I didn't ask you for a list of tenuous candidates for your laughable attempt to defame by association. I asked you why you thought we could trust the experts. — Isaac

I’m not getting into this again. I trust the consensus of experts. The reasons I trust them I’ve been over multiple times.

We can question anything at any time, including expertise. Indeed science, medicine and expertise gets it wrong sometimes — that’s not the point. They could also be wrong about climate change and quantum mechanics and evolution. The more interesting question is why expertise and consensus gets questioned in certain circumstances and not others. Why the sudden controversy and deep questioning (all the way down to “What is truth? What is a fact?”) about *this* topic and not about others? That’s the question.

You’re not an expert on this matter. Yet you question this and not other areas you also aren’t an expert in, like physics and mathematics and chemistry. To me there’s little reason to doubt why that is. You claim to be an exception, like everyone else does. Fine — I take your word for it. You’ve already stated the vaccines are safe and effective, so there’s little else to say. Why? Because I haven’t once made the claim that everyone should be forced to take them. Not once. That seems to be your worry, along with the power of the pharmaceutical industry, which I’m also strongly against.

The point I was making, and which remains true, is that the irrationality that exists about this issue — much like the election fraud issue, climate denial, etc. — has fairly clear causes, which is the neoliberal policies of the last 40 years, and the role of information — the “infodemic” as some have labeled it. The rest is your inventions and caricatures.

I think that the stock market is just a game that rich people play with each other and I don't care if a few hundred of them have advance knowledge to guide their buys and sells. — Michael

It's a mistake to characterize it in this way. The conflicts of interest should be hammered over and over again, and they aren't. I've heard more about the death of Betty White.

The events of January 6th is interesting in that it shows just how desperate, angry, and misinformed people have become in the US. What Democrats don't care to ask in any serious way is why these conditions exist. Why, for example, are so many working people now loyal followers of a New York billionaire? It is certainly connected to the stock market.

What kind of kindergarten-level naivety makes you think we can trust 'the experts'? — Isaac

The same thing I hear from Alex Jones followers, creationists, and election fraud enthusiasts. They'll gladly point out how everyone once thought the world was flat, and the many instances where "science" got it all wrong, the experts were all fooled, instances of corruption, etc.

The experts are wrong sometimes. They could be wrong about all kinds of things. Unfortunately, you're not an expert yourself. You're some guy on an internet forum who seems obsessed with this issue. What's truly naive, however, is thinking you've cracked the case that thousands of experts are currently studying because you've spent several hours selectively perusing. I get the exact same claims from climate denialists and 9/11 truthers, who will argue in great detail why they're correct. I have no interest in engaging with it on that level.

So the Republicans are persuading people to be anti-vaccine because it wins them votes because people are anti-vaccine? — Isaac

The Republicans are not persuading their constituents to be anti-vaccine. Many of their constituents were already anti-vaccine. Many of their constituents are also believers in the election lie. We see how Republicans are handling that as well.

Ask yourself why they go along with something demonstrably untrue. What do they gain? What's the Problem? etc. It's fairly obvious in my view.

So anti-vaccine sentiment. Who's earning the money out of that? — Isaac

Probably Alex Jones and some YouTube hucksters. But I don't think money is the reason anti-vax sentiment arose initially. I think it was originally sincere. Misinformation travels far and wide, and in social media at lightning speed. There doesn't have to be any money behind it, even if some exploit it. Same with QAnon -- I don't know who makes money off of it. I don't know who makes money off the election lie, for that matter.

Ask Trump, who was booed by his crowd when he said "Take the vaccine, it's good," what he stands to lose. He quickly pivoted to nonsense about "freedom." That's what the Republicans have to lose: their voters.
— Xtrix

We're talking about why people have been fed an anti-vax message in the first place. Your argument here is circular. — Isaac

No, you just want to make it so. The underlying issue is a erosion of trust in science, medicine, and academia. The anti-vax message has thrived on social media for years -- not on corporate media.

I'll repeat what I've said from the beginning: the anti-vax movement, and the millions of people who adhere to it, are but one symptom of a larger problem. That larger problem is irrationality driven by misinformation and an undermining of science for political and financial purposes by corporate media. This has now taken on a life of its own within social media.

Corporate America, and their media, by no means like the January 6th events. They don't like vaccine refusal either. This seems to continually trip you up. But it's not at all contradictory. They cannot control a monster they themselves helped to create. The underlying cause of all of it, I think, is years of neoliberal policies. But that's another story.

So science is untrustworthy.
— Xtrix

Science is an activity, not an institution. — Isaac

Science is an institution. Of course it's an activity. You're saying it's untrustworthy, apparently as both.

But it’s been undermined for political reasons.
— Xtrix

What political reasons? What have the Republicans got to gain from vaccine hesitancy? — Isaac

That's like asking what they have to gain for going along with the election lies. Their constituents believe it -- a large number of them -- and so they cater to them.

But that wasn't the point. The point is that science has been undermined for political reasons for decades. I mentioned climate denial, but there are plenty of others. The sugar industry, the tobacco industry, etc. The connection to politics is obvious.

That underlining problem is a systematic, deliberate erosion of trust in science and expertise.
— Xtrix

Right. So a minority of people not trusting science and expertise is a monster for the powers that be? Why? What have they got to lose from that state of affairs? — Isaac

For the corporate powers, people don't fall in line even when the message is legitimate, as with vaccines. This is bad for business. For political powers, they risk losing the election. Just ask Liz Cheney how it's going.

You've not linked any of this to a 'problem' yet. What's the problem that's being caused by this minority not trusting scientists? — Isaac

Not only scientists, but science and expertise in general. What's the problem with this? What's the problem with a majority of Republicans thinking the election was stolen? Because I believe rationality and truth matter. Believing nonsense leads to very real and very damaging actions -- whether regarding the environment, or food, or drugs, or vaccines, or free elections.

Go on... If the Republican doctors are not mislead then how do you support your claim that a majority of Republicans are mislead? — Isaac

Some doctors are Republicans. Misled about what, exactly? Vaccines? Elections? A majority of Republicans claim the election was stolen -- does that mean a majority of Republican doctors believe the election was stolen? Not necessarily.

Are you claiming that doctors are somehow immune from the forces of misinformation that mislead all other Republicans? — Isaac

No, but given their expertise in medicine, I assume they are less likely to be mislead by a Facebook post about how vaccines magnetize you than the average person.

If so, then what's their secret? — Isaac

Their "secret" is that they've studied medicine. So education, I guess? At least when it comes to medical misinformation. When it comes to election fraud claims, who knows? I haven't seen any evidence that about it one way or the other.

...vaccines...

Republicans gain if people take vaccines (the whole thing was developed on their watch). Industry gains if people take vaccines (by the billions of dollars), the most powerful lobby in the world is pushing for it and most countries (US included) are falling into line with increasingly draconian measure to make it impossible not to be vaccinated). So where's the problem here? — Isaac

Ask Trump, who was booed by his crowd when he said "Take the vaccine, it's good," what he stands to lose. He quickly pivoted to nonsense about "freedom." That's what the Republicans have to lose: their voters.

Vaccination is, without a shadow of a doubt, as well supported by the industrial and legal system as guns, fossil fuels and vote gerrymandering. Yet you're trying to paint them as the victims here. The poor oppressed pharmaceuticals who no-one trusts, how will they ever sell their products now, with so little trust. — Isaac

?

How strange.

When called upon to believe that Barack Obama was really born in Kenya, millions got in line. When encouraged to believe that the 2012 Sandy Hook murder of twenty children and six adults was a hoax, too many stepped up. When urged to believe that Hillary Clinton was trafficking children in the basement of a Washington, D.C., pizza parlor with no basement, they bought it, and one of them showed up in the pizza place with a rifle to protect the kids. The fictions fed the frenzies, and the frenzies shaped the crises of 2020 and 2021. The delusions are legion: Secret Democratic cabals of child abusers, millions of undocumented voters, falsehoods about the Covid-19 pandemic and the vaccine.

While much has been said about the moral and political stance of people who support right-wing conspiracy theories, their gullibility is itself alarming. Gullibility means malleability and manipulability. We don’t know if the people who believed the prevailing 2012 conspiracy theories believed the 2016 or 2020 versions, but we do know that a swath of the conservative population is available for the next delusion and the one after that. And on Jan. 6, 2021, we saw that a lot of them were willing to act on those beliefs.
[...]

Though when we talk about cults and conspiracies we usually look to more outlandish beliefs, climate denial and gun obsessions both fit this template.

Both originated as industry agendas that were then embraced by both right-wing politicians and the right-leaning public. For decades, the fossil fuel industry pumped out ads and reports, and supported lobbyists and front groups misleading the public on the science and import of climate change. The current gun cult is likewise the result of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry pushing battlefield-style weapons and a new white male identity — more paramilitary than rural hunter — along with fear, rage and racist dog whistles. I think of it as a cult, because guns serve first as totems of identity and belonging, and because the beliefs seem counterfactual about guns as sources of safety rather than danger when roughly 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides and self-defense by gun is a surpassingly rare phenomenon.
[...]

Issues from climate to Covid are anathema to the right because solving them would require large-scale cooperation, in conflict with the idea that individual rights should be paramount. That may be why conservatives framed all Covid precautionary measures as violations of individual freedom. Dying for your beliefs has taken on grim new meaning: Since vaccines became widely available, counties that voted heavily for Donald Trump have had nearly three times the Covid-19 death rate as counties that voted for Joe Biden.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/opinion/republicans-trump-lies.html

How about the medium to small businesses? Would you be good with doing away with private ownership of capital heights (the really big corporate guys) and but keeping it for smaller industries (which still make up a significant amount of the economy)? Why or why not? — schopenhauer1

There's two separate points I'm making.

#1. Capitalism itself, based on the definition I prefer and explained, should be dismantled. I don't think the system is legitimate.

#2. Given that we're most likely a long way out from dismantling this system, something should be done in the meantime. This means dismantling neoliberalism and, perhaps, returning to the era of "regimented capitalism" -- strong unions, high growth, more egalitarian distribution of wealth, etc. The kind we saw in the 50s and 60s. This seems more within reach and a good stepping stone to phasing out capitalism altogether in the long run.

So to answer your question: I'm not against business. Many businesses are small, yes. But just because they aren't multinational corporations doesn't negate the fundamentally exploitative relationship at the heart of them, if indeed they are capitalist -- meaning they (owners, employers) pay their workers a wage for their labor. Again, this would be as inconsistent as arguing that because there were very kind slaveowners, who treated their slaves well, that we should overlook the illegitimate nature of the system of chattel slavery.

But that's not the only way businesses can organize. You can still have profits and markets. What you can do is make it democratic -- i.e., organize the workplace democratically. I mentioned worker co-ops as model. This would mean that the workers decide how to run the business -- what to produce, how to produce it, what to do with the profits, how everyone gets paid, etc. Mondragon is often used as an example -- a very successful, large corporation. Happens to a be a cooperative.

When you say "private ownership," it's not so simple. I'm not against private ownership in the case of the co-op, where the workers own the business. I'm against a handful of people (or even one person) owning the business and making all the decisions, while hundreds, thousands, or millions of workers -- who are the majority of the company and who generate the profits -- are completely shut out of all decision making. In other words, I'm against totalitarianism and tyranny.

Modern capitalist corporations are private tyrannies. Those who want to rail against government, which is at least partly democratic, while ignoring the corporation, where there is no democracy, have simply fallen prey to the sophisticated (and not so sophisticated) capitalist apologetics that have been bought from so-called intellectuals through the decades. All under the guise of "freedom" -- free enterprise, free markets, free trade, etc. All complete nonsense.

So most Republicans are mislead by the media - we know they're being mislead because they deny the truth. The truth that has been told to us by our physicians...most of whom are Republicans, the ones who are mislead... — Isaac

No.

I disagree. I think it's come from those institutions themselves being demonstrably untrustworthy. — Isaac

So science is untrustworthy. Yes, I do disagree with this. I think science is, in fact, trustworthy— and the best enterprise we have for determining what’s true.

But it’s been undermined for political reasons. Climate denial, election fraud, vaccine irrationality, etc. All symptoms of the same underlining issue.

suggest that this crisis is a 'monster out of control' — Isaac

No one once said that “this crisis” (here I assume you’re referring to th pandemic) is a monster out of control. Rather, it is a symptom — along with election fraud and other instances you want to ignore — of an underlining problem. It is that underlining problem that is the monster. That underlining problem is a systematic, deliberate erosion of trust in science and expertise.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01115-7

You're clearly a well informed person in general. Has the whole debate passed you by. It was all over the editorials of the BMJ for months. The Editor in Chief there wrote directly to the FDA about it...but for you, a non-story? — Isaac

About corporate malfeasance? I guess it did— but I have a feeling we’re talking passed one another.

If you want to support an argument that the numbers are significant, then give me the numbers. — Isaac

I have many times on this thread and others. It’s all over the papers and polling. Republicans, Trump voting districts, evangelical Christians, etc — all much more likely to refuse the vaccine.

And no, 'the majority of vaccine deniers are Republican' is not the same as 'The majority of Republican's are vaccine deniers'. — Isaac

True. But if not a majority, it’s significant. Regarding election fraud claims, which I also mentioned, it is indeed a majority. Consider that fact — is that a problem? I think so.

Your claim that "a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things" is not supported by your evidence that "unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans" Do you see the difference? — Isaac

A majority of Republicans believe these things, yes. Both statements say the same thing. The former statement was referring to both vaccine refusal and election fraud. The former claim about "majority" may be wrong now, however -- I think it's over 50% who are vaccinated now.

According to Gallup, 40% of Republicans “don’t plan” to get vaccinated, versus 26% of Independents and just 3% of Democrats.

Brookings

So a large minority of Republicans are unvaccinated, and a majority believe in election fraud. Both are deeply concerning, and there's no coincidence why this is so.

There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point.
— Xtrix

Again, your 'point' is flawed. — Isaac

You've repeatedly been corrected about this. I'll do so again, and for as long as it takes.

The media they consume is wholly owned by rich corporations. The same rich corporations who have made more money than they've ever made out of this crisis including the profits and share hikes from the vaccine. — Isaac

No, they are not the same corporations. Believe it or not, but media conglomerates and large pharmaceutical companies have different interests, despite both being part of corporate America.

Regardless -- as I've said before, I also include social media, which has become unhinged. That's not quite the same as CNN, Fox, and CBS. Corporate media, in this case, has been fairly unified, rightly, about the vaccine. But that's because it serves their interests.

That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the last 30 years of undermining the institutions of academia, science, medicine. That has mostly come from conservative media, accelerated in our time by social media.

Why, that would only work if the group who'd been fed the pro-vaccine line spent all their time focussing on the group who'd been fed the anti-vaccine line so that the people in charge of both messages can bring in even more money without anyone paying them the slightest attention at all. But hey, who'd be daft enough to fall for that...again? — Isaac

Yeah, it does seem there's a lot of messaging out there, particularly on social media (with strands of it on Fox and talk radio), that are continuing the long tradition of undermining trust in institutions, particularly when the "other party" is in charge. That creates yet another wedge issue and keeps everyone divided. Not once did I say I lay the ultimate blame on the people, however. I blame the elites and the media they control, for continuously undermining truth and sowing division. They created a monster, and now they can't stop it (particularly on the social media front).

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant.
— Xtrix

Well, then show me the significance. Your word obviously isn't good enough. Where are your numbers and measures of effect? — Isaac

The numbers of unvaccinated are well known. 62% are fully vaccinated in the United States. 73% have taken at least one dose. Many were coerced into doing so by their employers, etc. But regardless, let's say the number is 20% of the population. If you don't think 70 million people is significant, you're not paying attention. In order for herd immunity to be achieved, the numbers should be in the 80s at least. But that's a pipe dream now -- there's already too many variants.

As far as social media-driven irrationality, there's a lot of good work on this. The effects are everywhere and obvious.

Social Media as a Primary Factor of Irrational Behavior

Trystan Harris also articulates the phenomenon very well. But there are plenty of articles and studies done about the negative effects of social media. I've no interest to give more than I've already cited. I find the question itself disingenuous.

you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines.
— Xtrix

Yet earlier you were saying that you might have missed it. Which is it? It isn't there, or you haven't looked? — Isaac

Yes, I may have. I have looked, quite a bit, but haven't found much in terms of "malfeasance." I mentioned the J&J bloodclot issue, etc. But given that you already accept that vaccines are safe and effective, I don't understand what you're driving at. You also refuse to explain what you're driving at or provide any references whatsoever. Your prerogative.

I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles.
— Xtrix

What problem is it causing? — Isaac

See above. The more people vaccinated, the better. Less people get sick, less people spread the disease, the symptoms are milder, less hospitalizations, etc. Good for everyone.

But it's another disingenuous question. Why do you think doctors are recommending the vaccines so much? We're in a pandemic and we have safe and effective vaccines, and so those who are eligible should take them. Fairly simple, so I look forward to seeing how you misrepresent it.

If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc
— Xtrix

I don't. I think Facebook/Twitter/YouTube are responsible for an enormous amount of the problem we face. I'm just not so stupid as to think they only stoke one side. — Isaac

Yeah -- I never said they did. In the cases I mentioned, vaccines and election fraud, it so happens that this is coming mostly from Republicans. But not long ago there was widespread hysteria about "Russia stealing the election" of 2016, mostly from left-leaning sources. Which was obvious from the beginning was a complete waste of time. But Twitter and SNL loved it.

Many people don't research the vaccines at all, they just follow the advice of doctors. Those doing so in this particular case happen to be doing the right thing. The same is true of following other advice of medical experts -- if they say you need surgery, I would argue it's rational to take that advice even if you haven't done a deep dive into surgery.

Media influences many people. Still, that doesn't make them all the same, just as the political parties aren't the same, despite having some common ground (like both being corporate parties).

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.
— Xtrix

By whom? — Isaac

By the scientific and medical communities, and by the general public. I've yet to hear anything significant in this regard. I asked for what you were referring to and got nothing, so there's that as well.

When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.
— Xtrix

But they clearly don't. — Isaac

Yes, they do. The unvaccinated, and those polled who say they will never or probably not be vaccinated, are mostly Republicans. Party affiliation is one of the best predictors. In terms of election fraud claims, it's off the charts. Something like 60-70% of more.

Many people are scared, many confused, many just incorrigible procrastinators. — Isaac

I think you're underestimating the percentage who are refusing for irrational reasons because of the information they consume. This is why party affiliation is such a good predictor.

The list of those actually going along with the sort of irrational misinformation you're referring to is vanishingly small and, most importantly, have virtually no power at all. — Isaac

I suppose the same is true about election fraud? Could be, I suppose -- there's no way to see into every individual's mind. But I'd say it's no coincidence that those who profess vaccine "skepticism" or refusal, and those who claim the election was stolen, happen to be majority Republican. There's no mystery as to why that is, all you have to do is take a look at the media they consume. Which was my point.

So why are so many hung up on this group? Why is so much hatred being stoked up for a small, easily defeated straw-enemy which never had any real power, whilst those with real power continue to rake it in whilst you look the other way? — Isaac

There are properly powerful people making enormous amounts of money at the expense of oppressing an increasingly subjugated working class. They don't give a shit about a few nutjobs, but they sure as hell give a shit about making sure that's the only thing you're thinking about. — Isaac

Unfortunately, the world is a complex place. Making general statements about corporations and the subjugated working class, while true, doesn't simply explain everything. As I said before, I'm against the entire capitalist system, I'm against the private medical and pharmaceutical companies, etc. But that has nothing to do with whether the product, no matter if it's Viagra or the vaccines, are safe and effective. If they created a vaccine at a private company, great -- they should share it with the world. The malfeasance you spoke of, I see no evidence of -- despite the attention its garnered. Again, if you have some I've overlooked, fine.

You're downplaying the significance of vaccine refusal, which is significant. You're downplaying the role of social media-drive irrationality, which is significant. And you're trying to find something that simply isn't there when it comes to these companies which have produced the vaccines. Not a bad instinct -- corporations will cut as many throats as they can get away with -- but not applicable in every scenario.

So yes, I think the bigger issue, until evidence points elsewhere, is the large number of unvaccinated people refusing vaccines because of their information bubbles. If you think there'd be this level of refusal 30 years ago, prior to the anti-vax movement and prior to Facebook/Twitter/YouTube, etc., we should simply agree to disagree and move on.

I'm concerned about trying to provide a means for educational games for young people that aren't that resource intensive on processing power of a computer. I used to play some games like that, that made school, where I couldn't pay attention no matter how hard I tried, an easy venture. It's very hard for me to explain just how difficult school would have been if I didn't play those educational games that provided the core concepts distilled and entertaining to learn whilst interactive. — Shawn

Seems like a noble pursuit. If you're worth 10s of billions, which is an outrageous sum, you could invest 0.001% of it in a new company that specializes in exactly this and be well ahead of Khan Academy or any other similar institution.

The question is how much you want to give away, really. How much is enough to live the rest of your life (and your family/friends' lives) comfortably enough? 1 billion? 100 million? 50 million? Once you figure that out, the rest is just numbers -- then you can invest into a multitude of projects. I'd take a look at this thread here for some ideas.

Education is certainly a major issue. I'm glad to hear you're interested in it. Climate change is another, and one that I tend to focus on -- seems to overshadow everything else, since nothing else will matter if the environment is destroyed. On that issue there are plenty of organizations doing excellent work. There are indigenous tribes in the Amazon rainforest who risk their lives stopping its destruction that are certainly worth donating to, etc. You could be a hero to these people just based on your wealth alone.

You're only the second billionaire I've spoken with in my life, incidentally. (That I'm aware of.)

Yes, I am a billionaire. — Shawn

Well that's interesting. You're in a rare club indeed.

I can only tell you what I would do if I had that money. But you've got to figure that out yourself. What is it that you care about? Do you care about humanity or not? What is a good life?

It really shouldn't change you much, it's just numbers on a screen. But knowing nothing else about you, those numbers give you far more opportunities than the average person -- hopefully to do some good.

The pharmaceuticals have, in the space of just over a year, managed to take public funds and turn them into private patents that they've sold to over 80% of the population of the western world. — Isaac

Governments have paid them for their vaccines. Most vaccines being offered are free. So this can be misleading. But should governments be paying private corporations for potentially life-saving medicine? I don't think so -- but that's a different story.

New legislation is being passed which will make it harder for people to report on corporate malfeasance, and the left-wing has voluntarily gagged themselves from complaining about any wrongdoing for fear of undermining confidence in their products. — Isaac

If that's in fact the case, I'm against it. I also think there should not be patent protection in this case. Whatever wrongdoing you're referring to, I don't know. I know the Johnson and Johnson vaccine was linked with blood clots and something like 10 people died out of millions...I don't see that being suppressed, really. But if there is some wrongdoing I'm unaware of, that's been suppressed for fear of undermining confidence, I'd certainly take a look.

Corpoate malfeasance doesn't surprise me. In this case it would, because of how heavily it's been scrutinized.

Meanwhile, some nutjobs think the vaccine will turn them into a 5G transmitter because some Facebook page told them so.

Perhaps you could start by explaining why you think the latter is super important whilst the former is just old hat that there's not much point talking about. — Isaac

I don't think that.

The latter is a symptom of a bigger problem, part of which you've mentioned. Another symptom is the election fraud claim. You can mock both as just some "nut jobs," and perhaps in other decades you'd be correct. When a majority of people, who identify with one of two major political parties, believe these things...that's not a minor issue anymore. And not very funny.

So you've come onto a thread about Coronavirus, just to point out the general fact that lots of people are irrational. — Isaac

Apropos of the article I cited, yes. Just one more symptom (an important one) of a much wider problem of irrationality. The article talks about a potential solution of “incentives,” which I was leery about.

I think that’s an interesting discussion, yes. Because there’s little else to say about coronavirus or the vaccines, despite you wanting to relitigate this over and over again.

thinly veiled attempt to get another "aren't non-vaxxers stupid" comment in by putting it in a new dress. — Isaac

Yes, we all know this is exactly what triggered you, essentially being one yourself. But don’t worry, it wasn’t directed at you. I also should have said “irrational,” not “stupid.” My bad.

This is a debating platform, if you're not prepared to debate, you're in the wrong place. — Isaac

Thanks for the tip. Funny thing with me, though: I like to argue for my positions, not positions people think I hold. I also don’t debate truisms. If one wants to debate about the earth being flat, they’re welcome.

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it.
— Xtrix

No, it means your point is flawed. — Isaac

No, you mean your point is flawed. Because it’s your point you’re arguing against, not mine. Perhaps it is flawed — but I’m not involved.

Corporate media may well be responsible for 'irrational thinking' but vaccine hesitancy is a terrible example of it because all it shows is that people do not follow corporate media. — Isaac

Fox News is corporate media. Most talk radio is corporate media. They try to walk a thin line — as you do — about vaccines, but they know they’re audience. Remember Trump was booed about the vaccines?

But yes, generally these people no longer even follow Trump or Fox about vaccinations. That’s why I mentioned, repeatedly, that they’ve created a monster they can no longer control. I also said, crucially, that social media is what’s driving a lot of this irrationality. True, they’re owned by major corporations who “try” to regulate the spread of misinformation (Facebook, Google) — but they too have created a monster they can no longer control.

The contradiction you’re looking for just doesn’t exist. If you want to truly debate what I’m saying, then challenge the claim. That would mean challenging whether corporate media really did create this monster in the first place. Maybe other factors are more relevant — education, economic conditions, etc.

That at least would be interesting, and perhaps I could learn something. What you’re doing is just misrepresentation. That’s boring.

You made the claim that an 'overwhelming majority' of scientists supported your position. I just want to know where you got the numbers from, that's all — Isaac

Well I don’t know if there’s a poll asking doctors “do you think the vaccines are safe and effective?”, and I’m not interested in even googling it, so I guess you got me. I have no numbers. I did read somewhere that something like 98% of physicians received the vaccine — but otherwise I suppose I’m going by literally any credible scientific or medical source I’ve read. Or any credible organization, for that matter (I include the WHO, CDC, AMA, etc).

So no, I have no poll and no exact numbers. Maybe a sizeable percentage don’t believe germs exist. I’ve yet to see a poll, so I guess we can’t be sure.

It does seem like that’s what the system is based on, ultimately: the accumulation of wealth. More and more profits, more and more money. And why? What’s the point in spending your time collecting coins and paper?

Because it can buy you control and influence, not to mention lots of material goods. It can buy food, women, houses, cars, clothes, jewelry, TVs, etc. All the things we’re supposed to covet.

A certain amount of material goods, and of wealth, is fine. I agree with Aristotle in that case. But when it’s the central need on which you base your sociocultural system, you’re heading for disaster.

No you weren't. — Isaac

No it wasn't. — Isaac

:yawn:

I quoted myself. But believe what you wish.

Apparently the one group who stand to gain billions from everyone taking the vaccine are actively discouraging people from taking the vaccine — Isaac

I’ve said repeatedly that they’re encouraging people to take the vaccine. But to you this means I’m saying they’re discouraging it. Incredible how warped your perception has become in your bizarre obsession. Oh well.

No, it was definitely one scientist. — Isaac

No, it’s thousands of scientists. I quoted one. My quoting one does not mean there is only one who agrees vaccines are safe and effective, which was the point — nor about misinformation, which was my initial point. But keep trying.

So you stand by every word of an article bemoaning the fact that some (eligible) people haven't taken the vaccine, but it's not your position that everybody (eligible) should take the vaccine...? — Isaac

I stand by every word of mine. The article, which was a launching point for what I wrote, does not advocate “everyone” that’s eligible take the vaccine, and in fact makes the obvious qualification — which you seem so eager to point out.

I’ll make it easier so as not to hurt your ego: Some people are refusing the vaccine for irrational reasons. Many, in fact. This is what I’m talking about, what the article was talking about (incentives), and what the scientist I quoted was talking about. Some have legitimate reasons — which is all you seem to care about.

Heaven forbid we don’t always acknowledge what should be obvious — we may be accused of thinking that “everyone,” without exception, should be forced to take the product of Big Pharma.

Sorry you took it all so personally. May your pet project of deep-diving all things vaccine continue unabated.

Some people think a silly thing about a medicine - that's where all our focus should be. — Isaac

Not all our focus— but it’s a symptom of a major problem. A problem which, believe it or not, relates to the other issues you rattled off. Despite what you misperceive, this was the point.

I absolutely do not concede that. I suspect that if Heidegger had continued with the work, the next publication would not have been called Being and Time with any sort of suffix and would likely have been called Time and Being. — Arne

But that has nothing whatsoever to do with accurately calling the introduction an introduction. Come on man.

Heidegger published what he needed to publish to get what he wanted to get. Had he not been forced to publish and under hurried circumstances, we would not even know his name. It is sloppy and students of Heidegger deserve better. — Arne

He was a pretty big deal even prior to publishing this book, so that claim is at best speculative. But yes, I agree it was written in haste.

I read Heidegger and then I listen to lectures by Dreyfus, Kelly, or Carmen and then I read Heidegger and then I listen to lectures by Dreyfus, Kelly, or Carmen and then I read Heidegger. . . — Arne

That was me for two years. Minus Carmen. Mostly I just read Heidegger. Dreyfus is extremely helpful and I love his lectures.

Are you trying to say you’re a billionaire? Or is this just to make a point?

Regarding the last part: it’s an interesting question. Like sex, money isn’t often discussed among many “famous” philosophers.

With regards to philosophy, try to use your wealth to help change the world for the better. Plenty of good people and good organizations to support.

And besides, if you agreed with me, then all you had to do was say so and we could have been doing other things. — Arne

I would have, but I don't agree with the statement about the introduction. It is not a mistake to refer to it as such. I hope you now concede that.

You're quite right that to refer to Being and Time as a completed work is incorrect.

We are clearly not going to agree. I find The History of the Concept of Time (pre) and The Problems of Phenomenology (post) to be useful in understanding Being and Time. — Arne

Well we agree on that at least. :ok:

And even if you want to stand on that, people who wish to understand Being and Time should still be aware that what is labeled as an introduction is clearly intended to be an introduction to a larger body of work. Surely you can see that? — Arne

Of course. But who doesn't see that? Is anyone out there thinking that because there's an introduction to the entire outline, that therefore every part of that outline was finished? All one has to do is look at the table of contents to realize that it's an unfinished work.

I still fail to see how referring to the introduction is a mistake. Perhaps you mean to say that people really aren't aware that Being and Time is an unfinished work...in which case, perhaps you're right, but again I don't see that as a major problem. They will quickly realize it's unfinished.

Mozart left some work unfinished as well. So what?

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.
— Xtrix

Seriously? He needed to provide a name for the completed parts so they could be published (the publish or die of academia.). He named the 2 completed parts Being and Time. It really is that simple. — Arne

Not at all. The title was given to the entirety of what was proposed, which you yourself cited. He just never got around to finishing it. Which is why the introduction is so valuable -- in the introduction (really, the introductions), he goes through the entirety of the six-division proposal.

Most of Being and Time, including the divisions not finished, were eventually published in different works and were an outgrowth of lecture courses Heidegger gave in the 1920s. So both before and after 1927, you have plenty of material.

So it's not quite that simple, no.

Fair enough.

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Being and Time is most certainly not complete. It consisted of 2 parts with 6 divisions. Only two divisions were written -- both of part 1.

I don't know what "6 part project" you're referring to. Perhaps you can clarify.

Your "emphatically" insisting that he provides no definition of being is incorrect. — Arne

I'm not emphatically insisting, Heidegger emphatically insists.

He defines being as ". . . that on the basis of which entities are already understood." (M&R at 25-26, 6 in the German.). I am always surprised by the number of people who miss that. — Arne

I'm well aware of that line. It's also ironic that you mis-quoted it.

I wouldn't myself say that's a definition -- it's a one-time instance where he's trying to communicate how being gets interpreted: namely, as the basis for which beings are already understood. Later, he describes this as a pre-ontological understanding of being.

But let's assume you're correct, and this is his definition. Odd that a book about the question of the meaning of being only has one line about its meaning. What I described seems more probable.

The below is from the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time. — Arne

It's not a mistake to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as "the introduction to Being and Time." Because it IS the introduction to Being and Time. Whatever "six-part project" you're referring to, again I have no idea. I think it more likely you're confusing the proposed six divisions with "six parts." Being and Time was to have 2 parts consisting of six divisions. Where are you getting parts 3-6?

As you can see, the last page of what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time makes clear the introduction is to a 6 division project of which Being and Time comprises only the first 2 divisions. Surely you can see that. — Arne

Yes, can you?

So now you say it's six divisions. Before you said six "parts." So let's be clear about that, first. That's not me merely nit-picking; it's absolutely essential.

You're quite right: Being and Time, as we currently have it, consists of only 2 divisions of the proposed six divisions. Thus, it is incomplete. So why, then, did you say, above:

1. Being and Time is complete. The 6 part project of which Being and Time is just 2 parts is incomplete. — Arne

Did you mean 6 divisions? If so, why do you say Being and Time is just "2 [divisions]" of a six-division project, but then say it's complete?

The bottom line is this:

Being and Time was proposed as a 2 Part, 6 Division work. Only 2 divisions of Part 1 was published. The introduction touches on all of it: all divisions, both parts. Look no further than the last page you provided to see that the introduction goes through all of it, including the historical destruction of Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle.

Given that this is true, my statement stands: it is in no way a "mistake" to refer to the introduction of Being and Time as exactly that. Why? Because that's exactly what it is.

I think the only "solution" is to let the whole system collapse, probably better sooner than later... and see what can grow after that. — ChatteringMonkey

Maybe...but that means enormous suffering that will be felt mostly -- as always -- by the poor and working classes. It means worldwide depression. They've gotten themselves into a game where they're now "too big to fail," and so the government serves as a backstop for them, preventing them from failing. On and on we go.

I'd much prefer massive legal and regulatory reforms, but that's not going to happen either. What's more is that we're really out of time. So if the entire system collapses, perhaps that's the last best hope we have?

There's always the people, of course. That's my real hope. Unfortunately millions of people are far too divided by our media bubbles, too tired from work, too sick from our lifestyles, too medicated, too drugged out, or too "amused" to know or care about the imminent catastrophe already unfolding.

Stock buybacks are happening because the ROI in them is higher than the ROI in non-financials. No need to look to ideological factors. Follow the money. It's as simple as that. — StreetlightX

Short-term return on investment, yes. The stock price goes up. But this isn't the entire story, as you know. Stock buybacks were nearly non-existent for 30+ years until after 1982. That's why I mentioned rule 10b-18 of the SEC, under Reagan-appointed John Shad. The floodgates opened after both this action and increasing stocks as a portion of CEO compensation. Whether these moves were "ideologically" driven or not is arguable, although it does appear that way to me. I think the appropriation of Friedman's doctrine (and others) served as a nice cover.

https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity

https://hbr.org/2020/01/why-stock-buybacks-are-dangerous-for-the-economy

Both from Lazonick, who's done good research into this. Also a decent interview here, if you're interested:

And the resistance in the real economy is at record levels. The whole thing is being held together by the duct-tape of QE and PPP and record low interest rates. It's bleeding to death. Who in their right mind would park their money there? No sensible capitalist. — StreetlightX

Right -- it's bleeding to death yet being propped up, over and over, by the Fed. The question is what happens this year when they start tapering their buying of corporate debt to fight "inflation"? Whether the financial sector bleeds out slowly or hemorrhages seems the only two options. Unless they find Jesus, of course.

Heidegger remarking that 'if I understand Suzuki correctly, this is what I have been trying to say in all my writings'. — Wayfarer

That's interesting. Can you provide a reference?

But my all time favorite orienting mantra is being is that on the basis of which being is already understood. — Arne

It's "on the basis of which entities are already understood." That's a crucial difference.

Failing to recognize that the primary goal (revealing the meaning of being) set forth in what is mistakenly referred to as the introduction to Being and Time causes many to presume the primary goal of Being and Time is to reveal the meaning of being. Instead, the goal of Being and Time is much less ambitious than and "preparatory" to revealing the meaning of being. — Arne

The introduction is indeed an introduction to Being and Time. The fact that the book wasn't completed doesn't negate this. Why? Because in the introduction -- and not elsewhere, since it wasn't written -- you have a discussion of the entirety of the book. For example, what was to be the second part: the "destruction" of the history with time as a clue, in Kant, Descartes, and Aristotle; and the 3rd Division of Part 1, "Time and Being." All discussed in the introduction.

So the introduction is very valuable indeed. If you want to fill out Being and Time, then Basic Problems of Phenomenology and Introduction to Metaphysics will do so.

The primary goal of Being and Time is, indeed, about the question of the meaning of being. That is the goal. What I see as a common mistake is when people assume he gives a definition or an interpretation of "being" himself. He most emphatically does not. So that is a common error. But to argue that it's an error to think his goal is what he in fact repeatedly says it is? That itself is an error -- in my view.

Also, the word "reveal" is misleading. His goal is to work out the question of the meaning of being -- to see on what basis the question is asked and upon which any interpretation whatsoever of being is given. That, it turns out, is time -- the "structure" (or "being") of dasein. Again he cites the Greeks's parousia and ousia as examples of this in the introduction (i.e., presence assumes the present moment, and hence time).

You're right that "free markets" (notice the quotation marks), private property, capital, profits, etc., play a role in the system we're referring to, given the name "capitalism" (in today's world, state-capitalism). But I was asking you what, in practice, makes this system unique from other socioeconomic systems in history. That's why I mentioned feudalism. Were there markets under feudalism? Of course there were. Ditto with profits, property, etc.

So I mentioned the relationship of employer and employee. I think this is what stands out when we look at how things are arranged today. It's a power structure, like master-slave and lord-serf, but unique in its function. There is a "contract" involved in this relationship, where the worker/employee is hired, by the employer, to use his brains and muscles to produce goods and services. In exchange, he or she receives compensation in the form of a wage or salary. (You're not selling yourself, you're renting yourself.)

If you go further than that, and look at how private capital has organized itself, you arrive at the corporation. Again, in today's terms, that's multinational corporations. These are the most powerful.

How are these corporations organized? The same relationship: owners/employers (in this case the major shareholders, board of directors, and executives) hire workers/employees. The workers generate profits. What happens to those profits? Where do they go? They go to, essentially, the "owners" -- the board of directors, who decide what to do with the money. Since the board directors are chosen by major shareholders, they usually do the bidding of the major shareholders -- and we see that demonstrated today with stock buybacks and dividends, which accounts for 90+% of profit distribution (please see the links I provided earlier, or google it yourself, as this should be a stunning statement).

This is how business functions in the world today. This is capitalism (again, more specifically, a variant of state-capitalism: neoliberalism). It's completely undemocratic, it's exploitative, and I would say fundamentally illegitimate and unjust. But even if one conceded that, one may still argue about its results.

Yet look at the results in today's world. Look at the level of inequality, to take one obvious example. It rivals the time of the Pharaohs. People have dubbed it the "New Gilded Age." So what is left to say about this system? Does what I describe strike you as a just system (assume for a second that my description is accurate, even if you disagree)?

Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this.
— Xtrix

As I said Amoxicillin is also safe and effective. Should I take that too? Being safe and effective is not sufficient justification to cover all the policies you advocate. — Isaac

I wasn't advocating "policies," I was pointing out that irrationality abounds.

Also, amoxicillin is safe and effective, yes. Should people start refusing to take amoxicillin when told to by a doctor, I think the example would be relevant. During a pandemic, when experts are encouraging taking the safe and effective vaccines, and people are refusing for irrational reasons (for the same reasons they believe in election fraud), I'd say that's a problem. That was my entire point.

Somehow you don't -- fine. Not interested in expanding on truisms.

I asked you for a non-media source for your claim that there's an 'overwhelming consensus' of scientists in favour of the policies you advocate. You've given me a media source showing that one scientist agrees with you. — Isaac

Again, I wasn't advocating policies. I was pointing out something that anyone who isn't caught up in the "controversy" of vaccines would readily recognize. I was also questioning the "incentive" policy. That's not advocacy.

It's not one scientist, it's thousands of scientists and doctors. I simply liked how closely what he was saying matched what I was. What he's pointing out is so obvious it shouldn't even have to be stated. Alas, apparently it does.

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.
— Xtrix

No. Neither do I. Again, 'safe and effective' does not automatically lead to 'everyone ought to take them'. — Isaac

Yes, and you persist in thinking that "everyone ought to take them" is my "policy" that I'm "advocating." You're wrong. That's not what I'm advocating, and that's not what I initially said. To do the legwork for you, this is what you decided to chime in on:

I quoted a New York Times article about using "incentives" to encourage vaccination...

So in other words: we're losing the battle of education, knowledge, facts, information, communication, etc. Corporate media and social media (but I repeat myself) are leading more and more people into conspiracies and bogus beliefs and into silos. That is clear.

What to do about it? Use "incentives." Translation: rewards and punishments. When people behave like animals, treat them as such and that will work. Behaviorism prevails, in this case. Simple principles of classical and operant conditioning will be enormously effective.

There's a part of me that's very leery about all this, even though I think it's justified in this case, based on scientific and medical consensus/direction, but much like the analogy to the teenager coming home for curfew because she's afraid of "negative incentive," that's far from ideal. Best to have a child understand why the rule is in place to begin with, not simply to force compliance with threats.

[...]

And we certainly have a real issue in the United States. Our powerful corporate and political (but I repeat myself) masters, through their ownership and control of media and their infiltration of the education system, have really done a number on the populace. We're as divided and confused as ever.

[...]

Anyway -- if "incentives" is the way of the future, it'll lead to even more division and violence. But when half the country's behavior effects the other half and vice versa, something has to be done. This is a tough one -- but in the end I blame the 40 years of the neoliberal assault and the influential people who engineered it. This is what comes from putting greed above everything.

I stand by every word of that. I'm sorry you continually want to make this about your bizarre vaccine obsession.

Being able to own the capital to make products to sell. — schopenhauer1

Worker co-ops do the same thing. Ownership and private property doesn’t define capitalism— that’s existed for millennia. Neither does making profits.

So I reject that definition— it’s not describing what makes capitalism unique. It’s a hierarchical power structure, a system— one which is organized different from, say, feudalism.

So again, what are your sources for this claim that your position is supported by an 'overwhelming consensus'? — Isaac

Not my position. Vaccines are safe and effective— there is a consensus on this. Find your own articles about it if you’re interested— literally any credible journal or organization in the world.

Aaron Ciechanover, an Israeli scientist and winner of the 2004 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, called on the population to trust the scientific consensus on COVID-19 vaccines.

He said that people’s reluctance to get vaccinated has been caused by preconceptions, misinformation, and opinions of leaders that go against the general consensus of the scientific community.

https://tec.mx/en/news/national/research/nobel-laureate-calls-trust-scientific-consensus-vaccines

This is exactly what I’m saying.

Indeed. Recently I've been listening to Vinay Prasad, Stefan Baral, Martin Kulldorff, Jay Bhattacharya, Norman Fenton, Pete Doshi, Paul Hunter... Or are they the 'wrong' experts? — Isaac

:yawn:

Do these experts claim the vaccines aren’t safe and effective? Probably not.

Again: election fraud is also widely believed. Why not spend your time defending that as well?

I think we are confusing corrupt capitalist practices or capitalism with bad loopholes and lo — schopenhauer1

What is “capitalism”? I told you how I define it, and I think it fundamentally illegitimate. It’s not simply a matter of bad loopholes and loose regulations.

Yes, it turns out you can do pretty well economically if you employ slave labor, suppress free trade, steal innovations from freer countries, and exploit your citizenry. — NOS4A2

I know— that’s why I said the United States does well.

Communist parties do. I might wonder which communist state, current or otherwise, you’d prefer to live in, but I suspect I know the answer. — NOS4A2

So the United States is a communist party? Since it's a moral and systematic failure, it meets those criteria.

China is ruled by a communist party. Do pretty well economically...but then again so does the US.

Yeah well H promotes "misunderstanding" both with the obscurant sophistry of his texts and rare, explicit statements such as
Those in the crossing must in the end know what is mistaken by all urging for intelligibility: that every thinking of being, all philosophy, can never be confirmed by ‘facts,’ i.e., by beings. Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy.
— Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), Notes 1936-1938
Note N's prescient criticism sixty-something years before:
Those who know that they are profound strive for clarity. Those who would like to seem profound to the crowd strive for obscurity. For the crowd believes that if it cannot see to the bottom of something it must be profound. It is so timid and dislikes going into the water.
— The Gay Science, 173 — 180 Proof

We're all well aware of this criticism. Heidegger in fact addresses it immediately and explicitly in Being and Time. For something so incomprehensible, how is it that I can explain it? If you think I can't explain it, then point out the contradictions or murkiness.

I think Heidegger did indeed strive for clarity. What was being discussed was so mired in traditional words and concepts that it requires more effort to understand his language, but that's not the same as obscurantism.