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. — Isaac

I think so too.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement? — 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.

No Yohan is spot on. It's exactly the question the medical ethicists are asking. — Isaac

:lol:

It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention — Professor Julian Savulescu in the BMJ

No kidding. Notice this person doesn't ONCE say that vaccines are "dangerous." They're not: they're safe and effective. Safe does not = "absolutely no risk of harm." Dangerous does not = "0.000015% chance of harm."

I think the real question is why I even bother with this nonsense...

The science is pretty unanimous about the fact that for healthy, young people below 35, the chance of getting seriously ill from a covid infection is much smaller than the chance of experiencing serious adverse effects from a vaccination. — Tzeentch

No. This isn't true. But even if it were true, as usual it excludes the point about slowing the spread -- which the vaccine also does.

"Seriously ill" and "serious adverse effects" are meaningless until explained. Feel free to cite credible sources.

If vaccine safety and efficacy meant that vaccines weren't dangerous, then I should think everyone would be on board with them. But I am not hearing anyone claim vaccines aren't dangerous. — Yohan

Everyone is on board with them. This is why experts are overwhelming advocating vaccinations. Precisely because they're safe and effective.

If something is safe, it doesn't mean risk-free. Planes are safe, but they crash occasionally. Does that mean planes are "dangerous"? If you want to play word games, sure. In that case: everything is dangerous.

Maybe this needs pointing out: an activity cannot be safe and dangerous at the same time. If you want to create your own semantic universe (which is usually necessary for anti-vaxxers and other deluded individuals) to justify your position, feel free. Excuse me while I laugh, however.

Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/

This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk — I like sushi

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.

Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people?
— 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. — Isaac

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?

What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”
— Xtrix

And you'd have insight into this how? — 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"?

Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons? — 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.

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? — 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.

Of course the vaccines are safe and effective.
The problem is that vaccines are dangerous — Yohan

Safe, effective, and dangerous.

Very sensible, as always.

You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree. — Isaac

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?

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. — 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.

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). — I like sushi

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.

And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways) — I like sushi

I’m not sure I understand this remark. Learned much about what?

2024 is far too distant to know what will happen. But it’s very likely Trump is nominated and, once again, has the enthusiasm on his side as the “outsider.”

Given that Biden will likely have a Republican Congress for two years and hence have very few accomplishments, depending on the economy Trump could have a shot. Republicans will try to burn everything down so the country blames Biden. But even then, I doubt he’s elected. He was never elected to begin with.

Maybe people will forget that he was the worst president we’ve ever had, and the four years of chaos we endured — it really depends on how enthusiastic the more sane majority of the country feels. If there’s even some enthusiasm, Trump stands no chance. But Biden is a fairly uninspiring guy…

The thing to keep an eye on is this reconciliation bill. Looks like the Manchin and other Republicans are doing their best to destroy it— in which case we won’t have a livable planet for much longer anyway.

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. — I like sushi

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.

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... — Isaac

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.

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. — Isaac

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.

Epistemic responsibility, due to its moral flavor, would mean that Donald Trump is an evil/bad person. — TheMadFool

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.

Believing in something without evidence is a choice,
— Xtrix

It is neurologically impossible to believe something without evidence. — 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.

but they don't themselves function without inputs (real time evidence). Beliefs are just too high level a structure to develop independant of inputs. — Isaac

:lol:

Called it before reading it.

"Inputs." Well done.

No one deliberately decides to get it wrong. — Isaac

Yeah, they do. All the time.

Yep. I'm offering 4:1 on 'genocide', 8:1 on 'Armageddon' and 10:1 on the zombie apocalypse outsider. — Isaac

No, just agreeing with the following:

It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.

— "The Ethics of Belief" (1879) W. Clifford

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. — Olivier5

Agreed.

I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea.
— Xtrix

Then follow the conversation. I'm not going to conduct six different conversations all saying the same thing to six different people. — Isaac

Then don’t complain about it. You said you cited evidence— you didn’t. I’m not going up follow conversations I’m not involved in. Next time, don’t interject yourself in others’ conversations.

Evidence, to me, is a stack of studies with statistically significant correlations between variables. — Isaac

You truly have a superficial understanding of science I’m afraid.

This idea you have that overwhelming evidence just speaks to us somehow, is nonsense. — Isaac

“Speaks to us somehow”?

