Didn't you harp forever about pharmaceuticals and politicians being all corrupt? — Olivier5

No.

Didn't you pretend to equate a finding about the presence of certain molecules in the blood stream of 38 individuals with the effective immunity of all of us against COVID? — Olivier5

Nope.

What are you proposing we do about COVID? — Olivier5

A combination of vaccinating those at highest risk, strict lockdowns, mask wearing, hygiene, investment in community health services, testing, open data publication, strict rules about global vaccine allocation...

No — Isaac

LOL

Nope — Isaac

Hahaha.

A combination of vaccinating those at highest risk, strict lockdowns, mask wearing, hygiene, investment in community health services, testing, open data publication, strict rules about global vaccine allocation... — Isaac

I.e. pretty much what everybody else is saying, including me. So where is this big disagreement now? It vanishes as soon as you use a little good faith. :-)

The only solution to our ecological woes will be to transition to a non-growth, even a shrinking, economy. — Janus

I asked how this is viable. The reply was not given (avoided).

My point was that increasing the economic growth NOW will curb population growth (because it has everywhere) and improve living conditions (education and health) because it has everywhere. This is because people in poverty are not concerned about tomorrow because they're trying to survive - this is obvious.

When it comes to economics and resources the key factor regarding the ecology is to provide as many people as possible with cheap energy so they can more easily get out of poverty. The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet.

Negative growth will expand the population because when poverty increases the family unit increases in size - we know this it isn't a myth. The more developed economies in the world should be investing in improving more efficient energy options (nuclear for one) rather than feeding a broken mechanism that is going to do little to nothing in the long term.

If we wish to see the effects of an economic reduction we'll have all the evidence by looking at India (where 1 million a year die of starvation related causes prior to Covid). Now it is estimated that another 200 million will fall into poverty by the end of the year putting 50% of the entire population into poverty ... I don't see a 'shirking economy' as a viable solution for India. I see cheap fuel as a helping hand to those at the bottom.

LOL — Olivier5

Good argument.

Hahaha — Olivier5

I'm undone.

pretty much what everybody else is saying, including me. So where is this big disagreement now? — Olivier5

I'm not at high risk, so you'd agree there's no need for me to be vaccinated?

Good argument. — Isaac

Sorry I failed to reach the quality of argument contained in your "nope".

I'm not at high risk, so you'd agree there's no need for me to be vaccinated? — Isaac

I do what I can do to protect myself. What you do is your problem, not mine. It's your body, it's your life. And if you end up infecting other folks, rest assured you won't be the only one doing that...

My problem is not with people who don't want to be vaccinated, in good faith. It is with people spreading disinformation and lies about the effectiveness or risks involved in vaccination.

Sorry I failed to reach the quality of argument contained in your "nope". — Olivier5

I'm the one being accused of arguing in bad faith here. I deserve a little more than mud-slinging.

My problem is not with people who don't want to be vaccinated, in good faith. It is with people spreading disinformation and lies about the effectiveness or risks involved in vaccination. — Olivier5

Yes, which is exactly what this discussion is about. Very few of these people are spreading disinformation and lies. They're spreading what they think is good information and truth. You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree.

It's pointless coming up with these virtue-signalling little aphorisms about how we all ought to argue in good faith. Who's going to dispute that?

The sticking point is always over people like you wanting to avoid any hard work by simply declaring your version to be self-evidently true and in no need of any debate. Once you remove the old thresholds of reasonableness, you open everybody up to the same claim.

As I said, this is a new development you're at the vanguard of where qualification and evidence no longer matter if your conclusions are not in agreement. I hope you're confident in the great New Dawn you see this process leading to, it sounds like hell to me.

They're spreading what they think is good information and truth. You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree. — Isaac

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith.

It's pointless coming up with these virtue-signalling little aphorisms about how we all ought to argue in good faith. Who's going to dispute that? — Isaac

Err... evidently you are, by saying it is pointless to call for good faith.

The point being that burning more coal and gas in the short term is actually the best way to protect the ecology of the planet. — I like sushi

It is dooming the climate, rather, and that's a proven fact.

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith. — Olivier5

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith. Now what?

evidently you are, by saying it is pointless to call for good faith — Olivier5

It is pointless to call for something everyone already approves of.

"Dooming" meaning what exactly?

Ha!

Seems I missed...

These people are simply liars. — Isaac

Of course. Simple deceit. How could we have overlooked that?

It is pointless to call for something everyone already approves of. — Isaac

You know something everybody approves of?

I suspect you know what you are doing. This is why I call it bad faith. Now what? — Isaac

End of conversation, I suppose.

Fair enough, that was overly dramatic. I meant forcing, warming it up.

Of course. Simple deceit. How could we have overlooked that? — frank

Yes, it seems so obvious now. Everyone who disagrees with me must be a lair, it's the only realistic option - after all, intelligent people couldn't possibly reach different conclusions in good faith could they? That literally never happens. Well do I remember my first day as faculty - the corridors were blocked as we all agreed on where to go next. Only one textbook, obviously, with all the actual answers in it. The canteen was a nightmare - only one option on the menu of course (because we all agreed on what the optimum food item was for that day) but the queues for it...

End of conversation, I suppose. — Olivier5

And you couldn't have seen that coming a mile off?

What are you trying to say, Isaac? That nobody ever lies? That we never lie to ourselves? That trust ought to never break down between people? That it's all about some misunderstanding between well-meaning folks?

The better the economy the lower the birthrate, the better the economy the more opportunities for individuals and the better the economy the more room for environmental concerns (because first and foremost people need to see the horizon before they care about what is over it). — I like sushi

If you have sources to support these claims I’d be interested. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve them— except I’m leery about the “more opportunity” part. That’s difficult to define.

And you didn’t seem to learn much by the looks of it? Shame (in both ways) — I like sushi

I’m not sure I understand this remark. Learned much about what?

You think it's disinformation and lies. They disagree. — Isaac

Yes, flat earthers, creationists, and Holocaust deniers also “disagree.”

Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people? Or should we say, beforehand: “What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?”

The reasons for all this talk about mandates, vaccines, etc., is because of politicization. We’ve had mandates for DECADES. Why are they controversial now?

You answer that question, and it’s like answering the question posed above for Creationists: it’s because they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Why do some climate deniers, with scientific credentials, make their claims? They’re sponsored by fossil fuel money. Why did scientists “question” that smoking and cancer were linked? Because they were funded by tobacco companies.

And so on and so forth.

Every individual “questioning” and presenting “evidence” I’m sure are often sincere. I’m sure you’re sincere.

But what they fail to see, necessarily, is why they’re even questioning in the first place. Why this specific issue and not others?

The sticking point is always over people like you wanting to avoid any hard work by simply declaring your version to be self-evidently true and in no need of any debate. — Isaac

Evolution isn’t “self evidently true” either. Nor the Holocaust. I assume you don’t put in much “hard work” with people who deny either? Maybe you do — fine. Sometimes that’s necessary. But what’s important isn’t so much the content, but the reasons why they’re making these claims to begin with.

When it comes to a lot of these claims surrounding vaccines and mandates, which have been around for decades, a similar question should be asked. And there’s no secret as to why this is happening. There’s no secret why the unvaccinated, for example, are overwhelmingly concentrated in counties that voted for Trump. All of those people I’m sure feel they’re truth-seekers, freedom lovers, and righteously skeptical of government/big pharma.

But they fail to see that they wouldn’t be saying what they’re saying if they lived somewhere else. Creationists fail to see that the reasons they’re questioning the science isn’t because of some legitimate discovery of flaws or good faith confusion— it’s because they’re Christians.

This has been my basic point all along. You won’t think it applies to you, I know. You’ll say it applies to me, etc. I’ve heard that from creationists too. Perhaps you’re right— perhaps they’re right.

But from what I see, you’re just swept up in the manufactured controversy. But don’t get me wrong: I am too. How? By even engaging with it.

Yes, it seems so obvious now. Everyone who disagrees with me must be a lair, it's the only realistic option - after all, intelligent people couldn't possibly reach different conclusions in good faith could they? That literally never happens. Well do I remember my first day as faculty - the corridors were blocked as we all agreed on where to go next. Only one textbook, obviously, with all the actual answers in it. The canteen was a nightmare - only one option on the menu of course (because we all agreed on what the optimum food item was for that day) but the queues for it... — Isaac

I mean, can you imagine the chaos and bloodshed that would overtake the world if we didn't all believe exactly the same things?

It shivers the timbers! :lol:

What are you trying to say, Isaac? That nobody ever lies? That we never lie to ourselves? That trust ought to never break down between people? That it's all about some misunderstanding between well-meaning folks? — Olivier5

Nope. I'm saying that it's nonsensical to use the fact that people sometimes lie as an argument that this particular person in this particular instance is lying.

What you need for that is evidence of a sort that both parties already agree on. If we agree that saying "the sky is blue" and then later saying "the sky was green" is an example of lying, then you might have some purchase in accusing me of lying by providing those contradictory quotes.

What you're doing here is accusing me of lying for no reason at all other than that I've reached a conclusion you strongly don't agree with, since all the 'reasons' you give form part of our disagreement, rather than part of a shared agreement outside of it.

Should we engage in the “hard work” of thoroughly debunking each and every claim made by these people? — Xtrix

No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias.

Evolution isn’t “self evidently true” either. Nor the Holocaust. I assume you don’t put in much “hard work” with people who deny either? — Xtrix

No. As I've said dozens of times before. They don't meet the normal minimum standard of being experts in the appropriate field without discoverable conflicts of interest or histories of bias.

What are the reasons that these individuals are saying such things?” — Xtrix

And you'd have insight into this how? Apart from my views, what do you know about me that could possibly provide you with any data at all about my reasons?

Hence the ridicule of your notion. You're saying that on no other grounds than that they disagree with you, you can somehow determine a person's motives. Do you seriously not see how utterly absurd and frankly messianic that sounds?

@Xtrix You can find stuff here: https://www.gapminder.org/

This guy you've probably heard of: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDytm8jnpk

can you imagine the chaos and bloodshed that would overtake the world if we didn't all believe exactly the same things? — frank

Yes, the horror. Of course, though, with our newfound abilities to discern motives from a few internet posts, I can confidently say that you're only saying that because you had an incident with a rocking horse when you were three, and the eight years of wearing braces has left you with a distrust of horses, which has grown during your time in the army into a distrust of people in general. Am-I-right?

I'm just a retrobate liar. :fear:

Ok, here's a little something to ponder upon. I'd love it if @180 Proof weighs in.

1. Epistemic responsibility is, well, a really good idea. Beliefs have moral consequences - they can either be fabulously great for our collective welfare or they could cause a lot of hurt.

2. Epistemic responsibility seems married to rationality for good, there's little doubt that that isn't the case. Rationality is about obeying the rules of logic and, over and above that, having a good handle on how to make a case.

So far so good.

3. Now, just imagine, sends chills down my spine, that rationality proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that immoralities of all kinds are justified e.g. that slavery is justified, racism is justified, you get the idea. This isn't as crazy as it sounds - a lot of atrocities in the world have been, for the perps, completely logical.

Here we have a dilemma: Either be rational or be good. If you're rational, you end up as a bad person. If you're good, you're irrational.

As you can see this messes up the clear and distinct notion of epistemic responsibility as simulataneously endorsing rationality AND goodness.

Thoughts...

I'm saying that it's nonsensical to use the fact that people sometimes lie as an argument that this particular person in this particular instance is lying. — Isaac

That's not my point, which is rather that one cannot expect every one to agree on an issue nor even to have an opinion on it, so there is no epistemic responsibility in that sense: nobody can be morally condemned for being honestly wrong. However, one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, and even more so when one is not professionally qualified.

Let's call it the "do no harm principle". If you know shit about a vitally important topic, treat it as an opportunity to remain silent.

It's easy to say but hard to enforce. I know that.

I'm just a retrobate liar. — frank

Yeah, but you're only saying that because...

No, I'm not going to flog that any further.

(Although, I'm only saying that because...)

one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, when one is not professionally qualified. — Olivier5

Yep. Again, did you think anyone would disagree with such an obviously true statement? Or were you looking for brownie points? Here...4 gold stars for clarifying that we shouldn't be complicit in killing each other.

Now, do you actually have some mechanism we can agree on by which we can judge whether that responsibility has been executed in any particular case? Or would you just like another gold star for pointing out that we ought try?

one can demand some level of good faith and indeed responsibility in propagating ideas online or anywhere, especially on topics that involve the sickness and death of quite a few, when one is not professionally qualified. — Olivier5

Again, did you think anyone would disagree with such an obviously true statement? — Isaac

Not openly, no. Nobody can openly deny that, even those who actually disagree. Although someone a bit contrarian could disagree with the need to say it.

And the same or another individual could very well demonstrate by his or her practice how he or she ignores the principle in reality in spite of formally expressing agreement. For instance, if a fellow with no knowledge of climatology was harping forever about how climate change is x, y or z, that would be a telltale sign.

Or if a guy with no knowledge of immunology would start to talk to no end of vaccines and immunity and stuff, and discuss countless scientific articles, as if he could understand what them immunologists are talking about in those articles.

Now of course, this guy would often deny any wrong doing through a series of rationalizations. These people are typically not internally coherent. They can say something and do something else without even noticing. But other people can notice their inconsistencies.

if a guy with no knowledge of immunology would start to talk to no end of vaccines and immunity and stuff, and discuss scientific articles to no end, as if he could understand what them immunologists are talking about in those articles. — Olivier5

That's literally all of us. No one here is an immunologist, yet we've just had massive long conversations about "vaccines and immunity and stuff", including you. We've all "discuss[ed] scientific articles to no end", including you.

It's just more 'I'm right but everyone else is wrong, because I says so' bollocks. You're allowed to repeat what you believe to be an honest, unbiased summary of what the experts are saying, but anyone else doing so (and disagreeing with you) is speaking out of turn.