I stated a truism. I'm not misleading — Yohan

You think it's a truism, but it isn't. It treats everything as if there are "two sides," and there aren't. Are there really "two sides" to whether the earth is flat? No. Also, even in less extreme examples, like with climate change, where one person is in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the other isn't, it's completely misleading to suggest they're equally irrational.

I meant to say that both sides, those who are married to mainstream narratives, and those married to counter-mainstream narratives can both be immune to facts. — Yohan

Both are non-experts who choose who they trust. If one trusts the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, that's simply a better choice than the other non-expert who chooses to trust Internet conspiracy theories.

You're free to be a coward, but I've said elsewhere, although I don't have a death wish and will do basic things to protect myself, I will not let fear control my life. — Derrick Huestis

:rofl:

How utterly pathetic that this is the hill one chooses to die on -- vaccines, during a pandemic. In their minds, this is akin to Socrates and Jesus. Imagine that.

No one cares if you die or not. Feel free. The issue is other people. Again: you want to smoke -- fine. You want to smoke around me? You will not.

Given that people typically identify themselves with their beliefs, their attitudes,
— baker

That's their problem, not mine. — frank

It becomes your problem if you set out to change their minds.

You do realize that he said he got vaccinated?

Well, look at so many people in these discussions: they brim with righteous indignation, they seek it. — baker

You can read what people are saying; I don't know what gives you so much confidence that you know what they're feeling.

I'm mirroring their confidence.

It does matter when it effects other people. These ideas do effect the other people. So no, you're not "free to it" at that point. I can't act in a way that harms others, regardless of my beliefs.
— Xtrix

So why don't you sue them? — baker

Sue who?

Oh, and "to affect" and "to effect" are two different verbs. — baker

Affect and effect are overlapping. I decided a while ago not to bother with "affect."

How pathetic that you resort to this, by the way. Can't say I'm totally surprised.

It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal. — baker

I'm not interested.

You do realize that he said he got vaccinated? — baker

Wonderful.

Though not free of the virus (which took your freedom). — jorndoe

Dude, look at what he said in the sentence right before the one you quoted:

For me, I chose what works for me. I took the vaccine and use the mask when obligated, which isn't often. Works for me, I've never gotten covid, and if I did and died oh well, at least I died a free man. — Derrick Huestis

You owe him an apology!

Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof

The demon that started this thread titled it with exactly 5 different groups of people. That is a fact.
I am referencing a principle on how one might approach any given group. I don't know which of the five you see as a killer counterexample to the principle. I imagine I would agree. If I begin discussing tactile approaches on a specific group, then I'll make sure to note(write down) it in the preceding title; top section of the document.

I don't know what that means. In any case if they were claiming to know what you or others feel then I would ask the same question of them that I did of you.

Having said that anti-vaccination sentiment does seem to come down to distrust and fear of authority. And I can understand that; I also entertain a certain distrust of government and corporations; it's just that it doesn't extend to the kind of wild speculations to be found in conspiracy theories.

You owe him an apology! — baker

I guess you couldn't read between the lines, so I'll spell it out: what was said still applies, whether vaccinated or not. HIs entire comment was based on a straw man anyway.

Sue who? — Xtrix

The "them", the "those people". Those in the title of your thread.

Affect and effect are overlapping. I decided a while ago not to bother with "affect."
How pathetic that you resort to this, by the way. Can't say I'm totally surprised.

*sigh*
You know, it would help your case to spell properly. Mixing up verbs like you do makes you look irrational and emotional. And incompetent.

It's on you to spell out what exactly it is that you want, and then act in ways that will lead to your goal.
— baker
I'm not interested.

So you have a goal (to change other people's minds), but you're not interested in getting to that goal.
How ironic that you spell _that_ out.


I do admire your confidence, though.

Having said that anti-vaccination sentiment does seem to come down to distrust and fear of authority. — Janus

That's too simplistic. I find that I distrust people in positions of power who pretend to be friendly toward me, but who also have at their disposal lethal force and a track record of using it.

If they're going to be the authority, they should stop fooling around, stop mincing words, and act as actual authorities, instead of pretending to be paper tigers, when it's clear they're not paper tigers.

Good luck with your amazingly constructive attitude!

The "them", the "those people". Those in the title of your thread. — baker

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip.

*sigh*
You know, it would help your case to spell properly. Mixing up verbs like you do makes you look irrational and emotional. And incompetent. — baker

No, it doesn't. You say this because you yourself are emotional. Affect and effect are often used interchangeably. There's a subtle difference, but both convey the same basic information to English speakers.

It does make you rather pathetic to bring this discussion into spelling, however. Revealing -- so thank you for that. Now I know not to waste too much time on you in the future.

So you have a goal (to change other people's minds) — baker

That's not my goal and wasn't the question of this thread. If I could snap my fingers and change people's minds, fine -- but in the real world, I know very well it often can't be done and is, essentially, a waste of time. Much like this discussion with you.

Good luck with your amazingly constructive attitude! — baker

Good luck with your spelling bee.

You think it's a truism, but it isn't. It treats everything as if there are "two sides," and there aren't. Are there really "two sides" to whether the earth is flat? No. Also, even in less extreme examples, like with climate change, where one person is in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus and the other isn't, it's completely misleading to suggest they're equally irrational. — Xtrix

I am speaking of motives or attitudes. Not views.
Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. Group think can infect any institution.

