 years old -- I don't think it's much of a stretch to say those who are pushing against mandates or who are "questioning" government or "critical" of vaccines are doing so largely because this issue has become politicized. Why? Because it's clear it has been politicized, for one thing -- plenty of data about that. Secondly, because vaccine mandates have been around for decades.
When something like vaccines and mandatory vaccination -- or any other phenomenon that's been around for decades -- suddenly becomes "controversial," we have to start asking "Why now?" We can engage with people who have questions and go through the arguments and debate the data and all of that as well, if we want to. But it should be fairly obvious something else is happening here. If you can't see that in this case, or feel it's an exception, or believe it's truly just good faith "skepticism," and not manufactured or motivated by political ideology, then perhaps we have to agree to disagree.
I asked for your economic claims -- I don't see the relevance of the first link, and certainly not for the second. If you're really getting your climate change information from Lomborg, you might as well go to Prager University.
That's one post. Keep counting.
Quoting Isaac
I have already. Not to your personal satisfaction of course but that would be impossible.
Meanwhile, there's a public crisis, where the pathogen isn't really bad, just bad enough, this time around, and doing the right thing generally is socially dependent.
So, now what? Do the right thing (like help stomping the pathogen down)? Cancel membership of society? Something else?
(There are scores of mad/ideological anti-vaxxeries out there, spreading and lapping up dis/mal/misinformation/bullshit; probably best to distance from those.)
Not wrong, no. It's about having reasons, not proving beyond doubt that those reasons are true.
If a 'climate scientist' is being paid by the oil industry, that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a holocaust denier consistently views ambiguous evidence in favour of the Nazis and against the Jews. that's a reason to disregard his conclusions. If a creationist geology professor is a life long fundamentalist Christian, that's a reason to disregard his theories about the age of the earth. They may not be affected by these conflicts and biases. I might be wrong to dismiss them. But I have good reason to.
In all these cases, the reasons precede the theories. You are doing the opposite. You're saying first that anyone whose theory is that vaccination should be restricted must hold that theory because of some bias or conflict of interest, then you go looking for what that might be. You're not first finding some bias or conflict of interest and then saying "well, we might want to take whatever they say with a pinch of salt", you're assuming there must be a bias, just because they're saying something you think is implausible.
Quoting Xtrix
Conflicts of interest are declared, usually at the bottom of the paper. Biases are an historical matter. If every paper favours one side in an ambiguous matter, that's bias. David Irving famously lost his libel case on exactly those grounds, sufficiently established for a court of law, it's not that nebulous at all and can be established. The problem I'm highlighting here is that if you establish nefarious motive from the argument's conclusion only, then you're just dogmatically dismissing anything you don't find plausible.
Quoting Xtrix
Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement?
Quoting Xtrix
Because it's a new technology, a different economic climate, a different political climate and the pharmaceutical companies have more than a tenfold increase in lobbying power since childhood vaccinations were first mooted. But in any case, I'm opposed to mandatory childhood vaccination too, always have been. It's convenient to dismiss your opponents by finding some unlikeable group who share some of their conclusions. It's just cheap shot, not worthy of a serious discussion forum.
Quoting Xtrix
If the sum total of the evidence with which you dismiss a whole slew of experts is that "vaccinations have been around for a while" then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that.
I think so too.
Quoting Isaac
Someone who holds that holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by something other than glaciers doesn't necessarily have some bias or conflict of interest -- they could be doing so because that's where the evidence has led them. Ditto with natural selection -- for example, with the ideas of punctuated equilibrium (often cited by creationists, out of context). Is Stephen Jay Gould "biased"?
No, I wouldn't say so. I would look at what they have to say, check out what other experts think about the proposals and theories, etc.
If someone holds a theory that the Grand Canyon was carved out by the Genesis Flood, then we rightly dismiss them.
If someone gives a theory about vaccinations -- who is a layman -- during a time when the issue has been highly politicized, and vaccine mandates have been around for years, and who would otherwise just trust the opinions of medical experts...yeah, at that point I think we have good reason to simply say "This is coming from a place of x, not from an unbiased assessment of evidence."
Again, we'll probably have to just disagree about that. I do believe this is what you're doing and you're as unaware of it as a creationist looking at the Grand Canyon is.
Quoting Isaac
No, I'm doing exactly the first part. I'm saying we should take you with a pinch of salt -- despite the fact that you could be the rare exception. But I've ALSO engaged with you many times on this issue, and so far I've seen a lot of smoke being blown. If all you're arguing for is a nuanced and careful approach to vaccines -- fine, we agree. Just say that. I find it more likely that you just like attempting to poke holes in what you consider "pro-vaccine dogma" -- and are doing so very poorly.
Quoting Isaac
So we'd be wrong to attribute any "nefarious motive" to the conclusion that the earth is 6,000 years old and the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood? Knowing nothing else about the person, of course -- just that conclusion alone. Is that wrong? No, I don't think so. I think the conclusion gives away the bias and the motive, to a degree.
I'm not saying your case is as cut and dry as creationists. If you told me, for example, that you've been protesting or arguing against the use of vaccine mandates for years, then that would separate you from most people arguing against mandates today -- although I still would think you're wrong.
Quoting Isaac
I don't. But in this case, I think it's being brought out by anti-vaxxers, not "pro-vaxxers." During the Scopes Monkey trial or the controversy about teaching "Intelligent Design" in schools, biologists and other experts had to come out and "debate" the issue, in the latter case in court. They were just effected by the polarization and politicization as well. Climate change has been politicized as well -- and many on the side of scientists don't know a thing about it, despite being what I would say is the "right side."
The reason I engage with anti-vaccine nonsense, and mostly ignore creationists and holocaust deniers and flat earthers, is because I do consider this a time when it matters. It's important. I've known of the anti-vax movement for years and don't engage with them. But this is a special case. So I'm part of the conversation as well. But I feel it's only honest if I say what I really feel about it -- that it's on par with these other "debates" as well.
I do tend to "align" with science and medicine, yes. I align with the consensus of biologists that we evolved. I align with epidemiologist and virologists and doctors that vaccinations are safe and effective and that people should get them. I align with the vast number of historians that talk about the holocaust. If this is me being "political," fine. Consider my political party that of science. True, it can sometimes seem as dogmatic as religion. But it's the best we have. These conflicts are all, ultimately, about what we want to believe running up against facts and evidence and expertise and consensus -- and science.
I choose the latter.
It's really not new technology. But even if it were, this excuse can be used at any time. The polio vaccine was "new" technology, too, after all.
A different economic and political climate is like saying we're in a certain point in history. No kidding. compared to what?
Big Pharma has lobbying power for all tax breaks, subsidies, etc. That has nothing to do with whether aspirin is safe and effective. There are instances where perhaps they rush things and sneak things by the FDA, that eventually need to be pulled from the shelves. If you think the COVID vaccines -- the most widely watched in world history -- are in this camp, you're just off in space.
But anyway -- I figured you'd have some reason to believe it's "different" this time. You say you're against and always have been against mandatory school vaccinations. That pretty much sums it up for me.
Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. I'll repeat that over and over again. Thus, mandates are necessary if people aren't voluntarily getting them. You have no right to harm others. Stay home from school or quit your job.
If it were up to you and your ilk, we would have never eradicated the diseases we have. This is why the anti-vaxxer movement is so dangerous. All in the name of "freedom," of course.
It would do us all well to ask: Where did this anti-vax bullshit come from? The answer is that there was a paper published in 1998 that apparently linked autism with vaccines. That was later debunked. But the hysteria stuck around. Enter social media, and here we are today.
But of course it's "different" this time -- we're not anti-vaxxers. Likewise, we're not conspiracy theories or climate deniers -- we just don't want to do anything about climate change.
By citing one post. Keep counting.
Yes. That one. But why would I do what you think is the right thing? Would you do what I think is the right thing?
Quoting jorndoe
Weren't we just talking about stepping up and doing the right thing? Now you think I should be more concerned about my public image?
The rest, your bad faith, your odd obsession about perpetual movement... oh sorry, it was about vaccines, right? It doesn't matter.
Yep. I agree with you on that one.
Quoting Xtrix
How have you done the first part? How have you determined the presence of a conflict of interest or history of bias with me, you've not read any of my work.
Quoting Xtrix
No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it.
Quoting Xtrix
No, but those matters are well established, so grand claims need grand evidence. The claim that we didn't ought to mandate vaccines or that not everyone needs vaccinating is not remotely grand, it's quite an ordinary position, even if an unpopular one. It's nothing like invoking supernatural beings to create geographical features. It's just daft to suggest it is.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. And the same would be true then.
Quoting Xtrix
Yep. And we've already agreed on that. It's not the issue here. The question here is whether that fact is sufficient justification for mandates, whether it's sufficient justification for administering vaccines to low risk groups, whether it's sufficient justification for focussing on vaccination to the exclusion of other health policies...
Politically, it will probably not be viable before a long time, although I wish to think frugality as a way of life is making progress in 'western' cultures.
I don't know how it is viable, but I do know continued growth is not. Hopefully a solution will present itself.
Quoting I like sushi
Burning more coal and gas is indeed the most likely near future scenario. Transition to green technologies cannot be achieved overnight. And there is probably a lot of fudging of the figures in claims to have achieved "net zero emissions". What we will be doing by burning more coal and gas is not protecting the ecology of the planet, quite the opposite, we will be attempting to protecting our prosperity, comfort and convenience; our current lifestyle to which we feel entitled, and we will be attempting to bring billions of others up to our level of prosperity, all to the detriment of the ecology of the planet and our long-term well-being.
What will happen is what will happen, unfortunately; there is no halting the juggernaut. The idea that we are in control of our destinies is absurd. What we should be doing is putting all our energy into trying to use less resources individually, to transition to non-growth economies, to genuinely non-carbon polluting energy technologies; but I believe that in order to do that we would need to accept a fairly reduced level of prosperity, comfort and convenience. Do we have the collective will? Only time will tell..
There are allowed exceptions, and not every company is handling it the same way. Some allow for regular testing, etc. That's what I mean by nuanced. Remember these mandates are coming after months of allowing it be voluntary. There were too many holdouts, for mostly irrational reasons, and so now it's time for mandates. Seems reasonable to me. Quit your job and keep your kid out of school if you can't bring yourself to take a simple jab in the arm.
The fault is ultimately on social media, the ambiguous approach of Donald Trump and Republicans, and their media, and the 20+ year growth of the anti-vax movement.
Quoting Isaac
Belief in UFOs and 9/11 as an "inside job" are also "quite ordinary" positions.
Vaccines, their safety and efficacy -- as well as vaccine mandates -- have all been well established and around for decades. There does indeed require "grand evidence" to justify the sudden wave of resistance. No justification has been given beyond conspiracy theories and misunderstanding data.
Quoting Isaac
From same source: "Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades."
Quoting Isaac
So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?
Quoting Isaac
To the first question, I think the jury is in: yes, it is sufficient to mandate safe, effective vaccines during a pandemic, that protect others, slow the spread, and get our lives and economy back on track after 9 months of refusal from a significant portion of the population.
Low risk groups -- yes, I'm also low risk. It's not about *me*. Whether you're low risk or not, you can still contract and spread the virus.
I think there should be other health policies as well -- hand washing, mask wearing, social distancing, frequent testing, etc. To say nothing about the general health of our population -- their diets, the lack of exercise, etc. Vaccines should be a major part of an overall project.
But don't take my word for it. Take it up with the medical establishment and present them your theories.
https://www.npr.org/2021/10/17/1046598351/the-political-fight-over-vaccine-mandates-deepens-despite-their-effectiveness
By that I assume you mean you didn’t listen to what he says, ignored the data he presented and assume he’s a crackpot?
Note: He agrees with the data about how to deal with climate change NOT the politics. Sounds fine to me.
I'm not saying these things are not worth investing in but I agree with the analysis of many (including Lomborg) when it comes to finding better solutions. The issue is the innovation comes from those that can afford to pay for it and those people are often viewed with contempt by middling income populations.
The cheaper the fuel the quicker the poor can benefit (as energy is huge issue). China will shift to more to nuclear power and hopefully make some innovations in this area that make it more affordable for other countries too.
If you look at the link I gave (gapminder) you can play around with some of the stats to see how some trends relate to each other. The singular most obvious one is that when GDP goes up so does healthcare and education, whilst population growth declines. If the primary issue is the number of people in your mind then getting people out of poverty is the way to do it (the data we have on this is pretty solid).
Note: There are numerous qualified people who openly state that a lot of the media coverage around this subject is hyperbolic but NONE of them deny the problem exists. The backlash they get is usually along the lines of 'pseudoscience' but generally they are just ignored because it doesn't suit the story some want to portray. Solar has made strides mainly thanks to multimillionaires (not government funding) but even they are quite aware (because it is their business) that some renewable avenues are nowhere near enough atm. Elon Musk knows that solar and wind power are not particularly useful in their current or near-future states.
There are some projects ongoing that could solve the energy issue (note: the term 'private'):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoZ9wGtruEU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TceN_hOWhMY
In reality these are long term solutions. The current issue is making more efficient (effectively cleaner and more affordable) nuclear power stations and more efficient coal and gas power stations.
The reality is also that these things are being looked into and invested in. The reality is also that the media and political circles are more focused on negative news (as always) because just like those investing in the areas mentioned they are out to serve their own purposes. Sadly their purpose is to sell 'ideas' and 'stories' that satisfy the consumer (and the consumer wants drama and crisis rather than innovation and optimism).
Humans are quite strange creatures. There is a weird balance between our inability to think on larger scales (underestimation when it comes to exponential growth), inbuilt 'bias' (we adjust our opinions that skew to our beliefs rather than those that don't) and the ability to attempt the so-called 'impossible' either out of stupidity or overambition (and break the rules of what is and isn't considered 'impossible').
We cannot eradicate our 'flaws' but we can reimagine them and turn them into tools to guide us. People in severe poverty are screwed because they cannot afford to spend their time with any concerns other than what is directly effecting them from moment to moment and because they likely lack a decent education.
Studies in Kerala showed a lot of promise in the effects of education young women. If we wish to reduce population growth then educating young women is the most effective way to do this. Of course there are still what some would consider unforeseen problems that arise from such rapid societal shifts:
https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/3053/wp341.pdf?sequence=1
I happen to be in the privileged position to have the time and energy to research numerous topics that interest me. I know most people don't and this is an issue of managing information - the economics of information (which is why this thread is interesting).
The most mind blowing thing to occur in our life times is not the computer or the internet. It is CRISPR ... it's not just that this technology has endless potential it is that it is incredibly cheap to boot! The answers to the climate problem will (in my mind) undoubtedly be littered with uses of CRISPR technology (be this is livestock alterations or through human alteration). With such world changing technologies comes a whole new swathe of problems and conjectures too.
Climate change doesn't really worry much tbh. Not that I think it is a trivial matter either.
Right, ideology.
Quoting Isaac
Select opinions. Means to an ideological end.
Then why is he promoting battery-powered cars? If batteries are charged using fossil fuel derived energy they would be, due to efficiency losses at every stage, less green that fossil-fuel powered cars.
Also, nuclear energy is arguable undesirable as it is dangerous on account of the more enriched uranium you have the more potential there is for more nuclear weapons, and waste disposal is an
unsolved issue.
Also decline in reproduction rates due to increased prosperity will arguably be too little too late, even if the prediction panned out, which it may not In different cultures, places and circumstances.
