1566

submitted 2 months ago by HootinNHollerin@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

150 comments fedilink hide all child comments

(page 3) 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

We need to split the US up into two parts so we can do A/B testing.

As others have said, the problem of vaccines isn't that they don't work. The problem of vaccines is that they work too well. They have completely eliminated the diseases that motivated their development, so people can't imagine a world where these vaccines don't exist anymore.

We need to split the US up into two parts. One gets vaccines, the other one does not. Wait 30 years. Then the people will see the effects and then the people will understand why we should have vaccines. If the people don't see the alternative scenario, they can't see the difference that vaccines make. We need to make these differences more visual.

[-] III@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

Sadly, there is no amount of in-their-face proof to overcome the "I do my own research" mentality.

And the original meme here misses the most important piece - they lack the basic concept of logic to understand how cause and effect relate to each other. So showing them A vs B won't get them to the results you expect - even though it should.

[-] Blindsite@lemmy.today 0 points 2 months ago

And if you're wrong? What if those who are vaccine free do better? I mean you've got a good idea there with the A/B testing but what if your premise is wrong or the anti-vaccine crowd is right and they do end up healthier despite the presence of diseases?

[-] Blindsite@lemmy.today 0 points 2 months ago

I mean your premise seems to be that various diseases will reemerge and that will scare people into getting vaccines. But what if they end up healthier and so adapt in different ways? Better sanitation, immune boosters, improved forms of treatment, etc. What if the medical culture takes a totally different route because you allowed people not to get vaccinated?

[-] Bubbaonthebeach@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

I don't know how that would work. Everyone that I know who is anti-vax thinks all the rest of your list is elitist crap as well.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml 2 points 2 months ago

The dogma of scientism and the obsession with STEM is just as responsible for this situation as anti intellectualism is.

[-] Gloomy@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I assume that i will disagree, but i think it mainly is because "the dogma of science" is a phrase that i immediately recognize as a right wing talking point.

But since you kind of only put that out there and i don't expect right wing idiots on Lemmy i'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to kindly elaborate a bit.

What is the dogma of science? Who holds it? What sciences? All of them? Just STEM? And speaking of, who is obsessed with STEM? How and where does that obsession express itself?

[-] CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

SCIENTISM

Damn, even threatened with being call right-wing. Science folks always balk when it is ever brought up. I suppose I can understand having to "defend" scientific findings from the dogmas of creationists, but this doesn't mean science and scientists are not vulnerable to dogma or to the very epistemological supremacism that has been the intellectual basis for genocide and empire building.

[-] Gloomy@mander.xyz 2 points 2 months ago

I have very much NOT called you right wing. I pointed out, correctly, that calling science a "dogma" is a right wing talking point. I have asked you to elaborate your point, so one is able to determine if you use it in the same context (as a blanket statement to make your own position stronger) or not.

It is deeply ironic that you are ranting about how scientists don't want to be questioned and "bulk" when told so, yet you have not elaborated a single one of your points yet (you are more than welcome to still do so) and have reacted to me asking you to do so in what i very much read as an aggressive tone.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago

Should add a sentence to top panel that says "they should teach useful things in school like how to do your taxes!"

spoiler alert: that's just reading and basic math applied to something besides a test for a grade.

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 0 points 2 months ago

Wouldn't a better thing to teach be innovating upon technology and social structure, such that we no longer even need taxes? Nor any other rents designed to keep us down and impoverished. Imagine where we'd be now if not for the suppression of all the emancipatory technologies. All those patents being sat on, or secreted[1]. All those inventors usurped or disappeared. We have so much more headroom.

If education were not so corrupted and riddled with nonsense and slave conditioning, perhaps there'd be fewer rejecting it; fewer throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We can all be polymaths in the making, not slaves in training.

[1: According to patent office whistle blower Tom Valone, (iirc) there were already over 3000 free energy device patents secreted by the year 2000. Seriously. We have so much headroom without the corruption. Even the rich parasites would be better off, with the release and proliferation of the emancipatory technologies. ...Buuuuuut, that's not in most people's world view to which they're attached, and so, they tend to go on attack upon encountering mention of such, as if this new information is a threat to their life.]

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Total sidetrack and total missing the point.

I didn't say "taxes are good" or "current education is good".

The problem I posed is that knowledge transfer is an essential skill and people who are bad at it are--I would suppose--both oblivious to it and easier to take advantage of.

Edit: TBH your comment is so whacky and on your own terms I didn't even read to the end section. It's not even left field, it's 2 counties over.

Edit 2: Now I read it in full and, bro, that's a bunch of potentially well meaning conspiratorial retardation. Just no.

You are unfortunately, literally pictured in the OP meme with a veneer of "I'm 14 and this is deep".

[-] Digit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 2 months ago

Total sidetrack and total missing the point.

I didn’t say “taxes are good” or “current education is good”.

The problem I posed is that knowledge transfer is an essential skill and people who are bad at it are–I would suppose–both oblivious to it and easier to take advantage of.

Edit: TBH your comment is so whacky and on your own terms I didn’t even read to the end section. It’s not even left field, it’s 2 counties over.

Edit 2: Now I read it in full and, bro, that’s a bunch of potentially well meaning conspiratorial retardation. Just no.

You are unfortunately, literally pictured in the OP meme with a veneer of “I’m 14 and this is deep”.

Fun to see such a retort, on same day as I posted a re-creation of the extended version of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement.

Starts with a non-sequitor, follows with an apparent strawman argument refuting an accusation not made, then a "not even wrong", then arguing tone coupled with a celebration of ignorance and unwitting mischaracterisation, ending on two ad-hominems. XD See? Epistemology's fun.

[-] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works -1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Bro, come down out of your own asshole.

Your real, no kidding argument is that this meme template best explains that people believe windmills cause cancer / vaccines cause autism / XYZ crazy thing is that the current state of education is * checks notes * "slave conditioning" and patents are being conspiratorially hidden for "emancipating technologies"? Really?

This to you is a rational following of the discussion and context, not itself a wild non sequitur (note the spelling)?

I don't care what branch of philosophy you're studying or what argument logic piques your interest because it just isnt relevant here. You've shoehorned an unrequested and unsubstantiated conspiracy theory into a post about people believing improbable and/or deranged things. And no, making your own footnote isnt a substantiation.

You can't "I am very smart" this into making sense, even by miscounting logical fallacies or trying to couch it as an epistemological discussion which this is not.

Just... yikes.

Edit: To save my own brain cells, I'm just going to laugh and block you. Considering you are having similar discussions with others in this thread, don't take it from me, let me recommend "Fantasyland" by Kurt Andersen. I would specifically the middle and later chapters. Even if you don't read it in a particularly introspective way, it's a pretty interesting read / listen.

Cheers