"This serious topic is about the ability to live a normal life, not about forcing every one to accept the conclusions of charts and graphs done with slanted studies and flawed logic."
My objection to the tenor of the debate (as aired) is that it's not enough to whine that the studies are "slanted" and the logic "flawed". If the best available studies say XYZ, then the burden of proof is on their critics to demonstrate the slants, highlight the logical flaws, and participate in improving the collective understanding of the problem. That's how responsible science and responsible policy-making are done. The crackpots don't want to play that game because either they know science is not on their side or, more commonly, they don't understand enough science to speak competently about the matter, which is how they got snared into their benighted theories in the first place.
"complain about speaking of immoral profits and financially based science"
I have no issues with attacks on immoral profits or financially based science--when they are substantiated. I haven't heard that from you.
I do have issues with people who disagree with science because they are worried by it, confused by it, or would be happier in a world where strong emotional feelings are given credibility equivalent to empirical fact. Western civilization tried being ruled by those sorts of people, in an experiment now known as The Dark Ages. Then they pulled their heads out of their collective rump and produced math, physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, economics, public education, secular universities, research as a profession, the fourth estate, democracy, freedom, and, yes, sanitation, public health, and medicine. On balance, I'd say the Enlightenment wins. (People who got enslaved or colonized during that period might well disagree with the overall benevolence of that transition, but that speaks to a moral failing of Westerners, not the problem of fact vs suspicion.)
Even if some of the science on vaccinations is bad or incomplete, the answer to bad science is good science--not mumbo jumbo or, for that matter, travel writing. We don't let musicians design airplane engines or let children install electrical wiring or let dogs vote because EXPERTISE MATTERS. Normally TOL seems to recognize that. Apparently whoever ran their phone bank for this episode also compiled their guest list.
BTW, it's spelled Cheney, not Chaney. And yes, he and Rumsfeld ARE faith-based if one considers that phrase to be the antithesis of "fact-based". It does not necessarily connote religion.
posted 4 years, 4 months ago
view in context