> To believe there is complete consensus between experts is a similar conspiracy theory.
There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted.
Conflating the two is simply silly because the former is being open minded to new evidence and analysis, and discussing those findings. Where as the latter is being closed minded to all formal evidence and analysis and refusing to discuss the science. To be honest this feels like a bloody obvious distinction that shouldn’t need to be made yet people do seem confused by it.
> People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you.
Confirm what? Your comment here it gibberish.
If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated then they obviously should not be vaccinated. However that just means it’s even more important for all those who are able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated (to reduce the overall risk so those at risk are protected by proxy).
Saying “I don’t trust the science” is just a bullshit way of saying “i don’t understand science but also too lazy to learn it” and thus not an acceptable reason to avoid vaccination.
> You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
I can and I did. ;)
Yes, science does need criticism. Which is exactly why it already happens. We called it “peer review” (in fact you said yourself that scientists don’t always have a consensus so you’re contradicting your own arguments now).
The problem is people like yourself just assume those reviewers are also part of the conspiracy whenever that peer review doesn’t align with your assumed position. There’s literally Jack shit one can do to convince a person that due diligence has been done if that person has already convinced themselves that something isn’t safe and anyone that tells them otherwise is a liar.
> here’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted.
In contemporary culture I see people trying to ban diverging opinions. There is no depth to it. So nuance is not permitted. I don't see people blankly refuse or forbid statements of experts. There is not a rift between the closed and opened minded people. If so, both sides must be close minded.
> Confirm what?
That any scientific discovery must hold against scrutiny, it is as simple as that.
> If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated
There is a huge political component. I am vaccinated but have called an anti-vaxxer because I don't support mandates, which are now pretty much off the table anyway. People that called for it should be glad most people are not that reactionary to refuse any further discussion. Really glad.
> I don’t trust the science
Nobody is saying anything like that.
> I can and I did. ;)
That is pretty unscientific of you as a the diagnostics of hate speech.
> In contemporary culture I see people trying to ban diverging opinions. There is no depth to it. So nuance is not permitted
Yeah, I can’t say I entirely agree with banning of opinions either.
> I don't see people blankly refuse or forbid statements of experts.
Really? The EU referendum in the U.K. was literally based around the phrase “so called experts” as a way of undermining reports from experts in finance and trade so MPs could focus on the more emotive topics of sovereignty and immigration.
You see it again with COVID about how experts are hiding the truth. Etc etc.
Lately there has been a huge anti-movement against trusting experts.
> There is not a rift between the closed and opened minded people. If so, both sides must be close minded.
I see what you’re trying to do but that logic doesn’t work. You can have a rift with both sides being open minded and still disagreeing.
The fact that science promotes debate and peer review suggests it is open minded. The fact that conspiracies depend on distrusting sources means it is not open minded. One is open to exploring new ideas and research. The latter pretends to be open minded but actually only accepts ideas that confirm an opinion already held.
> That any scientific discovery must hold against scrutiny, it is as simple as that
That’s literally what already happens.
> There is a huge political component. I am vaccinated but have called an anti-vaxxer because I don't support mandates, which are now pretty much off the table anyway.
That doesn’t make you an anti-vaxxer. Whoever called you that was clearly being more emotive than factual. Objecting against vaccines is being an anti-vaxxer. Supporting freedom of choice is being a libertarian.
> > I don’t trust the science
> Nobody is saying anything like that.
I’ve seen people literally say that regarding the COVID vaccines.
> That is pretty unscientific of you as a the diagnostics of hate
Not really. That comment you quoted was me being flippant (hence the wink). The paragraphs that followed that remark explains the rational behind my remark.
Also even if you disagree that people who believe experts are conspiring to deceive them aren’t conspiracy theorists (I can’t see how you’d disagree with that statement but it seems you do), that still doesn’t constitute as “hate speech”.
There’s a gulf of difference between accepting that scientific opinion is divided; and thinking experts cannot be trusted.
Conflating the two is simply silly because the former is being open minded to new evidence and analysis, and discussing those findings. Where as the latter is being closed minded to all formal evidence and analysis and refusing to discuss the science. To be honest this feels like a bloody obvious distinction that shouldn’t need to be made yet people do seem confused by it.
> People don't get vaccinated for different reasons and one very sensible on is not to make yourself a subject to "science". Because that does not exist and even statements from scientists need scrutiny, their work even depends on it. Any serious scientist will confirm that for you.
Confirm what? Your comment here it gibberish.
If people have a medical reason not to be vaccinated then they obviously should not be vaccinated. However that just means it’s even more important for all those who are able to be vaccinated to be vaccinated (to reduce the overall risk so those at risk are protected by proxy).
Saying “I don’t trust the science” is just a bullshit way of saying “i don’t understand science but also too lazy to learn it” and thus not an acceptable reason to avoid vaccination.
> You cannot generalize critics as "folks that follow conspiracy theories", as a matter of fact that is why we see less and less trust in officials. They need criticism too.
I can and I did. ;)
Yes, science does need criticism. Which is exactly why it already happens. We called it “peer review” (in fact you said yourself that scientists don’t always have a consensus so you’re contradicting your own arguments now).
The problem is people like yourself just assume those reviewers are also part of the conspiracy whenever that peer review doesn’t align with your assumed position. There’s literally Jack shit one can do to convince a person that due diligence has been done if that person has already convinced themselves that something isn’t safe and anyone that tells them otherwise is a liar.