Festival, Robert De Niro pull anti-vaccination film

[Endus]

"You can't be convinced, so I'm not even going to try", eh? Pardon me for pointing it out, but that sound more like the views of a zealot than a scientist. The moment you stop trying to have a polite conversation and instead take such a stance is the moment you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

When those you're arguing against form their beliefs irrationally and by ignoring data, there is no rational argument you can make, or data you can provide, which will convince them they are wrong. They have faith in their viewpoint, and the facts that disagree with their faith will be discarded.

I'd love to have a polite conversation. By refusing to consider evidence, they are the ones who are refusing to do so. Pointing that irrationality out isn't me behaving badly. It's calling a spade a spade.

[SodiumChloride]

It's his festival ... he can show nothing by Hentai anime if he wanted to.

[ringpriest]

Read what I write.

Again, they all start out like that.

Keynesian theory, started out as a "discredited outlier"

The world being round, started out as a "discredited outlier"

They were dismissed; laughed at by the scientific community, until shown otherwise with irrefutable real world examples or new knowledge.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

There's no scientific process going on with the anti-vax crowd - but plenty of science discrediting them.

Also the flat earth is also a terrible example (and Keynesian economics little better) - "people used to think the world was flat" is itself a late 19th Century urban legend. You'd be better off going with Wegener and Continental Drift, but even there the analogy would be pretty far off, because the anti-vaxxers don't actually have any hard data (or more accurately, there's ton of hard data that disproves their claims, and none supporting them), which is why they're rightful consigned to the same realm as flat-earthers and lunar cheese proponents.

[Zecora]

When those you're arguing against form their beliefs irrationally and by ignoring data, there is no rational argument you can make, or data you can provide, which will convince them they are wrong. They have faith in their viewpoint, and the facts that disagree with their faith will be discarded.

I'd love to have a polite conversation. By refusing to consider evidence, they are the ones who are refusing to do so. Pointing that irrationality out isn't me behaving badly. It's calling a spade a spade.

Of course there are no shortage of people who have faith in their viewpoint, but that holds true on BOTH sides of the fence.

And so we've come full circle, because this is basically my original argument, that many hold the consensus scientific view as an absolute truth -they have faith which they then proceed to defend at all cost, instead of simply stating "this is what I think is true based on this set of evidence. I believe your view is wrong, but I am willing to consider it if you have supporting evidence". There are no shortage of examples of people who treat science as an provider of absolute truth, a view more apt for followers of religion than people who pride themselves on scientific thought.

Oh, and if your opponents refuse to consider evidence, provide them with more evidence. In time, they will consider it despite themselves. And if you cannot do that, just walk away instead of becoming just another who defend their faith in their viewpoint in a way more fitting a believer than a scientist. It will do scientific views a whole lot more good than sarcasm, snark, ridicule and the like.

[Juvencus]

"You can't be convinced, so I'm not even going to try", eh? Pardon me for pointing it out, but that sound more like the views of a zealot than a scientist. The moment you stop trying to have a polite conversation and instead take such a stance is the moment you become part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

The problem with your stance (not specifically this quoted post) is that by allowing a conversation, in a serious setting, you automatically offer those conspiracies credibility and to the public you give the illusion of a controversy and that the opposing positions are of equal value.

The above, of course, stands correct after the evidence have been examined and cross-examined. Beyond that it's just intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.

[GodlyBob]

And I'm talking about the only cases I've seen the phenomenon you're talking about.

I don't know, I got attacked pretty hard for mentioning homeopathy despite adding a disclaimer to pretty much every post I made saying that I do not believe it's real, rational, or logical and that it has no basis in reality (science). People can be a little over zealous sometimes for any number of causes, good and ill.

[lazypeon100]

You're awfully quick to ascribe motives of malicious intent

Regarding wakefield and his claims about vaccination and autism, it has been shown numerous times that not only was he wrong, he out right lied and manipulated information because he had monetary benefits for doing so. He was discredited by the scientific not simply because he was wrong, but because he was also a liar who has caused harm to the public.

I can't blame Endus for being quick to judge there. There are no redeeming qualities to the guy and has caused a lot of harm.

[Breccia]

It's not illegal for me to tell you to do something illegal.

There are exceptions, but it has to be pretty damned blatant. Basically, inciting a riot is still illegal, but nothing this movie could possibly have said would cause people to rush out and immediately not vaccinate, so even if not vaccinating was illegal, the movie would not be criminally liable.

Wouldn't be surprised by a lawsuit...but this is America, we sue for just about everything.

It's not illegal for me to tell you to do something dangerous.

Yeah, you need no more evidence than the second season of Jackass to demonstrate this. All the movie has to do is slap a "it's up to you" disclaimer and they're good to go.

[GodlyBob]

Can't you be held responsible if you're in a position of authority (a doctor in this case) and you tell people to do things like that?

Again, I seriously don't know how this guy has avoided jail time.

In a similar function as Dr. Oz, I'd imagine, at least in terms of him espousing his garbage to the general public.

[Ripster42]

In a similar function as Dr. Oz, I'd imagine, at least in terms of him espousing his garbage to the general public.

I don't know who that is. Is he an actual doctor giving bad advice or something? And if so, what protects him?

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know, I got attacked pretty hard for mentioning homeopathy despite adding a disclaimer to pretty much every post I made saying that I do not believe it's real, rational, or logical and that it has no basis in reality (science). People can be a little over zealous sometimes for any number of causes, good and ill.

Largely for the same reason. You can include people advocating homeopathy over actual medicine in my list of, "stupid shit that this phenomenon occurs with."

[medievalman1]

Of course there are no shortage of people who have faith in their viewpoint, but that holds true on BOTH sides of the fence.

And so we've come full circle, because this is basically my original argument, that many hold the consensus scientific view as an absolute truth -they have faith which they then proceed to defend at all cost, instead of simply stating "this is what I think is true based on this set of evidence. I believe your view is wrong, but I am willing to consider it if you have supporting evidence". There are no shortage of examples of people who treat science as an provider of absolute truth, a view more apt for followers of religion than people who pride themselves on scientific thought.

Oh, and if your opponents refuse to consider evidence, provide them with more evidence. In time, they will consider it despite themselves. And if you cannot do that, just walk away instead of becoming just another who defend their faith in their viewpoint in a way more fitting a believer than a scientist. It will do scientific views a whole lot more good than sarcasm, snark, ridicule and the like.

Problem with this view point, and I don't disagree with it in the enlightened-consider-the-evidence-of-an-opposing-view bit, is that there is often a 3rd group of people in a debate-those that simply are unsure. In the example of anti-vaxxers, if you have a group of frothing-at-the-mouth adamant-to-their-position anti-vaxxers they will continue to convince people in the unsure group of their beliefs. If those that are arguing against the anti-vaxxers end up walking away after the frothers don't listen to evidence and reason, they will run, unopposed convincing more that are unsure.

I can't tell you how many people I've met (I work in healthcare) that still believe vaccines cause autism, and thus refuse to vaccinate. Its dangerous, careless, and negligent, and it pisses me off. Especially when you ask them where they heard it and they cite various famous morons who spout the same fraudelent nonsense that Wakefield propagated years ago.

[Zecora]

The problem with your stance (not specifically this quoted post) is that by allowing a conversation, in a serious setting, you automatically offer those conspiracies credibility and to the public you give the illusion of a controversy and that the opposing positions are of equal value.

The above, of course, stands correct after the evidence have been examined and cross-examined. Beyond that it's just intellectual dishonesty and willful ignorance.

I would call it "not acting like an arse" myself, and I maintain that it is better to risk that someone find those views credible after such a discussion, than to add to the problem by acting as if you were a self-righteous crusader out to get those awful unbelievers...

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding wakefield and his claims about vaccination and autism, it has been shown numerous times that not only was he wrong, he out right lied and manipulated information because he had monetary benefits for doing so. He was discredited by the scientific not simply because he was wrong, but because he was also a liar who has caused harm to the public.

I can't blame Endus for being quick to judge there. There are no redeeming qualities to the guy and has caused a lot of harm.

Quite possibly, I was not really talking specifically about this case (of which I haven't read up on, and cannot comment on) but rather the general tendency to act in a more religious then scientific way when confronting people with...shall we say " a dissenting view "?

- - - Updated - - -

Problem with this view point, and I don't disagree with it in the enlightened-consider-the-evidence-of-an-opposing-view bit, is that there is often a 3rd group of people in a debate-those that simply are unsure. In the example of anti-vaxxers, if you have a group of frothing-at-the-mouth adamant-to-their-position anti-vaxxers they will continue to convince people in the unsure group of their beliefs. If those that are arguing against the anti-vaxxers end up walking away after the frothers don't listen to evidence and reason, they will run, unopposed convincing more that are unsure.

I can't tell you how many people I've met (I work in healthcare) that still believe vaccines cause autism, and thus refuse to vaccinate. Its dangerous, careless, and negligent, and it pisses me off. Especially when you ask them where they heard it and they cite various famous morons who spout the same fraudelent nonsense that Wakefield propagated years ago.

It is precisely because of that third group that it is all the more important to act with dispassion and deliver simple facts, rather than be (to put it on edge) a rabid zealot out to "defend the Scientific Truth", because that is what it could (in the more extreme cases) come across as. If you have the truth on your side, or at least think that you do, why should you behave like an arse?


Addendum:

Anyhow, thanks for the debate all, I'm off for the night, but I wish you all a nice evening!

[Ripster42]

Night yirrah.

[GodlyBob]

I don't know who that is. Is he an actual doctor giving bad advice or something? And if so, what protects him?

- - - Updated - - -

Dr. Oz has a day time talk show where he shows people "miracle cures" which are usually herbal supplements. He makes claims and guarantees that are absolutely false and was called to testify to congress not too terribly long ago regarding said claims. Being called to congress doesn't necessarily mean much these days, but he's still not doing anything other than selling expensive urine to stay home parents. He still has his show today.

Largely for the same reason. You can include people advocating homeopathy over actual medicine in my list of, "stupid shit that this phenomenon occurs with."

And if you missed it, I said that for people who do believe in homeopathy, vaccinations could easily be considered an acceptable procedure which led to Endus, Wells, and a few others saying that I have no idea how science works. Kind of a short fuse considering I'm advocating that there is no conflict of interest for people who (I agree with you here) believe in "stupid shit that this phenomenon occurs with" to be vaccinated in order to make themselves and their neighbors healthier.

[medievalman1]

I would call it "not acting like an arse" myself, and I maintain that it is better to risk that someone find those views credible after such a discussion, than to add to the problem by acting as if you were a self-righteous crusader out to get those awful unbelievers...

- - - Updated - - -



Quite possibly, I was not really talking specifically about this case (of which I haven't read up on, and cannot comment on) but rather the general tendency to act in a more religious then scientific way when confronting people with...shall we say " a dissenting view "?

- - - Updated - - -



It is precisely because of that third group that it is all the more important to act with dispassion and deliver simple facts, rather than be (to put it on edge) a rabid zealot out to "defend the Scientific Truth", because that is what it could (in the more extreme cases) come across as. If you have the truth on your side, or at least think that you do, why should you behave like an arse?


Addendum:

Anyhow, thanks for the debate all, I'm off for the night, but I wish you all a nice evening!

Because not everyone is appealed to effectively with scientific fact and logic. If they were, there wouldn't be the issues with an anti-vaccination movement that is as large as it is.

[Ripster42]

Dr. Oz has a day time talk show where he shows people "miracle cures" which are usually herbal supplements. He makes claims and guarantees that are absolutely false and was called to testify to congress not too terribly long ago regarding said claims. Being called to congress doesn't necessarily mean much these days, but he's still not doing anything other than selling expensive urine to stay home parents. He still has his show today.



And if you missed it, I said that for people who do believe in homeopathy, vaccinations could easily be considered an acceptable procedure which led to Endus, Wells, and a few others saying that I have no idea how science works. Kind of a short fuse considering I'm advocating that there is no conflict of interest for people who (I agree with you here) believe in "stupid shit that this phenomenon occurs with" to be vaccinated in order to make themselves and their neighbors healthier.

They said you have no idea how vaccines work iirc. They assumed you knew how homeopathy works because you're the one who brought it up. As they don't function in similar ways, I hope you can understand why they assumed you didn't know how vaccines work. And as homeopathy over medicine is another instance of false garbage that's detrimental to public health... you get where I"m going. Just saying that people who practice homeopathy should be okay with vaccines doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean that homeopathy shouldn't be ridiculed as an anti-science, anti-public good movement.

Edit: And why hasn't the FDA censored him?

[GodlyBob]

They said you have no idea how vaccines work iirc. They assumed you knew how homeopathy works because you're the one who brought it up. As they don't function in similar ways, I hope you can understand why they assumed you didn't know how vaccines work. And as homeopathy over medicine is another instance of false garbage that's detrimental to public health... you get where I"m going. Just saying that people who practice homeopathy should be okay with vaccines doesn't mean they are and doesn't mean that homeopathy shouldn't be ridiculed as an anti-science, anti-public good movement.

Edit: And why hasn't the FDA censored him?

Last word on homeopathy from me (dead horse), it is absolutely wrong on the actual mechanisms for how vaccinations work, but the principals carry over for this specific case. You are using the real cause of disease in the pathogen in order to prevent it later on, satisfying like cures like although preemptively, and the vaccine itself is absolutely not going to comprise of only your target pathogen. It will be weakened with other substances and included into a solution, which I would say satisfies dilution.

It is an incredibly dated system of belief, but it does get certain things right if for the entirely wrong reason. For everyday ails, there's not much harm in it in the same way as any other spiritual belief, provided the practitioner has the ability to realize when a problem is serious enough to warrant actual medical aid.

As for Dr. Oz, I think he got off because he or his lawyers claimed that he played a character on TV and that it was the character that was giving false information. Some of the studies he cited for his products were apparently falsified and the company responsible for them had to pay a fine, but nothing came on the "Dr" himself.

[Ripster42]

As for Dr. Oz, I think he got off because he or his lawyers claimed that he played a character on TV and that it was the character that was giving false information. Some of the studies he cited for his products were apparently falsified and the company responsible for them had to pay a fine, but nothing came on the "Dr" himself.

Wow, if that claim actually worked, I'm appalled. If he's calling himself doctor oz, did his character go to med school and get board certified? What a bunch of horse shit.

[Masark]

I don't know who that is. Is he an actual doctor giving bad advice or something? And if so, what protects him?

He's an accomplished cardiothoracic surgeon who hosts a talk show about medical stuff and pushes a lot of stuff that is nonsense.

[Cannibalus]

I'm using "homeopathy" as a paradigm of thought, not as a legitimate explanation for physical phenomena.

It is important when you disagree with something to understand beyond "I'm right and that's wrong" and to actually delve into why is this wrong and why is my platform correct.

Fuck me another Bible School trainee... shifting focus off the main subject as an actual comeback is so 1990. If you may be wondering why your pick-up lines don't work, it's because everyone else has moved on.