the church consensus is entirely belief based. they don’t operate on science, they can’t, it invalidates their existence. your example is not comparable.
if numerous independent scientists fulfill experiments and consistently arrive on the same theoretical consensus, any alternative hypothesis is invalidated until proven. you BELIEVE in something that is unproven and there is no theoretical evidence to support your belief. You need an idea as to why, and experiments to prove it consistently, before it can be presented. basically, what you are spouting right now is a belief you mistake for facts, as anecdotes are not evidence. correlation is not the same as causation.
What exactly do you think science that puts word of authority on high pedestal is? An exercise in scientific method? Philosophy clearly labels reasoning that hangs on word of experts/scientists/preists as argument from authority fallacy.
I am well aware that the current generation is being taught in formal education that consensus of experts represents truth. But that mistake is a different debate, deserves a dedicated discussion.
Philosophy is a creativity exercise. It’s archaic, and in modern terms, the first step in a long chain of steps to reach a conclusion.
You are mistaken in the belief that there is a debate here. Not everything is a debate. Not everything can have an opinion nor two sides of an argument. Reality unfortunately doesn’t work that way.
Philosophy is a creativity exercise. It’s archaic, and in modern terms, the first step in a long chain of steps to reach a conclusion.
Philosophy is the basis of accumulating knowledge, including science, medicine, and statistics. The highest formal degree in most academic disciplines is still called PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy in the concerned subject. If by calling philosophy archaic you mean that it is irrelevant, then modern knowledge automatically loses all authenticity.
You are mistaken in the belief that there is a debate here. Not everything is a debate. Not everything can have an opinion nor two sides of an argument. Reality unfortunately doesn’t work that way.
If parameters mentioned here are fed values of my choosing, I can agree with your opinion expressed here.
Tell us more about how reading more anecdotes is helpful and productive.
Do you have a point in any of your whataboutism nitpickings? You deny all the evidence in front of you and what, would like to sit around for 40 years to wait for what YOU consider a body of evidence to get prepared for this virus?
The point is straightforward. I am not convinced that these vaccines are good for me (or for anyone else taking them), and I have good reasons - some of which I have presented. Except for a couple of people, the community here has responded mostly with logical fallacies (argument from authority, and argument from numbers being most popular), simplistic ridicules, and expressions of wild disbeliefs.
As abundantly evident, most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the evidence is settled in favour of vaccines, but not one person has tried to build the case for the vaccines from any evidence. But somehow I am the one doing “whataboutism” and “nitpicking”. Sure, burn the heretic. Or, as one bigot here commented, “jab him”.
You sound foolish and erratic. Your “evidence” is all very weak. Your position is confusing and is hard to tell if you are confused of intentionally trying to spread misinformation.
If my evidence is weak, you should be able to explain it away from how you view things.
If my position confuses you, you should be able to find questions that clarify it to you.
If you think I am confused, you must be able to state what is confusing me.
Here’s the thing: Just like a flat earther, you’re rejecting everything you don’t agree with as logical fallacies, bigotry(say what?), or anything else. You are lacking in understanding what good information is, and until you can grasp the notion that just because an authority is telling you something doesn’t make it bad, you are simply being contrarian. Also, the people around here are not likely the experts in their fields - true experts are what the rest of us rely on, and just because we agree with them doesn’t mean there’s been an indoctrination of any sort. If you really want to follow that line of thinking, you can much more easily say that antivaxxers have been indoctrinated by misinformation trolls.
The evidence has become abundantly clear - the vaccine is amazingly safe and effective. COVID-19 is not worth the risk. Being anti-vaxx is a selfish and dangerous stance, as you’re risking other people’s lives for your “belief”.
I didn’t reach to the conclusion myself. You can find this information from those authoritarian dictatorship propaganda spreading (I presume this is how you view them) sources. Or even just base information on how vaccines work. Don’t ask me, I’m not a virologist or immunologist.
