11-13-2021, 10:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-13-2021, 11:56 PM by luka_skywalker_77.)
This entire thread is hilarious.
Good posts @"Dahlsim" Tbh, you're not going to convince anyone else of a position, mostly because it's not coming from the sources they trust or believe in which is why I think you're wasting your time here. Let people that want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated. Let people make their own medical decisions according to your own compass. That's the outgrowth of what me and you believe.
The outgrowth of others, it be act more authoritatively, which is always wrong in any situation. They feel they are doing a public good; that they are protecting those that cannot be protected without their help. The irony of which, is that they are using the force of gov't and business to do so while simultaneously claiming that it's for your own good.
And you can't reason with that.
You know something i've noticed: there are no supported outpatient covid treatments. Not one. I thought that was interesting because IVM falls into that category. The prevailing notion that is that we should all go home, rest and sweat it out; and pray that it doesn't get worse. Coincidentally, the main problem is the lack of treatment from the outset of infection to any eventual hospital visit. But hey, what do I know.
That aside, the adverse reactions (for a vaccine they are coercing/forcing people to take) is the crux of the issue. Every vaccine has a side effect panel, but the side effects associated with this vaccine are substantial and people have a right to be concerned.
[...] The point I'd like to make about consensus, is that Consensus is a political word, not a scientific word. Sure, you can have every scientist in the world say X and list the reasons Y, but it just takes one person to disprove X. Science isn't about proving something right, it's about actively trying to prove something wrong; consensus plays nothing into the strength of a scientific theory or argument.
The fact that science currently has a consensus about a thing, does not mean that the consensus opinion is true. At best, it means that the consensus opinion is the best available explanation for observable phenomenon. The possibility always exists that future observed phenomenon will prove that the current observed phenomenon were being confounded and we didn't know it. Whether or not something is the scientific consensus is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is in fact true. That cannot be stated enough or even too forcefully.
Scientific consensus is wrong a lot. This has been true since science has been practiced. There are literally thousands of instances when the majority of scientists believe falsehoods about every aspect of science from biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, health and medicine. Humans have been misunderstanding and misapplying scientific principles for personal and professional reasons for millennia, and billions of people have paid the price in terms of misery and death because of it. I could probably find 100 examples of misconstrued scientific consensus within a couple of hours starting with the earth is flat and the sun travels around the earth [...]
Needless to say, there are a lot of problems with how science is accepted in the modern age. I mean, not too long ago we were in the middle of global cooling; now global warming. The consensus was also for lockdowns and masking. But as more evidence is discovered and more studies are completed, the consensus changes--for those that were wrong in the first place. So in my eyes, a "consensus" is a distinctly curated conclusion, sometimes based loosely on scientific evidence, often peer reviewed and often ideologically supported. And it cannot be totally trusted as fact.
Good posts @"Dahlsim" Tbh, you're not going to convince anyone else of a position, mostly because it's not coming from the sources they trust or believe in which is why I think you're wasting your time here. Let people that want to get vaccinated, get vaccinated. Let people make their own medical decisions according to your own compass. That's the outgrowth of what me and you believe.
The outgrowth of others, it be act more authoritatively, which is always wrong in any situation. They feel they are doing a public good; that they are protecting those that cannot be protected without their help. The irony of which, is that they are using the force of gov't and business to do so while simultaneously claiming that it's for your own good.
And you can't reason with that.
You know something i've noticed: there are no supported outpatient covid treatments. Not one. I thought that was interesting because IVM falls into that category. The prevailing notion that is that we should all go home, rest and sweat it out; and pray that it doesn't get worse. Coincidentally, the main problem is the lack of treatment from the outset of infection to any eventual hospital visit. But hey, what do I know.
That aside, the adverse reactions (for a vaccine they are coercing/forcing people to take) is the crux of the issue. Every vaccine has a side effect panel, but the side effects associated with this vaccine are substantial and people have a right to be concerned.
[...] The point I'd like to make about consensus, is that Consensus is a political word, not a scientific word. Sure, you can have every scientist in the world say X and list the reasons Y, but it just takes one person to disprove X. Science isn't about proving something right, it's about actively trying to prove something wrong; consensus plays nothing into the strength of a scientific theory or argument.
The fact that science currently has a consensus about a thing, does not mean that the consensus opinion is true. At best, it means that the consensus opinion is the best available explanation for observable phenomenon. The possibility always exists that future observed phenomenon will prove that the current observed phenomenon were being confounded and we didn't know it. Whether or not something is the scientific consensus is wholly irrelevant to whether or not it is in fact true. That cannot be stated enough or even too forcefully.
Scientific consensus is wrong a lot. This has been true since science has been practiced. There are literally thousands of instances when the majority of scientists believe falsehoods about every aspect of science from biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, health and medicine. Humans have been misunderstanding and misapplying scientific principles for personal and professional reasons for millennia, and billions of people have paid the price in terms of misery and death because of it. I could probably find 100 examples of misconstrued scientific consensus within a couple of hours starting with the earth is flat and the sun travels around the earth [...]
Needless to say, there are a lot of problems with how science is accepted in the modern age. I mean, not too long ago we were in the middle of global cooling; now global warming. The consensus was also for lockdowns and masking. But as more evidence is discovered and more studies are completed, the consensus changes--for those that were wrong in the first place. So in my eyes, a "consensus" is a distinctly curated conclusion, sometimes based loosely on scientific evidence, often peer reviewed and often ideologically supported. And it cannot be totally trusted as fact.
![[-]](https://www.mavsboard.com/images/collapse.png)