Then why the praise? If they've not done something ethically praiseworthy? Are just personally pleased with them? — Isaac

I initially said "credit," not "praise" -- you wanted to use "praise." That's fine, call it what you will. But as I've said several times now, I don't think it deserves much praise at all. But it deserves some. Why? Again, the poker example is a good one. There are winning players who don't know a thing about game theory, and yet they win. That's not just random chance and lucky guessing; they're making the mathematically/theoretically "correct" moves, but they're doing so by incorporating things like instinct, intuition, sensitivity to psychological data, the ability to read people, etc. Whatever the source of these instincts, I think they deserve some credit for having them in the first place. That's arguable -- maybe they don't. Maybe people who have a natural "aptitude" for things don't deserve any credit either. That's a discussion perhaps worth having. But either way, I'm not suggesting high praise.

OK. So, same question but for laymen. what's the advantage to society in have all the laymen follow the advice that it most likely to be right (as opposed to having some of them follow the second most likely, third most likely etc.)? — Isaac

You speak as if we're not currently living the answer, presumably forgetting the thread topic.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"

Is it better to be on the right side of the truth or not?
— Xtrix

Woah. When did 'Truth' enter into it? — Isaac

It's true that smoking increases the likelihood of getting cancer. It's true that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's true that vaccines are highly effective at combating COVID. It's true that masks help slow the spread of the virus.

Many people outright deny all of the above, largely because they believe the wrong people. People and things which I mentioned above -- quack doctors, Facebook memes, YouTube stars, bloggers, Twitter users, bogus websites, etc.

Neither of those things are a statement about what we ought to do. They are both statements of fact. — Isaac

Again, take a step away from Hume for a minute. Everything I mentioned above is a fact -- it is true, in any sense of the word. Based on those facts, we can decide what to do. It's that simple. But people aren't listening to the facts anymore, and that's the problem. They're not listening because they don't trust medical or scientific authority -- and that's a dangerous mistake.

True, maybe there are people who want the Earth to burn up, who want the pandemic to spread further, who want to die tomorrow, who want to get lung cancer, etc. In those cases, the facts I mentioned above, in their minds, translates to the exact opposite actions of most sane people. So what?

To get an action out them we need an objective, and a value system to weigh it against other objectives. Do you have experts in those things? — Isaac

Yes: nearly every human being on the planet who want to continue to live, who want the pandemic to be over, who want to sustain the environment for future generations, etc.

The question isn't whether or not people are insane. I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.

The question is a matter of who they're listening to. Eventually it'll be right in front of them: they'll get COVID themselves, even after believing it was a "hoax" because they listened to some guy on the internet say so. Eventually the impacts of climate change will hit them where they live, despite believing it's a "Chinese hoax" because they trusted Donald Trump over the overwhelming scientific consensus. Etc.

You'll find most nutritionists say you should outright never eat McDonalds. Others will say it's OK a few times a year -- in other words, in moderation. Do any suggest you should eat fast food "as often as you like"? I'm sure very few, but you could probably find them
— Xtrix

Find one then. — Isaac

That's like saying "find someone who says climate change is a hoax." Equally ridiculous. But they're out there, despite not helping whatever argument you're trying to make.

the vast majority of doctors and scientists are encouraging vaccinations. Around 96% of doctors have gotten the vaccine themselves.
— Xtrix

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac

Are you serious?

I won't even get into it again -- see above -- but think for a second about what you're saying. You're really going off the rails, and I have no idea why.

I think you're a prime example for the people on here who argue that studying philosophy isn't such a good thing for most people. If this is the kind of argument that comes out of it, we're in very deep trouble indeed.

There are almost no experts who question the use of vaccines
— Xtrix

That's just bullshit. — Isaac

No, it's just a fact.

But let me get this straight: the idea that there are nutritionists out there who would say "eat McDonalds as often as you like" you consider to be outlandish -- you don't even think there's one. But the idea that there are "almost no experts" who question the vaccine -- equally absurd -- you think is "bullshit," and then talk about recommendations for kids as "proof" of this?

In case it's not clear: none of those doctors are questioning the use of vaccines. If you believe recommendations about appropriate ages to get the vaccine is equivalent to "questioning the use of vaccines," you've really misread my statement. Which is a striking misreading.

There are winning players who don't know a thing about game theory, and yet they win. That's not just random chance and lucky guessing; they're making the mathematically/theoretically "correct" moves, but they're doing so by incorporating things like instinct, intuition, sensitivity to psychological data, the ability to read people, etc. Whatever the source of these instincts, I think they deserve some credit for having them in the first place. — Xtrix

But your only criteria for identifying these people is that they win. That's not the criteria you're using here. The criteria you're using here is that they trust the same people you trust for the same reasons. Winning has not entered into it.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone. — Xtrix

This just assumes the question of discussion.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?" — Xtrix

Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking.

It's true that smoking increases the likelihood of getting cancer. It's true that anthropogenic climate change is happening. It's true that vaccines are highly effective at combating COVID. It's true that masks help slow the spread of the virus.

Many people outright deny all of the above, largely because they believe the wrong people. People and things which I mentioned above -- quack doctors, Facebook memes, YouTube stars, bloggers, Twitter users, bogus websites, etc. — Xtrix

All true. What's that got to do with the ethical question of whether one ought to take the vaccine? These are just the facts of the case, not the course of action it concludes.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living. — Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but in my experience going on living is not even in the top ten. People want to enjoy themselves, have sex, relax, learn new things, have a group of friends, taste nice food, make meaningful relationships, see beauty, stamp their identity on the world, play a part in something bigger then them...Maybe the mundane act of going on on living comes 11th at best.

The question is a matter of who they're listening to. Eventually it'll be right in front of them: they'll get COVID themselves — Xtrix

Well yes, only about 1,999 in every 2,000 won't even notice. so I don't know what impact you think that might have on their thinking other than to cement any rejection they may have fostered.

That's like saying "find someone who says climate change is a hoax." Equally ridiculous. — Xtrix

Repeating the assertion doesn't prove it. I very much doubt there is a nutritionist out there who says you can eat the quantity of junk food most Americans eat who does not have a clear bias (paid for by fast food companies, or some such). There are properly and appropriately qualified scientists without any ulterior affiliation who question the use of the vaccine, against the official advice. The situation is not the same at all.

Again, in what way can a doctor be an expert in which values are most important, such that they can give an expert opinion on what one ought to do? — Isaac

Are you serious? — Xtrix

Yes, very. It's clear that a doctor cannot provide a judgement about what one ought to do, they provide medical facts. What one ought to do about those facts is a separate question which a doctor is no more qualified to answer than you are.

In case it's not clear: none of those doctors are questioning the use of vaccines. If you believe recommendations about appropriate ages to get the vaccine is equivalent to "questioning the use of vaccines," you've really misread my statement. Which is a striking misreading. — Xtrix

Then what would you call it? Some experts are saying we should roll out the vaccines to children, others are saying we should not. That sounds like questioning the use of vaccines. The question is about their use, no? Some experts have 24 as the cut off, some 18, others 15. Some experts think we should roll out boosters, others don't. Some experts think that FDA approval should not have been given, others that it should have been given earlier. Some experts think we should be targeting the vulnerable in other countries, others think we should get as much coverage as possible regardless of where. These are all questions about the use of the vaccine. The fact that you'd rather spend all your energy defeating tinfoil-hat wearing lunatics who think vaccines contain nano-transmitters (despite the fact that none of those people are even posting here) says more about you than it does about the arguments of the serious vaccine-hesitant.

You share the same air, water, food sources, economy, oil reserves, enemies (sometimes), future... If Bob is unemployed the cost of labour is reduced because there's a demand for jobs. that means the manufacturer has to pay less for labour which means you get cheaper products. No state necessary, you benefit from bob's unemployment. — Isaac

I don't share those things any more than I share it with Mr. Liuang on the other side of the world. And even if I did, it is a situation I neither brought about nor asked for.

Again, I don't feel that connection in the same way you might. I deal with people in my vicinity - people whose interests I can properly understand and aren't statistical abstractions.

I think if the government wanted to take what it believed to be it's property, it wouldn't have too hard a time doing so without violence — Isaac

Ok, so why do governments historically and temporarily rely on (threats of) violence if they don't have to?

How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them? — Isaac

Yes, why wouldn't that be possible?

Natural resources used to be up for grabs before states started claiming all of it en masse, with all the consequences that has brought.

That's the situation you're in. state or not, because you live with others. again, if all you want to do is whine about how difficult life is, then we'll just stop here. — Isaac

I'm not whining at all. Our discussion isn't about me.

Your opinion seems to be that there are no alternatives for the problems I have laid out, and that I should just stop whining about them. What is this other than tacit agreement?

I don't share those things any more than I share it with Mr. Liuang on the other side of the world. — Tzeentch

You have your own private air supply?

I don't feel that connection in the same way you might. I deal with people in my vicinity - people whose interests I can properly understand and aren't statistical abstractions. — Tzeentch

What's that got to do with the fact of the matter. Whether you 'feel' a connection doesn't have any bearing on whether one exists.

