Hello all
I'm coming off a fresh 'debate' with a self-proclaimed person who allegedly was a vaccine skeptic, but I turned into anti-vaxxer because I told him point blank the claims he was citing were BS. In reality, I suspect this person was a closet anti-vaxxer to begin with. More on him later.
The reason I'm opening this thread is because I noticed a common theme among several seemingly completely dissimilar controversies. I'll use two for discussion - anti-vaxxers and 9/11 Twoofers. These two do not form an exhaustive list, many other groups would also fit the description, like Moon hoaxers, possibly Brexitards and many others, but these two are divergent enough to suffice for the purposes of debate.
They all have their differences, since the these topics are as different as topics can be, but I've noticed several common themes that appear on all such 'debates':
1. Anecdotal evidence is highly valued. In this case an anecdote about an anonymous mother losing a son, without any way to verify the story of course, was considered true and credible and a fact. A study involving the same vaccine and 10 million children was considered "unreliable" for reasons I was never able to obtain, even though I asked about it repeatedly.
The same theme appears all over 9/11 Twooferism, when a statement taken out of context is taken at face value, but expert testimony is dismissed out of hand. This was most famously seen in a discussion about Brexit, when someone giving the interview said "this country has had enough of experts".
2. Firm evidence of an established theory is dismissed. Vague guesses (not even hypothesis) are considered fact. In anti-vaxxers this is seen when given a graph showing an abrupt decline in disease prevalence after vaccinations are introduced, which is credited to good hygiene apparently becoming highly prevalent (from an abysmal point or something) at the exact same time. For Twoofers this is seen in many variants of the CT, for example in the "controlled demolition" aspect of the collapse. There are other examples in both instances.
3. Complete inability to understand statistics or any other branch of physics or mathematics when the issue at large is discussed, seemingly irrespective of skill in the relevant science. The said anti-vaxxer is an electrical engineer, he knows more math than I ever will. Yet, when presented with evidence that 40 children getting the same disease, 20 vaccinated and 20 not vaccinated, from a population that is 95% vaccinated, shows vaccine is effective, he was completely stumped and unable to understand the argument. This was a guy who taught me math back in university. There are plentiful similar examples with Twoofers, e.g. "20 floors falling can't destroy more than 20 floors underneath, because of conservation of momentum".
4. Unwillingness to compromise or admit they could possibly be wrong on anything and suppression of evidence they find objectionable. This anti-vaxxer blocked me from contributing to debate further, preferring to accept only people with his views. Same thing will happen to you if you engage Twoofers at any meaningful level in a venue of their control.
5. They readily accept the claims other side is corrupt at face value, but sternly refuse to acknowledge any conflict of interest on the side supporting the CT. In this case I pointed out the anti-vaxxing 'expert' with a BSc. in Biology who also runs an alternative health care clinic and deals in naturopathy has a conflict of interest, because only people who don't trust doctors will ever pay good money to see her. He readily accepted, without any evidence whatsoever, all scientists who made relevant studies are in pockets of big pharma, but claimed my evidence of a conflict of interest isn't good enough. The same can be seen with Twoofers, where every expert was leaned on or influenced by the cabal Bush, but Richard Gage living off donations and merchandise without doing anything meaningful is entirely acceptable.
6. Resorting to insults when all else fails, self-explanatory. I was called a moron without empathy for the children when I compared the ill effects of measles to ill effects of MMR vaccine. The same thing happens with Twoofers.
I could probably list more, but this will more than suffice. The two movements are, at their core, far more alike than they're different.
My question, and by extension the reason why I opened this topic is why? How come two such vastly different issues, when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong, both survive using the same tactics and inspiring the same fevered, misguided beliefs? To me this implies a blind spot exists in the critical thinking of some people, which is being exploited by professional conmen for their own personal gain. If so it would be a good idea to study it in detail to see what makes otherwise rational people turn into morons when they're confronted by an issue like this.
Do you think I'm on the right track? Has it been looked into by professional psychiatrists? Did we have such a debate before? Is there anything you would like to add?
If this belongs in CT forum, please move it, thanks :)
McHrozni
I'm coming off a fresh 'debate' with a self-proclaimed person who allegedly was a vaccine skeptic, but I turned into anti-vaxxer because I told him point blank the claims he was citing were BS. In reality, I suspect this person was a closet anti-vaxxer to begin with. More on him later.
The reason I'm opening this thread is because I noticed a common theme among several seemingly completely dissimilar controversies. I'll use two for discussion - anti-vaxxers and 9/11 Twoofers. These two do not form an exhaustive list, many other groups would also fit the description, like Moon hoaxers, possibly Brexitards and many others, but these two are divergent enough to suffice for the purposes of debate.
They all have their differences, since the these topics are as different as topics can be, but I've noticed several common themes that appear on all such 'debates':
1. Anecdotal evidence is highly valued. In this case an anecdote about an anonymous mother losing a son, without any way to verify the story of course, was considered true and credible and a fact. A study involving the same vaccine and 10 million children was considered "unreliable" for reasons I was never able to obtain, even though I asked about it repeatedly.
The same theme appears all over 9/11 Twooferism, when a statement taken out of context is taken at face value, but expert testimony is dismissed out of hand. This was most famously seen in a discussion about Brexit, when someone giving the interview said "this country has had enough of experts".
2. Firm evidence of an established theory is dismissed. Vague guesses (not even hypothesis) are considered fact. In anti-vaxxers this is seen when given a graph showing an abrupt decline in disease prevalence after vaccinations are introduced, which is credited to good hygiene apparently becoming highly prevalent (from an abysmal point or something) at the exact same time. For Twoofers this is seen in many variants of the CT, for example in the "controlled demolition" aspect of the collapse. There are other examples in both instances.
3. Complete inability to understand statistics or any other branch of physics or mathematics when the issue at large is discussed, seemingly irrespective of skill in the relevant science. The said anti-vaxxer is an electrical engineer, he knows more math than I ever will. Yet, when presented with evidence that 40 children getting the same disease, 20 vaccinated and 20 not vaccinated, from a population that is 95% vaccinated, shows vaccine is effective, he was completely stumped and unable to understand the argument. This was a guy who taught me math back in university. There are plentiful similar examples with Twoofers, e.g. "20 floors falling can't destroy more than 20 floors underneath, because of conservation of momentum".
4. Unwillingness to compromise or admit they could possibly be wrong on anything and suppression of evidence they find objectionable. This anti-vaxxer blocked me from contributing to debate further, preferring to accept only people with his views. Same thing will happen to you if you engage Twoofers at any meaningful level in a venue of their control.
5. They readily accept the claims other side is corrupt at face value, but sternly refuse to acknowledge any conflict of interest on the side supporting the CT. In this case I pointed out the anti-vaxxing 'expert' with a BSc. in Biology who also runs an alternative health care clinic and deals in naturopathy has a conflict of interest, because only people who don't trust doctors will ever pay good money to see her. He readily accepted, without any evidence whatsoever, all scientists who made relevant studies are in pockets of big pharma, but claimed my evidence of a conflict of interest isn't good enough. The same can be seen with Twoofers, where every expert was leaned on or influenced by the cabal Bush, but Richard Gage living off donations and merchandise without doing anything meaningful is entirely acceptable.
6. Resorting to insults when all else fails, self-explanatory. I was called a moron without empathy for the children when I compared the ill effects of measles to ill effects of MMR vaccine. The same thing happens with Twoofers.
I could probably list more, but this will more than suffice. The two movements are, at their core, far more alike than they're different.
My question, and by extension the reason why I opened this topic is why? How come two such vastly different issues, when one side is obviously right and the other is obviously wrong, both survive using the same tactics and inspiring the same fevered, misguided beliefs? To me this implies a blind spot exists in the critical thinking of some people, which is being exploited by professional conmen for their own personal gain. If so it would be a good idea to study it in detail to see what makes otherwise rational people turn into morons when they're confronted by an issue like this.
Do you think I'm on the right track? Has it been looked into by professional psychiatrists? Did we have such a debate before? Is there anything you would like to add?
If this belongs in CT forum, please move it, thanks :)
McHrozni
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/2lVlLjQ
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire