Yes, and you can do it without taking your shot too, making the taking of your shot entirely inconsequential to the project. — Isaac
To what extent did a lack of trust figure in their complicity, do you think? — Isaac
Now you have to show what mechanisms exist to make it impossible (or less likely) that a majority on any one question could be the result of any of these other factors, of which conflict of interest is just one. — Isaac
Then it is a contortion to say that they have no other information. How can they use "a number of reasons" yet also have "no other information"? — Isaac
I’d say the WHO, the CDC, the AMA, etc, represent a majority of experts. This is all most laypeople know. So is it right to trust the CDC?
— Xtrix
No. — Isaac
So you're saying that when there's two competing theories, there is always overwhelming evidence in favour of one? — Isaac
Yes, but you've given no evidence at all that the theories supported by the majority of scientists have a greater quantity of these properties than theories supported only by a minority. — Isaac
If it is totally inconsequential to the problem at hand, why did you bring up "holding the government into account"? — Olivier5
That such a sentiment be justified in Congo doesn't make it justified where I live — Olivier5
Well that answer is clearly and demonstrably wrong in this case. — Xtrix
You said you were trying not to undermine trust in your government by taking the vaccine, I was pointing out that holding the government to account is the usual method of not undermining trust, rather than the taking of prophylactic medicines. — Isaac
What exactly is it about the structure, history and objectives of your government that gives you such confidence in it's magnanimity? — Isaac
The WHO likewise reliably gave out false information early on. — frank
No one is arguing perfection. — Xtrix
And one of the mistakes we made was trusting the WHO. That's just a fact. — frank
People who nit-pick fluctuations/change, and then use them as evidence that science or government should not be trusted, are unfamiliar and uncomfortable with how the scientific process works. — James Riley
did my own research and read the following article on the interwebs and it disagrees with you. There are opposing opinions in the world and therefor my confirmation bias tells me that you are wrong and WHO is right. That's how science works, right? — James Riley
Is it possible for everyone to be subject matter experts in it all...? — jorndoe
I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. Save resources for the rest of us. But no can't do of course, our compassionate societies make sure that even the most antisocial distrustful lying cretins are cared for... — Olivier5
Is it even worth it to engage with these people?
They're immune to facts and they will not change their minds no matter what happens, which is interesting psychologically. But should we engage for the sake of others who are rational yet "on the fence"?
I struggle with this.
[Edit: I added flat earthers to the original list.] — Xtrix
I wish we could just let the terminal cretins live or die on their own term, triage them out of healthcare somehow. — Olivier5
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.