(2017-12-16, 01:13 PM)fls Wrote: [ -> ]Linda
Quote:Who do you think that you would be collecting this information for? If a hobbyist can find this stuff after 5 minutes on Google, why would you assume that professionals who have decades of knowledge and experience in the subject aren't already aware of this and more? Laypeople may have some weirdly rosy picture of of the workings of pharmaceutical companies, but physicians sure as hell don't. The recommendations which come out of these expert advisory committees take these things into account, and a whole bunch of stuff you probably have no clue about (especially given that people seem to feel they are revealing a hidden secret with the discovery that companies act in their own self-interest instead of the public good ).
Well if you think it can be found in five minutes and is really that easy then that demonstrates that you have no expertise in the field and further proves my point. By your own criteria I guess you should just believe me the same way I'm expected to believe you now. Also, knowledge being out there to find has little to do with someone having the desire to find it. I'm totally with you on the company/government/individual self interest gripe though. Most of what I've typically had to do is explain that shit to people.
Quote:Well, that's why we see this divide between the conclusions drawn within the scientific community (where conclusions are based on a careful consideration of the validity and reliability of the evidence, regardless of belief) and those drawn by lay-people (little to no understanding of 'evidence' in a scientific sense, with acceptance based on belief). I don't think the efforts you describe above - haphazard collections of minimally understood information meant to support a particular agenda from a non-expert - helps the situation any.
A wrench gets thrown in there when the counter evidence is coming from an expert within the field. Which is what sets off the chain reaction of having to explain why more professionals don't agree with it and so on and so forth. The haphazardness you mention is precisely why I realized there was no point collecting all that evidence. Laypeople on the subject of this sort of investigation, like yourself, often don't understand that things are connected let alone how and why and so people like me have to spend extra effort going through every single step for them. Again this is why I recommend people like James Corbett because he is incredibly good at all that as well as citing all the sources. To which the layperson, based on their worldviews, either believes or dismisses as just a conspiracy theory since data was collected so "haphazardly" according to them. At least when it's something they disagree with. As someone who claims to be in the medical profession I'm sure you can relate. Remembering that I realized that, given your previous responses and appeals to authority and consensus, you would likely have the same idea, and lo and behold you did.
Quote:Didn't you just claim that there are all sorts of shenanigans taking place behind the scenes with respect to vaccines which casts doubt on the seeming solidity of the program? Why is it unreasonable for people to suspect the same sorts of processes are in play in other fields?
Yes I did, and no it's not unreasonable, that's kinda the point.
Quote:I used to feel that way. The problem which shows up fairly quickly is that almost none of science is amenable to pure logic-based arguments. These are almost exclusively questions which need observation (methodological naturalism) to resolve.
I don't use it for "is there a red ball in the box" problems like that because as you quite rightfully point out, it doesn't work for them. But it does work for ideas like "is consensus of claimed experts in a field a good reason to believe the collective claim of such experts at face value?" to which the answer is
no, but that is an argument I'm going to leave for your sources of valid information thread so please don't respond to it here.
Quote:Ah, so you are taking the advice of a non-expert.
Based on what? Because so far it seems like your only real argument is that people dissagree with you. Yes you and Paul seem to be using the "coorelation doesn't equal causation" argument, and yes there's certainly validity to that, but what's your evidence that all is well in the vaccine world? Why should people like me have absolutely no doubts about it and stop asking questions? Because having an M.d in front of your name doesn't mean shit. My grandma was killed by a doctor that handwaved all her concerned about bowel problems as her just being paranoid, then she died of colon cancer. His license got revoked but up until that point he was, by your own definitions, a cancer "expert." I wish I could remember how many other patients it was found he had committed malpractice with during his trial. It was at least three if I remember correctly. Or at least three that they could prove.
Those fancy pieces of paper, decades of experience, and so on certainly didn't seem to make much of a difference to his actual medical ability. So how do I know you're not just someone like him who just hasn't been caught yet? I mean, you certainly seem to have the same dismissive attitude to criticism. Or perhaps that's just the "correlation doesn't cause causation" bias again and I should just believe you because you're
totally different than someone like him?
My favourite recent example of complete long the failure of experts and the systems meant to validate their expertise comes from the world of denistry:
So yeah, tell me again that I should just
believe the consensus of "experts," when this is what that consensus has produced.