I meant to say that both sides, those who are married to mainstream narratives, and those married to counter-mainstream narratives can both be immune to facts. — Yohan
Both are non-experts who choose who they trust. . — Xtrix

Some experts are counter-mainstream narrative.

If one trusts the overwhelming scientific or medical consensus, that's simply a better choice than the other non-expert who chooses to trust Internet conspiracy theories. — Xtrix

If a minority expert offers more compelling arguments for their views than the "overwhelming scientific or medical consensus" than it is rational believe them.
Using the word 'simply' is a red flag for me, btw. Often it means someone is trying to make a nuanced case appear simpler than it is.

Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

I agree.

If a minority expert offers more compelling arguments for their views than the "overwhelming scientific or medical consensus" than it is rational believe them. — Yohan

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.

Sure, when you have the luxury which often up to monster. Some dangers are zerosum, bordering on lose-lose (pyrrhic), where it takes a monster to defeat a monster. Last resort, yeah; but not unthinkable. — 180 Proof

Batrachomyomachia!

Also, there is nothing inherently irrational with being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan
I agree. — Xtrix

There is also nothing inherently irrational with not being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus.

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too. — Xtrix

I talk about minority experts and bring up as an example, Alex Jones?

So sue Creationists and flat-earthers, etc?

I won't bother following this line of thought. But thanks for the tip. — Xtrix

Put your money where your mouth is.

You're in no position to judge if it's more or less compelling. — Xtrix

Am I in a position to determine who I can and cannot trust?
If two experts are not in agreement, is it always safer to bet on the expert who has more experts agreeing with them?

I think the "principle" is, though agreeable, only a truism which cannot survive contact with any enemy who's declared war (on reason? on science? on evidence? on public health? on democracy? on the rule of law? on "those people"?)

There is also nothing inherently irrational with not being in concurrence with the overwhelming scientific consensus. — Yohan

There is. If we know nothing about a subject, and care about truth, accuracy, well-being, etc., then the rational choice is the consensus view. If we actually want to do a long-term, deep study on the issue, or have some expertise ourselves, then there's nothing irrational about holding dissenting views. For the laymen, however, there is.

Easy example: climate denial. If we care about the planet, as laypeople, then we should trust the overwhelming consensus. It is irrational to do the opposite -- because that's going against our goal. The correct choice is to go with not what feels good, or makes us feel special, or aligns with our religious or political affiliation -- but with what's true. If we can't decide for ourselves if something is true or not -- and we usually can't -- then our only choice is to trust others. If we decide to trust Alex Jones over the CDC, that's irrational. If we choose to trust Sean Hannity over the IPCC, that's irrational.

I talk about minority experts and bring up as an example, Alex Jones? — Yohan

He claims to be an expert. So does Donald Trump. But fine -- take dissenting expert views. We're in no position to judge that either.

99 doctors tell you you need surgery on your heart or else you'll probably die, and 1 says you shouldn't -- knowing nothing else, what do you do? (Assuming you want to continue living.)

Seems like an extreme example -- but that's exactly the level we're at with, again, climate change. (Actually it's said to be around 97%, but other studies have it higher, and I suspect it is.)

I'll give away the answer: you go with the 99% of doctors. It's as simple as gambling: do we put all our money on an event that wins 99% of the time, or not? Of course we go with the greater chances of success -- again, assuming we wish to win money and not lose money.

How do we know that going with the majority of experts is more likely to be true, or more likely to give us the results we want? What about in harder cases where there's less agreement? Can we really put a number on it the way we can with the roll of a die? All those questions are important, too.

Am I in a position to determine who I can trust? Or should I consult an expert on that as well? — Yohan

The choice about who to trust is up to each one of us regarding things we don't understand.



Yes, affect and effect are different. One is a verb, one is a noun. I choose not to care about it, since the meaning conveyed is the same, and its so trivial as to be embarrassing to go on about. But you two have fun with it. Small victories, I guess.

"If when you are out of Breath, one of the Company should seize the Opportunity of saying something; watch his Words, and, if possible, find somewhat either in his Sentiment or Expression, immediately to contradict and raise a Dispute upon. Rather than fail, criticise even his Grammar." - Franklin

The demon that started this thread — Cheshire

:kiss:

Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too. — Xtrix

Are you saying I shouldn't take horse deewormer and shit my pants in the grocery store? Or end up shitting all over the ER?

Which is why plenty of people get sucked into Alex Jones. He's very compelling, too.
— Xtrix

Are you saying I shouldn't take horse deewormer and shit my pants in the grocery store? Or end up shitting all over the ER? — James Riley

Depends on your goals...

That's not my goal and wasn't the question of this thread. If I could snap my fingers and change people's minds, fine -- but in the real world, I know very well it often can't be done and is, essentially, a waste of time. Much like this discussion with you. — Xtrix

So you confess this discussion was worthless from the beginning, then proceed to blame the worthlessness of it on someone else? Maybe you could at least add a paragraph break between these contradictory statements. If we're going to devolve this discussion into a series of pointless insults, we might as well to a good job of it...

Affect and effect are overlapping. — Xtrix

Affect and effect are often used interchangeably. There's a subtle difference, but both convey the same basic information to English speakers. — Xtrix

Yes, affect and effect are different. One is a verb, one is a noun. — Xtrix

A wonderful example of a reluctant evolution in understanding.