Ok, so why do governments historically and temporarily rely on (threats of) violence if they don't have to? — Tzeentch

It's a lot easier, for a start. I doubt they have as much moral qualms about doing so as you do. Again, their chosen course of action is irrelevant here. If you want to argue about the methods by which governments obtain what they rightfully think is theirs, that's a different matter. I think the methods could be much improved too. But that's not the argument you're making, the argument you're making is about the rightful ownership of the taxed portion of your pay.

How did they obtain the goods? No violence, so they what? Just found them? — Isaac


Yes, why wouldn't that be possible?

Natural resources used to be up for grabs before states started claiming all of it en masse, with all the consequences that has brought. — Tzeentch

Read some history, then start again. The stealing of land by force from those who originally made use of it pre-dates states by several hundred thousand years. Not to mention the fact that our current population density and current place in such a long complex history, makes any return to such a state impossible - again I'm not entertaining childish whinging here.

Your opinion seems to be that there are no alternatives for the problems I have laid out, and that I should just stop whining about then. — Tzeentch

Yes, that is exactly the argument. This is not a therapy session, it's a discussion forum.

Whether you 'feel' a connection doesn't have any bearing on whether one exists. — Isaac

Maybe not, but as I said, abstractions and miniscule connections are of no significance to me when it comes to dealing with other people. I wouldn't expect my neighbor to compensate me for breathing the same air as I, even he were to breathe a little more than I.

These supposed connections to people on the other side of the globe are only theoretical and do not find any true bearing within the human experience: at least not in mine.

It's a lot easier, for a start. I doubt they have as much moral qualms about doing so as you do. — Isaac

Yes, states have historically proven to lack any semblance of a moral compass that could in some way justify the power attributed to them.

But that's not the argument you're making, the argument you're making is about the rightful ownership of the taxed portion of your pay. — Isaac

What is rightful and what is not was never a part of my argument, so this is simply not true.

The stealing of land by force from those who originally made use of it pre-dates states by several hundred thousand years. — Isaac

Maybe so, but states have perfected this dark art.

Not to mention the fact that our current population density and current place in such a long complex history, makes any return to such a state impossible - again I'm not entertaining childish whinging here. — Isaac

It's good to know you're not entertaining whinging in regards to a point I am not making. A little irrelevant to our discussion, though.

Yes, that is exactly the argument. — Isaac

This would imply you see the problems as I have laid them out, and are simply asking me to stop talking about them. I won't, obviously.

There are properly and appropriately qualified scientists without any ulterior affiliation who question the use of the vaccine, against the official advice. — Isaac

Like who, and with what arguments?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/jcvi-issues-updated-advice-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15

The assessment by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) is that the health benefits from vaccination are marginally greater than the potential known harms. However, the margin of benefit is considered too small to support universal vaccination of healthy 12 to 15 year olds at this time.

Apparently this changes as soon as a person turns 16. The reasoning behind not giving the vaccine to healthy 12-15 year olds seems to me to apply to all healthy people.

1) This is official advice, not going against it, and 2) Isaac is retired I think, so this does not apply to him.

I was offering a reply to your post above mine, asking for examples of scientists questioning the use of the vaccine and the reasons for this.

(Posted before you had edited)

Thanks. I was aware that vaccination was not recommended for kids. I was asking about medical doctors who "question the use of the vaccine, against the official advice".

1) This is official advice, not going against it

The meaningful element of your question seems to me to be whether there are scientists who question the use of the vaccine. The word is that Chris Whitty is going to green-light vaccinations for 12-15 year olds, in which case the JCVI advice will be in opposition to that.

The plot thickens...

But your only criteria for identifying these people is that they win. That's not the criteria you're using here. The criteria you're using here is that they trust the same people you trust for the same reasons. Winning has not entered into it. — Isaac

Yes, because that's an analogy. The point being made with that analogy is about decisions, and what we base those decisions on: knowledge or instinct.

Let's go over this yet again. The original point you made was: those who believe in climate change and vaccines are usually just as ignorant as those who don't. That's probably true and I agree with it. My claim, which started this odd interchange, was a simple one: regardless of their ignorance, one group is lining up with the truth (climate change is real; vaccines are effective; the Earth is spherical, etc), the other isn't -- this matters. I also think the people who go with the truth over bullshit, or in this case the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, deserve some credit for doing so -- just as the "instinct player" deserves some credit (not a lot, but some) for having the instincts to make the right poker moves.

I'll repeat all this as many times as you need, as tiresome as it is.