It’s fun watching you try to squirm your way out of this.

That vaccines are safe and effective is supported by overwhelming evidence. That climate change is real — overwhelming evidence. That’s why we “believe” these things. Not because of “votes.”

They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc.
— Xtrix

They absolutely do not, hence my request that you back up this assertion with evidence. Your consistent failure to do so just incriminates you further. Cite the bone fide expert with no history of bias or discoverable conflict of interest who claims the holocaust never happened or that the earth is flat. If you can't cite one then you're clearly just making this up. — Isaac

I have— in other conversations. You’ll have to follow them. I can’t conduct six different conversations saying the same thing, after all.

Things are safe enough, effective enough, depending on that which they are pitted against. — Isaac

No. The vaccines are safe and effective, as has been demonstrated over and over again. That’s science. That’s mathematics.

Not “safe enough,” or any other home-brewed bullshit you now need to invent to save face in your quest to justify a nonsense conspiracy theory. They’re safe.

But please continue.

You’re truly an intellectual fraud.

Indeed, something you should try every now and then. — baker

:lol:

Coming from you, this is hilarious.

Because being wrong is not a choice, it can't be immoral. — frank

Believing in something without evidence is a choice, and in some views immoral. I generally agree with this view.

even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate
— Xtrix

Just a repeat of the original claim. No counter argument, no contrary evidence, nothing. You claim it's legitimate, I give reasons why it's not, you just repeat that it's legitimate. Why? Well, because you said so. What more reason could possibly be required than that, eh? — Isaac

No, if you continue reading I give plenty of reasons why.

I raise the idea that evidence is not overwhelming but appears so because of a bias in study design, funding, media reporting and government influence - all backed up previously with actual cited evidence — Isaac

I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea.

It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence.
— Xtrix

That's the same thing. — Isaac

No, it isn't.

Eight studies concluding one thing, two studies concluding another. All ten studies meeting the minimum threshold for acceptable science.

My claim is that all ten are equally legitimate because they've all met the threshold for acceptable science.

Your claim is that the two are unacceptable because fewer people support them. A popularity contest. — Isaac

I haven't once claimed that.

What I claim -- and forgive me for "repeating" myself, but I have to do so often with you -- is that it's the overwhelming evidence that determines what to do, not votes or popularity contests.

My 'line' is...

1. I can support my view with citations from bone fide experts in the appropriate field who have no discoverable conflict of interest or evidence of previous bias. — Isaac

You haven't done so with me. Where are these citations? And what are they regarding, exactly?

Now prove your point by doing the same for the view that climate change isn't real, or that the earth was made by God 6000 years ago, or that the holocaust didn't happen, or that the earth is flat... — Isaac

They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc.

If my view is just like those others, you should be able to prove it. — Isaac

I didn't say "exactly like," I said you're on the way.

All the hot air you've blown has nothing to do with the fact -- the overwhelming evidence -- that shows the vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread to the virus. If you have "citations" from credible sources suggesting otherwise, I'm happy to take a look. But that's all that is relevant here -- not that Big Pharma has too much power or other truisms. If you can show Big Pharma is faking the data, or that there's institutional pressures that biases the results, by all means do so. But again, that's a very big claim, and until you show it it's nothing more than conspiracy theory. When you have nearly 7 billion doses given around the world, I think the jury is in on this one.

I've seen no evidence so far to suggest that vaccines aren't safe or effective, and I believe you even conceded that beforehand. So once again, are you arguing against this or not? Because if you're not, then your stance about vaccine mandates are completely absurd -- and it was precisely this that was being discussed when you once again interjected.

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 — Isaac

And they often aren't "good reasons" at all. They usually come from exactly what I mentioned.

"If a man, holding a belief which he was taught in childhood or persuaded of afterwards, keeps down and pushes away any doubts which arise about it in his mind, purposely avoids the reading of books and the company of men that call in question or discuss it, and regards as impious those questions which cannot easily be asked without disturbing it—the life of that man is one long sin against mankind." — WK Clifford

Figured this was worth sharing.

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. — Tom Storm

:up:

We live in the age of resentment. — Tom Storm

I don't know if it's resentment so much as hopelessness and anger. But perhaps I'm splitting hairs.

It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate.
— Xtrix

Not in the least. The aim of the smoking ban was to prevent illness from passive smoking, there was only one way to do that (cut down on smoke). Hence the ban. — Isaac

There were multiple ways of doing that, actually. There were different sections for smoking, at first. That's now stopped as well, until we have an outright ban.

The aim of the vaccine mandates is the prevent illness from passive inhalation of the virus from those who are unvaccinated. Hence the mandates.

If the aim here is to reduce covid infection there are several ways that can be done - regular testing, distance working, hygiene practices, antibody tests for natural immunity...

They've chosen vaccination. — Isaac

Not sure who "they" are, but there have been multiple approaches, and social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing, and testing still go on as well. Where I work, they test everyone every week, vaccinated or not.

But even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate. Just as they require them in schools, and have done so for decades. And workplaces, for that matter.

The one option that aligns with the agenda of the most powerful industry in the world. There's an absolute need to mandate something. There's no reason at all why that something has to be the product of a private corporation. — Isaac

So it's a conspiracy to make money, pushed by Big Pharma. That's essentially what you're saying. And the entire medical community is in on it, apparently.

Unfortunately for you, the exact same argument can be made for all the others vaccines which have been required for decades in schools and workplaces. It's all "big pharma." Never mind the fact that these vaccines are perfectly safe and effective -- apparently that's irrelevant.

But it isn't. It's exactly the point. If you accept that, then your argument is absurd. You have said before that you agree the vaccines are safe and effective. So...

the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science.
— Xtrix

Well then I would have chosen an extremely self-defeating career path wouldn't I?

No, I have no problem with the enterprise of science. I don't agree that it's conducted by vote, that's all. — Isaac

No one is suggesting it is "conducted" by vote, least of all me.

If you're referring to scientific consensus, which is an important factor to consider as a layman, that's a different subject -- and one you apparently still don't understand.

It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence. The overwhelming evidence shows that these vaccines are safe and effective. That they were manufactured by large pharmaceutical companies is irrelevant.

Just hypothetically imagine that corporations did indeed have academic establishments under their thrall, how would overwhelming evidence within those establishments be evidence of anything except the corporate agenda? — Isaac

Then you really do believe in conspiracies.

No, the overwhelming evidence is available for all of us to see and learn about, if we so desire. Same with the theory of evolution -- overwhelming evidence, if we want to learn about it. Same with climate change -- overwhelming evidence, if we wish to learn about it. Teachers, experts, doctors -- all should be able to explain things to you and show things to you, if you have questions or are skeptical or are simply interested in learning. That's true for everything.

If you start down this line of argument, without any evidence for it presented, then you can justify anything -- climate denial, creationism, holocaust denial, a flat earth...anything. But it's not exclusively a matter of trust or consensus -- it's the fact that you too can check yourself, through your own observations, experiments, research, data analysis, etc. If you choose to throw it all out with a wave of the hand, claiming all evidence is faked and all the experts are bought off, then you're off in cloud cuckoo land and there's little that can be done to remedy it. But that's your choice.

And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before.
— Xtrix

Not everyone is like that — baker

Nor did I say that, notice.

It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms. — 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.

isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in?
— Xtrix

Of course. So who do we trust to tell us whether the thing we're believing in is going to lead to harmful actions? — 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.

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? — 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?"

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. — 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.

We are not responsible for what's in our minds, only for what we let out. — 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.

All these questions are perspectival, because we're talking about trust, not facts. — Isaac

A good point -- yes, it is largely about trust. Who do we believe? Since we can't be experts in everything, we have to trust all kinds of people.

Trust is also 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?

we know better than to see academia as anything other than just another capitalist industry. — Isaac

No, what the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science. That's generally not a bad thing -- one should question authority of all kinds, not just political and religious, but scientific as well. That's how change occurs.

But when the evidence is overwhelming, and there's vast consensus, and one persists in taking the "skeptical" position nonetheless, we have to start questioning the motives -- just as we do with creationists who vehemently argue against the evidence of evolution. Should we take them seriously? Why or why not? After all, it's important to question things, is it not? They're the first to argue that point. Is there a deeper psychological issue at play here?

