@Michael
You see I have explained clearly my reasons and you still want to badger. Face to face I would tell you go fuck off and get out of my business.
Corona is the name for the common cold look it up.
Because pasteurs theory doesn't make sense in the real world. Nor is it proven by kochs postulates.
If I feel a risk I would wear a seat belt or such like. But that's my choice.

You see I have explained clearly my reasons and you still want to badger. — Ambrosia

You claimed that you don't take vaccines because the common cold isn't dangerous and vaccines against them don't work, but there are diseases that are dangerous and with vaccines that do work (measles, COVID). I want to know why you don't get vaccinated against them.

Corona is the name for the common cold goook it up.

The common cold is a disease caused by many different viruses, including many different coronaviruses. These viruses can cause more than just the common cold, though. They can cause SARS, MERS, and COVID which are a lot more dangerous than the common cold.

Because pasteurs theory doesn't make sense in the real world. Nor is it proven by kochs postulates.

Koch's postulates have been supplanted by things like the Bradford Hill criteria and Falkow's criteria.

If I feel a risk I would wear a seat belt or such like. But that's my choice. — Ambrosia

Yes, it's your choice. And I'm asking you why you make the choice you do. It isn't very smart to choose to not wear a seatbelt and it isn't very smart to choose to not be vaccinated. Wearing a seatbelt and getting vaccinated are the rational choices to make.

@Michael
Sorry,I don't follow your scientific religion salvation route.
I never died of measles or colds or anything else!
Yet wasn't I exposed to them during my life?
Yes,whenever a paradigm doesn't benefit big pharma it is changed to a more lucrative one.
Just think,we would have been having this same conversation years ago about "curing" gay people.
And you would have been dead wrong then,just like you are now,despite your dialectic mumbo jumbo.

@Michael
False equivalence! Nice sleight of hand!
Bottoming line,its choice,mine not yours mister tinpot.
Like a cold is the same as driving in a car!

I never died of measles or colds or anything else! — Ambrosia

Plenty of other people have. I've already linked to this.

Accelerated immunization activities have had a major impact on reducing measles deaths. During 2000– 2018, measles vaccination prevented an estimated 23.2 million deaths. Global measles deaths have decreased by 73% from an estimated 536 000 in 2000* to 142,000 in 2018.

The fact that people have died from measles is proof that measles is dangerous and the fact that an increase in vaccinations has reduced the number of deaths is proof that the vaccine works. It's rational to be vaccinated against measles. Arguing that you don't need to be vaccinated against measles because you have never died of measles is an irrational argument.

False equivalence! Nice sleight of hand! — Ambrosia

Why is it a false equivalence? Seatbelts are a preventive measure against trauma in the case of a car crash and vaccines are a preventative measure against infection in the case of contact with the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

@Michael
You thinking some Tinpot paranoic calling me irrational means anything to me!!!
The fact people have died in boxing means I shouldn't box,or that I should be scared or take a vaccine beforehand???
Get out of here with your Wimpish rationality.

The question is whether the unlikely turns out to be right as often as you predicted it would, neither more nor less. — Srap Tasmaner

Well, it does quite literally 100% of the time, that's just the nature of scientific progress (by which I mean the mechanism, not each and every unlikely idea, of course). Every single thing we now consider to be 'right' started out as the maverick theory of some lone scientist. The question is not whether it happens but how far along the curve are we, how far have we progressed in any question away from lone mavericks and toward everyone thinking the same 'truth' (the truth which 20 years ago was abject nonsense).

The key thing for the probabilities argument is that the numbers are still exhaustive. If there are 20 scientists in the world, then every single one will take some position on every issue. So for newly emerging theories (say, germ theory at the late 19th century) we'd expect 19 to think it nonsense and 1 to think it right. By the early 20th century we'd expect 19 to think it right and 1 to think it nonsense. Whether the majority are actually right is entirely a function (here) of where one is in the progress of a theory*

*All of this assumes other factors are equal.

With our current issue (a novel vaccine, using newish technology to fight a never-before-seen virus on an unprecedented scale), it's very hard to believe we're so far along the curve that what the majority believe has any bearing at all on the matter. Without the data on how far along the normal maverick->commonplace curve we are we've absolutely no way of judging the relationship between majority belief and 'rightness'.

All of this is, of course, common knowledge. Which is why, prior to this social-media-induced mess, it was perfectly normal to accept a person's position as being reasonable on the grounds of it having...well, reasons... good grounds... justification... adequate support... the rather old fashioned Mertonian principle we used to believe in. This notion that one must hold to whatever the consensus currently think is entirely modern, and quite repugnant.

