Vaccines

Hah... B.S. ...you were using rhetorical tactics to try and assert your superiority and authority. Now you're acting like the victim. It is impossible to have a productive conversation with you, because it is impossible to build consensus around any set of facts. Even when something is blatantly obvious, you won't simply agree on it without throwing in misdirection, rhetorical tactics, or tossing it in a word salad.

It is unfortunate you feel that way, but I didn't mean anything more than that what I said, and I'm just trying to be helpful.

Linda

It is unfortunate you feel that way, but I didn't mean anything more than that what I said, and I'm just trying to be helpful.

Linda

An appeal to authority fallacy occurs when the supposed authority is not actually an authority.

~~ Paul

No Paul, it applies when one is referencing a 3rd party authority as well, not only when someone is themself an authority. And I'm not familiar with Linda's specialty, so I'm not prepared to declare her an authority on this.

How to you rate one authority against another? Is it a safe bet to back the non-mainstream horse in every race? I am starting to dismiss this as wilful trolling; contrary posturing for the sake of it.

Please. Linda and I had a discussion about this in another thread. I don't recall you participating, so don't hop in here and call it trolling. I'm not backing the non-mainstream horse for the sake of doing so, and with regards to this topic in particular, I agree with the side Linda is arguing from. That doesn't have much to do with Linda's tired repetition of the obvious fact that expert input is important for understanding any topic. She seems to convince herself that if an expert or the consensus (as she defines it) says something, that must be the right answer, or at least the most likely one, while ignoring a number of other factors. One that comes to mind is who she defines as experts, as with NDEs and other psi phenomena, where she postures that neuroscientists and the like are the experts, which is fundamentally a flawed approach, given that others have actually researched and seriously considered those phenomena. Those are the actual experts. 

In any event, it is wildly naive to just dismiss any opinion that goes against "expert" opinion and consensus or attempt to render such a contrary belief incorrect without giving any sort of response but "well look at what all the experts say and they don't agree with you so you're wrong." It just isn't any sort of substantive argument. If you think someone is wrong then give them the reasons you think you're right (other than just "the experts say so") and point out flaws in their argument. I see most others in disagreements here trying to do that, yet I'd challenge you to find a thread Linda has participated in where she hasn't brought up the expert issue. It's just an obvious point that doesn't need to be repeated over and over again, and is indicative of the fact that she seems to consider herself or such experts above "lay people", by which I mean those who do not practice specifically in, do research in, or have a degree in a particular field, all of which I read broadly. At it's core, to say that expert input is important to consider is so utterly obvious that to continue to make it a rallying cry as if it somehow informs or enlightens those she is having a "discussion" with, is to basically disrespect their approach from the get-go. It adds little to the conversation, since a lot of the time who exactly the experts are on a topic may be at issue, and to somehow act as if those experts are free from their own biases as regular people is wrong. Again, I agree with Linda on this issue, but at the time I posted I had seen little substance in what she'd said and the repetition of the authority argument just blew me away. It's the same thing, over and over. I responded to briefly challenge her assertion, without an intent to take away too much from the thread's focus. Willful trolling is a comical way to attempt to paint it.

In the same way Linda feels the need to repeat the importance of such input, I feel the need to remind that leaning exclusively on it and rendering opinions of so-called nonexperts as second tier (or worse) is not an effective, realistic or remotely reasonable way of approaching things, and is something equally important to bear in mind.

I don't necessarily agree with how you've characterized it, but regardless, if you have some examples for the claim, "history is not lacking in examples of experts being proven wildly wrong, oftentimes by lay people", then by all means please provide some. Then I wouldn't need to repeat myself.

You can use my "Laypeople Trump experts" thread so as not to detail this one, if necessary.

Linda

As stated above to malf, by lay people I meant, in the context of our conversation, those who are lay people by your definition. My apologies for wording it poorly, and far too explicitly to one side of things. Perhaps a better way of saying it is that there are plenty of examples of experts being wrong in both predictions and statements, in science, economics, etc. The crux of the debate you and I were having was specifically regarding expertise on psi and related phenomena, and you and I certainly disagreed about who the experts are on that issue. You also seem to define expert in a far narrower way than I, unreasonably so in in my opinion. You certainly don't need to repeat yourself, though it seems that you feel the need because it's just so obvious that others here couldn't possibly have considered any "valid expert material" and come to conclusions contrary to your own. 

Then i wouldn't need to repeat myself.

Yes, god forbid, lest the uneducated masses here forget about the importance of considering the thoughts of those who are actually familiar with the material at hand... the arrogance and condescension with which you address others is what makes you just so peachy to engage with. Have you considered that others on this board might also be well educated, have a background in the sciences, and/or capable of rational thought? Or maybe be intelligent or have familiarity with reading and analyzing scientific papers or conducting research? Or perhaps may even be smart enough to identify issues with studies or consider underlying factors that someone who doesn't challenge authority might miss? An earth-shattering thought, to be sure.

In the same way Linda feels the need to repeat the importance of such input, I feel the need to remind that leaning exclusively on it and rendering opinions of so-called nonexperts as second tier (or worse) is not an effective, realistic or remotely reasonable way of approaching things, and is something equally important to bear in mind.

I really enjoyed these last couple of posts of yours Dante, thank you. 

One thing I wanted to add, was that when you said "Those are the actual experts" I felt the need to add one more category that may possibly be even more 'expert' in some circumstances. The parents of children that became autistic as a result of a vaccine.