Yes, there is. It's simple: they've been brought up believing in a literal interpretation of Genesis, and so evolution, which conflicts with these cherished beliefs, has to be wrong. Ditto for many arguing against vaccines, against medicine, and against the government. It all has some truth to it, of course -- like the arguments against Big Pharma, or about how corporations care only about profits and don't give a damn about their workers or customers. Throw in a few "truths" like that, with the obligatory story about how everyone once thought the world was flat, etc., and now you have a much more convincing argument, at least on the surface.

I personally don't give a damn about the coronavirus for myself. I'm not afraid of it. I don't even care if those who are unvaccinated end up dying - so be it. What I care about is this dangerous level of stupidity that lies at the basis of the decisions that lead to these outcomes. It will, eventually, blow up in our faces if we don't confront it head on. We're seeing that right now with global warming, in fact. We saw it with 4 disastrous years of Donald Trump. Ideas and beliefs and attitudes and perceptions and interpretations -- all of the things upon which we decide and act and justify ourselves -- are what matters.

The issue, at heart, is truth. Or to put it more accurately: epistemic responsibility.

"these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons" - are you really that naive? — Isaac

Vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate.

It's got nothing to do with public health, it's to do with getting workers back to their job (being exploited for profit) as quickly as possible. — Isaac

This is so obvious it barely needs to be mentioned. But the same is true of smoking bans. True, it's not solely about public health -- but it just so happens that it aligns with it.

These companies would do all kinds of things if it increased profits, like polluting. When that behavior becomes too costly or illegal -- or "repetitional damage" occurs -- then they change. Like with smoking bans. But that doesn't make the change scientifically or medically unsound.

I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. — Isaac

No one, so far as I have read, is arguing that.

The left won't do that to Manchin or Sinema. — James Riley

Is it really going to take violence to get people to listen? Maybe the right has the correct tactic, like you mentioned. Their representatives are so terrified that they'll go along with any ol' batshit crazy thing -- "The election was stolen," "Trump is a great leader," etc. Whatever the mob wants (which the establishment themselves created, remember, through years of neoliberal policies and through their media), they'll more or less get at this point.

But these proposals of the democrats are going to directly impact corporate power, and so they're pushing back much harder. Whereas with Republicans, it's just crazy bullshit -- you never see them proposing raising taxes or more regulations or anything like that.

Also, in case you missed it the first time, what about testing people for the virus instead? If employees are willing to turn up to work 30mins in advance and take a Covid test then surely the employers should provide a test? IF the primary concern is for the workers safety this seems to make perfect sense. — I like sushi

I think I mentioned elsewhere that this is fine with me -- provided the employees pay for it themselves.

I’m not saying, and have not said, that the vaccine isn’t effective. My point remains with allowing adults to make a choice or not. If private companies choose to stop people working then my position here becomes more hazy. I’ll grant you that. That they are right to do so, as you say, I just don’t agree. — I like sushi

They tried to go the other way, and it wasn't working. Mandates are working. If that's what it takes to get people to push through the lies they're ensnared in and do the correct thing for fellow coworkers and the community at large, I think that's a legitimate use of corporate power.

I find it ironic that this is the hill mostly conservative people want to die on when it comes to corporate power. They've been anti-union and pro-business for years, pro corporate tax cuts, pro trickle-down economics -- and now, when these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons, they become Eugene Debbs.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/climate/biden-clean-energy-manchin.html

Death knell.

Might as well say goodbye to each other, because some asshole from West Virginia cares more about money than the future of his grandkids — and the human species.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/15/climate/biden-clean-energy-manchin.html

The death knell for the species.

It’s surreal that it’s happening right in front of us, and no one notices.

but the scary thing is that even if we continue (or begin) to act on these things, odds do not look good at all. — Manuel

The solutions are there, and ready -- it's a matter, ultimately, of political will. It'll cost roughly 2% of GDP a year. We've seen what governments are capable of doing thanks to the coronavirus, and we saw here in this country major coordinated changes that took place during WWII. There's plenty of money, plenty of financial incentive, plenty of rational incentive, and the technology and solutions are already available. That's the good news.