The fact people have died in boxing means I shouldn't box — Ambrosia

I'd certainly advise against it.

or take a vaccine beforehand???

No, because vaccines don't protect you from head trauma. A head- and mouth- guard would be more appropriate. Vaccines protect against viruses, e.g. measles. I'd recommend getting them during a pandemic, or when visiting certain foreign countries.

@Michael
Because car crashes are a potential occurrence,though very rate.
Dying from a cold is zero,unless your already very ill.
Your big pharma govt propoganda mean zero.
I notice your avoiding the gay cure example I gave,very disingenuous.
Fact is you
believe in vaccines a priori from appeal to authority and fear.

Dying from a cold is zero,unless your already very ill. — Ambrosia

But dying from measles and COVID isn't zero.

I notice your avoiding the gay cure example I gave,very disingenuous.

I didn't ignore it. The first thing I said to you is "medical science being wrong in the past isn't reason to dismiss medical science today."

Fact is you believe in vaccines a priori from appeal to authority

Yes, I do. It's a pragmatic approach to life. I'm told that it's dangerous to drink bleach so I don't drink bleach. A doctor tells me that my breathing difficulty and coughing is due to a chest infection and so I take the prescribed antibiotics.

Using "personal intelligence" (which you referred to here) involves understanding when it's appropriate to trust the word of experts. I have neither the time nor the resources nor the knowledge to conduct my own research into everything.

@Michael
I boxed without a headguard.
And I will Continue to live exactly as I see fit.
All these precautions and intrusions are based on fear and deliberate lies.
Zero sleep lost from these lies.
I suppose your celibate,vegan and never pick your nose in public?

@Michael
Well you trust your "experts" just like Christians trust their priests.
I will trust my intelligence thanks.

All these precautions and intrusions are based on fear and deliberate lies. — Ambrosia

No, they're not. A great deal of them are based on facts and common sense risk aversion.

Whoever told you that vaccines don't work or that germ theory is false is the one peddling in lies (whether deliberate or from ignorance).

I will trust my intelligence thanks. — Ambrosia

Intelligence isn't enough to know the facts about microbes and the immune system. That requires study and experimentation. Are you a trained pathologist?

Well my common sense differs greatly from yours.
Medicine has a proven track record of lying.

Medicine has a proven track record of lying. — Ambrosia

It also has a proven track record of telling the truth. Modern medicine works. Vaccinations have reduced the number of people dying from measles and COVID and lessened the severity of the symptoms.

I remember the days when Christians would castigate people,don't you believe in the eucharist and demons on a pin!!!??? Same tired old appeal to authority.
Are you a trained priest!!! Or a bootlicker of priests!

Totally circular reasoning.
Marijuana lowers symptoms.
Big Pharma is not the only game in town monsieur.

Two heads are better than one.
That's a truism. When in doubt, get a second opinion. Yep, could be helpful.
Does it mean a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual? No, that is not a truism, that is bias. Most people are Christian, so what? Most people used to believe in flat earth (I assume including most geologists).
If you can't grasp the different between conventional wisdom, and conventional bias, that is your thing to deal with. I'll leave you alone. Take care.

Let me try another example that might make this clearer (for anyone who might be reading along).

Imagine there's a bridge across a river with a single fatal flaw. The flaw is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance of an expert spotting it. We ask 100 engineering experts to check the bridge. What would be the expected proportion of safe to unsafe assessments? 99:1. We just specified that the problem is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance it will be spotted so we'd expect only 1 in every 100 engineers to spot it - 99% of experts would be wrong.

Now imagine the flaw is so easy to spot that only 1 in every 100 engineers would miss it. Now we'd expect a 1:99 ratio of safe to unsafe assessments - 99% of experts would be right.

So the variable that matters is how hard the flaw is to spot, not how many experts spot it.

Since that's an unknown variable, there's a 50% chance we're in the first scenario, and a 50% chance we're in the second. So the ratio of experts judging safe:unsafe is irrelevant, it just cancels out.

Thanks Isaac. That makes sense.
One way I've thought of it is, out of all professionals, the majority will be most likely be of fairly average general competence when compared to all other professionals in that field, while there would be at least two groups of small minorities, the far below average and the far above average professionals. So that when there is any professional who comes to a different conclusion than the majority, there is roughly a 50% chance that the person will be in the far below or far above average group.

