I don’t agree with this. The stuff written by, for example, the “vaccines cause autism” people can sound as sophisticated and authoritative as any textbook. A high-school education isn’t going to help someone judge it according to its merits. Thus the problem is a collapse of trust in authority rather than a lack of basic knowledge, because ultimately an ordinary person can only decide to trust the scientific consensus without meaningfully verifying it.
But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it’s a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.
But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won’t be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents “the establishment” and the other side doesn’t.
Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.
Oh, so we’re talking about those bifurcated into competing groupthinks, not the search for truth with an educated mind.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it”, not picking a side. And certainly not flinging around sweeping generalisations1.
( 1, and when I was trying to remember/refine that term, I asked an LLM, and it suggested there may also be the following fallacies in that: False Equivalence, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Trust/Tradition, Straw Man, Vague Reference, Guilt by Association, Reification, Othering, Composition Fallacy, Division Fallacy, Weasel Words, Anonymous Authority, and of course, Sweeping Generalization. That’s quite an impressive collection. And you did it so slick. Most slipped my attention. I bet you don’t get called up on your fallacies often. Not just from the intimidating arrogant airs, but because you’re so slick with them. Hope that helps you introspect and scrutinise your thinking, and is well received to consider.) :)
I think you’re right, to some extent, but I think a slightly more than basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps most importantly, statistics, helps you cut through a lot of the bullshit extremely easily
People like this argument, because they can then hate autistics. They could say we are inherently broken and need to be “fixed” or genocided.
Wow. You’ve met people offering that inference from that argument? Aaaaand my ilithiophobia strikes again. It’s like hatred of left handed people all over again. Please, if you ever encounter someone with this disturbing notion, please do offer them some better sense. Please explain to them it’s not a moral failing, or failing of the content of their character. Please encourage them to not be so fearful and hateful of difference. And it does not even matter what “causes” “autism”. That kind of “fixing” is abusive as hell… like ABA. Genocide, too… perhaps the most dangerous form of only having one tool in the toolbox. Gotta teach these muppets more tools. Cant leave them running around with such dangerous foolishness, uneducated and unchallenged.
At this point, I only respect people who were discriminated/abused/mistreated in their childhood.
Yup. >9000 times more respect for we few worst bullied at my school. Only a couple days ago I was thinking/remembering/feeling this so very strongly, and how I’d love to reconnect with them all, to share my admiration of them, my sympathies, and perhaps most of all, my apologies for every time I did not find the courage to step in and stand up for them, and worse, any of the few times I joined in to survive.
I don’t agree with this. The stuff written by, for example, the “vaccines cause autism” people can sound as sophisticated and authoritative as any textbook. A high-school education isn’t going to help someone judge it according to its merits. Thus the problem is a collapse of trust in authority rather than a lack of basic knowledge, because ultimately an ordinary person can only decide to trust the scientific consensus without meaningfully verifying it.
But understanding how science works is key to having trust in it. If you lack that understanding you may just think it’s a bunch of stuck up eggheads who pick whatever truth is convenient to them.
Ask some eggheads to show you a virus isolated some time. See what fun rabbit holes you can explore together.
It really depends how science is taught: whether they’re tought to memorise a bunch of facts and formulas, or actually use reasoning…
But both sides sound as if they have done real science, so a basic understanding of how science is done won’t be enough to tell them apart. You can get anti-vaccine books written in an academic tone with citations. They go through the appearance of presenting evidence. The only difference between the two sides that is visible to an ordinary member of the public is that one side represents “the establishment” and the other side doesn’t.
Even professional scientists have to have a lot of trust in the institutions of science - if I read a paper then unless there is something egregiously wrong, I rely on the journal and the scientific community to check that the authors did what they claimed to do and that they got the results they claim to have.
Sides?
Oh, so we’re talking about those bifurcated into competing groupthinks, not the search for truth with an educated mind.
“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting nor rejecting it”, not picking a side. And certainly not flinging around sweeping generalisations1.
( 1, and when I was trying to remember/refine that term, I asked an LLM, and it suggested there may also be the following fallacies in that: False Equivalence, Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Popularity, Appeal to Trust/Tradition, Straw Man, Vague Reference, Guilt by Association, Reification, Othering, Composition Fallacy, Division Fallacy, Weasel Words, Anonymous Authority, and of course, Sweeping Generalization. That’s quite an impressive collection. And you did it so slick. Most slipped my attention. I bet you don’t get called up on your fallacies often. Not just from the intimidating arrogant airs, but because you’re so slick with them. Hope that helps you introspect and scrutinise your thinking, and is well received to consider.) :)
I think you’re right, to some extent, but I think a slightly more than basic understanding of physics, chemistry, biology, and perhaps most importantly, statistics, helps you cut through a lot of the bullshit extremely easily
People like this argument, because they can then hate autistics. They could say we are inherently broken and need to be “fixed” or genocided.
At this point, I only respect people who were discriminated/abused/mistreated in their childhood.
Wow. You’ve met people offering that inference from that argument? Aaaaand my ilithiophobia strikes again. It’s like hatred of left handed people all over again. Please, if you ever encounter someone with this disturbing notion, please do offer them some better sense. Please explain to them it’s not a moral failing, or failing of the content of their character. Please encourage them to not be so fearful and hateful of difference. And it does not even matter what “causes” “autism”. That kind of “fixing” is abusive as hell… like ABA. Genocide, too… perhaps the most dangerous form of only having one tool in the toolbox. Gotta teach these muppets more tools. Cant leave them running around with such dangerous foolishness, uneducated and unchallenged.
Yup. >9000 times more respect for we few worst bullied at my school. Only a couple days ago I was thinking/remembering/feeling this so very strongly, and how I’d love to reconnect with them all, to share my admiration of them, my sympathies, and perhaps most of all, my apologies for every time I did not find the courage to step in and stand up for them, and worse, any of the few times I joined in to survive.