The bad news is that, as you mentioned, and as the IEA pointed out today, that we're not doing nearly enough despite some encouraging signs. So what is it going to take? Well, like any major beneficial change to society, it's going to be bottom-up, not top-down. The rich and powerful, the politicians and the corporate leaders, are going to have to be forced into doing the right thing -- because clearly they won't do it themselves, as they perceive it as a loss of power. But that's really just a mistake. We can have capitalism and action on climate change -- just not the form of capitalism predominant in the US today and for the last 40 years, which is extremely right-leaning (i.e., neoliberalism). If we simply move towards what other countries are doing, and towards what we had in the 50s and 60s (regimented capitalism -- New Deal era stuff), then that'd be a start.

So it's really a problem of the isolated, divided, apathetic, or otherwise hopeless (and heavily brainwashed) population. Unless we can break through the lies perpetuated by the algorithms of social media sites and the lies of the corporate media (conservative and liberal), educate ourselves and organize ourselves, then it's likely we're essentially doomed -- because the people steering the ship and driving the bus are taking us right off a cliff, knowingly, all in the name of profits and power.

I agree wholeheartedly. That's why "denial" is exactly the right word -- as humans we're good at denying or putting things out of our heads, like death -- or even the facts of our lives, like our daily actions (what we DO with our time). It's very difficult to look scary things in the face.

That's why it's good to also discuss all the positive and encouraging trends in the world today, despite a long way to go. There's lots of work being done right now, and lots of progress being made. It's not all doom and gloom. If these infrastructure bills pass in their current form, that's undeniably a good thing. Many colleges are divesting from fossil fuels. Many asset managers are doing so as well. The business community's largest lobbyists, the Business Roundtable and the US Chamber of Commerce, have changed their mission statements to "stakeholder capitalism" because of the pressure. The media, and even fossil fuel companies themselves, now acknowledge -- accurately -- the threat of climate change. We see, therefore, more greenwashing and more "delaying" tactics, but the baseline has still shifted -- this is still progress. The Republican party is starting to loosen a little with this, but not nearly enough. Younger Republicans seem to be far more interested in climate action than older ones.

So there's plenty being done, there's plenty to be hopeful for. Sitting in a corner and putting your head in the sand does nothing. But yes, that's what a lot of people do -- no doubt. I myself think about it a lot but often feel like I'm not doing nearly enough, nor do I know exactly what to do. Which is why it's important to join forces with others, exchange ideas, compare notes and strategies, be exposed to tactics you would have never thought of alone, etc.

No drug is 'harmless' per se.
— I like sushi

Then why call it "harmless"?

Also, what justifies the hatred and the contempt that the vocal pro-vaccers express for anyone who is in any way not enthusiastic about the vaccine? — baker

You mean the hatred and contempt towards you, which at this point I must say is completely justified, given that you shamelessly repeat the same lies after being corrected over and over again. It wasn't long ago you were talking up the potential harms of strokes, if I recall -- which upon reflection was something like 150 out of 10 million, according to one study. Which is 0.0015% -- which I'd say is so low as to be non-existent. But you insist on playing it up as if it were a significant threat, which is completely irresponsible, especially given the misinformation about the vaccines, which you're aware of.

You feel the need to nit-pick things like "harmless" and other such statements, knowing full well that the odds of being harmed by these vaccines are extremely low, apparently in the name of some crusade against the evil "pro-vaccers [sic]" who are "hateful and contemptuous."

Better than being a liar and enabler of misinformation and dangerous ignorance. Not to mention that you're exceedingly arrogant, condescending in tone, and almost always write with a self righteous and authoritarian air.

Why don't you give it a rest already.

My case is that I don't see the current threat of Covid as justifying companies/governments to prevent people from working. — I like sushi

That's fine -- but the companies and the government do see it that way, and rightly. They're informed by medical experts (and medical ethicists), who guide these decisions. They've made a calculated move which wasn't arrived at lightly, and in fact has been avoided for months. Given that people were allowed the choice to get vaccinated on their own, and because a significant number of them chose not to there was a spike in cases and deaths, this was the alternative. It seems to be working quite well, in fact.

If you don't "see" why these decisions are being made, I'm sure it can be explained to you. The heart of the matter: vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus. That's all. That's been shown empirically. Over 6 billion doses have been given globally, and it's been about 10 months -- the jury is in. If that's not in dispute, then arguing about these mandates is absurd. If you are disputing it, you're essentially like the person in the 80s or 90s who was arguing against smoking bans in restaurants on the assumption that the link between second-hand smoke and cancer was "unproven" (which was argued by many).

Again, this isn't about merely 'opting out'. We're talking about people who 'opt out' being marginalised based on their own personal position. We're taking about people being coerced (if 'effectively forced' is to strong for you) to take medication they don't wish to take. — I like sushi

You've heard of vaccinations for schools, haven't you? Where was the outrage about this? Where is the outrage for flu shots among healthcare workers? Is it ONLY about medication? What about being asked to work long hours on a moment's notice or be sacked? Or being told when to use the bathroom?

Companies, and society, create rules and laws (respectively) based on many factors. This specific instance (mandates) is a clearly legitimate use of power, because the vaccines are safe and effective. Those who refuse are free to do so, but they're mistaken if they're refusing because they believe the vaccines are harmful somehow. It's no different than refusing becomes you believe COVID is a "Chinese hoax." It doesn't matter -- that's not a reasonable excuse. It wouldn't hold up in court, it doesn't hold up in any other area of life...that hasn't been politicized.

I’m talking about bullying/forcing people into taking the vaccine. If people cannot work when they want to that is bad. — I like sushi

People aren't allowed to smoke indoors either. I don't consider that a bad thing. It affects other people. Likewise -- if you decide not to be vaccinated, you're more likely to contact and spread the virus, and whether other people are vaccinated or not isn't the point. It's not the point with measles either.

You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others.
— Xtrix

I think that’s a pretty poor argument anyway. If other people have taken the vaccine then the chances of the, getting infected and dying are very very small. If the chances are not very very small then those refusing to take it have an even better reason not to take it as it wouldn’t be effective. — I like sushi

This line of reasoning is completely wrong, as has been pointed out over and over.

The onus is not on those who are vaccinated -- the onus is on those who refuse to vaccinate themselves. Breakthrough cases happen, as is well known, and those who are not yet eligible are also left vulnerable -- that's all a given, but it ignores another feature: allowing the virus to spread among the unvaccinated will encourage more variants, perhaps to the point where one emerges that is resistant to the vaccine. That also has huge public health effects.

Companies have every right to say "Vaccinate or find work elsewhere." Another option is to be tested regularly. It's not about physical force, it's about conforming to the rules we've all agreed on in civilized society -- like smoking. If you want to smoke, fine -- just don't do it around me. If you want to refuse vaccination, fine -- then voluntarily quit your job or be tested regularly, and have the decency to stay away from large crowds.

All I’m trying to do here is a make what I thought was a reasonable and common sense argument against effectively forcing people to have injections they fear and/or don’t believe in. — I like sushi

We "effectively" force people to do all kinds of things at work, including when to eat and what to wear. But beside that obvious point, there's another one: vaccinations have been mandatory for many jobs and in schools for decades. So why is this so different? One reason: politicization. That's all. That's why it's even being talked about here, where people who know nothing about it feel they need to pick a "side." There are no sides, there's just the same common sense behavior we employ in everything else: we listen to doctors and other experts. We know the vaccines are safe and effective and slow the spread of the virus -- there's no reason not to take them, beyond an allergy.

People don't get to claim religious exemption, fear, or "belief" when it comes to a choice that affects others. If you want to put yourself at risk, that's fine -- you're free to do so. That freedom ends when you're around others, and the choice becomes whether you want to comply with the rules or not. If not, you're out. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.

I think it’s a strange idea not to allow people to choose what to do with their own bodies. — I like sushi

You have a right to refuse a vaccine, you don't have a right to infect others.

I'll repeat this as many times as necessary.

:up: :100:

:lol:

Touché.

I suppose not in that context.

We seem to be shifting away from family values and responsibility and into a society that depends heavily on the government. — Athena

The usual conservative canard.

Anything good for poor people or working people = handouts, dependence, entitlement, a failure of entrepreneurship. Big government is the problem. People should be responsible for themselves and not rely on big daddy government to solve their problems. Nothing is free.

Etc.

Meanwhile wealth inequality is at a point that rivals the time of the pyramids, wages have stagnated while productivity has increased, and power becomes more and more concentrated into fewer hands. All with the help of government — but that’s OK. The real issue is providing free public college, free child care, and free healthcare — that’s socialism!!

What a bunch of bullshit. The rich know their propaganda, I have to say.