Misinformation [sic]
"My father was an expert witness many times throughout his career. You know what the other side had too? An expert witness. They would offer totally different interpretation of the data and it was up to the jury to decide. Do we really want to have the government or the MSM claim one of the experts was providing misinformation... Or should we allow that to be decided by informed individuals? The rise of information control is the most dangerous threat facing democratic societies today."
~ Mathew Wielecki
6 comments:
Good quote. It identifies the one grain of truth in the thinking behind conspiracy theories, such as what you see from anti-vaxxers. You can't necessarily trust every expert, but disagreement needs to be *informed*, but that's not easy when the subject matter is highly technical and/or complex.
Failing that first-hand detailed understanding, you need to at least ask yourself how plausible a contention or theory is, in the context of everything else you know about the world. Is it really plausible for instance that every single world government and virtually all the experts with the required specialist knowledge would knowingly be pushing a vaccine that did more harm than good?
Truth is not decided by numbers, but when over 99% of actual experts have a view on something factual, you can be almost certain the evidence is on their side. Note I stated near certainty that "the evidence is on their side" based on the numbers, not near certainty they're necessarily correct. The majority can get things wrong, but we generally only find out they're wrong when new evidence comes to light and existing theories are challenged, generally by other experts with the necessary knowledge. It then tends to become accepted by the majority. We can only act on what the evidence is at that point in time.
So in summary, yes, we should not necessarily trust all experts. But the possibility of them getting it wrong, or having nefarious motives is not justification for irrational scepticism in what the vast majority of experts are saying.
"Today’s frantic development in the field of technology has a quality reminiscent of the days preceding the economic crash of 1929: riding on the momentum of the past, on the unacknowledged remnants of an Aristotelian epistemology, it is a hectic, feverish expansion, heedless of the fact that its theoretical account is long since overdrawn—that in the field of scientific theory, unable to integrate or interpret their own data, scientists are abetting the resurgence of a primitive mysticism." Ayn Rand.
I assume Nigel considers the above 50+ year old quote relevant because he thinks it justifies a skepticism towards the relevant experts and what they are saying about vaccines.
Of relevance, I read a thought-provoking article from Robert Tracinski on the weekend (paid subscription, and worth every cent BTW). He observed the tendency of many who claim to be in favour of reason and critical thinking when it comes to questioning the woke left, increasingly aligning themselves with wacky conspiracy-theory quacks - often but not exclusively coming from the right displaying their own brand of groupthink. Case in point, he gave examples of Jordan Peterson and others throwing their support behind Robert F Kennedy Jr and his wacky beliefs when it comes to vaccines. Apparently even two Objectivists (Amy Peikoff and Mark Pellegrino) have shown some sympathy for the guy, who's other wacky beliefs apparently include believing the CIA assassinated his uncle, that vaccines are specifically engineered to harm black people, that chemicals in the water are feminising men, and that the Spanish Flu was not caused by a virus.
In analysing "what went wrong" - i.e. how could people who believe in reason and critical thinking in the abstract come to hold dubious 'science' from quacks as more trustworthy than actual experts, he comments as follows:
"My main impression—not just from this case, but from a number of previous conflicts like this—is that advocating reason and critical thinking turns out to be a lot easier than actually knowing how to use them. It is certainly easier than acquiring the mental habits and self-discipline required for adherence to reason."
"That’s more than just a wry observation. I am starting to think that this is one of the most promising and urgently needed areas of exploration for Objectivist philosophers. The philosophy as currently stated contains a great many exhortations to use reason, and some very powerful abstract identifications of how reason works. Ayn Rand also provided us with some vibrant literary projections of the power of reason, by way of the characters and events in her novels."
"But what we need more of is everything in between theoretical knowledge and artistic projection—an area that combines elements of morality, psychology, and education to shape and exercise our mental habits."
Of course claiming to be an advocate of reason and critical thinking does not mean you necessarily practice those virtues. But I'd go further, in that I'm increasingly seeing an inverse relationship between two. That's because I think if you just have an abstract belief in the virtues of reason and critical thinking, and come to believe your current views (or prejudices) align with those virtues, the abstract belief can provide a barrier to learning the truth rather than aiding it.
A "vaccine" whose efficacy for most people turned out to be incredibly poor, released only under emergency authorization globally with no control group, whose
own (unwillingly released) documents contained over 70 pages of listed side effects (many extremely serious).
I consider that quote more relevant than ever. The fact that it was made over 50 years ago is just another example of how prophetic Rand was.
You haven't acknowledged the possibility (or plausibility) of Experts UNknowingly pushing a vaccine that does more harm than good (or no good).
Or how about releasing said vaccine at the absolute wrong time (ie: in the face of an epidemic).
The majority of Experts told us vaccines would limit transmission of the virus and ultimately end the pandemic quickly. 2023 and it's still going with no end in sight.
The majority of Experts told us masks were essential in stopping covid. Now there's no evidence they make any difference at all.
These alone are enormous failures (even betrayals) that have completely destroyed the public's trust.
Yet according to you the people who initially disagreed and were later proven correct on many points are still wrong because their skepticism was "irrational" & "uninformed".
Heaven forbid the great unwashed should attempt to use their reason.
"You haven't acknowledged the possibility (or plausibility) of Experts UNknowingly pushing a vaccine that does more harm than good".
Actually I did, in the next (3rd) paragraph:
".....when over 99% of actual experts have a view on something factual, you can be almost certain the evidence is on their side. Note I stated near certainty that "the evidence is on their side" based on the numbers, not near certainty they're necessarily correct".
You however preferred to believe the interpretation of evidence coming from quacks and/or a tiny proportion of people with actual qualifications - presumably because they supported your existing prejudices and fears.
Your post displays to me exactly what we are talking about. In an abstract and theoretical sense you say you've in favour of reason, but in your method of processing information and the way you argue, it sadly lacks it.
I also wonder how distant you must be to what's actually going on in the world when you say the pandemic "is still going with no end in sight". For most of us it is over and things are back to normal, to the extent I was able to travel to probably the most covid risk-averse country in the world (Japan) in January without any significant limits or barriers.
Yes, but that's a very generalized statement isn't it? You asked a very specific question beforehand.
I could & perhaps should have said "the virus is still going with no end in sight" The acute phase has certainly passed here in NZ. But it's your guys in the WHO saying this is still a pandemic and will be with us for many years to come.
On the contrary, I would have preferred to believe that the mRNA therapy was 'safe & effective" as our one single source of truth has always maintained.
Post a Comment