Is that a problem with the tribes or the quality of the opinions and ideas?There isn't a group that fundamentally supports enough of the opinions and ideas that I have.
Is that a problem with the tribes or the quality of the opinions and ideas?There isn't a group that fundamentally supports enough of the opinions and ideas that I have.
Unsurprisingly, that article is fantastic hit piece espousing the communist party line, and is so full of lies, mistruths and creative framing that it’s simply appalling.Here’s UslessA Today’s front page story for today:
“At What Point Should Personal Freedom Yield to the Common Good?”
Curious that they used “yield” in that headline. Metals “yield” whenever tensile or compressive forces are applied to them.
It’s quite the collection of collectivist bilgewater, with multiple implications that the government has the right to do anything it deems necessary to promote “The Public Good” In the face of the COVID-19 ”pandemic”.
What constitutes “The Public Good” is left undefined.
America's debate over pandemic mask and vaccine mandates hinges on an age-old dilemma: When does personal liberty yield to the public interest?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-pits-liberty-against-common-good/5432614001/
It’s drivel like this that is destroying the foundation of our country.
Businesses closing, livelihoods lost, supply chains wrecked, skyrocketing costs, depression, rising crime, rising debt, stuff like that... You know... "Public Good"! Duh...What constitutes “The Public Good” is left undefined.
Just curious...which risks are you referring to specifically?What sends up red flags for me is that anything online that shows how unsafe the vaccines are, gets deleted. It’s almost like the media/big tech/gov doesn’t want anyone to know the risks. Which I don’t see how anyone can dispute the fact that there ARE risks.
Oh no. It’s definitely a problem with tribes. I have it on good authority from a reliable source that tribes are retarded.Is that a problem with the tribes or the quality of the opinions and ideas?
That was actually the point. If PhDs don’t trust the science, what power does “science-denier” labels truly have? So if scientists distrust the science I find that astonishing in the face of a common pejorative. It’s a testimony against the value of the claim.I wouldn't be in that much of a hurry to grant Ph.Ds enhanced authority. Not only does knowledge become more specialized and narrow at that level, but the area of knowledge, such as psychiatry or psychology for instance, may not be particularly useful for judging hard science
I would like to see companion numbers from that cohort of what percentage believe they have gluten allergies or that living near HVT lines increases their risk of cancer
Both Watson and Pauling, both brilliant Ph.Ds in their field, had some pretty off the wall beliefs outside of them. Even Luc Montangier, a virologist and Nobel laureate I've quoted recently, while having undeniable chops in his specialty, is said to be a believer in homeopathy (I have not investigated the claim)
While viewing them in aggregate might mute some of the sideband craziness, I think using them as a datapoint might do more to prove that appeal to authority is correctly identified as a fallacy than anything else
Not all PhD's are scientists. You can have a liberal arts PhD too, or in any number of fields.That was actually the point. If PhDs don’t trust the science, what power does “science-denier” labels truly have? So if scientists distrust the science I find that astonishing in the face of a common pejorative. It’s a testimony against the value of the claim.
In those cases, PhD stands for “Piled higher and Deeper”.Not all PhD's are scientists. You can have a liberal arts PhD too, or in any number of fields.
Well. Sure.Not all PhD's are scientists. You can have a liberal arts PhD too, or in any number of fields.
Well the first of many edicts to be issued
N.Y.C. will require workers and customers show proof of at least one dose for indoor dining and other activities. (Published 2021)
“If you want to participate in our society fully, you’ve got to get vaccinated,” Mayor Bill de Blasio said. “It’s time.”www.google.com
See? Now this is a verifiable thing, and a good reason why people who tend to be temperamentally skeptical of things like this anyway. Inconsistency makes people believe, at best that TPTB are incompetent, and at worst are malevolent. People can tell the difference between being pissed on and rain.
QFTBut that would take the P from TPTB...never happen.
In those cases, PhD stands for “Piled higher and Deeper”.
This is the kind of thing that people can be ingaged with who aren't experts enough in biology to engage in the technical arguments. Like with Global Warming, I don't know the climate science, but I can look for logically consistent arguments and I can also detect when people are trying to hide something. A major reason why I don't trust TPTB on vaccine efficacy/safty is that they try to silence scientists who state opinions that go against TPTB. If you act like you're hiding something, it's reasonable to suspect that you're hiding something.
These are 4 minimum steps I think need to be taken to help the public regain trust.
Those are all things that make me think that TPTB are not to be trusted.
- Fire Fauci - no one but the sycophantic yes-people believe him. He's incapable of reaching skeptics. He's earned every ounce of their distrust
- TPTB must be transparent. Admit all the things that are true and not true
- Stop the campaign against expert dissenters and allow full public discourse between experts of differing opinions
- Stop the campaign to smear people who are reluctant to be vaccinated. It only stokes more fear and distrust
- Stop making everything political and then complain about it being politicized by the other side.