The only reason I got involved in this whole discussion in because of my friends who experienced this, and it has changed their whole life for the past twenty three years. So when I listened and watched other parents describing the same thing happening to them on 'vaxxed', I paid attention. They are the real experts because they 'know it'. Linda is like the Doctor who knows better than her patient who 'just knows' something is seriously wrong with him. When the testing fails she would likely give him patronising advise, but when the cancer eventually reveals itself it's too late for the unfortunate patient. 

I know diddly squat about vaccines, but I listen closely to my friends who have suffered badly. I also know from experience the lengths many of us will go to when big money is at stake.

As I've said previously to Dante several times, someone who lacks knowledge and experience on a particular subject would not be considered an expert on that subject, regardless of their credentials. The bulk of Dante's rant does not represent something I have said or would agree with. I have mentioned this to her/him before (and I imagine mentioning this yet again will not matter).

Linda

I really enjoyed these last couple of posts of yours Dante, thank you. 

One thing I wanted to add, was that when you said "Those are the actual experts" I felt the need to add one more category that may possibly be even more 'expert' in some circumstances. The parents of children that became autistic as a result of a vaccine.

The only reason I got involved in this whole discussion in because of my friends who experienced this, and it has changed their whole life for the past twenty three years. So when I listened and watched other parents describing the same thing happening to them on 'vaxxed', I paid attention. They are the real experts because they 'know it'.

I agree that the sense of 'know it' is difficult to dismiss. And people have been relying on it for millennia to make sense of the world. Doctors relied on it for centuries to come up with treatments like bloodletting and purgatives, for all that ails you. We have grown more sophisticated in our knowledge base, but that feeling remains in use.

The problem is that when you have the opportunity to get feedback on whether or not 'know it' was right (the high-validity environment I mentioned earlier in the thread), it is often discovered to be wrong. In particular, the confidence you have in the feeling is pretty much unrelated to whether 'know it' is right or not when that knowledge was gained in a low-validity environment.

Yes, some parents 'know' that vaccines caused autism in their kid. And when the opportunity arose to get feedback on whether that feeling was right, with the investigations into this possibility with decent quality research, it didn't support the idea that the feeling was right. Even the study in "Vaxxed" shows that there is no increased risk for any kids, except maybe black, boys who had their vaccine late. That doesn't mean the feeling goes away, though, so it comes down to whether you trust validity or whether you trust your feelings, and I think we all know which is likely to be the winner in all that. 

Research pretty clearly shows that, even among scientists (who at least have some practice in depending upon validity), people will go with their gut, unless the information is presented in a way which makes questions about validity explicit and intuitive. For example, if you ask people what you would expect to see if there were no connection between vaccines and autism, the fact that some diagnoses of autism will be made in proximity to vaccination through happenstance becomes explicit. Then when you ask if there is a way to sort out beforehand which of the vaccine/autism combinations was due to happenstance and which were due to causation, the results of an investigation which shows that the number of vaccine/autism combinations is indistinguishable from happenstance, becomes more intuitively acceptable.

Linda

Perhaps a better way of saying it is that there are plenty of examples of experts being wrong in both predictions and statements, in science, economics, etc.

That even people with expertise can make incorrect predictions or wrong judgements is a wholly unremarkable claim. What I questioned was, if even people with expertise can get it wrong, does it make sense to give weight to the judgements and predictions of people without expertise? And then I invited you (and anyone else here) to give thoughtful consideration to that question and see if  you could find examples where doing so turned out to be valid. I'm the only one who has offered up an example, so far.

The crux of the debate you and I were having was specifically regarding expertise on psi and related phenomena, and you and I certainly disagreed about who the experts are on that issue.

We did? All I remember is that you went off on some rant about scientists who weren't familiar with the research and I explicitly agreed with you that they shouldn't be considered experts. I still haven't figured out what you think we disagree on.

Have you considered that others on this board might also be well educated, have a background in the sciences, and/or capable of rational thought? Or maybe be intelligent or have familiarity with reading and analyzing scientific papers or conducting research? Or perhaps may even be smart enough to identify issues with studies or consider underlying factors that someone who doesn't challenge authority might miss?

Yes, of course I've considered it. That's why I started a thread asking for people to demonstrate their analysis of a scientific study, that's why I bring up research for discussion, that's why I talk about those details someone familiar with reading and analyzing scientific studies would also be interested in. It would be wonderful to be able to discuss issues with studies or consider underlying factors, especially those that people who don't challenge authority have missed (I've brought up many of these in my time on these forums).

Linda

Research pretty clearly shows that, even among scientists (who at least have some practice in depending upon validity), people will go with their gut, unless the information is presented in a way which makes questions about validity explicit and intuitive. For example, if you ask people what you would expect to see if there were no connection between vaccines and autism, the fact that some diagnoses of autism will be made in proximity to vaccination through happenstance becomes explicit. Then when you ask if there is a way to sort out beforehand which of the vaccine/autism combinations was due to happenstance and which were due to causation, the results of an investigation which shows that the number of vaccine/autism combinations is indistinguishable from happenstance, becomes more intuitively acceptable.

Please look at this video in the link, I'm sorry for the advert at the beginning, but it was the only one I could find quickly. Can you see that the interviewer is not really listening to the lady being interviewed. It's the same with so many others. Listen to her say that she knows 'so many others' that had the same experience. It's both fascinating and very sad. You will never convince my friend or this lady that there is not a problem with the MMR vaccine, they'll probably go to their grave knowing that. 

Why is there not an option to have them separately? 

Why is mercury included in the jab? Or at least in some, as I have said, we paid extra to have a 'mercury free' one. Looking at the video I put up earlier, I wouldn't want mercury near me, never mind injected into a baby!

I think we ought to keep in mind that the vast majority of us want the same thing. Our intentions are pure. I know about intentions and roads.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/n...ccine.html