I think the most likely scenario is that we will continue to use fossil fuels, and if it is viable, wind and solar along with perhaps hydrogen will gradually replace their use. What we should be doing is scrapping all privately owned cars that are not needed for practical purposes (trades, transport, agriculture etc), using public transport and electric powered bicycles, turning all the lights out at night, and adopting any measure we can, fuck the inconvenience, to reduce fossil fuel use; but I won't hold my breath expecting it to happen.
We may be lucky enough that there will be some super viable technological breakthrough in either cheap energy production or carbon sequestration, but we would be fools to depend on it.
You seem to have bought into the fantasy of scientism, but you're by no means unique in that. I don't share your optimism, but then I also think that, if there is to be any solution, it will have to come from science, because very few will be willing to downscale their lifestyles.
Here's an example that horrified me, a few months ago I think it was.
The US Census Bureau had finally released some results, late. There had been a lot of concern about the potential of (another) minority undercount, because of the pandemic, funding and operational issues, various sorts of political interference in the process like the public debate over the citizenship question, and so on. The results showed a perfectly predictable decline in the "non-Hispanic white" percentage of the total population, in line with all other recent results.
The day these numbers were released, I heard a discussion on the radio in which a 'journalist' was asked for her reaction to the news and she said, "I was surprised that the census was so accurate." "Accurate" was her word. "Accurate."
I have a lot of respect for the statisticians at the US Census Bureau. It's my understanding that enormous amounts of social science and political analysis relies directly or indirectly on their products. As near as I can tell, their work is the gold standard. They were months late, needing extensions, to produce their report, and this 'journalist' glanced at a top-line summary, saw that it included the numbers she wanted to see, and immediately pronounced it "accurate".
I don't know how to react to that except with contempt and disgust.
He invests in everything I mentioned because he is looking at both short term and long term action as far as I can tell. Some will pay off more than others. The primary point I was making was that it is nonsensical to invest ALL money in an area that doesn't look to make any drastic changes unless it helps both long term and short term. Hence there needs to be, and actually is, a careful gamble on what currently help[s and what could help in the future.
Elon Musk main contribution is going to Mars and batteries. His view, last I heard, was to harness solar power by way of storing the power effectively. Investment in solar tech has made it more affordable for many (in fact I can see them lookin gout of my window right now). The reason people buy them is because it saves them money not because it saves the environment (trust me people in the country I reside are really not all that interested in the effects of global warming even though it has been effecting the farming industry due to salt water inundating fields).
Nuclear power is undoubtedly the best short term solution BUT the issue is that is it too costly. It is clean energy and has no carbon emissions (which we know is a major cause of current global warming trends). Luckily other countries are investing in creating the next generation nuclear power plants because they are concerned enough to realise that switching from coal power stations is needed (solar and wind are nowhere near replacing coal power). Gas is far better than coal too so more efficient gas power makes sense and it's cost coming down will help poor people out and reduce population growth. Of course I'm drastically oversimplifying this but it is no more oversimplified that stating that reducing carbon emissions will help lower the rate of global warming. The complexity comes with weighing and balancing what can be done and what is most cost effective (the later cannot be ignored!).
Too little too late? We're not all going to die out. We are a species that is highly adjustable and at every point in our history the doom and gloom has not turned out to be such a problem when innovation helps staves off the doomsday scenarios repeatedly forecast. If you call this 'scientism' and can only ask where you draw the line. I'm not denying there are problems but I am denying there is any one fix to these issues. As for CRIPSR you'll see the effects and controversy start to rise over the next decade or two.
Quoting Janus
I don't wish to sound patronising here but I need to highlight this. This is the typical attitude of western living. In the parts of the world that matter people cannot CHOOSE between private and public transportation because they reside in countries that are too poor to accommodate this option.
In terms of in the west this is more viable but people won't do it so you need to provide private and cleaner transportation methods. For some (very few in global terms) it is an 'inconvenience' whereas elsewhere such things are a necessity of mere survival.
So yes, coal replaced in more economically developed countries sooner rather than later (yet no nuclear power stations on the horizon in terms of innovation or construction), whilst the other growing economies are responding by investing in nuclear power and using cheaper methods of energy extraction. To be fair Fracking has made a drastic reduction in gas costs and helped lessen the cost of living for many - again though hyperbolic media coverage and do-gooders have not promoted this venture just like they don't promote nuclear power (which is WAY better than solar and wind in term of energy production and could be much better with some innovation).
Quoting Janus
It won't be 'luck'. Governments, and private developers, are actively investing in these areas (in the west it is more down to private ventures it seems) so they will happen. In some cases massive amounts of resources will be used with no real pay off. In other cases it will pay off. It will pay off for nuclear power I reckon because the stations current designs are pretty bad (the next generation will improve matters).
Quoting Janus
I live by the code 'expect the worse and hope for the best'. I'm fairly aware of my own stupidity and other people's. I don't need to look at the negative aspects of life and the future because I expect them to happen all the time. I'm more fascinated by things than concerned about my or anyone else's so-called mortality.
I think I am correct in stating that better communication and cooperation across the board is something we should probably attend to more is reasonable enough. Beyond that I'm not in much of a position to say what should be done and only express what can be done and consider - with as little bias as possible - what the benefits and detriment of each options are and how they effect each other and how seemingly extrinsic factors might get tangled up in this too.
Hence, poverty is a big issue when it comes to climate change as it effects health, education, economy (basically energy production and use), population and the political mood. These are all fractured into different areas around the globe and reasonable and measured communication could do a lot to reduce hyperbole and get to the heart of what works rather than what seems like a good idea but is actually not tenable at the moment. That is why I don't see halting economic growth as anything like a viable plan in the near future (within this century) as it would effectively pin a large proportion of the Earth's human population in poverty for 'eternity'. I'm sure there are ideas about how it could work and reduce poverty and I'm all ears to hearing about that if you have any articles/ideas on this subject to share.
Once you come to understand that much or most of what people believe is a matter of psychology, which is to say, that beliefs, in general, are more influenced by things other than epistemology. Even people who are well trained in epistemology are quite susceptible to the power of psychological influences on their beliefs (their politics, their religious views, their friends, their family, the influence of their peers, etc.).
So, my point is that the subject of beliefs is much more complicated than you realize, including your own beliefs. Many philosophers can't even agree on what's good epistemology. If they can't agree, then how's the ordinary person trying to live their lives going to have any epistemic responsibility that's coherent. Most people have just enough understanding to live their lives and that's about it.
Quoting Xtrix
This is not a Gallup poll. I don't think anyone on this site (and I suspect anyone within a twenty mile radius of you) is in any doubt as to what you think. The question is whether your assumption about the motives of anyone who doesn't think what you think is justified.
Quoting Xtrix
They're not my theories and I don't need to present them to the medical establishment. There are already hundreds of experts in the medical establishment who believe them - that's who I've been citing.
If you just want to engage in the same mud-slinging Olivier started then I'm not interested. If you think I've proposed a theory that is not supported by experts in the medical establishment then quote me and I can provide the relevant support.
Quoting Xtrix
You do realise that the UK has never had childhood vaccine mandates? Are you seriously suggesting that the whole of UK public health policy is akin to belief in UFOs or 9/11 'truthing', requiring some 'grand evidence' it currently lacks?
The official UK Government Position is
In fact the UK has never had mandatory vaccines without 'objector' clauses.
In the Lancet...
Quoting https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(15)00156-5/fulltext
From the BMJ regarding healthcare professionals...
Is your argument that the health services in several major countries, the Lancet and the BMJ are touting a theory which is on a par with UFOs?
Quoting Xtrix
Yep. As I said before...
Quoting Isaac
Scientists have been "studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades" because they couldn't get the damn thing to work without nasty side effects. That they now can is new technology.
Quoting Xtrix
Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'.
Seems like you've just fallen back on your characteristic confusion of 'things you think' and 'things which are actually the case'. I can draw a diagram if you like...
This is so reassuring!
Not. Past a certain level of climatic stress, there will be a collapse of society in many places, and research will collapse too.
Yes to that.
Quoting jorndoe
So are we all ideologically driven. Or is it just conclusions opposed to yours?
[img]https://d1mxm3s28igxxe.cloudfront.net/480x480wp/60472cabafbd7944650563.webp
[/img]
Appropriate reaction, I think. It's a problem on both sides of the debate, and I don't think I'm just being nostalgic in saying it didn't used to be. It's funny, working in psychology, we responded to the replication crisis quite well I think (after a period of bristling at the temerity!), there was a movement, with some strong support to take considerable steps not to p-hack, not to overreach on low powered trials... I moved to pre-prints and eventually to using a full pre-print service for papers. Now it's like the wind has been taken out of those sails and the rest of pop-science has looked at the old habits of psychology and thought "we'll have a bit of that". I really felt like we were getting somewhere, but then it all just fizzled out (round about the time social media took off...), it's one of the reasons I quit academia for the consultancy gigs.
Now it's ten times worse. It's all about 'the message' and hang the rest. I don't know why we bothered.
If I come across bitter and resentful, it's because I am.
Did I start it, really? I recall that you accused untold numbers of non-descript people of being criminals and profiteers, among the many many insults you keep dishing out here.
I was only pointing out at the obvious fact that not every body argues in good faith. I even said that everyone of us once in a while argues in bad faith. You insisted on making it all about you you you.
Quoting Xtrix
And the antivaxxers, provaxxers, flat earthers, round earthers(?), Democrats, Conservatives, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and everyone else nodded in agreement. And all facepalmed when seeing the idiots do so too.
Because you say so or because this is your dream? Or are you just stating the obvious for no apparent reason. You do understand that the targets already in place are just pointless political posturing without any real intent other than to quell the masses? This is because money is a dirty word now and no matter who states that global warming can only be resolved by economics no one wants to listen because to say that is to say to the general public 'rich is good and capitalism will save us' ... that is all it seems people hear when that is NOT what is being said.
The crux is the poorest need cheap energy. The more they get the less poor they will be and the more able they'll be to switch to more costly/efficient long term ways of consuming energy.
Another issue attached to this is food production and ideas of going vegan. There are professors at the height of the field who point out that meat production is perfectly viable and more environmentally friendly in many areas compared to soybean and other crops. The big issue is people are scared of 'GM foods' and make the whole industry less safe and more costly for everyone in terms of the monetary cost and the environmental cost (aka the ECONOMIC COST).
I'm not angry about this. It is just the way humans operate. It can be overcome with education to some degree ... and again we're back to square one with poverty preventing this. I'd say whatshisface who wrote the pop science books abut human history gets one thing spot on. We're led by 'stories' and currently this is a problem due to the way in which we're communicating - or rather 'trying' to communicate in the face of new technologies.
Nothing about this is simple. The only certainty I see in all of this is that humanity could probably do a lot more to be a lot more efficient in many different areas. The biggest issue we seem to have is our inability to abstract exponential growth. Our brains are just not currently constructed to deal with the kind of scales we are grasping at.
That is likely because you know you can do the same without knowing and probably have. It is disturbing to understand this fully but once you can kind of accept it (although I don't mean do nothing about it) then there is a hope.
I believe, in my biased mind, that if I can do my utmost to guard against falling into this trap (even though I will) then it will have a knock-on effect. I might be wrong but it's a bias that doesn't seem to have too many obvious draw backs atm :D
Because it stands to reason, I believe. There's no reason to assume as you do that future research findings will save us from an increasingly aggressive climate. In fact there's good reason to believe funding for such research will be diverted to more pressing needs as emergencies start to pile up.
Quoting I like sushi
Nope, I don't understand that.
Quoting I like sushi
I am unaware of the precise argument being made here. I find the idea that more GG emissions would be desirable to mitigate climate change a bit counter-intuitive. And it relies on many unproven assumptions. It could be just another smokescreen paid for by the oil industry. There's been many of those.
Rich people will be by and large okay, comparatively, or so they think, which gives them limited incentive to act. The poor will die first.
Quoting I like sushi
It would take a massive paradigm shift away from 'more stuff' and towards 'better life'. A lot of people feel insecure about this because 'more stuff' gives them a simple metric of success and validation: how much money they make, how big their house or their car is, etc. But how does one measure quality of life?
It is a problem in and of itself trying to get people to look beyond their own doorstep. There is no kind of blind assumption that population growth decreases with wealth. This happens everywhere. The amount of energy needed will continue to increase as the population swells and the population will swell as the number of people in poverty increases. It is a vicious circle. The best way to break the cycle is to get as many people out of poverty as possible. Then we're in a better position to directly address the next steps of the process.
In the meantime cheaper fuel is the only realistic way of getting people out of poverty - by innovating more efficient coal power stations and gas power stations, whilst furthering research and development into nuclear power (which is NOT a solution but one step towards helping in a way much more significant than current renewables (ie. wind and solar).
These things are already happening but sadly the political scene is swept up in a frenzy of clueless individuals ranting about the end of the world and misrepresenting numerous data sets simply because they fit into their narratives. It has gotten so bad with the current media channels that where the ignorance was mainly on the side of those that are not in a position to be very well educated about matters as this now it has seriously infected those that should really know better (have some 'epistemic responsibility').
Quoting Olivier5
Of course. The alternative is it's already out of our hands though. That seems to be pretty clear. Events in the past have led to innovation where people presented doom and gloom scenarios. Crops were modified, immunisations got rid of diseases and we're not far off landing people on Mars.
Stating this isn't the same as saying 'don't worry about it'. I'm just saying things are not as bad as they seem half of the time but that doesn't mean we should worry and plan ... meaning it is better to PLAN then worry. The hysteria surrounding this topic is a detriment to making and understanding a reasonable course of action that can be implemented and adjusted when mistakes are made (which they will be) and/or new data presents itself (which it will).
Talk of 'the end of research' is the kind of hysteria I mean btw ;)
That makes no sense. Most GG gas emissions are from China, the US and Europe that have already went through their demographic transition. Those rich nations, not currently in demographic growth, are the main cause of the problem. And will remain so for decades. African countries who ARE currently undergoing rapid growth, consume a minute fraction of global fossil fuels production. Their demographic growth is not affecting the climate at all.
In short, no direct link exists between CC and demographic growth in developing countries. They might start to contribute to CC in the distant future, once we're all going to cook already.
Quoting I like sushi
And yet:
Quoting I like sushi
Agreed! I find I sometimes have to point this out to people who point to the replication crisis as more evidence that science is bullshit. It's more evidence, not less, that science is, at least, intended to be a self-correcting communal enterprise. That is its great value, not the supposed "scientific method".
One particularly nice example of this is "the blowback effect" that was very widely reported because it provides an all-too-neat explanation for the entrenchment of people's political views. Unfortunately the original study failed replication. I heard the principal author interviewed and he laughed, well, I have a choice now, don't I? I can retrench or I can admit that their study was a lot better than mine, so yeah, there is no evidence of a "blowback effect".
There are mantras of the programming community we might learn from:
1. There are only two kinds of programs: those so simple they obviously have no mistakes, and those so complex they have no obvious mistakes.
2. If you write a program as cleverly as you can, then, by definition, you are not smart enough to debug it.
I have come to believe that my fascination with formal methods in philosophy is, in part, a flight from the responsibility of thinking, a desire to be able to build a machine that answers will fall out of. On the other hand, the motivation for thinking in small, simple, verifiable steps is itself honorable, and to some degree a bulwark against nonsense. (This is one of those things the fellow next door, who thinks logic might be evil, doesn't get.)
, cognitive biases and such — they come to the fore in the public square, when exchanging ideas, arguments, and such — don't want to transfer those as well.
I know. China is looking into nuclear innovations.
Quoting I like sushi
For Africa and Asia it will continue to swell. For everywhere else not a great deal. Population stability comes through decreasing poverty. Energy consumption is a primary marker of poverty.
Energy consumption in a country (per person) is generally higher the higher the GDP. This is why I'm saying we want more consumption in poorer regions. Severe poverty barely exists in western countries anymore and China has literally gone from mass poverty to almost none overnight. Hopefully Africa will do the same too BUT this means more energy consumption.
The issue is not IF we should use more energy but HOW we source this energy. Solar is a possibility for Africa perhaps but for many other places relying on the weather isn't very practical. Innovations in new materials for insulation is one more step. There are many possibilities to use energy more efficiently tha go beyond mere production.
If (as Janus said) population increase is the main concern then decrease poverty curbs this dramatically - this is quite obvious in the US and Europe where the population is falling or only slightly increasing.
Quoting Olivier5
Yes. But if the aim is to reduce population growth then it is to Africa and Asia the focus needs to go. To stabilise the population it needs to go up up up NOT down. They will use more energy if they want to get out of poverty (it is necessary). To get out of poverty the cheapest sources of energy are what they'll look for.
It does sound counter intuitive to suggest that having more children will stop population growth.
I clearly don't have any solution to any of this (who does). My point was, and is, stopping economic growth means holding people back. It would not prevent population growth. To stop population growth the population has to rise as quickly as possible. Too many people is not an issue, the issue will be not enough energy resulting in more apocalyptic scenarios that will overshadow any climate change (barring a meteor strike).
In the western world there is more concern about 'super rich' people avoiding taxes and pointing at their carbon footprints than there is for looking at actual practical long term solutions to dealing with climate change. Personally I'm more concerned with the destruction of natural habitats but that has more to do with poverty than carbon emissions so my bias lies there more than anywhere thinking about it.
That's fair.
Quoting I like sushi
The main problem causing CC is not population growth, as I see it, but the emission of massive amounts of greenhouse gazes by developed countries.
Quoting I like sushi
Climate change is also impacting natural habitats.
This has infected how governments respond too. This is clear in the whole Covid reaction too. At first no one cared and now they all care WAY too much after the main fear has mostly subsided (ie. developing a vaccine). Now we're gaping into a chasm of increased poverty and less reason to be concerned about the environment.
We can at least SEE the effect of a halting economy on a global scale and have a better idea of the kind of impact it would have ... although the fallout for the poorest will probably not be appreciated fully for a generation or two yet.
I just hope for, but don't expect, people to actually start learning to resist calling each other 'stupid' or boxing them up in a package of some ism so as not to listen to them anymore. I don't ever expect to get there myself fully I just hope to improve, adjust and try and be true to what I think rather than worry to much about what others think and do. The age old 'live by being an example' but constantly failing :D
Lomborg is the guy the WSJ climate deniers and every other person who doesn’t want to appear ridiculous cites as a source. I’m very familiar with him, yes.
He’s been thoroughly debunked over and over again. He’s not a climate scientist. What he’s doing, as has been pointed out many times, is basically saying we should do nothing about climate change because there are bigger problems out there, and that the solutions proposed will do very little or be harmful to the goal of lowering emissions.
If you want to throw in with that, that’s very revealing, yes. You’re welcome to. I’ll go with the overwhelming scientific consensus from actual climate scientists.
Reviews, by scientists, of Lomborg’s books:
https://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/a-closer-examination-of-the-fantastical-numbers-in-bjorn-lomborgs-new-book/
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist
I’ll repeat: vaccine mandates have been around for decades — at schools and many workplaces. The sudden resistance to them is due to politicization and the anti-vax movement, of which you’re caught up in — which is why you’re arguing against mandates.
Also, as you know I live in the United States, not the UK.
Quoting Isaac
It’s not new technology.
Quoting Isaac
So you mention newness because you want to highlight the risks, despite acknowledging that they’re safe. Do I have that right?
There's too many pieces: how do you deal with people in developing countries, such as were I am at, while telling them that "personal responsibility" is important for climate change? It is but it is not. If we ALL stopped using plastic and oil, then yes, we will reduce emissions. But on a person to person basis, the way a part of environmental movement is moving (mostly, though not exclusively, the corporate sector), does virtually nothing.
Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. It will be resisted and implementing these changes is a phenomenal challenge. But I don't know how to tell a poor person that they can't eventually live a semi-decent life, because we can't use oil anymore. Yes, in a couple of decades, life will be insanely hard to live in, some places being unlivable. But what matters for them is now.
So yes, there are solutions. But even among the people there are so many "guilt shaming" or whatever, that makes this even harder: "You eat meat!" "You don't drive an electric car!" "You came by airplane" "You're using too much AC", etc.
Not to mention the need for technology which captures emissions, it no longer suffices to stop extracting, we need to remove this from the atmosphere.
Damn.
We can also see the positive impact of halting part of the economy on GG emissions and natural habitats. It gave nature a break. And perhaps that is part of the solution too, or indicative if it. We can change radically if we want to. We've proven it with COVID.
That’s exactly right. The people profiting off of destroying the environment— mostly the fossil fuel industry— have tried to suppress the data, deny, delay, and convince people that it’s their individual responsibility to recycle and use more efficient lightbulbs (in other words, more delay tactics).
Now companies admit there’s a serious problem, after years of denial, and you see greenwashing everywhere. That’s “progress,” I guess.
It’s a good example of epistemic responsibility. Much easier (and better for business) to simply deny the severity of this issue. Better to listen to opportunistic political scientists like Bjorn Lomborg, with his books titled “False Alarm” and the like. Much more comforting.
I've heard BOTH of these people say that climate change is a prominent risk. It is others who spin it as 'overly optimistic' or 'climate denial'.
The science is that we'll need billions and billions of solar panels to replace other sources (not that I am saying that is the plan). Solar is something that should be used more widely in richer countries for sure! Wind power is currently more viable I think, but not everywhere is great for it.
I listen to what people say I don't just dismiss everyone as a lunatic even if I think they are WAY off mark. I look to see what is a reasonable mistake to make and what isn't.
Small things do count. We can individually make small steps. Really though I am COMPLETELY pessimistic about what will happen but I hope for the best. That said I don't believe in acting like the sky is going to fall on us either.
Nothing comes for free. Humanity has taken massive strides and we're going to have to pay for it one way or another (as is always the case). I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others as the brief uplifting feeling you get will have to be paid for by everyone else trying to build bridges rather than walls.
There are good people in positions of power trying to make a difference. They will fuck up. They will make the right call for the wrong reasons, or the wrong call for the right reasons.
My general view of humanity is we don't think we react. If we see a fire in the garden we grab and it and bring it into our house to figure out how to put it out. Sometimes the house catches fire and sometimes we get lucky and realise how lucky we were after the matter of fact.
I've said for years education is key ... but frankly I don't even know what that means or where to begin :D Often enough our mistakes lead to discoveries. I don't think we'll ever give up though and the further we get into this age of communication the better our chances of getting through it mostly intact.
Undoubtedly humanity has the potential to do almost everything we can imagine. We just don't tend to agree about how to go about it though or what is most important.
Yes. I mean, realistically, this shit is going to hit the fan. We've waited for too long now. It's already hitting it, in slow volumes so to speak.
My guess is, it'll get worse every decade until a lot of people die.
Then, it will get worse still for a few thousand years, while that gigantic screw slowly comes to a halt.
Then it might get better.
Yupee.
And this was because of an active campaign of disinformation, mainly targeted at the US, and paid for by big fossil fuel interest. Their messages were diverse, changing and incoherent but they spent a lot of money on spreading them, including through social media.
It is important to not be naive about this. Bad faith, artificial mistrusts and lies are usually not coming from nowhere, or just from some crackpot or another. Sometime they are paid for by a competitor to the product, project or person being bashed.
Arguments in bad faith, such as those usually promoted by CC deniers, can make some people rich, while hurting others. It's not a joke, it's a con. And if you propagate their lies, you're their victim, and you can make other victims.
So coming back to the OP, we can have whatever opinion we fancy having on anything, I would say, but we do have a moral responsibility in trying to filter out such paid-for influence from our sources, our thinking and our own communication. Don't be a sucker.
Obviously the point is profit. But an "externality", as it were, is to make even more people aware that there's a problem with climate, which is being recognized by more and more people. It's a kind of disingenuous epistemic model, but not totally absent in content.
Heck, if there were a law that forced, say 10% of profits of big companies, to go directly to climate issues, instead of very marginally (sometimes) useful charity work, this would pave the way for new technology to come along and absorb emissions, which would be good.
But without inter-nation state cooperation, this just won't be possible, I don't think. But how to get the science through to people who are skeptical - not even considering deniers - is quite the challenge.
I'm not familiar with his views on climate change, although from what I've read he does seem in the same group as a Stephen Pinker, who I otherwise greatly admire and respect. I hope they're right in their optimism.
Quoting I like sushi
Yes, "others" in this case being actual climate scientists. I should say: it's not strictly "climate denial," so I retract that. It's a new tactic: delay. They say it's not so bad -- or if it is, there's little we can do about it -- or, as in the case of Lomborg, even if we do things about it, it won't have any significant impact and so we might as well turn to treating tuberculosis and other more pressing issues.
Again -- why this is the first thing you cite is very telling. Not NASA, not NOAA, not the IPCC, not the Royal Society, not any climate research institution in the world -- not world-renowned climate scientists, not any credible scientific organization. No: Bjorn Lomborg, the political scientist of the Hoover Institute who writes regularly for the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal editorial page. After all, he's not as bad as those awful climate deniers.
[emphasis mine]
https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/ucs-examines-skeptical-environmentalist
Quoting I like sushi
Quoting I like sushi
Fine. I don't think Lomborg is a moron or a lunatic, and never said so. But I've looked at his work seriously and carefully, and it's incredibly misleading -- and I believe deliberately so. It sells books, and gets a lot of attention -- particularly from the political right.
I'm suggesting that we in the developed nations should scrap cars, in the third world there are not nearly so many, and many people use bicycles, small motorcycles, tuk tuks and so on for transport. Turn city lights off at night. Restrict plane travel to what is necessary; no more indulgent overseas trips for the prosperous.
All of this of course to be phased in, not instituted overnight. Not that I believe any of this will happen. We will most likely just muddle along blindly, as usual. At least it looks like wind, solar, hydrogen might be given more support than the fossil fuel industry, and hopefully some good will come out of that.
Anyway the very idea that we should be going full steam ahead with economic growth and burning fossil fuels to power it is ridiculous in my view. Given you seem to be supporting what I consider to be a absurd strategy, there is little point in me saying more than that now.
*sigh*
Make no mistake: I'm not writing this because of you or for you, but because of some other people reading this.
The sad irony is that you're manufacturing my dissent. You ascribe to me stances I don't hold, and then you argue against them, and smear my name in open forums.
When in fact there isn't much we disagree on. I can think of really just one thing we disagree on: and that is the vehemence with which scientific claims should be held and the ethical status that should be ascribed to them.
There's a pithy saying -- "A philosopher deals in expendable theories, but the religious man puts his life on the line for what he believes."
And in this case, you're like the religious man. While I think scientific claims should be held much more lightly, more cautiously, for it is in their nature to be temporary and to be replaced with newer ones, as scientific research permits.
All I ever did was call for more caution. For this, several posters immediately classed me as an anti-vaccer, as irrational, evil, and such. I'm benumbed by such a reply, I certainly didn't expect it at a philosophy forum.
I can't quite articulate my concern with this as succintly as I'd like. So, for the time being, I'll limit myself to this:
To use your example with the safety of tobacco: I don't think any smoker actually believes that tobacco is safe. Sure, when pressed, when ambushed, many smokers will say that it's harmless, or that they won't get sick from it, and such. But I think this is just the situational ego-protecting reply they give because they are pressured, and not something they really believe in. Because if you talk to those same people in a calmer hour, or listen to them otherwise, they make it clear that they know tobacco is not good for them, but that they can't quit, that it has too much power over them. And these people can also be very critical of "experts" telling them that tobacco is harmless.
I think that when it comes to many luxury products and services, notably alcohol, drugs, junk food, gambling, prostitution, people do not rely on experts, but already have formed an opinion that those things are bad -- regardless of what some expert might say. It's because those products and services have a grip on them (often, they are addictions) that people tend to have a complex, ambivalent response to them. In these cases, there is no issue of people examining evidence provided by others, such as scientists, no issue of good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence.
On the other hand, with important things such as medical procedures and medications, it's also not clear what role is played by good reasons for selecting or dismissing evidence. From what I've seen of people, it doesn't seem like they decide in medical matters based on evidence or the opinion of experts, but are, rather, guided by their medical crisis, their need, financial resources, and sometimes, coincidences. For example, I watched an interview with a woman who had cancer and underwent treatment (chemotherapy etc.). Later on, after the treatment, she said that she didn't want to know anything about the treatment while she was receiving it, but that she just went along with what her doctor told her. She said she made a deliberate effort not to research the treatment, her options, and so on; that she focused on getting better and that she had faith that being as ignorant about the treatment as possible would serve her best. I think many people are like that. Moreover, it seems doctors generally prefer that kind of patient: optimistic and obedient.
I think that if one were to start researching the evidence for and against a medical treatment, this would be an endless quest, resulting only in paralysis of analysis, and postponement or denial of treatment altogether, or undertaking it without much faith (which could jeopardize its effectiveness).
However, (esp. retrospectively) justifying ones' medical choices, is quite another matter. Such justification has much to do with giving socially desirable answers, maintaining a good self-image. If "Because I trust science" is currently the socially desirable justification, then this is the justification one gives, regardless whether one has actually acted in line with it or not.
The disagreement is in your mind, manufactured by you.
I think this is simply what happens when science is popularized into scientism and people with a plebeian spirit (are allowed to) publicly express themselves.
I'm always reminded of this:
What has changed with the coming of social media (and reality shows) is that now, more people get to express themselves in a relatively durable and wide-reaching medium. This way, the ratio between the publicly available opinions of experts and the publicly available opinions of non-experts is quite different than it used to be, say, up to 30 years ago, and it's a ratio in favor of the non-experts.
Also, we now have a culture where a person is supposed to have an opinion on just about anything and everything, lest they be considered "uninteresting", "uninformed", and thus socially less desirable.
It is the way in the internet works. I keep pointing this out to some but they seem to want to win the argument and mock others rather than do anything constructive.
I’m guilty of it myself in the past too. I’m entirely sure why it is people behave like this tbh.
I find it's far more widely spread than just online, and it existed long before the internet. People have been jumping to conclusions for millennia.
There used to be a time when this was considered primitive, but nowadays, it appears to be the norm, something positive, valuable.
The population is expanding still so we will inevitably keep using more fuel as their infrastructures improve and expand. Not doing so will effectively hold these countries down economically and they’ll exploit their natural resources in an inefficient manner. The most likely net effect then is that the amount of fossil fuels being burned isn’t going to decrease that dramatically so I, and others, simply point out that investing in research and developing technologies in this area would be a very good idea.
Whatever we do in more ‘developed’ countries will be replicated by rising nations - in food production, manufacturing and energy consumption. Saying we don’t know when we’ll develop better means of energy production is nothing like saying we don’t know how to. There are investments in these technologies but they should really be much much more. Thankfully private industry does invest in this kind of thing because governments simply don’t have the clout to do so (barring dictatorships).
With food production there is far more scaremongering involved regarding GM foods that have held us back.
Here is someone who quietly and calmly states some scientific facts regarding misconceptions: prof. David Hume - The Genes in our Food.
A lot of what he says are what most would regard as ‘the wrong approach’.
Uh huh. I presume here you're giving a demonstration of the fact that...
Quoting Olivier5
..or alternatively you could actually quote me rather than more traducing.
Quoting Olivier5
I know.
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
I'm constantly making it about me... What am I like?
Yes, exactly. Only the problem today is that the means by which that is done is being eradicated. Experts raising
As Professor Stefan Baral put it in the BMJ
Partly informing his view was an interview he had on the World Service. He mentioned the seasonality of coronavirus (suggesting that while cases would diminish over summer, they would likely surge again in autumn), and according to Baral - "After that, I got a series of warnings from professional contacts and others, asking me if I had aligned with Donald Trump,... Even the BBC producer asked me if I had aligned with Donald Trump, because I guess he had also talked about seasonality." (Coronavirus cases, of course, did dip over summer, exactly as Baral suggested - after all, he's an epidemiologist with 20 year experience of infectious disease) But he said a thing that Trump said so he must be wrong!
I don't think that Covid is the only cause, it's just one on an increasing number of issues which develop this way, where scientific conclusions are automatically assigned value (and political) positions, which, understandably, put pressure on scientists to speak out only if they're assured beforehand that they're sufficiently 'on message'.
I have a morbid fascination for this sort of development (deterioration?) which is why I'm so engaged in these discussions, I keep thinking there'll be some chink of light (gallows humour, even) in what's otherwise pretty dark. I actually find it truly scary that these kind of schoolyard social dynamics have leached into scientific debate.
You're incorrigible! The UK has never, ever, ever, had universal vaccine mandates, neither have hundreds of other countries in the world. The spectre of mandates now is absolutely not something which requires some kind of psychologising bullshit explanation in terms of politics. Gods! you really can't handle a shred of dissent from your view can you?
Quoting Xtrix
So the CDC are lying?
Quoting Xtrix
Yes.
I agree. My comments were more about someone in the fortunate position to be able to take a more distanced view of matters. Someone in the midst of a crucial decision will certainly be guided by more fast-heuristic methods than I've described, and probably not without some good cause.
Quoting baker
Yes, we're certainly seeing that. One thing that I'm finding interesting in these debates is the extent to which one side believe they align with 'the consensus of experts' when what they actually they align with is the consensus of media reports. I doubt many have even so much as even looked at the front cover of a medical journal.
I am not reposting your disgusting, creepy paranoid shit about the pharmaceutical industry, thank you very much. And you started this mud sliding against them way before I paid any attention to your sorry behavior.
I have been the one pointing out at such fake disagreement promoted here by people like you, as in this post you were quoting.
So you're vaccinated against COVID, Baker?
Because these debates have been politicized by the likes of Trump, FAUX News and co. So people now see vaccination or climate change as political issues and they get confused and angry about them. In truth they are just being manipulated by the likes of Trump. They have been lied to for so long.
I don't believe most people in a face-to-face environment would so quickly resort to oversimplifying the position of who they're talking to.
A strange comedic reference to this kind of thing is Bill Burr (or maybe someone else?) where someone complained about him and he called them up to address their issue. They were reasonable and he kind of said it was more about people wanting/needing to be heard by someone.
I think there is something to that as I do sometimes write here because I just want/hope someone will listen ... not because I think I'm write but because it seems human to act like. The stuff I write PURELY to myself is honest whilst anything in the public domain is necessarily buried under some kind of neurosis I believe.
It certainly was Bill Burr joking about how men love the interent because theyt can go back to being immature kids again where you just walk up to people and say 'I don't like your face!' without caring much about anything. To do this to someone in person would result in broken noses for a lot of people :D
Believe it or not, I do care about the accuracy of what I write, even if I don't care so much about the tone, so I'd appreciate it if you could just cite the 'mud-slinging' so that I can post a correction to it. Or are you unfamiliar with the term 'mudslinging'?
If I've said anything unfair about the pharmaceutical industry, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that.
If you don't want to see the inaccuracy corrected, then it's rather hard to believe your concern to be genuine.
Tell you what. If I've said anything unfair about you, then I'll be happy to correct it, but you do need to actually cite it in order for me to do that.
My point is that some of this disagreement is artificial, manufactured.
Someone said jokingly upthread that "it would be a nightmare if we all always agreed on everything" (I paraphrase). Hahaha good joke.
I am not particularly afraid of that ever happening... but I can't get out my mind the idea that if we could have summoned some broad political and societal agreement around climate change two decades ago, in line with the scientific consensus, we could have averted or mitigated the worst of it.
We blew that chance because of artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement.
I don't think it's appropriate to fill a public discussion with minutiae of the individuals involved, I can PM you if you're serious (though that seems unlikely). If I've said anything untrue about the pharmaceutical industry, however, that relates directly to the discussion and is relevant to anyone reading along, so if you'd care (third request now) to just cite where I've misspoken, I'll sort it out straight away.
I for one am worried of blanket accusations levelled at vast numbers of folks, and that gives me (and others) reason to mistrust you and your approach to this question as overly emotional and hate-filled.
Were you under the impression that you can mistrust others, but others cannot mistrust you?
The matter of whether I trust the pharmaceutical companies or whether you trust me is irrelevant. I don't give a shit if you trust me or not, I'm not talking about trust, I'm talking about public accusations. That's not trust it's defamation. If I've publicly said something about the pharmaceutical industry which defames them, I'd like to know what it is so that I can correct it. You know, my...
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
So which bit of any of that is actually false? I'm not, I presume, required to only write thing you agree with? We're talking about actual defamation, something has to be untrue. Simply pointing out true but negative aspects is not defamation, nor is it disgusting creepy or paranoid.
So what, in the quotes above, is false?
Why?
I didn't ask for the meaning nor for who else I could ask. I'm asking why you think my view 'paranoid'.
Where have I advocated blanket mistrust?
You will have recognized the time-honored stick and carrot approach, an excellent way to get incremental progress over time.
WTF? Do you 'encourage' people not to commit crimes by rewarding them when they don't?
Nope, you encourage them to do the right thing.
By rewarding them?
So can you give me an example from outside of the corporate world where we reward people financially for not committing crimes?
Imagine you have a donkey -- let's call it Buridan -- and Buridan doesn't want to move while you want him to come with you to the market. You can do a number of things, among which hitting it with a stick (on his rear end), showing off a delicious carrot (on his front end) or a combination of the two.
The combination of the carrot and stick, of an incentive at one end + a disincentive at the other end, is generally more effective (provides a stronger cumulative incentive) in producing from Buridan the desired behavior than just using one technique without the other.
It works also for human beings, but more metaphorically (most people are not that into actual carrots) and this, my friend, is the essence of the so-called "carrot and stick approach" to management.
It is hard to understand from your standpoint, I guess. That would be because you see these folks as inherently evil and thus the only righteous action is to punish, punish, and punish them some more...
So can you give me an example from outside of the corporate world where we reward people financially for not committing crimes?
So what's special about pharmaceutical companies that you think it's a sensible policy for them when for the rest of the population the threat of criminal prosecution is considered enough. Why do you advocate treating these corporations more favourably?
Possibly. So how do you get from there to 'anyone who disagrees with this strategy must be suffering from some mental illness'?
Because the carrot and stick strategy is balanced, effective and just, while using only the stick is imbalanced and has perverse effects. Your incapacity to understand this very simple point of pragmatic thinking stems from a dark place: the will to punish someone seen as inherently evil.
It is sinister.
I asked
Quoting Isaac
You said
Quoting Olivier5
Then explained that...
Quoting Olivier5
So anyone who disagrees that pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for making vaccines (a type of product they actually chose to make anyway) by purchasing their vaccines, is absolutist and essentialist and therefore paranoid.
This is not about balance. It's about claiming someone who doesn't agree with a very specific economic strategy you happen to prefer must be mentally ill
Yes. Good summary.
Since the vaccines are effective, it is in our short-term interest to buy them anyway. Long-term, it incentivizes pharmaceutical to produce more safe and effective vaccines in the future.
If on the other hand we say: "these people are inherently evil, hence we should not buy their safe and effective vaccines, or only buy as few of them as we possibly can", we shoot ourselves in the foot by depriving ourselves of these effective and safe vaccines, and by giving pharmaceuticals no incentives to produce more safe and effective vaccines in the future. So this would be perverse.
I can't put it in simpler words.
This is not about which strategy you advocate and why. It's about you being so utterly unable to see another perspective that you're prepared to claim anyone who disagrees with you must be mentally ill. Can you seriously not see anything wrong with that?
To be clear...
I asked
why you think my view 'paranoid'. — Isaac
You said
Because of its essentialist and absolutist angles. — Olivier5
Then explained that...
a non-absolutist (ie relativist) and non-essentialist (ie pragmatic, result-oriented) view of dishonest behaviors within pharmaceuticals would be to say something like this: "pharmaceuticals can do bad things (eg lobby for a dangerous drug) and good things (eg develop safe and effective vaccines). We should try and discourage them to do the former by using the law to its fullest extent against them when they do bad things, and also encourage them to do the latter, by purchasing their vaccines when they are safe and effective. — Olivier5
So anyone who disagrees that pharmaceutical companies should be rewarded for making vaccines (a type of product they actually chose to make anyway) by purchasing their vaccines, is absolutist and essentialist and therefore paranoid.
We're not discussing economic strategy here. We're discussing your dismissal of alternative perspectives as paranoid and crazy.
I am saying that not using an effective vaccine would be irrational, counterproductive and perverse both in long term and short term.
To be sure, you'll need to explain what exactly you mean by the "carrot and stick strategy". Reward and punishment?
In the original scenario from which the idiom comes from, a carrot on a rope was tied to a stick and the stick tied to the back of the donkey, so that the carrot was dangling in front of the donkey without the donkey ever being able to reach it. This was a strategy to get donkeys to carry and pull heavy loads: the promise of a reward. Whether the reward was ever actually delivered is questionable, as the implication is that the donkeys were stupid and did hard work even though never actually being rewarded for it.
So now it's just effective? Whatever happened to the holy mantra of "safe and effective"?
Yes, I am. Do I feel safe, do I feel protected from covid? No. I wish being vaccinated would help, but I don't have faith that it does help.
I'm also not willing to test it, such as by knowingly exposing myself to the infection.
The Janssen vaccine with which I was vaccinated was originally estimated to be 67% effective, but later, was estimated to be much less. To me, this simply isn't grounds for optimism or for thinking that the battle, much less the war is won.
Vaccination might help a bit, but I don't place faith in it. I certainly don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward it the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have.
This is a major point of disagreement between myself and them.
A poster here said that they feel safe now that they're vaccinated. How this person has come to that conclusion is not clear. Because even in the most optimistic scenario, the Pfizer vaccine is estimated to be only about 66% effective, which is quite a drop from the originally proposed 95+% . To say nothing of the side effects.
Right? So where have I suggested we shouldn't make use of the vaccine?
No. Given the side effects I experienced, no. I don't have the health and the energy to be an experimental rabbit for people who don't care whether I live or die.
If we make use of their vaccines, we have to pay them for it, thus rewarding the good work done and incentivizing the future production of safe and effective vaccines. That's agreed then?
Who told you?
Quoting Isaac
Mandates have been around for decades, without much fanfare or controversy. The reason they’re controversial now is 1) the anti-vaccine movement, starting around 1998, 2) years of right wing undermining of science, media, fact, and truth, and 3) politicization.
This is why it’s not a surprise where the unvaccinated are found: counties that voted for Donald Trump.
If this were truly an issue of evidence and truth, of good faith argument, this wouldn’t be the case. It’s politicized, pure and simple. There’s nothing “psychologizing” about it.
And yes, I’m talking about— and have been from the beginning — the United States.
Quoting Isaac
No, the CDC said just what I said: the technology has been around for decades. I’ll quote them again— from your source:
To bring up “newness,” implying they’re somehow unsafe because of their newness, is extremely misleading — and you know it.
The vaccines are safe. This has been shown repeatedly. Playing word games and making implications about their newness to embellish their risks is exactly in line with anti-vax bullshit.
The vaccines are safe and effective. Mandates are completely legal and justified— as seen from court cases— and are also effective, as we’re now seeing.
So much for all the smoke that’s been blown. But continue blowing it, by all means.
A minor disagreement, when you think of it.
We agree on that too, if you deigned to read what I said instead of rushing into accusations.
Quoting baker
Then take some responsibility and be more clear next time. I’ll do the same with my abrasiveness.
Incidentally, I never called you “evil.”
No. I don't believe such things have much to do with doubt or agreement, politicial or social or otherwise.
The simple fact is that lifestyle habits are hard to change in any significant way, even regardless of the time available, what to speak of changing them when under pressure. It's not realistic to expect that people will be able to make such significant changes. Anyone who has tried to give up smoking or junkfood knows first hand how hard it is to make significant changes in one's life. Scientists know this too. To say nothing of the difficulty of carrying out lifestyle changes that would be necessary to change the negative effect of humans on the planet.
Blaming "artificial doubt and manufactured disagreement" is just a convenient distraction.
Yeah? You think they did all this disinformation because it was not working?
Yes. So...
Quoting Isaac
Recall, I'm asking you to explain why what I've posted counts as...
Quoting Olivier5
...you're explaining why we have to pay companies for their products... the link being?
So what was so hard to understand then? What were all these "WTF" and other expressions of disbelief for, in the past dozen posts since I introduced this now seemingly agreeable idea? Why did it take you so much time to get your head around it?
No, it's a major one, given the repercussions. I don't have the kind of enthusiastic, confident, optimistic attitude toward the vaccines the way some vocal proponents of vaccination expect me to have so they have categorized me as an anti-vaccer. Some of their replies:
Quoting Hanover
Quoting James Riley
And from yourself:
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
And those are just the ones where I readily remembered the keywords.
People will say all kinds of things to protect their interests. That doesn't make it okay, but it is what people do and should be taken in consideration as such.
Why?
I'm asking you how you justify dismissing contrary opinion with you psychological be, and you said
Quoting Xtrix
So why are you talking only about the US when the question is about your justification for psychologizing your opponents. You argued that it was justified because they'd had a history of vaccine mandates and were only now kicking up a fuss, thus proving they were politicised. The relevant fact there is whether your opponents have had a history of vaccine mandates and are only now kicking up a fuss. Not you.
Quoting Xtrix
Your quote does not say "the technology has been around for decades" and I cited several experts explaining why not. Citations you completely ignored.
Quoting Xtrix
No one is arguing that.
Quoting Xtrix
The entire UK government and a large number of medical ethicists disagree, who again I cited and again you completely ignored.
But the balance of opinion is not the topic here. It's your suggestion that disagreement is so outrageous that only the politically motivated would pretend to hold such views. It's egotistical on a monumental scale to hold that your personal opinion is so right that dissent can only be seen as a Machiavellian political move.
Rather, it should be discarded as such.
Because the question was why my posts were
Quoting Isaac
I couldn't see (and still can't) what the fuck the fact that we ought to pay for the vaccines we use has got to do with answering that question.
And, of course, Mr. Wood @tim wood piling on.
No, we disagree on this matter. I never push for scientific claims the way you do.
I should not have to repeat myself over and over again, for every poster in every thread. I should not have to defend myself against wrongful accusations. I should not have to disclose sensitive medical information about myself in public forums. I should not have to accomodate other posters' uncharitable reading.
You called me irrational etc. etc.
The interests remain and it remains that people protect them.
We both know that you didn't. Right from the onset.
So if someone wants to con you a few grands, you're okay with that because he defends his interests?
We both know that I did. My turn: Fuck off, and don't mention me again. You aren't worthy.
I just answered that. It's because I was trying to read into it some relevance to the question. If I ask why my posts are crazy paranoid shit I don't immediately expect someone to start talking about the basics of market economics.
Eh? How do you figure that?
It's pointless to try to openly discuss a person's interests when the fulfillment of those very interests is at stake. It's as useless as, for example, pointing out to a private contractor building your house that he's charging too much, pocketing too much money. Of course he's going to defend his interests, and perhaps tell you that you should find someone else or sue him.
In order to make a difference to how humans impact the planet, humans would need to change their interests. But how can they be made to do that?
My point is rather that when you see some 'scientist' doubting climate change, remember that he could well be entirely paid for by some fossil fuel group or another. So we have a moral responsibility not to be a sucker, and not to relay their lies.
OK, so in your world I think we ought to just steal the vaccines from the pharmaceutical companies because they're evil. But I've not said that. You just think that's the case, from the way I responded.
So...you offer, as proof that my posts are "crazy paranoid shit", that you think they are.
So I guess we're back to the beginning. Anyone who doesn't agree with you must be crazy...just 'cos.
What a fantastically self-immunised argument. You suggest I'm paranoid, I resist such an accusation and you declare "there, see, paranoid people are notoriously resistant to being convinced of it. Case closed".
Pathetic.
You're under no obligation to convince me. The obligation is to support a claim like "crazy paranoid shit", with something of more substance than your idle speculations. I honestly can't believe I'm having to spell this out to a grown adult. If you can't support the claim with more than just your 'gut feeling' then perhaps hold back on the accusations of mental illness.
You should not take it as an accusation, I'm rather trying to alert you about it. Your mind is not totally gone yet I think. You can still pull it together if you try. It's also a way to flag to other posters that there might be some mental toxicity involved there, in case they haven't noticed already.
And you think this is the appropriate tone to use in conversations here?
OK, then you should hold back on the (whatever you're talking about above) unless you can back it up with more than just idle speculation. For God's sake, since when did it become OK to start publicly speculating about the mental health of random people you've never met just because they disagree with you? Is this really what we've come to? It's just sickening.
Enlighten me. What tone is appropriate to use in conversations here? Respectful? Diplomatic? Analytic?
Right, which is exactly what's happening. I can't speak for the UK, but similar anti-vax misinformation has spread and taken hold there as well I'm sure. Here in the US, it is one factor of several I can see. The others are the ones I mentioned, including politicization by the Trump administration and right-wing media, which is now profiting off of manipulating their audience and followers.
This is all pretty irrelevant, and getting boring. The main point is this: mandates are legitimate. They "check out" when you look at the decision more closely, follow the logic, listen to the experts, and check their evidence -- at least it does for me. It's very convincing to me, and so far from what you've written, I'm simply not persuaded otherwise. I have problems not with your conclusion only, which you accuse me of, but your assumptions, your logic, the references you've cited, and your interpretation of the evidence. I think you're making several mistakes.
I've offered analogies to help flush out where I think you're making errors. I think the comparison to creationists is a good one -- not because I think you're being almost completely irrational the way they are, but because it's an example we can both agree on, and which my hope was would allow you to see some mistakes I thought you were making. That has failed - fine. Let me get more to the matter at hand and hopefully start anew:
Mandates are - generally speaking - legitimate. I have given reasons for this conclusion. What exactly is your objection to it, fundamentally? Should a state never be allowed to mandate anything? Should a state be allowed to create laws and to enforce those laws? What makes a law "just" or legitimate? What is the purpose of a state or a government, in your view?
I don't see how we can go on talking and keep it somewhat interesting unless these questions are first addressed.
I didn't completely ignore, but I didn't spend a lot of time on. Why? Because I'm not as privy to what's happening in the UK, which is why I restricted my discussion to the United States, where I live. This isn't simply nationalism, it just happens that to be the leading world power and an example to many other countries. Maybe the population is brighter in Britain and Denmark, in terms of education, and thus don't need to create a mandate or laws about vaccinations -- I have no idea. I assume there is far less holdout and hesitance in both countries.
Quoting Isaac
I said politicization is one factor involved in this resistance, yes. In my view that's a major one. But there are others: the media, social media, the systematically eroded trust in institutions and establishments of almost any kind, including medicine and science, etc. There is also genuine fear about something new or seemingly uncertain or risky. It's true I think most of the response and resistance is motivated by political ideology and affiliation, and thus also news consumption. But notice I also pointed to evidence of this: the level of resistance is correlated with "redder" counties (those that went increasingly strongly for Donald Trump). Do you assume that's an accident or coincidence? I don't.
(1) I think rationality, logic, and mathematics -- which is especially embodied in natural philosophy (science) -- should indeed be vehemently held and defended, yes.
(2) That does not mean I subscribe to scientism or dogmatism -- which I am vehemently against.
You're associating my (1) vehemence, filtered through my unique communication style (which I realize you find distasteful), as following into (2). That's a mistake. Which is why I've asked you to see passed what you find distasteful and still hear the argument I'm making. I realize it's hard -- it's equally hard for me to communicate any better, but I still try.
[If, however, I am completely wrong about this, then that leaves one alternative, which I give you the benefit of the doubt about, which is that you do not in fact share my belief in (1). If that's the case, then what is worth vehemently defending? What's worth fighting for? What's worth even getting nasty or, perhaps, violent about, if we have to? Anything at all? If so, why would you exclude science from this list? Or is it simply all a matter of never being rude or distasteful or aggressive?]
I don't like "repeating myself over and over" either, but not everyone can follow every message on every topic on this forum -- least of all me.
Otherwise, apart from disclosing sensitive medical information -- which I never asked you to do, I think defending your position is a prerequisite for being here. If you don't even want to do that, then why interject at all? Why comment? Why reply? I'm pretty sure it wasn't me who started any conversation between us, so the choice was yours. If you don't like my style or my threads or my writings or my ideas, fine -- then unless you're willing to "defend" your often condescending, pithy remarks, why do it?
Seems all you've offered me, in the end, is that you think I'm too forceful, too overconfident, and too mean. If that's all, fine -- then I beg your pardon, and please move on.
It is! Nothing said here alters my view in the slightest. The development and launch of the COVID-19 vaccines is a triumph of science and public medicine.
Right. But this isn't about what you personally find convincing. I'm quite happy for you to hold the views you hold. I think you're wrong, but your views have clearly been informed by expert opinion, they meet the threshold I expect of reasonable people. The issue here is your dismissal of views which conflict with your own using these completely unnecessary and unhelpful accusations of political bias, weak-mindedness, ideology etc. If you have genuine issues with my "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence" then argue those points. There should be no additional need for any of this weak speculation about the underlying motives of people you've never met and know barely anything about. If I've made mistakes in the areas above, then pointing out those mistakes is sufficient counter-argument.
Quoting Xtrix
Your analogies with creationists were about bias and motives. You said I'd made mistakes in "assumptions... logic... references ...and ...interpretation of the evidence". These should not require analogies. They can simply be written as they are. But I'll note again here - the presentation of counter evidence, counter logic, counter assumptions, and counter references does not prove you're right and I'm wrong. It proves your position is also well referenced, logically sound and rests on reasonable assumptions. The matter of choosing between them is not resolved simply by you pointing out that it is possible to rationally arrive at your position.
Quoting Xtrix
I'm happy to listen to what you have, but I can't (won't) argue against a position I don't hold, nor follow the script for some drama you want to play out against an imaginary enemy. You have to argue with me, not some fantasy version of me. I'm not a MAGA cap-wearing American, I'm not a Facebook junkie hooked on Mercola feeds, I'm not a middle-class suburbanite more concerned about the opinion of my yoga class than of experts in the field... I'm a semi-retired English professor of Psychology, I've twenty years experience in research (specialising in the structure of belief), I now consult for a risk analyst firm a large part of which is (of course) dealing with the long term fallout from covid. I don't read the news, I don't have any social media accounts, I don't have a television. I get my news from the journals I subscribe to (BMJ and Lancet, in health matters) plus a few blogs from experts I trust and colleagues at work (all experts in their field). If you don't believe any of that because it doesn't fit with your stereotype of someone with my views then we'll just stop there.
If not we can continue, but I expect an evidence-based discussion, I'm not interested in taking a poll of your opinions. "You're wrong" is an insufficient response, as is a repeat of the claim originally made. You saying something is never evidence of it's veracity in any circumstances here. If you say...
Quoting Xtrix
I expect to see the names of those experts, quotes from them, links to the studies constituting the evidence and, if you're claiming they're in the vast majority, some evidence of numbers. It's inadequate for you to simply say it's the case.
Again, If you're not interested in meeting this standard, we can just end the conversation here, that's fine with me.
Your questions...
Quoting Xtrix
Twofold. Firstly it's an unnecessary risk. The risk in this case is; the known side effects of the vaccine in those groups for whom the benefit is also very small (young, healthy people), the unknown long term side effects in other groups and, more importantly at this stage, the potential for the manufacturers to make mistakes/shortcuts in their manufacturing or testing procedures. It's unnecssary because reasonable alternatives exist.
As evidence of the risk/benefit balance to young healthy people I've cited the UK JCVI adjudication to that effect. As evidence that experts do consider the long-term risks to be an issue, I've cited a professor of epidemiology who sits on Germany's vaccine advisory board saying exactly that. As an example of the risk pharmaceutical companies present I cited the recent whistle-blowing at the GLaxoSmithKline factory in PuertoRico, I've also cited several examples of other pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, lying about result and marketing medicines despite their unsuitability. If you'd like me to repeat this evidence, just ask.
Secondly, impositions on people's bodily autonomy cannot be taken lightly, they need substantial reasons and there is insufficient need when alternatives are available.
I've cited medical ethicists explaining this position (about alternatives needing to be exhausted) and how they feel this hasn't yet been done. As evidence that alternatives still exist, I've previously cited an article from the BMJ expanding on the view that natural immunity should be an alternative to vaccination. Regular testing is also a possible solution which I've cited experts on.
I'm not repeating any of my citations now because I'm not playing into the narrative that I'm only now scrabbling about for evidence. I've cited all this previously, I've consistently supported my position with relevant evidence from experts in the appropriate field. But I'll repeat it if you need it repeated.
Quoting Xtrix
Obviously a state can mandate and make laws. They need to be proportionate to the risk and lack alternative solutions. As detailed above. I don't believe that's the case with mandatory vaccination. That belief is not only based on, but is also shared by relevant experts in the field. That, by my definition, makes it a reasonable belief to hold. I also think that believing mandates are necessary is a reasonable position to hold because that position too is well supported by relevant experts in the field.
Quoting Xtrix
That it affects all people fairly, that it is aimed at a state of affairs which we could imagine a rational person from any position in society wanting to achieve.
Quoting Xtrix
Quite a big question don't you think? As concisely as I can (with the obvious concomitant overlooking of nuance), government, for me, should be in the business of influencing the factors which govern our economic and social interactions in order to bring about a state of affairs that any rational person from any part of that society would want brought about via means which allow for as much autonomy of the members of that society as possible.
Quoting Xtrix
No, it is the result of the politicisation of the issue. Politicisation affects both sides. Vaccine 'enthusiasm' is associated with the 'bluer' states. So does that prove that people are only enthusiastic about vaccines because of their political ideology? Any time you point to a correlation between ideas and political affiliation, you point to exactly the opposite association of the counter-idea with the counter-politics. That leaves us with no ideas deriving from anything other than political ideology. We can either leave it there, or we could assume that the overall picture hides a more interesting minority who can support their ideas in greater depth, but if we're making this assumption, then there's no reason to consider it a feature of one side only. I've no interest at all in Mercola, Trump or any other media darling and their views. I've also no interest in the self-avowed warrior-of-truth who thinks they can wield 'scientific consensus' as flag to signal their noble lack of bias. It's just as naive (even if considerably less harmful).
Nothing said here is intended to alter that view.
Is it normal for you to consider "I'm not convinced by the arguments" sufficient ground to label those making them "unbearably sinister"? Do you determine all views you're not personally convinced of to be malignant? If not, then you being personally unconvinced is not really reasonable justification for such rhetoric, is it?
It seems a common theme here. You're the third person who's used this slanderous language to describe those who disagree with you and then, when pushed for justification, fall back on something utterly inadequate like "I'm not convinced by the argument", or "I just get the feeling..."
If this is the standard of public discourse you think is acceptable, then I suggest Twitter rather than a serious philosophical forum.
The kids are tested for having brushed their teeth in the morning and get points accordingly.
Periodically, some reward is given to those having gotten a good score.
Simple reward-oriented system.
I suppose, open capitalist societies with relevant legislation sort of auto-reward and punish companies that manage to stick to :up: and avoid :down:.
Capitalism itself knows no ethics, though.
Maybe the punishment part has to be up'd to be proportionally effective, in some cases anyway.
Ongoing science/medicine has given us marvels, only to be thrown out by some kooky thinking. :roll:
I like your thinking. The UK education system has given us some true geniuses, therefore I must be a true genius (being a product of the UK education system).
Oh but hang on...the UK education system has given us some absolute idiots too...
...gosh, it's almost as if shallow clichés aren't sufficient for making real world judgements in complex situations.
I think you underestimate the degree to which I've looked carefully at your arguments and supporting evidence/data/citations -- but I engage with many people on here, especially on this topic over the last two months. This is exactly what I find unconvincing -- and not only from you, but from several others on this forum and other online venues as well -- and which has led to my claims about explanations for what I see as flawed arguments: politicization, misinformation, etc.
I see parallels here with creationists and others -- which isn't meant as an insult, but meant from the point of view of the data no longer really mattering, and which accounts for a distorted view/interpretation of evidence. If this doesn't apply to you, fine -- I admit I could be completely wrong about it, and as I said before much of this is speculation.
On the other hand, I also have given data about this topic which I find convincing -- at least regarding politicization and the influence of social media. I don't consider that "weak speculation."
Quoting Isaac
Well "assumptions and logic" would be included here. The analogy wasn't strictly about bias and motives, really, but about why people end up saying the things they do and interpreting the evidence the way they do. I do indeed feel it's relevant. It may be, on the other hand, that you're truly just curious about this issue, aren't convinced by the data, and so on...but from some of the things you've said so far I don't think that's as probable. But that's my opinion, and I mention it because I'd feel dishonest about even having this conversation if I didn't. That doesn't mean I consider your argument as identical with creationists -- but that there are some principles of belief formation and logical fallacies that strike me as similar.
Quoting Isaac
True. But this can be claimed about nearly any dialogue whatsoever, no?
Quoting Isaac
Fair enough.
Quoting Isaac
I believe every word of it, and suspected something like that -- although I had assumed more the sciences than English.
I don't ever recall characterizing you in the above ways. I have made allusions to the anti-vax movement, which I suspect (although, again, may be completely wrong in your individual case) does indeed have something to do with your conclusions, but that's really not relevant, nor should you care -- provided I'm still willing to engage in evidence you present -- which I believe I have, more often than not, and at least more than you've implied.
Quoting Isaac
I'm more than willing.
Quoting Isaac
But still politicized, nonetheless. This "two sides" thing works to a degree, but remember I'm not playing that game. I'm giving a reason for why this is controversial. Like the creation/evolution "debate," it's no wonder we find more creationists within a highly predictable subset (evangelical Christians). Does this mean the people who believe in evolution are "enthusiasts"? I wouldn't say so, although sometimes that's true.
With this issue, it's similar to claims about a stolen election. Do you make the same argument there, as well? Yes, it's been politicized -- and some of the other side (the ones arguing the election was fair and open), largely in reaction, may be overly "enthusiastic," but this ignores a lot of information. The fact that the enthusiasts may simply be energized by their own information bubbles doesn't negate the fact that they happen to align with scientific and medical consensus, or evolutionary biology, or election data/audits/experts. It just means they're also caught up in the politicized fight/controversy. The reason it's even a fight to begin with, however, is worth remember. The election claim stems from the poltiical right -- and hence the "controversy." The vaccination claims stem from the political right -- and hence the controversy (and opposite reaction).
I think you're pulling a kind of "both-sides-ism."
Now with this less interesting stuff hopefully out of the way, I'll respond more substantively in the next reply.
Quoting Isaac
(It's often said of me that my writing is sometimes like that of a lawyer, which isn't meant as a compliment. So if this is how the following appears to you as well, I beg your pardon, but it helps me organize my thoughts and I find helps the conversation as well.)
Here your first claim is essentially one about the following risks:
(1) Known side effects.
(2) Unknown long term side effects.
(3) Potential mistakes in manufacturing of the vaccines and their testing.
I would indeed like you to link the supporting evidence for these three you mentioned, so I can take a look (or a second look).
Three questions and then some comments:
First: when you say reasonable alternatives exist, what are you referring to?
Second: when taking into account the benefits, are you including the benefits to others as well, or just to the individual (for example, the "young/healthy" individual)? I find this is often overlooked or minimized, and I think that's a mistake.
Third: when referring to examples of pharmaceutical companies hiding safety information, etc., are you referring specifically to COVID vaccines or other products? If other products, I don't doubt there is plenty of information, and I'm familiar with a few of them myself.
-
You agree that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. So in my view, in order to demonstrate "unnecessary risk" there would either have to be (a) almost no benefit whatever to taking the vaccine, or (b) significantly more severe side effects/risks than I've seen so far.
When I say "safe," however, I'm referring not only to death from the vaccine, but severe side effects as well. From what I've read, they're exceedingly rare. You say you agree with this, so that potentially rules out (b). Which leaves us, if I'm correct so far, with (a).
But even if (a) is demonstrated in the sense that there is no benefit of protection from the virus, or that none is needed anyway because one is young and healthy, I don't think this accounts for the often overlooked factor I mentioned above: that of "externalized" effects; namely, the effects on others. This would constitute a huge benefit -- not to oneself, but to those around you.
(A digression: This is a common mistake, and one I myself made for years in terms of getting a flu shot. "I'm young and healthy," I figured, "so I don't want to go into a hospital and get stuck by a needle -- it's a hassle -- and besides, they don't even protect against every strain." I figured I would just take my chances with getting the flu -- put my immune system to work. Besides, I'd heard things about mercury in the vaccines, and about how the flu vaccine gives you the flu (and had heard lots of stories from family about getting sick with flu after getting the flu shot). But leaving the last few claims aside, I was overlooking why doctors were recommending it to me and others every year, and why it was given out for free: the other people you're around. Your grandmother, the elderly people in your neighborhood who you come in contact with, the people you work with, the immunocompromised, etc. I never thought of it like this until it was pointed out to me by a physician. So I don't necessarily fault people for overlooking this factor.)
I say all of this in anticipation. I would expect your evidence to demonstrate either (a) or (b).
Lastly, although I will carefully look at what you're presenting, I do want to remind you of something I think we've discussed before about scientific/medical consensus. You mention a German professor of epidemiology, for example. While he's obviously credentialed, and I have no reason to believe he's a quack of any kind, I still feel that even if his argument is a good one, that he represents a minority view. Do you agree? If so, my question to you is: why highlight the minority view -- or, better: why is his view more convincing than the majority's/consensus? Assuming it's split down the middle, and there's good evidence on either side -- which is plausible -- do you have any insight into why you would gravitate towards this interpretation more than the other?
Quoting Isaac
I wrote some of the above before reading this part.
You're saying the alternative you mentioned above is natural immunity. Fair enough.
That's not an insane position, and I don't think there's definitive evidence about it yet. I have heard "both sides" to this, and both seem reasonable. It gets into the weeds.
But this gets back to risk/benefit. If someone already has COVID, that's one thing. We can discuss that, and whether they should be exempted from a vaccine or not.
But what of the millions who have no yet had COVID? Do we want a situation like the one in Brazil? (If you're unfamiliar, I can cite sources.) Restricted even to the young and healthy, this gets back to (a) and (b) above. Is it truly less risky to get the virus than to get the vaccine? Again, perhaps if you exclude externalities. But I'm also suspecting you may not agree, after all, with the notion that the vaccines help slow the spread of the virus -- a point which is crucial in this case.
But please link to the BMJ too.
Quoting Isaac
Well a lot hinges on two things then: (1) alternative solutions (natural immunity) and (2) risks.
As you know, from what I have gathered is that the risks of negative health outcomes are exceedingly low (which is what I mean when I say the vaccines are "safe"). I believe you have agreed with this, which is why the rest is a bit puzzling to me.
I don't see how natural immunity is an alternative solution to this very low-risk/safe option. Natural immunity could reasonably exempt someone from having to take the vaccine, yes, but that's a separate matter -- which if this is all your restricting your argument about mandates to, I'm willing to have that conversation.
But in discussing those who have not gotten COVID (and who are, say, young and healthy) the question is: do we go with the vaccine or go with an alternative solution? The alternative solution, in this case, is natural immunity -- which one must contract COVID in order to obtain.
This assumes (1) that getting COVID is less risky for the individual than taking the vaccine, and (2) that there aren't external factors to consider, including the spread. What would have to be demonstrated is that risks from the vaccines are greater than the risks of getting COVID, and that the vaccine has no effect on transmissibility.
That's a tall order, in my view. But again, I'm willing to take a look if that's indeed your position.
Is that not covered under 'motive'. I'm still a little confused as to the distinction you're trying to make here. If I were to believe that the last right-wing government were responsible for the economic crisis, that would be something I might believe because of bias (I'm left-wing), but it's also plausible (many economists think so) so my bias isn't really relevant unless I dismiss a source ("Oh he's a conservative so his evidence doesn't count"). If, however, I was a UFO enthusiast and as such believed that the economic crisis was caused by the interference of aliens, then my bias would matter. No economist is saying that, I'd be stepping outside of reasonable conversation and shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. And this is crucially important. If you take only one thing away from my response, I'd prefer it was this. When I present an argument here I'm not doing so with the intention that it convinces you. Any argument I present is of the form "It is reasonable to believe...", not of the form "You ought to believe...". It's a significantly weaker claim and it means the above quote is not problematic for us. The debate we're having (the one I'm having, anyway) is about whether my beliefs meet the threshold required of reasonableness. It is not about how convincing they are. I'll come back to this as it answers another of your questions later on.
Quoting Xtrix
Just to clarify (not that it matters, but I don't want to cause confusion later) I'm a professor of Psychology, not English. English is my nationality (put in so you know whose rules and regulations I'm talking about). Of course whether Psychology is one of the sciences is a matter of much debate!
Quoting Xtrix
That would be good, but we'll save it for if it's needed.
Quoting Xtrix
No, because I don't accept your premise. Recall the caveat about your say so being insufficient? I don't want to get mired in stuff we've left behind, but this is why I brought up the stuff about creationist geology professors. I have a standard for inclusion in reasonable academic discussion and if you don't share that standard, then, again, we just can't have such a discussion. That standard is that - evidence should come from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result. I realise there's some ambiguity there over 'discoverable' (after how much effort?) and 'directly' (we can create all sorts of super-detailed ideologies), but I don't think these ambiguities are a problem in most cases. Climate denying scientists are paid by the oil industry who benefit directly from underplaying the crisis - clear cut case of conflict of interest. Analysts saying that the election was stolen are all Trump employees or staunch supporters, everyone else is saying it wasn't (including other republicans). Clear cut case of conflict of interest.
The scientists arguing against what I'm going to term vaccine-enthusiasm (the idea that every person without medical exemption ought to have a full vaccine+booster round) have no such obvious, discoverable conflicts of interest. They have no financial incentive, they don't gain any political advantage, they are not paid to say what they say, they have, mostly, spoken vociferously in favour of vaccinations in other cases, so don't have any historical bias. In short they are not even an ambiguous case, as far as my standards are concerned. All the other examples you've given are clear cut cases of conflict of interest (usually money), or pre-existing bias (usually religion). Neither exist for the experts I'm citing so the analogy fails.
I'm going to answer this question first as it will colour the responses to the others I goes back to what i said earlier about my arguments being in the form of "It is reasonable to believe...", not of the form "You ought to believe...". It doesn't matter if he's in a minority. He's an expert in an appropriate field who has no discoverable conflict of interest (I've checked), and has no pre-existing bias (he's worked to advance vaccine take-up in the past). That makes reliance on his testimony sufficient. To be convincing to others, I'd need more. But that's not the aim here.
So to your actual question about why. I answered this in the Coronavirus thread (again, I mention this just t avoid the post hoc justification narrative). It's twofold. Firstly, in matters relating to the pharmaceutical industry majorities are often not indicative of true scientific consensus. Recall...
Quoting Manzoli L, Flacco ME, D’Addario M, et al. Non-publication and delayed publication of randomized trials on vaccines: survey. BMJ2014
...and...
Quoting Beutels P. Potential conflicts of interest in vaccine economics research: a commentary with a case study of pneumococcal conjugate vaccination. Vaccine2004
...and further...
I have what I believe to be good reason to be suspicious of the weight of opinion in favour of a pharmaceutical product. There is a well documented history of influence of the pharmaceutical industry over academics in the field of medical sciences. Whilst I don't believe this would ever be enough to create some kind of 'conspiracy of silence', it is definitely enough to treat any apparent consensus with suspicion.
Secondly, I have a personal bias against artificiality. I eat organic food, I use cleaning products from plant sources etc. It's a personal preference. Again, related to my "It is reasonable to believe..." type of argument, it doesn't matter that this is nothing more than a personal preference. If it's reasonable to hold it, in the light of evidence from suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result then it's acceptable. It's not the main point I want to discuss though because I think the point about the untrustworthiness of the pharmaceutical industry is both sufficient and more relevant to a public forum. I mention it for the sake of honesty only.
Your other questions...
Quoting Xtrix
Natural immunity (testing for), full hygiene precautions (masks, distancing, hand-washing), regular testing (coupled with a willingness to isolate in the case of a positive test), and natural existing immune systems (for those who are healthier than average - only to be combined with the previous two).
Quoting Xtrix
Yes. In fact, for me I only include benefits to other because I have no cause to be concerned about my own health. We're talking here about the strength of evidence for reducing transmission, and the benefits (in terms of taking up hospital beds) in those who are already healthy.
Quoting Xtrix
Both. There's more evidence of hiding safety information in other products (obviously, it takes time to find these things out), but there's evidence with the Covid vaccines too, for example...
Quoting Pfizer’s 92-page report didn’t mention the 3410 “suspected covid-19” cases. Nor did its publication in the New England Journal of Medicine. Nor did any of the reports on Moderna’s vaccine. The only source that appears to have reported it is FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine.
Quoting Xtrix
For (a) and (b) - most articles combine the two...
https://medium.com/@wpegden/weighing-myocarditis-cases-acip-failed-to-balance-the-harms-vs-benefits-of-2nd-doses-d7d6b3df7cfb
I believe the ACIP failed to model the risk benefits properly, and such a view is supported by suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias directly favouring one result.
Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/07/covid-vaccines-for-children-should-not-get-emergency-use-authorization/
Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/
Quoting Xtrix
As I said above, alternatives are not limited to acquired immunity.
Quoting Xtrix
Sure - https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2101
Quoting Xtrix
See - the debate about children; the debate about long-term risks ("practically nothing is known about any long-term adverse effects..." - Professor Ruediger von Kries, of Germany's advisory vaccine committee), and the debate about trusting the pharmaceutical industry going forward (the GlaxoSmithKline contamination scandal)
Quoting Xtrix
Not necessarily. I don't see any ethical obligation for people to always take the least risk option, it's not how we normally conduct a mixed society. We normally allow people to take all sorts of low risks for their personal preference. What matters is not the balance, but whether any resulting imbalance is sufficiently high to outweigh personal preference.
Quoting Xtrix
This last quote indicates that full vaccine roll-out may even lengthen the spread rather than hinder it.
Also, on the subject of bias, there's an interesting piece by Vinay Prasad in Medpage on this, form the 'other side'
Quoting https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19vaccine/92413
This kind of talk being a clear red flag for wackos, I looked Mr Prasad up. His blog is poorly written, full of platitudes, and, yeah, paranoid.
How Democracy Ends
COVID19 policy shows a (potential) path to the end of America
Vinay Prasad, Oct 2
Progressivism is Dead
COVID19 killed it
Vinay Prasad, Sep 29
And he is not unbiased at all. He seems to be transitioning to the extreme right.
Yes, I think we've already quite well established that anyone you disagree with is 'paranoid'.
In any case, he does not conform to your standard of "suitably qualified experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or pre-existing bias". He's an oncologist and writes about this from a political perspective, one oddly close to the "Fauci is Mengele" MAGA perspective.
Check the people you spread the word of, before you spread their word.
Same true of Stephen Baral, associate professor in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University then https://www.newstatesman.com/uncategorized/2020/10/why-scientists-fear-toxic-covid-19-debate
Also Raj Bhopal, emeritus professor of public health and Alasdair Munro, senior clinical research fellow in paediatric infectious diseases https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n742
Jerome R Hoffman, Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine and Iona Heath Past President, UK Royal College of General Practitioners Jerome R Hoffman is Professor of Medicine Emeritus, UCLA School of Medicine https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/03/22/an-open-plea-for-dignity-and-respect-in-science/
Or as we've established...anyone who disagrees with you.
It's rhetoric, moron. Like
Quoting Olivier5
...or do you actually intend to report me to the police for attempted murder?
Oh and the articles I presented are not about knee-jerk reactions on twitter and the press. They are about actual scientific debate... but you'd have to have actually read them to find that out, and that seems too much to ask here.
Or one which seeks to shore it up by calling out practices which undermine it. Depending on your perspective. You know...perspective...the thing people used to be allowed to have differences in without being labelled murderers or mentally ill.
Actually I have read them. And they are not about 'actual scientific debate', most of the times. They are about:
Such division is especially evident in non-academic routes of communication such as declarations, letters, petitions, and personal views. Many of the worst examples are occurring in public forums.
-- from: Society deserves academic discourse that is civil, cool, unbiased, and objective
When scientists sign down grand declarations about what an appropriate response to covid-19 should be, they act politically, they enter the political arena. In doing so, they automatically expose themselves to the kind of fight that happens in political arenas.
All the 3 articles express concerns for the possible erosion of public trust in scientists and healthcare professionals. I seriously doubt you share this concern, when you declares urbi et orbi that one cannot trust the academia...
Words have a meaning.
