You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact. — Xtrix
And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? — Bartricks
And then there's sick little tiny Tim ....but what about the children!! — Bartricks
No— this seems right, but is completely wrong. Which you would know if you deigned to read what doctors and the CDC say about this. Completely open to everyone to learn— simple google search would do.
You’re not only risking your own life. The protection rate for vaccines is 90+ %, which is very good, but still people can get it. That’s one fact.
More importantly, there are other people who are unvaccinated (like children, and those who can’t get vaccinated for reasons beyond refusal) who will be impacted.
There is also the fact of overwhelming hospital ICUs, which is happening in Idaho and across the south— which has wide ranging effects on heath care personnel as well as people with other health concerns.
Less people get vaccinated, less chance of reaching herd immunity.
Lastly, there’s the greater possibility of mutation as the virus continues to spread— mutations which will effect everyone, as the delta variant is — only with the possibility of being vaccine resistant.
There are thousands of deaths every week. This effects everyone. We have a vaccine which can stop it, as every major medical organization has stated and is why they are pushing for people to receive them. — Xtrix
And how many of those die from the virus, Xtrix? Virtually none. — Bartricks
You don't seem to understand what a big factor unknown variables play in probability theory.
Are two writers working together on a book more likely to write a best seller than 1 writer working alone?
I imagine you do, which means you are assuming a bunch of variables without warrant. — Yohan
Some writers, scientists, etc, work better alone. Joint efforts can work better in some cases, especially when the answer is predetermined and proof readers are just checking for commonly known mistakes. I don't deny that more is more when more is more, but its not always. Some times more is not more, and sometimes less is more. The answer before enough variables are known is: It depends. — Yohan
I said if there are more experts on one side, and less but still some on the other side, that that isn't enough information to reach a conclusion about which is more likely to be right.
— Yohan
It is. If that’s all the information I have, as you say, then going with the greater number of experts is the correct move.
Take the climate change example. Knowing nothing except that 97% of climate scientists agree— is it a better bet to go with them over the 3%? Yes, it is.
There are ways to test this too.
In science, when numerous fields and numerous experts, from around the world, come to the same conclusions and results after weighing evidence and doing experiments independently, the level of certainty is increased.
There are always exceptions we can point to— but science is the best we have. — Xtrix
Two martial arts experts vs 1 martial arts expert.
Which side is more likely to win, if that is all we know?
Answer: It depends. — Yohan
There is this myth that the world of Science doesn't work like other fields. That in science everything is clear cut and absolute and simple. I am challenging that myth. — Yohan
I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% because its more likely the majority is influenced by group think, while the minority are better at thinking out side of the box (less biased and influenced by peer pressure)The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%? — Xtrix
The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix
I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% because its more likely the majority is influenced by group think, while the minority are better at thinking out side of the box (less biased and influenced by peer pressure) — Yohan
The question, to take the obvious case, is: do we, as laymen, knowing nothing else (a crucial point which you continually want to divert from), go with the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change, or do we go with the minority view? The 97% or the 3%?
— Xtrix
I haven't researched this issue, but I'd go with the 3% — Yohan
If you really can’t bring yourself to admit you’d go with the 97, then you’re simply arguing for other reasons — which I can guess about, but which are completely irrational. — Xtrix
Yes. If someone said there is a match of 3 martial artists vs 97, and told me I could not know anything else about the match, and asked me to place a bet, I would think its likely a set up and place my bet on the 3. Probably the 3 have some unfair advantage that wasn't stated. Seems pretty obvious to me.So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it. — Xtrix
So you'd also go with the 3 martial artists over the 97. In other words, you're an imbecile. Fair enough. Stick with it.
— Xtrix
Yes. If someone said there is a match of 3 martial artists vs 97, and told me I could not know anything else about the match, and asked me to place a bet, I would think its likely a set up and place my bet on the 3. Probably the 3 have some unfair advantage that wasn't stated. Seems pretty obvious to me. — Yohan
Yeah, come to think of it, that sounds more likely. I concede the point. :up:(Or it's "more likely" that the 3% are bought off by fossil fuel interests -- which indeed is the case. It's also "more likely" that the small group of Creationists who argue for a Biblical flood are influenced by religious beliefs. But you go with those guys.) — Xtrix
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.