The common assumption we see a lot when people interpret professional opinion statistics, is that its more likely that the very small disagreeing minority is of the below or far below average competence group, or just made uncommon mistakes as nobody is perfect, or has succumbed to some agenda. It is assumed that those at the minority far above average group would be in agreement with the average majority, that its not likely that the vast majority would make a mistake.
This may be because the majority of people who interpret professional opinion statistics are themselves in the majority average layperson opinion group (or have been influenced by them due to Group Think)

That is my incomplete theory

The flaw is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance of spotting it — Isaac

Except maybe add the word professional..."1% change of a professional spotting it". In theory, a professional should have a higher chance of spotting a flaw than a laymen, such that a laymen would have even less than a 1% chance of spotting the flaw.

Except maybe add the word professional..."1% change of a professional spotting it". In theory, a professional should have a higher chance of spotting a flaw than a laymen, such that a laymen would have even less than a 1% chance of spotting the flaw. — Yohan

Thanks, that's indeed what I meant, and a very necessary bit of clarity. I've edited accordingly.

Two heads are better than one.
That's a truism. When in doubt, get a second opinion. Yep, could be helpful.
Does it mean a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual? No, that is not a truism, that is bias. — Yohan

I never once said a group of people is more likely to be right than one single individual. But you know that already, and are just arguing for some other reason -- my guess is because I'm not a nice person. That's usually the case. But regardless, you're embarrassing yourself.

Most people used to believe in flat earth (I assume including most geologists). — Yohan

No, there were no geologists in any sense we mean today. The flat earth example is often misunderstood by those who have no history of science. In fact the circumference of the globe was calculated with remarkable accuracy in the 3rd century BC by Eratosthenes, an early "natural philosopher."

What "most people" believed is questionable. They believed all kinds of things. Probably many believed the earth was flat, yes. Folk science isn't science.

I will trust my intelligence thanks. — Ambrosia

:rofl:

Quite a display of intelligence so far.

Yes, I do. It's a pragmatic approach to life. I'm told that it's dangerous to drink bleach so I don't drink bleach. — Michael

:lol: :lol:

:up:

Surely you don't know unless you try?

It's obvious, isn't it?

I'm not so sure. If you send bleach to tribe in the middle of the jungle, it isn't clear to me that they wouldn't drink it to see what it is.

As for engaging my brain. Well, I'd have to take it out of my skull, which would perhaps cause some problems so far as living is concerned. I'd prefer not to.

I never said that. Anybody could've be born to a tribe. Drinking stuff coming from bottles is not irrational behavior actually. Or it doesn't seem so to me.

I'm just saying that you might what to reconsider what you take something obvious to be.

I frequently do engage with my mind. I come here for further engagement...

We just specified that the problem is so hard to spot that there's only a 1% chance it will be spotted so we'd expect only 1 in every 100 engineers to spot it - 99% of experts would be wrong. — Isaac

No. That's a 1% chance of it being spotted by an individual. If you want to formulate it to fit what you're trying to say, you'd say the following: 1 out of a 100 people will solve this problem.

In that case, you get your answer in one step. In reality, the overwhelming scientific consensus, as in climate science, has a much greater chance of being true. The consensus on atomic theory, likewise. Electromagnetism, likewise. Quantum mechanics, etc.

As a layman, knowing nothing else but the information "97% of scientists agree/have come to the same conclusion/have gotten the same results", the correct move is to go with the consensus. It's that simple.

You don't want to see this -- probably because you want to justify some "minority view" you hold, like any anti-vaxxer, climate denier, creationist, or holocaust denier will do ("there's a consensus among historians, but that means nothing!). This is unfortunately why so many lay people can get sucked into pseudoscience and quackery. Con men will always take the position of heroic skeptic questioning establishment dogma. Very self-serving.

So the variable that matters is how hard the flaw is to spot, not how many experts spot it.
Since that's an unknown variable, there's a 50% chance we're in the first scenario, and a 50% chance we're in the second. So the ratio of experts judging safe:unsafe is irrelevant, it just cancels out. — Isaac

Imagine working this hard to defend a stupid choice. To the point where you have to convince yourself that it's just a coin flip between climate scientists and climate deniers, evolutionary biology and Creationism, Dr. Fauci and Tucker Carlson.

Reminds me of the old roulette joke: "I figure I have only two possibilities: I win or I lose -- 50/50"

That makes sense. — Yohan

:rofl: