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. — baker
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. — baker
You're incorrigible! — Isaac
The spectre of mandates now is absolutely not something which requires some kind of psychologising bullshit explanation in terms of politics. — Isaac
It’s not new technology.
So the CDC are lying? — Isaac
Researchers have been studying and working with mRNA vaccines for decades.
With limited exceptions involving religious objectors, judges have overwhelmingly upheld orders in numerous states that require health workers, public employees, state university students and government contractors to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of employment. These rulings have allowed states to fire workers who refuse immunization.
I guess you lump Hans Rosling in with him too because he isn't a climatologist? — I like sushi
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'. — I like sushi
Does this book merit such positive attention? Does Lomborg provide new insights? Are his claims supported by the data? A healthy skepticism towards the claims of others is, after all, one of the hallmarks of good science. And, at first glance, Lomborg's book appears to be an objective and rigorous scientific analysis. It is published by a leading academic press, and contains an extensive bibliography and nearly 3,000 footnotes.
To answer these questions, UCS invited several of the world's leading experts on water resources, biodiversity, and climate change to carefully review the sections in Lomborg's book that address their areas of expertise. We asked them to evaluate whether Lomborg's skepticism is coupled with the other hallmarks of good science – namely, objectivity, understanding of the underlying concepts, appropriate statistical methods and careful peer review.
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg's book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg's assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick's words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".
These reviews show that The Skeptical Environmentalist fits squarely in a tradition of contrarian works on the environment that may gain temporary prominence but ultimately fail to stand up to scientific scrutiny. Others, such as Julian Simon and Gregg Easterbrook, have come before him, and others no doubt will follow. Correcting the misperceptions these works foster is an essential task, for, as noted above, groups with anti-environmental agendas use these works to promote their objectives. It is also an unfortunate, time-consuming distraction, for it pulls talented scientists away from the pressing research needed to help us understand the environmental challenges we face and their prospective solutions.
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 like sushi
I don't believe the best way to do so is to act arrogantly or look down on others — I like sushi
Big changes have to come from the top, forced by people. — Manuel
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? — Isaac
That they now can is new technology. — Isaac
So why mention "newness" if you agree they're safe and effective?
Come on! It's you that keeps insisting that the word 'safe' doesn't mean 'without risk'. — Isaac
No we don't. Mandating vaccines is not nuanced. Not even every medical expert agrees with it. — Isaac
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. — Isaac
It's really not new technology.
mRNA vaccines are a new type of vaccine to protect against infectious diseases.
— https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html — Isaac
Expert opinion is that vaccines are safe, effective, and slow the spread of the virus.
Yep. And we've already agreed on that. — Isaac
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... — Isaac
But Republicans have grown increasingly hostile to the notion of mandatory vaccines — despite vaccine mandates existing in the background in parts of the United States since the 19th century — and have parlayed the fight against COVID-19 into a political battle, with vaccine mandates as the latest frontier in the great American defense of freedom and liberty.
I need a substantially stronger reason to dismiss expert opinion than that. — Isaac
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?"
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. — Isaac
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
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
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
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
Why do you think politicisation only affects one side of the disagreement? — Isaac
No Yohan is spot on. It's exactly the question the medical ethicists are asking. — Isaac
It is vanishingly unlikely that there will be absolutely no risk of harm from any biomedical intervention — Professor Julian Savulescu in the BMJ
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
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
Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people?
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
What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”
And you'd have insight into this how? — Isaac
Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons? — Isaac
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
Of course the vaccines are safe and effective.
The problem is that vaccines are dangerous — Yohan
You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree. — Isaac
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
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
And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways) — I like sushi
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
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
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
Epistemic responsibility, due to its moral flavor, would mean that Donald Trump is an evil/bad person. — TheMadFool
Believing in something without evidence is a choice,
It is neurologically impossible to believe something without evidence. — Isaac
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
No one deliberately decides to get it wrong. — Isaac
Yep. I'm offering 4:1 on 'genocide', 8:1 on 'Armageddon' and 10:1 on the zombie apocalypse outsider. — Isaac
It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.
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
I see no cited evidence. Whatever you've posted before, I have no idea.
Then follow the conversation. I'm not going to conduct six different conversations all saying the same thing to six different people. — Isaac
Evidence, to me, is a stack of studies with statistically significant correlations between variables. — Isaac
This idea you have that overwhelming evidence just speaks to us somehow, is nonsense. — Isaac
They all claim exactly what you're claiming. They also cite "bone fide experts," etc.
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
Things are safe enough, effective enough, depending on that which they are pitted against. — Isaac
even if they exclusively chose vaccinations -- it's still legitimate
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
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
It's not by vote. It's by overwhelming evidence.
That's the same thing. — Isaac
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
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
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
If my view is just like those others, you should be able to prove it. — Isaac
"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
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
We live in the age of resentment. — Tom Storm
It's as sound as banning smoking from the workplace. That's legitimate.
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
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
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
the issue is, for you, is that you don't trust the enterprise of science.
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
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
And yet we're also as polarized and tribal as ever before.
Not everyone is like that — baker
It's not possible to meaningfully and without hostility address this while thinking in the above-mentioned polarized terms. — baker
isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in?
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
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
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
We are not responsible for what's in our minds, only for what we let out. — T Clark
All these questions are perspectival, because we're talking about trust, not facts. — Isaac
we know better than to see academia as anything other than just another capitalist industry. — Isaac
"these companies actually exercise their power for legitimate, medically and scientifically sound reasons" - are you really that naive? — Isaac
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
I don't think a single person involved in this thread would, under normal circumstances, assume corporations act for the public good. — Isaac
The left won't do that to Manchin or Sinema. — James Riley
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’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