Then you must have missed
Quoting Olivier5
What?
( And just to be clear, none of the cases above have anything to do with vaccines. Rather they were about the possible negative effects of lockdowns, for the most part. )
It is rather about Mr Prasad spreading anti-science rhetoric, and you helping him. All I am saying is: don't spread the unhelpful anti-science rhetoric of folks with an easily discernable political bias and no qualification in immunology. Thank you very much.
I haven't.
Quoting Olivier5
What's a qualification in immunology got to do with a discussion about discourse in science?
I've just shown it isn't.
Quoting Olivier5
It isn't. He doesn't make a single medical recommendation.
Quoting Olivier5
So you're saying I should only post things according to whether you think they're anti-science and whether you think the person has a political bias. Why would I do that?
Stop lying all the time, it's tiring.
You think pro-science rethoric is usefull? Both the pro- ant anti- are as unhelpfull as can be. The scientific approach to Covid19, how the disease can be fought, stopped from spreading (the spreading could, as a matter of fact, not have been that global if science hadn't given the knowledge needed to construct high-tech airplanes, like aerodynamics and Maxwell's electrodynamics) is just as reliable/unreliable as the non-scientific one.
No. I am saying that ANTI-SCIENCE RHETORIC IS NOT HELPFUL. What is it with anti-vaxxers and reading comprehension? You cannot argue without distorting other people's position all the sodding time?
I'M SAYING THAT TOO! Just read. It's as unhelpfull as pro-science rhetoric.
You're clearly not. You're saying that anti-science rhetoric is not helpful and that Vinay Prasad's article is an example of it. It's the latter claim that's at issue, for me, not the former.
Repeating only the uncontroversial part of a two part claim and then acting incredulous that anyone should argue the full claim on that basis is a well known psychological trick. No one here is stupid enough to fall for it.
All I'm saying is you shouldn't use stupid psychological tricks in a serious philosophy discussion...
Prasad concludes that "sadly, there are few scientists left". Words have a meaning, Isaac. I for one think there are many scientists left. Do you think otherwise?
Distorting your "position"? I haven't got the faintest idea where you stand. I merely said that both pro- and anti- science rethorics are helpfull. As are pro- and anti- rethorics about all approaches to a problem, Corona included.
Sic
I am saying rather that you are spreading the anti-science rhetoric of a heavily politicized pundit about Covid. That he is heavily politicized is something you could have checked by reading his blog, as I did. But you didn't do so, probably because you trusted him enough.
So why did you trust him? Why didn't you check this guy's background before spreading his stuff? Especially since there was this red flag at the end of your quote: "there are few [real] scientists left". You didn't pick that clue up. Maybe you are a bit politically naïve...
In short, what are your standards?
So where am I distorting your position? Maybe I'm distorting your discussion here.
Sic. Quoting Olivier5
Dunno. But I know that pro-vaxers lack this comprehension too.
Above you wrote that "both pro- and anti- science rhetorics are helpful." I suppose you meant "NOT helpful"???
You are not even able to present your own position accurately. Make an effort.
Yes. Luckily there are bright minds like yours to correct mine! Thanks!
We've been through this. It was rhetorical.
Quoting Olivier5
I know what you're saying. 'Anti-science' and 'highly politicised' are both opinions of yours. That you can't tell the difference between an opinion and a fact is a root cause of your confusion here.
Quoting Olivier5
Why would you think I hadn't read his blog? Where the fuck do you think I got the citation from? I've read Vinay's commentary since the beginning of this crisis. I've found him to be generally balanced and reasonable. You think he's politicised. I'm just dumbfounded that you can be so egotistical that you think the only reason why I don't agree with your assessment is that I haven't read his writing. It's off the charts in terms of self-righteousness. That you genuinely can't even conceive of someone having read his blog and not reaching the same conclusion you did, like alternatives to your view aren't even possible.
Quoting Olivier5
As I said to @Xtrix
Quoting Isaac
Prasad meets that criteria.
He's talking about the way science is being discussed - he's scientist himself so he's qualified to speak about scientific discourse.
He's not paid by anyone, no one benefits financially from what he's saying, he's not pushing a product and he's not employed by someone who benefits from what he's saying. So he meets the lack of conflicts of interest criteria.
He's not religiously or ideologically wedded to opposing drugs (he's an oncologist) , or vaccines, or government. He's made no previous overt political statements. So he meets the lack of pre-existing bias threshold too.
What criteria do you have that he fails on?
Not even? What do you meaning? I am able, but made a mistake. As simple as that.
That is what I am saying too: it was anti-science rhetoric.
Quoting Isaac
He is mentioning his books in a lot of his posts... :-)
Quoting Isaac
Saying that Covid is the end of progressivism is not an overt political statement?
An effort for what?
I'm not that accurate. It brings misery only.
We've been through this too. Rhetorically lamenting that there are "few scientists left" was meant as a wake up call to defend science before it got lost in petty posturing. You think it's anti-science, others don't. Opinion/fact. Would you like me to draw you a diagram?
Quoting Olivier5
Try disqualifiying any public commentator who doesn't do that, we'll see how much public discussion of science is left.
Quoting Olivier5
Again, if that's your standard for 'politicised' then you're basically saying scientists can't comment on government or economic issues without being subsequently banned from being quoted.
But this is getting into our usual ridiculous hyperbole. He said something you don't agree with so you want him silenced. We get it.
Which is a ridiculous, totally fake idea about modern science.
Quoting Isaac
He doesn't fit the "no conflict of interest" criteria, period.
Quoting Isaac
Why yes, politicized means "politicized". Words have a meaning. Scientists can comment all they want on politics but these are de facto political comments they are making, and in his case his statements show a strong political bias towards the right. So he does not satisfy the criteria of "no political bias" either.
You standards are very low.
Opinion/fact. We're going to need that diagram after all.
Quoting Olivier5
OK, I'll bare in mind next time you cite anyone how strict a threshold you have for conflict of interest. We'll see how long that holds out.
Quoting Olivier5
Good, because you were gagging them earlier, we're making progress it seems.
Quoting Olivier5
An example?
Actually, forget that, this is just utter bullshit.
Vinay Prasad has written for the BMJ, the Lancet, Stat, Medscape, Oxford University, Nature and has been cited several hundred times in all of those plus more. If you seriously think you're a better judge of what should and should not be part of reasonable discourse than the editors of all those academic journals then you're even more messianic than I thought.
I never gagged anyone. Stop the BS. Stop propping up what I say into some atrocious straw man or another. You do it almost systematically now; it betrays someone who feels cornered.
Quoting Isaac
It will hold out for eternity. I don't peddle the personal political opinions of some random folks here, nor any version of immunology, because I am not qualified, you are even less qualified, and this is a philosophy forum. It's written on top of the page.
If you want to add your voice to the cacophony of all those saying "I'm not a doctor but I think that X, and that guy Y agrees with me", be my guest, but don't count me in. I will continue to take my medical advice from qualified medical doctors as shared through official channels, thank you so very much.
Quoting Isaac
https://vinayprasadmdmph.substack.com/p/progressivism-is-dead
I'm not talking about his articles on oncology. I'm talking about his articles on the covid response. Something you'd know if you'd been following the academic debate in the slightest.
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Olivier5
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607436 - opinion piece from the Washington post.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/591819 - cartoon
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/607061
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/598711
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/603582 - reposting a NYT opinion piece
Quoting Olivier5
No one but you has even mentioned immunology... this is about epistemic responsibility, as befitting a
Quoting Olivier5
Quoting Isaac
The guy knows shit about it, he is an oncologist.
Again, if you think you know better than the editors of most of the world's leading health journals then you're more megalomaniacal than I suspected.
Oh and he's Associate Professor of Medicine in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
From his fucking Wikipedia page. I thought you'd done all this diligent fucking background research on him.
Let's be clear about what's happened here.
I've cited an article about the policy response to covid by an expert in health policy.
You didn't agree with it, so rather than mounting any actual counter argument, you quickly trawled a few previous posts for anything you can use to discredit him. (Despite apparently missing the fact that he's a well respected contributor to the world's top health journals on exactly this topic).
The irony being that's exactly the kind of response he was writing about...brilliant stuff.
So no intention of either defending, nor apologising for your slanderous baseless assertions. Just more childish hyperbole.
I think it's reasonable, yes. Ultimately inaccurate, but reasonable.
Quoting Isaac
Ah, okay. I misread. So it turns out we're in the same field. Go figure. (I'm not a professor, however.)
Quoting Isaac
Fully agreed.
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
There's always good reason to be suspicious of products from nearly any industry, as their bottom line is ultimately that of maximizing profits. There's a long history of examples from tobacco to sugar to household products. Pharmaceuticals are an especially relevant one, given their size and lobbying power.
Quoting Isaac
All right. So I share both a suspicion of the pharmaceutical industry (and business generally) and a bias against many artificial things -- synthetic products, heavily processed foods, etc.
Appreciate the honesty. For myself, it's worth repeating that in addition I have a strong bias towards scientific/medical consensus. So I gravitate more towards these views than those of a minority, in general -- even if I grant that the minority view is reasonable. Obviously this isn't all the time; for example, I agree with most of Noam Chomsky's views about the evolution of language -- which is certainly a minority view, because I find it more convincing.
Anyway...
Quoting Isaac
Natural immunity may well be a reasonable alternative, as I've conceded. That's one issue to perhaps explore in more detail. But...
Quoting Isaac
The other alternatives you mentioned are not about about acquired immunity, and include precautions and regular testing -- especially for people with healthier immune systems. As you know, some companies are offering these as alternatives already -- but not all.
So let's restrict the argument only to companies or organizations that mandate vaccines (1) for individuals without acquired immunity and (2) without offering testing/precautions as an alternative. This seems to be the issue.
This then becomes an issue about (a) whether these alternatives, on their own (without vaccines), are as safe and effective at slowing the spread of the virus as (b) the vaccines are, either on their own or in combination with the masks/distancing/testing.
I think the conclusion most experts have come to, and which many companies are using to guide their mandates, is that the vaccines add a significant layer of protection against spreading the virus to others in a workplace, especially when combined with other precautions (distancing, testing, etc). Where I work, we do all of the above -- and have had almost no cases. That's anecdotal, but it's an example.
Now is that enough to mandate that someone either gets vaccinated or loses their job? I think that, if the above is true (i.e., the expert opinion I'm referring to -- and still have to show), and we count the externalities of spreading the disease to co-workers and the effects that follow from this, it is still a legitimate use of power. If that individual still refuses, despite the safety of the vaccine, then they at least have the option to simply not work there (even though that's an unfortunate option); they're not being physically forced, in the same way they're not physically forced to abide by any decisions made by management or the board of directors.
So there's a lot to delve into there, but I figured I'd give the general argument first and try to narrow it down before going more in-depth.
Quoting Isaac
Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/05/07/covid-vaccines-for-children-should-not-get-emergency-use-authorization/
Quoting https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/13/covid-19-vaccines-for-children-hypothetical-benefits-to-adults-do-not-outweigh-risks-to-children/
I appreciate the references. However, again I'd like to separate the issue of children for the time being, as it's true there's not as much data on this as yet. I, as of yet, haven't read carefully or widely enough to have a strong opinion. If it turns out the risks of vaccinating children outweigh the benefits, then so be it.
Quoting Isaac
Interesting, and again I appreciate it. This pertains to the question of natural immunity -- which is another topic which as I've said before I'm open to debating. But let's table this as well, because (as outlined above) I think we're getting a more precise formulation in our sights -- namely, regarding the mandates of adults without natural immunity who are not offered the alternatives of masking/distancing/testing.
Quoting Isaac
The children question is being studied, and rightly so. I grant that -- and I grant the suspicion of the pharmaceutical industry.
The concern about potential long-term effects I find very unconvincing. True, there's little we know about them -- because it's only been 10 months. But given what we know about the biochemistry of how the vaccines work, I don't see this as much of a claim. We don't know the long term effects of the last meal we ate. I understand the sentiment but does this claim undermine the safety of the vaccines? I assume you think not, so I don't see the relevance....
To be honest we could leave it there. I've no interest in convincing anyone of the rightness of my beliefs on this, but there may be some interest in exploring our differences further. It's not that I'm unconcerned about being wrong, only that I'm fortunate enough to be in a position to speak directly with experts in the field (through work and ex colleagues), so any concerns I have would be explored there, not on an internet forum. I don't doubt your mastery of the resources you've examined, it's just that's not the sort of conversation I'm interested in having here. That said, however...
Quoting Xtrix
...so I'd be interested in your insights from this perspective (being directly what I'm currently working on) and an alternative perspective is never wasted. Turns out psychologists agree about as often as philosophers (which is to say hardly at all). What would you expect to be the most significant long-term impacts on decision-making heuristics from this crisis? Do you think we'll see he unprecedented 'disillusionment' stage (Raphael - if you're not already familiar) of disaster recovery that some are predicting?
Quoting Xtrix
Agreed.
Quoting Xtrix
Here I disagree, and I think this is a shift we've seen in risk assessment rhetoric in public discourse with this crisis. We don't normally require that every lower risk strategy be adopted purely on the grounds that it lower in risk. Normal risk assessment heuristics are to compare remaining risks to a (often imagined, rather than calculated) threshold of risk which we deem it unacceptable to breach. It's how we handle the conflict between autonomy of ends and the rights of other affected by choice of means. It shouldn't matter if someone rejects the vaccine because they don't like the colour of the vial, so long as in doing so the risk they pose others is below a threshold of risk we consider acceptable for trivial personal preference. The less trivial that preference, the greater the threshold has to be to justify any mandate. Without this important feature of risk assessment, we end up with a homogeneity of response, which is a) an unnecessary and possibly damaging imposition on freedom, and b) simply bad risk management in the face of uncertainty.
For mandates (in the restricted cases we've already circumscribed) to be acceptable, they'd have to be both more safe and effective than the alternatives and be so to such an extent that the increased risk from not taking them exceeded this normal threshold.
The trouble is that this threshold is a psychological feature, not a strict number. It's not easy to directly compare. Analysts have come up with models based on population testing, figures such as 1 in a million per event and 1 in 5000 lifetime risk are typically used, but much higher figures are usually found in personal assessment (ie we expect our governments to me more risk averse than we expect ourselves to be, even with the well-being of others around us).
I don't think there's an easy solution to this, but I think we'd be reckless to ignore the potential psychological impact of imposing a risk threshold for personal behaviour that people felt was much lower than that they have previously been using. It's one of the reasons why ordinary adult vaccine mandates are a very different concern from childhood vaccine mandates (where there's very little chance they'll have acquired any strong sense of acceptable risk), or specific mandates such as travel or healthcare (where assessment of risk thresholds is typically relinquished to a higher authority for the specific activity). Mandating a specific risk threshold for ordinary life activities (such as one's normal job) that's seen as far outside a person's normal risk threshold is potentially extremely damaging.
Quoting Xtrix
Fair enough, but bear in mind that the issue of children does affect the issue of adults quite significantly. If it ere shown that the risk/benefit calculation for a 16 year old was not sufficiently above the normal threshold to recommend the vaccine, then it is at least borderline for a 17 year old. It's not like something magical happens on one's 17th birthday which completely changes ow one responds to both virus and vaccine. Now how do we justify imposing extreme coercive measures on that 17 year old (threat of unemployment), if they know that the risk/benefit judgement for them is barely above that which has been assessed as insufficient?
The significance of the decision regarding children is not only about that age group. It has two very important consequences on people's psychology.
1. It shows that the risk/benefit assessment is sufficiently finely balanced that some ordinary groups (not obscure medical exceptions) fall the other side. That automatically makes people think "well what if I'm more like the average 16 year old than the average 25 year old?", and that's not even an irrational thought - as I said above, physiology is just not that age specific in this respect.
2. It shows that unforeseen consequences are being considered and so reminds people of them. The vaccines (in terms of known consequences) are perfectly safe for children - where 'safe' here means low risk. It's not the known safety that's a problem for the JCVI, it's the fact that the benefit is insufficient to justify the unknown risk.
So for the 25, or even 30 year old worker being coerced into taking a vaccine, they have in mind, not only that they might not even be on the right side of a normal risk benefit assessment (they might be physiologically more like the 16 year old), but they are reminded that the reason why we don't normally give prophylactic medicine 'on the off chance' is because of the unknown risk, thus rendering reassurances of current safety fairly redundant.
The natural immunity issue is relevant for a different reason. The more irrational the imposition, the more people become frightened of it (and not without good reason). The moment someone raises natural immunity and institutions say "nah, we'll just vaccinate everyone" the apparent irrationality of that decision makes people more resistant. It the considered the main mechanism behind mandates backfiring in the past. "why would they be so insistent on vaccinating me when they haven't even checked if I need it and they actively don't want to even find out?"
There's a serious underestimation of the psychological impact of saying to people "we're going to inject you with this drug, we don't even want to know if you need it or not, some people are better off not having it, but we 'reckon' you're probably not one of them based on your age - even though age is just a proxy for other metrics which we're also to going to bother checking. Oh and you'll loose your job if you don't". Think about it from an average Joe's point of view. It sounds extremely like they really just want to get the drug in his arm more than any other objective. Add that to a (again, completely justified) distrust of government and pharmaceutical companies - the two institutions involved here, both with a track record of lying, and putting the public a serious risk, for financial gain... Well, you've a recipe for serious discontent which weighs very heavily against the potential benefits.
Quoting Xtrix
See above basically. It's not really about undermining the safety because it's an unknown.It's about there being a reason to avoid it (unknown risk), but obvious alternatives not being considered. That just changes the trust relationship immediately, it sets up a institutional appearance of an alternate agenda, and that's just counterproductive and potentially very dangerous (if it stops people who need to take the vaccine from doing so).
In summary, we're facing an unprecedented health crisis, we really need people to take the advice of their healthcare professionals, take the precautions necessary. To achieve this people have to trust those institutions and believe the advice is in their best interests. People are not blank slates onto which we can just impose beliefs convenient to us, they have prior beliefs which need to be accommodated. Governments and pharmaceutical companies have behaved appallingly in the past. Ignoring alternatives and vilifying experts who disagree with policy exacerbates existing suspicions, and risks a serious breakdown of the relationship essential to public health.
Basically, there's limits to what you can push people to accept and we'd be better off staying within those limits and accepting a small increase in risk as a result, than trying to push them and so doing taking a much larger risk from the breakdown of that relationship.
Restricted to a certain group, I agree. But this is simply reiterating the fact that the approach should be nuanced. That's very difficult to do in some situations. It may very well lead to a breakdown of relationships, and that's a shame -- but a part of me thinks the relationships are already broken down, and it is precisely this breakdown that leads to much of the resistance in the first place.
Still, your point is noted.
Quoting Isaac
In that case, as I said above, you're arguing for a much more targeted set of policies. If this can be done, I'd love to see it as well. It seems it is being put into place in a number of companies (regular testing, for example).
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
Quoting Isaac
I think the first paragraph is basically what I was intending to say. If it were just a matter of an individual, I take the same attitude I do with drugs or suicide or smoking: it's personal choice. When the impact on others (I call these "externalities" because economics is an interest) is great, however, I change my mind. It's very true that there is no definite number for this, however. In a way, everything we do impacts the world around us to some degree.
So to put it into your terms, I believe the (1) that the choice to refuse vaccination is usually very trivial indeed because the decision is usually based on misinformation and politicization, and (2) that this choice almost always exceeds the threshold of risk to others. So I would say the second paragraph cited above is accurate, but that from what I've read that both have been demonstrated (safe/effective and threshold exceeded).
(2) Would be an argument worth going into deeper, involving transmissibility, threat of mutation, etc.
But I think we could end it here as well. Thankfully the numbers are coming down in the US, and so far the mandates have been effective. Whether the narrow cases you're discussing is justified or not we can leave as an open question, and I agree there is no "easy solution."
If you indeed don’t know, then it’s responsible to be honest about it yes.
As far as I know, epistemic responsibility is about beliefs and justifications for those beliefs. Does taking the stand "I don't know" amount to professing a belief?
Justification is really just a psychological analysis of what has happened and the degree to which one wishes to claim authorship over the actions that led to the result.
If a belief is fully justified in our minds then is it really a 'belief'? If it is then how does it differ from beliefs that possess little to no rational foundation?
One of them should do the trick, at least that's the way it's been for as long as I can remember. There's more than one way to prove the Pythagorean theorem.
Quoting I like sushi
Psychological analysis?
1. [math]a - b = c[/math]
2. [math]a = c + b[/math]
3. [math] a + (-b) = c + b + (-b)[/math]
4. [math]a + (-b) = c + 0[/math]
5. [math]a + (-b) = c[/math]
6. [math]a - b = a + (-b)[/math]
QED
Quoting I like sushi
The usual way it's done is beliefs are justified and then they become knowledge on the condition that the justification is up to the mark. Beliefs that are devoid of a good argument to support them stay as beliefs; they're not considered knowledge.
Epistemic responsibility has to do with attempting to gain knowledge i.e. it's, at the end of the day, a way of sorting one's beliefs into knowledge and non-knowledge. The former will, no doubt, be useful and sanguine while the latter will be like smoking 4 packs of cigarettes a day, bad for overall wellbeing.
Quoting TheMadFool
I'd rather not pretend my beliefs are anything but beliefs. Knowledge is for set discernable limits only (ie. abstract).
Rationalizing people have a belief, and seek to justify it. When contradictory evidence comes their way, they insist its wrong. They stamp their feet. Insult the other person. Rationality is just another tool, like lying, intimidation, expression of status, and all of the other ways we can "throw our weight around". We have to have some modicum of reason for our beliefs, so we can even fool ourselves so that we are in our happy emotional belief spot.
Being rational takes education, dedication, and ironically, an emotional belief that is the correct way of thinking. It is difficult, takes extra work, and requires a person who can handle the negative emotions of being proven wrong. Rational people lose all the time, have to keep adjusting their world view, tempering their emotions against people who are clearly rationalizing, and generally must accept they are a mortal and not some intellectual God. Many people are unable or unwilling to try doing this.
This human condition has never changed, and it NEVER will change. Despite this, we've done pretty well. Objectively, times are better than they've ever been. Hunger, disease, and poverty throughout the world are all down. Less wars, more education, and greater communication through the internet. We even found a vaccine for a pandemic in about a year.
But of course, your rationalizing brain will dismiss the positives if you don't want to believe that it addresses your emotional negativity about humanity. Those who are looking for positive beliefs about humanity will immediately accept the positives as if they are a given, and dismiss the considerations of the negative about humanity. And we'll all be fine for it, just like we have for thousands of years.
What is/are the alternative(s)? Do we have a choice? Plus, everyone seems to have given it their nod of approval. Not an argument I know but still.
Quoting I like sushi
Keep it simple. Ignotum per igntoius. Not helpful.
That said, I'm open to new ideas but they have to make sense at some level I suppose. Just sayin!
Doesn't really matter. At the end of the day a 'belief' will overrule anything claimed by others to be 'known'. Nature will do as nature does regardless of what we call knowledge or belief. On top of that we're always going to lean towards justifying what we belief the most regardless of knowledge or we'd stagnate.
Quoting TheMadFool
The above has nothing to do with JTB Mathematics is an abstraction and within an abstracted set limit knowledge is discernible.
In justified true belief the 'truth' is just an attitude/emotion and this is clear in the need to justify it. It is just a belief and the more 'truth' people have towards it the more they'll justify it even if it costs them to do so.
True things can be known ONLY within a set limit with set rules (abstracted not real).
Belief in the context of the theory is more easily described as 'strong conviction'.
Justified is just to say not by luck.
The obvious argument against this theory is that it could all be a combination of luck and belief. The knowledge only comes through abstraction, but again this means we can be hoodwinked by belief into thinking we've got the method just because we have the desired outcome. Abstractions thankfully can be checked to a decent degree though due to set rules and limits.
Abstractions are not reality though so in day-to-day life we don't operate by way of knowledge we operate by way of beliefs and often bolster our beliefs by any justification that suits our beliefs. Rationality and reason are more or less a soft balm to sooth a first degree burn ... doesn't do a lot for us at the base human experience.
So, I can believe anything I want. That's a relief, sorta. However, what if my beliefs are false? Won't that impact my life and those of others (epistemic responsibility)? How do I determine if what I believe is true?
Quoting I like sushi
If you say so.
Quoting I like sushi
That's new. Sounds interesting but I'll stick with JTB if it's all the same to you. Oh, but it doesn't matter to you. I don't have to justify my beliefs to you and you would be perfectly ok with that, right?
Quoting I like sushi
The not luck principle or something like that but then we need a positive definition, right? An apple is not a man isn't all that informative is it?
Quoting I like sushi
It doesn't matter.
Stick to the old ways then. It is an abstract theory set in an abstract realm that has some parallels to human life. the problem is if you apply it to language as if it is a mathematical model you're working within an unlimited world where the rules are unknown. So it doesn't hold up in real life as anything other than a simple belief like any other belief. It cannot justify itself in a true or believed way in the real world because we're oblivious to the limits and rules of the world.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yes. If they interfere with mine/others though we may have to negotiate. That is basically how the world works so no biggie.
If people hold rigidly to an abstract rule as a way of living in the world and it works for them so be it. Generally I'm more inclined to disbelief when it comes to bringing the abstract into the realm of lived lives.
JTB isn't a JTB if the limits and rules are unknown. Within known bounds (necessarily abstract) I'm ok with the theory of JTB.
TO repeat. 'Truth' is an attitude more than anything else ... that is my belief.
I could be very wrong about this but it seems as though you're trying to justify your position but then you said that isn't any good? I don't mind contradictions but some say there's something terribly wrong with it. I dunno!
Quoting I like sushi
But you leave out the specifics, the details and the devil, they say, is in the details. Last I checked, negotiations involved justifications/argumentations and when that failed, punches/kicks/bullets/bombs...you get the idea ("aggressive" negotiations). I hope you don't mean that by "negoitiations"
Quoting I like sushi
So, the JTB is an abstract rule? I fail to see how that diminshes its value when it comes to knowledge and, possibly, other matters.
Quoting I like sushi
Yep. JTB is JTB, as defined but it does have, like all things, limitations; I don't deny that. These limitations need to be known of course but there are situations in which the JTB is perfectly applicable/acceptable.
Quoting I like sushi
Flesh that out for me, will ya?
I was insisting that JTB must leave out the specifics to work flawlessly (see below) because it is only fully effective in an abstract realm.
I did mean all of the above in terms of 'negotiations'. In the real world claim of what is believed to be 'the truth' or 'justified' is often why violence can ensue. This is because each party thinks they own 'knowledge' rather than viewing knowledge as a tool used to lever individual beliefs that suit them. We're not robots.
The more important (the greater the value attached to the disagreement) the 'negotiation' the more likely the belief will bypass reasonable argumentation by sheer will.
Quoting TheMadFool
Because with set abstract rules and limits we can differentiate between 'true' and 'false'. Outside of such set rules and limits (ie. real world situations where 'rules' and 'limits' are unknown) we cannot differentiate between 'true' and 'false' as we're not able to know anything for certain unlike in abstracted realms. Nature has a habit of showing us that what we took as a 'truth' here and there and in another place makes another 'truth' a mistake - too many variables/perspectives.
More simply put applying mathematical formula to the stock market will not guarantee profits only act as a tool to aid profits - that is diminished value. How diminished? Another layer of the problem cake.
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure. But I have a feeling we might disagree what and where these limitations are due to our different beliefs.
Quoting TheMadFool
Nothing to flesh out. You will belief some things irrespective of any facts thrown your way, as we all will, because we're not robots.
There are little smudges in this area as Wittgenstein threw out. With the example of a game of chess two people playing what they believe to be the correct game of chess with the correct rules may not actually be playing the correct rules. Believing they are playing the game correctly is all that matters for them irrespective of whether they are or not. If they ever found out they had made a mistake they would still have been 'playing chess' but just not in absolutely the correct manner.
To relate more to what I said this needn't happen after the event. There could be one person arguing about a rule (and be correct) yet everyone else disagrees. People will follow their belief and they will still be 'playing chess' because they believe they are playing chess.
People can believe anything up to the point where they cannot deny it. I may believe that it isn't going to rain within the next 5 mins due to spotless blue skies yet if it did start to rain (by some freak occurrence) I would not question my initial belief but I would be intrigued as to why I was wrong and what freak occurrence caused the rain. This instance is completely different to chess though as we do not know the 'rules' or 'limits' of weather with absolute precision in the manner that I can know the rules and limits of chess.
You may not use the word "because".
The way I see it is people want to be right i.e. they want their beliefs to match facts. Clearly, a belief may not be true. How do we decide who's right and who's wrong? You reject justification (reason/rationality/logic).
The alternative to justification, as we found out, is violence - might is right. So, if I'm powerful enough, this line of reasoning goes, I can change facts/truths to suit my whims. Is this what you're proposing?
Quoting I like sushi
You may not use the word "because".
Quoting I like sushi
Again, details, details, details. There are many things that can be said but not meant. If you can't expand and elaborate your position nobody can and will take you seriously, right?
Maybe not nobody, but very few. Because.
You know what, I think I like your point of view for the following reason:
We stopped being as violent as we used to be because it dawned on us that a brawl actually didn't solve our problems. So, we switched to reason, argumentation, logic, you know what I'm talking about.
We were under the impression that logic would do the job of bringing resolution to our disputes. As it turns out, rationality fails at this task as evidenced by the innumerable times when words ended up in blows. We're back at square one.
Neither violence nor logic works. We need something newer, better! What that is is beyond me.
There's a paradox in this:
1. We want to be right.
Ergo,
2. It seems we care about the truth.
But,
3. When we're proven wrong, we go off the deep end.
Thus,
4. We care about the truth (we want to be right) & we don't care about the truth (we lose it when proven wrong).
Truth is...an attitude :chin:
Epistemic responsibility: You're responsible for your beliefs because they have consequences, moral consequences to be precise.
A belief is what one considers to be true. Truth then is the cornerstone of belief and for that reason we need some kind of method to decide what's true and what's not true. Enter reason/rationality/logic aka justification.
Since beliefs matter morally, and beliefs are only important insofar as they're true, and justification is the final word, as of now, on truth, it follows that epistemic responsibility boils down to learning and mastering logic/critical thinking.
A justified, true, belief is the current definition of knowledge. Put simply then epistemic responsibility reduces to sorting out beliefs - keeping those that count as knowledge and getting rid of those that don't qualify as knowledge.
Is ignorance (I don't know) knowledge?
[quote=Socrates](I know that) I know nothing.[/quote]
Not for me.
I know! I suppose you don't have the time to expand and elaborate on what your definition of knowledge is.
:ok: