We all know about the inflated statistics — Merkwurdichliebe

Another standard tactic of those holding unfalsiable claims: simply dismiss the evidence and the data. Try to undermine the sources of the data, the data itself, etc.

If anything, it appears much more likely that 700k is an understatement.

We all know about the inflated statistics concerning covid fatalities, don't be naive. — Merkwurdichliebe

Now we know you're vicious. Deflated is far the more likely, certainly internationally.

I'll waste no more time or energy on this: it's clear you're not worth it.

.

Yes, my interest is in consensus of epidemiological advice to policy makers. — Joshs

Then why have you cited an article written by a psychiatrist and science-journalism hack as evidence against one written by three epidemiologists with professorial posts at some the top US universities? You say you're interested in what epidemiologists say, I give you the responses of eight epidemiologists and you respond with some science blog entry.

I want to hitch my wagon to the most popular starting assumptions. — Joshs

And how are you going about finding out what they are? Are you conducting a poll?

The most popular starting assumption ( dominant paradigm) earns its stripes by offering a particularly useful way of interpreting empirical phenomena. — Joshs

Oh come on! In any other area would you be arguing that the dominant paradigm earned it's position by being more useful than the others? This whole line of response is bullshit, you've favoured some interne blog over the actual experts cited and now you're giving me some crap about the dominant paradigms in science being all there entirely as a result of some merit-based approach as if Kuhn had never set pen to paper.

I don’t think anyone, anywhere, is arguing in favor of forced vaccinations. — Xtrix

So you are in favor of the individual's right to choose? What are we arguing about then? Do you mean that when you say:

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice. — Xtrix

Are you not implying that there should be legislation that mandates vaccination and locks out of society all who decline? It clearly sounds like you are.

Another standard tactic of those holding unfalsiable claims: simply dismiss the evidence and the data. Try to undermine the sources of the data, the data itself, etc. — Xtrix

The data must convince me. If it does not, it needs to do a better job of creating a believable narrative. If you are so gullible as to be easily convinced by a soft and rehashed narrative, so be it.

Now we know you're vicious. Deflated is far the more likely, certainly internationally.

I'll waste no more time or energy on this: it's clear you're not worth it. — tim wood

No, I'm savagely honest. And the only thing that has deflated is your argument. Let me ask (even though I know you won't answer) are you simply regurgitating someone elses beliefs? How can you diminish the importance of the individual through all of this and then think that your individual opinion is of any relevance?

But, no worries, your argument is a weak and derived contrivance anyway.

The data must convince me. If it does not, it needs to do a better job of creating a believable narrative. If you are so gullible as to be easily convinced by a soft and rehashed narrative, so be it. — Merkwurdichliebe

Once in a while I peak in here to see what's been happening.

Scientific data just flows logically -- that's the believable narrative. You're not supposed to force yourself to accept it. You're supposed to understand it, because with understanding comes acceptance,naturally. If you're not convinced of scientific data, then something else is happening here. You know the saying, have faith in science. By faith, we don't mean blindly. We mean there's a society we live in that ensures that science is behaving like science.

Scientific data just flows logically -- that's the believable narrative. — Caldwell

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. Narrative is entirely interpretive.

You're supposed to understand it, because with understanding comes acceptance. If you're not convinced of scientific data, then something else is happening here. — Caldwell

Yes, it is just another born fascist pretending to telling me what I "have to do". As if there are not three sides to every narrative.

You know the saying, have faith in science. By faith, we don't mean blindly. We mean there's a society we live in that ensures that science is behaving like science. — Caldwell

Sounds more like religion.

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. Narrative is entirely interpretive. — Merkwurdichliebe

Okay, fair enough. No one can force you to accept facts or reality. But then, there's also the law, which could make a convincing narrative that you should be put in jail (as an example) for being a menace to society and ignoring facts.

Now that I think about it, some facts should be a law automatically. Actually there are things that are both facts and laws at the same time. Jumping off a bridge above the freeway is both a fact of death and a prohibition at once.

Okay, fair enough. No one can force you to accept facts or reality. — Caldwell

Okay, forgive me for implying you are fascist.

But then, there's also the law, which could make a convincing narrative that you should be put in jail (as an example) for being a menace to society and ignoring facts.

Wait a sec ... what law is that?

Now that I think about it, some facts should be a law automatically. Actually there are things that are both facts and laws at the same time. — Caldwell

That is fascist. What about the constitutionally established process of lawmaking that protects the individual from possible forms of state tyranny.

Jumping off a bridge above the freeway is both a fact of death and a prohibition at once.

Terrible example. And worse analogy

What about the constitutionally established process of lawmaking that protects the individual from possible forms of state tyranny. — Merkwurdichliebe

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the scientific narrative?

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the the scientific narrative? — Caldwell

First let us be clear about what we are talking about with "narrative". Since I introduced the term to the conversation, I should better define it. It is the bullshit story we make up, using our empirical knowledge and reasoning capabilities, which sometimes turns out to be true, but not usually.

I am more than happy to answer your question, providing you give me an explanation of the "scientific narrative".

What we are talking about here with the law making process, is the individual's right to choose for himself whether to accept or decline the covid vaccine. The right is granted on the basis of interpreting constitutional fact, and this has not yet occured so that it has become a law of the land. Since nothing in the constitution officially opposes this idea ( via fair reading), it is wide open for debate.

The data must convince me. — Merkwurdichliebe

There is no force in the world that can convince you to accept some data that you want to reject. Try and talk to a holocaust denier or a 9/11 truther if you don't believe me.

There is no force in the world that can convince you to accept some data that you want to reject. — Olivier5

So all this 'consensus of experts' we've been hearing about are only dealing with the data they've previously decided they're willing to accept?

So all this 'consensus of experts' we've been hearing about are only dealing with the data they've previously decided they're willing to accept? — Isaac

Why yeah, it doesn't include tarot reading or the position of Saturn in Virgo, if that's what you have in mind.

Why yeah, it doesn't include tarot reading or the position of Saturn in Virgo, if that's what you have in mind. — Olivier5

Why not? We're talking about 'data' here, not conclusions. Presumably scientists are willing to accept data on tarot reading and astrology, that's how they know it's bunkum. Are you suggesting they dismissed it out of hand because they refused to even accept the data?

Presumably scientists are willing to accept data on tarot reading and astrology, that's how they know it's bunkum. — Isaac

If they know it's bunkum, why would they accept it?

Deflated is far the more likely, certainly internationally. — tim wood

Yep. Likely this is the case.

But of course likely people will simply deny the facts and just accuse of others being naive. Deny all those rented cold storages that had to be used when the morgues were having problems to deal with the dead. And as now the health sector has adapted to fight the virus, who cares if the most deaths for instance in Florida happened this August, not last year?

deleted

So you are in favor of the individual's right to choose? What are we arguing about then? Do you mean that when you say:

This is why we should care that everyone is being vaccinated unless, of course, they want to isolate themselves from society, which is their choice.
— Xtrix

Are you not implying that there should be legislation that mandates vaccination and locks out of society all who decline? It clearly sounds like you are. — Merkwurdichliebe

I’m in favor of individual choice, yes. Same with smoking.

If people want to smoke, or reject the vaccine, that’s their choice. But you have no right to infect others — or blow smoke in their faces.

When I say isolate themselves from society, I really mean crowded places— obviously they have to eat, and so go to the supermarket and whatnot. But they should be decent enough to wear a mask and social distance, as any sane person would during a pandemic.

As far as the workplace goes, that’s their choice as well— take the vaccine or be laid off. This is the ultimatum United Airlines gave -- and less than 1% of their workforce had to be fired.

That’s the level of power these corporations have, which I've never liked, but which the Republican party, conservatives, libertarians, and neoliberals (but I repeat myself) have all helped to create. Interesting that they're now the ones crying about it. Not when it's something like massive campaigns to undermine unions, unlimited campaign contributions, endless lobbying, excluding workers from major company decisions and policies, and monopolization. No -- they take their stand over masks and vaccines. It's laughable.

The data must convince me. — Merkwurdichliebe

No, it doesn’t. You’re nothing. And you’ll never be convinced anyway. The only reason you’re interested in any of this is because of misinformation. I’ll go with the overwhelming medical consensus.

No, I'm savagely honest. — Merkwurdichliebe

:rofl:

There is no force in the world that can convince you to accept some data that you want to reject. Try and talk to a holocaust denier or a 9/11 truther if you don't believe me. — Olivier5

:100:

You may not have noticed that @Merkwurdichliebe just above dismisses 700,000+ US Covid deaths - and presumably 4.5 million worldwide - as any sort of evidence in favor of any limitation on his personal "rights." His a deep dishonesty or craziness or both. Ordinary civility with such a person, imo, a fundamental error.

Are you aware of the "scientific method"? It does not dictate how individuals "should" behave. — Merkwurdichliebe

A nice pop-culture view of science, with a shallow nod to the fact/value dichotomy.

What if I reject the narrative of law making process the same way you reject the scientific narrative? — Caldwell

An excellent question.

They're related. You may "not believe" in "man-made" law, and you may "not believe" in natural laws (like gravity). But if you violate the former, you're arrested regardless; if you violate the former -- say by attempting to fly out the window -- you'll quickly find out that what you "believe" doesn't mean anything either.

It's good and proper to question the world, to question authority, to question prevalent dogma. Questions are important, and an essential component of philosophical thought. But it has to be motivated by a genuine search for truth, and an openness to learning.

The problem with anti-vaxxers, creationists, flat-earthers, climate deniers, etc., is that they are not motivated by a search for truth. They're motivated by other factors -- usually emotions. But why? Why is their identity tied to these false beliefs?

Ultimately it is an outgrowth of the education they've received, in my view; not only in schools but through the media as well (which is where most people are "educated" on these matters) -- social media now being the worst of it, as has been shown.

Back in the 90s we thought the Internet and the "information age" would give everyone access to knowledge and education. We see it in the online Brittanica, in Wikipedia, in things like the Kahn Academy and "Crash Course" series on YouTube, and so forth.

Yet here we are, on an Internet philosophy website, where you would expect to attract people with a modicum of education and thoughtfulness, debating six or seven (essentially) anti-vaxxers.

It's pretty sad, and scary for the future. They of course cannot see this, and never will, but they're in the same boat as these other people. Why? Because they're making exactly the same psychological mistakes. They will also, along with creationists and flat-earthers, throw all of these descriptions back at us, and of science -- they'll go so far as to question the foundations of truth itself just to avoid admitting that they're radically wrong (who wants to look stupid?).

But I digress.

The idea that there has been a consensus of experts is a hallucination. — Bylaw

(1) There is a consensus of experts about vaccines, which is what was being discussed.

(2) They're safe, they're effective, and they slow the spread of the virus.

(3) There's consensus about this because the evidence is overwhelming.

True, anti-vaxxers disagree about the evidence. Creationists disagree about the evidence for evolution. Neither are motivated by a search for truth. No evidence will convince them otherwise, despite their claims. The hallucination (or delusion) belongs to them alone.

Why are the scientists who helped create the virus, running the vaccination program? Giant, extraordinary, cover-up for science's complicity in creation of this catastrophic pandemic? Why aren't scientists taking credit for this accomplishment?

https://www.newsweek.com/wuhan-lab-wanted-genetically-enhance-bat-viruses-study-human-risks-documents-show-1631784

why have you cited an article written by a psychiatrist and science-journalism hack as evidence against one written by three epidemiologists with professorial posts at some the top US universities? You say you're interested in what epidemiologists say, I give you the responses of eight epidemiologists and you respond with some science blog entry. — Isaac

Because I found his argument convincing enough to suspect that your authors are offering a fringe position without my having to delve deeper into the literature. Apparently I was on the right track, as the link below suggests. I’m sure I can find plenty more rebuttals
from medical experts. Look, if you find their claims convincing them by all means act accordingly. Having read their assertions and the rebuttals I don’t find them convincing. At any rate , I think we should
encourage others who cannot wade through research studies to do what I have done, start with a particular policy recommendation, find medical experts who support it based on the science , and try and see if there is some kind of convergence of thinking among a majority of experts. I think there is such a convergence concerning childhood vaccination , despite your naysayers.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8358829/

I want to hitch my wagon to the most popular starting assumptions.
— Joshs

And how are you going about finding out what they are? Are you conducting a poll? — Isaac

No, there are already plenty of polls out there , plus opinion pieces by medical experts. I also find it useful to do what I did here , suss out contrarian opinions and see how the medical mainstream responds to them.

The most popular starting assumption ( dominant paradigm) earns its stripes by offering a particularly useful way of interpreting empirical phenomena.
— Joshs

Oh come on! In any other area would you be arguing that the dominant paradigm earned it's position by being more useful than the others? — Isaac

I didnt say the dominant paradigm is more useful than all the alternatives , only that it has to be respected for convincing its many adherents that it is the most useful approach. In that sense it has earned its stripes The reason we’re dealing with so many climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers is that they don’t believe there is a legitimate consensus. That is, they either dispute the numbers of experts who are on board , or impugn their motives.

you're giving me some crap about the dominant paradigms in science being all there entirely as a result of some merit-based approach as if Kuhn had never set pen to paper. — Isaac

Kuhn did indeed set pen to paper , and what did he say? He said that choice of paradigms was essentially an aesthetic choice. There’s merit in aesthetics.