Vaccines

But, just to comment on the appeal to authority fallacy, Wikipedia - for once - doesn't seem to entirely agree with Paul's statement.

I agree that there are nuances and exceptions to any informal fallacy.

~~ Paul

One paper about the philosophy of mathematics for example notes that, within academia,
 
"If...a person accepts our discipline, and goes through two or three years of graduate study in mathematics, he absorbs our way of thinking, and is no longer the critical outsider he once was...If the student is unable to absorb our way of thinking, we flunk him out, of course. If he gets through our obstacle course and then decides that our arguments are unclear or incorrect, we dismiss him as a crank, crackpot, or misfit

Frankly, I think most mathematicians would consider these assertions bizarre.

I looked at the paper, and couldn't see any evidence produced to support such assertions. Mostly it seemed to consist of fictional dialogues with an imaginary mathematician.

Frankly, I think most mathematicians would consider these assertions bizarre.

I looked at the paper, and couldn't see any evidence produced to support such assertions. Mostly it seemed to consist of fictional dialogues with an imaginary mathematician.

Technically your statement supports the idea you quoted more than refutes it. I was planning on coming back to this thread with more evidence to support my arguments but as I was collecting it I found myself running up against the inevitable scope creep that happens when trying to debate someone who is completely against an argument.

I knew there was no single, widely accepted, magic bullet study to support my arguments and so I'd have to go into why that is in the medical communities. I'd have to go into the various studies that have shown detrimental effects of seasonal vaccines. Then I'd have to explain the scientific, medical, and media crackdown that typically follows any scientist that even accidentally gets results that suggest there might be health concerns around seasonal vaccines. And also the exoneration and retraction that receives next to no coverage that is quietly shoved into the corner to be forgotten. Which would require me to go into the innards of the pharma corporations that manufacture such vaccines. Then I'd have to explain why these people aren't all in jail which would mean going into the regulatory practices around pharmaceuticals in various countries. Which would require me to go into the individual people at these organisations and their various documented conflicts of interest, financial connections and abuses of power. Then I'd have to explain why such connections aren't talked about in the mainstream which would require me to explore the media in the same way. So on and so forth. As I was going through collecting all of this I realized "wait... isn't this just Vaxxed? Isn't this the entire point of Vaxxed, to show all of these connections? Why am I going through all this work for people who probably aren't even going to look at or care about my evidence? Isn't that the entire problem in the first place?" So I stopped. I admit I haven't watched Vaxxed specifically yet, but I've seen a number of similar things.

In the past I used to do quite a lot of that sort of research, it's incredibly time consuming and although I love doing it it's not something I am able to spend the necessary amount of time on to do properly anymore. I have mad respect for the people who do it as their day job because I know first hand exactly how hard and rewarding it is. But I learned a long time ago that, much like the mathematician analogy states, it's a mindset thing. really a worldview thing. Even in something that seems as solid as mathematics. Though the evidence exists and is incredibly strong it simply doesn't matter if someone thinks otherwise. I came to hate evidence based arguments because I learned it was all logically based on faith. 

Evidence can't speak for itself, that's a total myth. Evidence must be believed. This is because nothing can be absolutely proven for certain in the uncontrolled environment that is the real world. It is not possible to have all possible data that could be influencing an effect. Even in a controlled lab test. And the further away the skeptic is from the source of the purported evidence, the less veridical it becomes. Ironically making anecdotes and personal experience both the best and worst forms of evidence at the same time.

Therefore a skeptic of an argument can always logically argue that the evidence isn't good enough. No matter what it is. They weren't there, they don't know that the study was carried out in the way it was claimed to be, They don't know if someone didn't cheat, they don't know if there's another factor that no one knew about that was affecting the results, they don't know if the peer reviewing did its due diligence, they don't know, they don't know, they don't know...

So I started to only engage in pure logic based arguments since you could construct the entire "universe" the argument existed in and thus control every possible aspect of it, making it provable. This thread was a good reminder why I did that back then.

That phenomenon is actually one of the things that got me into PSI in the first place despite coming from and largely remaining in the materialist camp. It's also the same thing that shifted me from being a hardline pro vaxxer to seeing issues with some of the manufacturing processes testing methodologies and regulatory shenanigans which typically gets me labelled an anti vaxxer even though I'm not. I've studied how vaccines get made, I understand the science behind them, that's why I have issues with seasonal flu vaccines and the idea of mandatory vaccinations. Although vaccines are a pretty good science, certainly in theory, these vaccines are pretty shit and really need to be manufactured and tested differently, probably by people with no profit motive, before I'm going to inject myself with one ever again.

Technically your statement supports the idea you quoted more than refutes it.

In what way?

Do we know how autism works?

I knew there was no single, widely accepted, magic bullet study to support my arguments and so I'd have to go into why that is in the medical communities. I'd have to go into the various studies that have shown detrimental effects of seasonal vaccines. Then I'd have to explain the scientific, medical, and media crackdown that typically follows any scientist that even accidentally gets results that suggest there might be health concerns around seasonal vaccines. And also the exoneration and retraction that receives next to no coverage that is quietly shoved into the corner to be forgotten. Which would require me to go into the innards of the pharma corporations that manufacture such vaccines. Then I'd have to explain why these people aren't all in jail which would mean going into the regulatory practices around pharmaceuticals in various countries. Which would require me to go into the individual people at these organisations and their various documented conflicts of interest, financial connections and abuses of power. Then I'd have to explain why such connections aren't talked about in the mainstream which would require me to explore the media in the same way. So on and so forth. As I was going through collecting all of this I realized "wait... isn't this just Vaxxed? Isn't this the entire point of Vaxxed, to show all of these connections? Why am I going through all this work for people who probably aren't even going to look at or care about my evidence? Isn't that the entire problem in the first place?" So I stopped. I admit I haven't watched Vaxxed specifically yet, but I've seen a number of similar things.

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 ).

In the past I used to do quite a lot of that sort of research, it's incredibly time consuming and although I love doing it it's not something I am able to spend the necessary amount of time on to do properly anymore. I have mad respect for the people who do it as their day job because I know first hand exactly how hard and rewarding it is. But I learned a long time ago that, much like the mathematician analogy states, it's a mindset thing. really a worldview thing. Even in something that seems as solid as mathematics. Though the evidence exists and is incredibly strong it simply doesn't matter if someone thinks otherwise. I came to hate evidence based arguments because I learned it was all logically based on faith.

Evidence can't speak for itself, that's a total myth. Evidence must be believed. This is because nothing can be absolutely proven for certain in the uncontrolled environment that is the real world. It is not possible to have all possible data that could be influencing an effect. Even in a controlled lab test. And the further away the skeptic is from the source of the purported evidence, the less veridical it becomes. Ironically making anecdotes and personal experience both the best and worst forms of evidence at the same time.

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.  

Therefore a skeptic of an argument can always logically argue that the evidence isn't good enough. No matter what it is. They weren't there, they don't know that the study was carried out in the way it was claimed to be, They don't know if someone didn't cheat, they don't know if there's another factor that no one knew about that was affecting the results, they don't know if the peer reviewing did its due diligence, they don't know, they don't know, they don't know...

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?

So I started to only engage in pure logic based arguments since you could construct the entire "universe" the argument existed in and thus control every possible aspect of it, making it provable. This thread was a good reminder why I did that back then.

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.

That phenomenon is actually one of the things that got me into PSI in the first place despite coming from and largely remaining in the materialist camp. It's also the same thing that shifted me from being a hardline pro vaxxer to seeing issues with some of the manufacturing processes testing methodologies and regulatory shenanigans which typically gets me labelled an anti vaxxer even though I'm not. I've studied how vaccines get made, I understand the science behind them, that's why I have issues with seasonal flu vaccines and the idea of mandatory vaccinations. Although vaccines are a pretty good science, certainly in theory, these vaccines are pretty shit and really need to be manufactured and tested differently, probably by people with no profit motive, before I'm going to inject myself with one ever again.

Ah, so you are taking the advice of a non-expert. 

Linda

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.

Yep, there is no proof in science.

Well, except for this semi-formal one from Marvin Minsky:

The Process of Evolution is the following abstract idea:

There is a population of things that reproduce, at different rates in different environments. Those rates depend, statistically, on a collection of inheritable traits. Those traits are subject to occasional mutations, some of which are then inherited.

Then one can deduce, from logic alone, without any need for evidence, that:

THEOREM: Each population will tend to increase the proportion of traits that have higher reproduction rates in its current environment.

Wow, this thread is a "dumpster fire," as they say.

I thought I’d chime in here with my experience — which is that I never had chicken pox (varicella) as a child, and I even got vaccinated it for it after I gave birth since I never had it as a child.

But here I am, with “breakthrough varicella,” and I am utterly miserable.

Having just watched Vaxxed, I am really saddened at the state of affairs. Unless Linda and other debunkers have at least watched it, they shouldn't really be making comments such as that in her first post in this thread.

So who's here has ACTUALLY watched it?

Wow, this thread is a "dumpster fire," as they say.

I thought I’d chime in here with my experience — which is that I never had chicken pox (varicella) as a child, and I even got vaccinated it for it after I gave birth since I never had it as a child.

But here I am, with “breakthrough varicella,” and I am utterly miserable.

I have a similar story with my daughter, which nicely illustrates the disconnect between the stories and the science, I mentioned above. It feels weird to trust the science when you have direct experience of the vaccine not working. Nobody goes around telling stories every time they don't get influenza or chicken pox or tetanus, though. So it's easy to miss just how unrepresentative the stories are.

Linda