It takes one Galelio to prove entire church wrong, even if church takes 4 centuries to accept that he was right all along.
If argument by numbers is your best argument, you need to read more. Much more.
the church consensus is entirely belief based. they don’t operate on science, they can’t, it invalidates their existence. your example is not comparable.
if numerous independent scientists fulfill experiments and consistently arrive on the same theoretical consensus, any alternative hypothesis is invalidated until proven. you BELIEVE in something that is unproven and there is no theoretical evidence to support your belief. You need an idea as to why, and experiments to prove it consistently, before it can be presented. basically, what you are spouting right now is a belief you mistake for facts, as anecdotes are not evidence. correlation is not the same as causation.
What exactly do you think science that puts word of authority on high pedestal is? An exercise in scientific method? Philosophy clearly labels reasoning that hangs on word of experts/scientists/preists as argument from authority fallacy.
I am well aware that the current generation is being taught in formal education that consensus of experts represents truth. But that mistake is a different debate, deserves a dedicated discussion.
Philosophy is a creativity exercise. It’s archaic, and in modern terms, the first step in a long chain of steps to reach a conclusion.
You are mistaken in the belief that there is a debate here. Not everything is a debate. Not everything can have an opinion nor two sides of an argument. Reality unfortunately doesn’t work that way.
Philosophy is the basis of accumulating knowledge, including science, medicine, and statistics. The highest formal degree in most academic disciplines is still called PhD, or Doctor of Philosophy in the concerned subject. If by calling philosophy archaic you mean that it is irrelevant, then modern knowledge automatically loses all authenticity.
If parameters mentioned here are fed values of my choosing, I can agree with your opinion expressed here.
Tell us more about how reading more anecdotes is helpful and productive.
Do you have a point in any of your whataboutism nitpickings? You deny all the evidence in front of you and what, would like to sit around for 40 years to wait for what YOU consider a body of evidence to get prepared for this virus?
Or is there some other point?
The point is straightforward. I am not convinced that these vaccines are good for me (or for anyone else taking them), and I have good reasons - some of which I have presented. Except for a couple of people, the community here has responded mostly with logical fallacies (argument from authority, and argument from numbers being most popular), simplistic ridicules, and expressions of wild disbeliefs.
As abundantly evident, most people have been indoctrinated to believe that the evidence is settled in favour of vaccines, but not one person has tried to build the case for the vaccines from any evidence. But somehow I am the one doing “whataboutism” and “nitpicking”. Sure, burn the heretic. Or, as one bigot here commented, “jab him”.
You sound foolish and erratic. Your “evidence” is all very weak. Your position is confusing and is hard to tell if you are confused of intentionally trying to spread misinformation.
If my evidence is weak, you should be able to explain it away from how you view things.
If my position confuses you, you should be able to find questions that clarify it to you.
If you think I am confused, you must be able to state what is confusing me.
Here’s the thing: Just like a flat earther, you’re rejecting everything you don’t agree with as logical fallacies, bigotry(say what?), or anything else. You are lacking in understanding what good information is, and until you can grasp the notion that just because an authority is telling you something doesn’t make it bad, you are simply being contrarian. Also, the people around here are not likely the experts in their fields - true experts are what the rest of us rely on, and just because we agree with them doesn’t mean there’s been an indoctrination of any sort. If you really want to follow that line of thinking, you can much more easily say that antivaxxers have been indoctrinated by misinformation trolls.
The evidence has become abundantly clear - the vaccine is amazingly safe and effective. COVID-19 is not worth the risk. Being anti-vaxx is a selfish and dangerous stance, as you’re risking other people’s lives for your “belief”.
How exactly did you reach to the conclusion that avoiding vaccination endangers other people?
I didn’t reach to the conclusion myself. You can find this information from those authoritarian dictatorship propaganda spreading (I presume this is how you view them) sources. Or even just base information on how vaccines work. Don’t ask me, I’m not a virologist or immunologist.
Buh-bye.
Sheep.