If most laypeople in the United States, who know nothing about vaccines, virology, microbiology, biochemistry, medicine, molecular biology, immunology, epidemiology, etc. etc., would listen to what these experts are saying and take the vaccine, then that would be a very great advantage indeed -- for everyone.
— Xtrix

This just assumes the question of discussion. — Isaac

Whatever question you have in mind, it wasn't what started this discussion. What started this discussion is the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

That's all this has been about, your digressions aside.

But the question is an odd one anyway. It's like asking: "What's the advantage of having everyone put their money on something with a 70% chance of winning instead of a 20% chance or 10% chance?"
— Xtrix

Yes, that's exactly the question I'm asking. — Isaac

Amazing. All right, I'll explain it:

Assuming people like to win money, putting their money on something with a higher probability of winning is the right move. It's advantageous. It's also basic logic. Here's the definition of advantage:

"a condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable or superior position."

Putting money on something with a 20% chance of winning puts you at a disadvantage compared to a 70% chance of winning.

Now switch to the topic of this thread. Assuming three things: (1) people want to live a healthy life, (2) people want the pandemic to be over, and (3) the medical establishment is correct in recommending vaccines as a way to stop the spread of COVID and take us out of the pandemic, then we're in the exact same position. It's advantageous for everyone if people take the vaccines.

Are you in favor of vaccinations or not? Do you believe people should get themselves vaccinated? Do you agree with the medical establishment? If not, just say so and trying to dance around it by playing dumb and arguing these ridiculous points.

All true. What's that got to do with the ethical question of whether one ought to take the vaccine? — Isaac

That wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

You now want to raise an ethical question, which is different. But I'll indulge. It's very simple:

If we make the basic assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want to come out of the pandemic, etc., then the facts mentioned above lead directly to the conclusion of what one ought to do. If you're really questioning those assumptions, then that's your own business.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? — Isaac

:lol:

Because people want to die, be sick, etc.? It's hard to skydive when you're dead -- but have it your way.

I very much doubt there is a nutritionist out there who says you can eat the quantity of junk food most Americans eat who does not have a clear bias — Isaac

Likewise with the fossil fuel industry "scientists" and the COVID quackery. Very clear bias, very clear motivations (almost always monetary).

It's clear that a doctor cannot provide a judgement about what one ought to do, they provide medical facts. What one ought to do about those facts is a separate question which a doctor is no more qualified to answer than you are. — Isaac

Doctors do this all the time, because they live in the real world and assume people don't want to be sick and die -- an assumption you seem to want to argue about.

Again, put down David Hume and what you've read about the "is/ought" gap -- it's bogus anyway.

Regardless, this wasn't the topic. The topic was the following:

(1) You claimed both sides are ignorant.
(2) I conceded that, but added...
(3) One side is still going with the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus, and deserve some credit for doing so.

If you want to have philosophical debates about dividing the world up into "facts" and "values," fine. But we're dealing with a real world situation. It's very simple: people should listen to doctors and take the vaccine. It would be better for everyone. It's the ethical thing to do, it's also the smart thing to do -- all based on overwhelming evidence. True, all this rests on the assumption that people want to live, want to be healthy, want the pandemic to be over, want to stop the spread of COVID, aren't sociopaths, etc. I'm sure you can find some exceptions, but this is the assumption I make -- and I think it's reasonable to everyone but those who spend way too much time with abstractions and introductory philosophy books. ("What if people like being sick? What if they want to die?")

Again, if you don't agree with that, then say so. But don't try to shift the topic into the fact/value dichotomy -- I'm really not interested, nor do I believe in such nonsense.

I confess, I make the assumption that most people want to go on living.
— Xtrix

Then why do people skydive? I don't know what kind of people you associate with, but in my experience going on living is not even in the top ten. People want to enjoy themselves, have sex, relax, learn new things, have a group of friends, taste nice food, make meaningful relationships, see beauty, stamp their identity on the world, play a part in something bigger then them...Maybe the mundane act of going on on living comes 11th at best. — Isaac

Worth quoting the whole thing. This is why philosophy gets a bad rep.

This is why philosophy gets a bad rep. — Xtrix

:up:

:up:

Snip psychoanalysis of those who provide aid and comfort to a virus. I remembered I'm not a psychologist, even if I could play one on the internet.

This is an example of bad faith, I think. I can't imagine why anyone would want to continue on like this unless they're secretly an anti-vaxxer. Otherwise it's just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing, arguing for the sake of arguing. Maybe some people like to think of these things as "debates" where one gets points if one "wins," or pride themselves on arguing indefensible positions. Who knows. Any thoughts?

Is this an example of a complete waste of time, which I've argued against in the "Axioms of Discourse" thread?

This is the only interesting question that emerges from such interchanges, in my view.

This is an example of bad faith, I think. — Xtrix

I agree, though as I said, I'm not trained up in psychoanalysis. I had written up a rather lengthy explanation of what I thought might be the motivation, but it went way beyond the gadfly or sincere intellectual curiosity, or the insolent, or the petulant, or the sadistic glee of the troll. Those are things I'm qualified to speculate on. No, this goes beyond that. It wouldn't be an issue except there are those who are persuaded to avoid the vax based upon such posturing.

I tried to explain how one should not merely cite sources, but find out what the other side said about what the sources said, and then the reply. But I'm not seeing any intellectual rigor. I agree bad faith is the explanation. It would be interesting to see what a shrink had to say about it, but that's another thread. I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"?

I wonder how many people have died as a result of this type of "thinking"? — James Riley

We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate.

We don't have to wonder -- it's happening right now, all around us. And people like Isaac help it along -- which is unfortunate. — Xtrix

:100:

I hope I have not contributed to the problem by giving oxygen to it. My natural inclination is to engage, but standing down might be the better part of valor. While Covid can fix stupid, I certainly can't. :blush:

It seems to me that declining to get the vaccine is entirely reasonable since the official line is so open to questioning:

“The vaccine will protect you.” Why should we expect it to do more than a natural, healthy immune response?

“It will protect others by reducing transmission.” By what mechanism does it reduce transmission compared to a normal immune response that itself suppresses symptoms?

“It will contribute to herd immunity.” In what way does it do this better than natural immunity?

The fact that the JCVI does not at this time recommend universal vaccination for 12-15 year olds shows that there is that balance to consider between the vaccine’s benefits and costs. The official line hasn’t to my awareness demonstrated the benefits well enough to justify those costs (regarding the healthy).

Really I think this whole affair has been a catastrophic mistake in proportionality causing untold amounts of unnecessary harm to people, and everything that has followed the first lockdowns - including fanatical views on vaccine mandates - has been a doubling down on a mistake which those who have participated in it find themselves unable to admit to—principally governments and media but the general population included.

:roll:



:down:

QED

Yes, and those questions have been answered, numerous times. If you're unaware of them, it's because you're unwilling to find them -- nothing more.
'
True, there could be a vast global conspiracy involved. But short of that, it's crystal clear what one should do: take the vaccine.

has been a doubling down on a mistake which those who have participated in it find themselves unable to admit to—principally governments and media but the general population included. — AJJ

:lol:

Thankfully there are geniuses like you around to steer us in the right direction.

Here is a good case of what I mentioned above: someone who doesn't know what they're talking about deciding to go with quackery and conspiracy theories over the overwhelming scientific and medical consensus. Terrible, terrible judgment at its finest. It's like these losers who have two choices and always manage to pick the wrong one.

Imagine thinking the world's experts haven't asked themselves -- or don't have answers to -- your very profound "questions." I'm always in awe of this, especially with climate deniers. Now it's manifesting as COVID and vaccine denial, apparently. Same basic phenomenon.

Maybe I'll try it one day. I'll pick a topic -- one that hasn't even been politicized -- like physics, walk into a university and start arguing with the professor, confronting him with questions I've conjured up on my own (because I'm a very stable, and definitely not brainwashed, contrarian). I bet it feels amazing to have that level of ego.

Yes, and those questions have been answered, numerous times. If you're unaware of them, it's because you're unwilling to find them -- nothing more. — Xtrix

Before I posted searched and watched the video here: https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-19-vaccines-young-healthy

No answers. I searched for an answer to the second question in particular and got this:

Vaccination is likely to substantially reduce virus transmission by reducing the pool of people who become infected, and reducing virus levels in people who get infected.

But there’s no clarity as to why a natural, healthy immune response won’t do the same thing. In fact, to my knowledge an asymptomatic infection is such precisely because of a reduced viral load and is common in young, healthy people.

True, there could be a vast global conspiracy involved. — Xtrix

In my above post I gave what I would describe as the opposite of a conspiracy theory.

:100: I wanted to distinguish health care providers from climate scientists (you know, the guys in the pockets of big environmentalists :roll:) but then I remembered, my doctor and all the other health care professionals around the globe are in the pocket of big pharma and the insurance companies that have reduced doctors to the status of Saul Goodman. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Anyway, you have more energy than I have if you want to tilt at this AJL windmill.

QED — AJJ

More like, simply Q.

That would actually be a good one if I’d described something resembling a conspiracy theory.