‘Trust the Science’ Does Not Convince Those Who Most Need to be Convinced

Taodeching · Jan 14, 2022

“The phrase ‘trust the science’ does not convince those who most need to be convinced, especially if it reinforces the fear that science is challenging the authority of religious faith.”

“In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific evidence in favor of vaccination is overwhelming. Those who are aware of this and see this universal prophylaxis as the only way to end the pandemic often use the mantra ‘trust the science,” he wrote in a 5,000-word essay, entitled “COVID, faith, and the fallibility of science” and published in Italian.

“At first glance, the expression does not lack a certain charm, also because it refers to that trust in science as a path to truth that our society has learned to accept since the Enlightenment.”

“But the evidence of the facts around us suggests that instead this slogan is not so motivating. Large sectors of the population … have continued to reject vaccination.”

A summary of the article in English on La Civiltà Cattolica’s website said: “The no vax and conspiracy theory proponents uphold a misconception of what science is all about, as well as what it can deliver. When science fails to live up to its supposed infallibility, it only fuels further skepticism.”

“In addition to reconsidering how we argue in favor of science, as in the case of promoting vaccines, it is worth taking a closer look at how we try to use science or faith as bulwarks against our fundamental human fear of uncertainty.”

“And while I am entirely pro-vaccination, a motto like ‘trust the science’ leaves me very puzzled. It embodies a popular conception of science that is not only misleading, but makes it vulnerable.”

“Yes, the vaccine prevents disease in the vast majority of the vaccinated and reduces the severity of disease even in cases of so-called ‘breakthrough infections.’ But vaccines are not perfect. Fully vaccinated people can become ill with COVID-19, and indeed this does happen, although rarely with serious effects.”

“To those who oppose vaccines, the fact that such failures happen not only suggests that the vaccine is not perfect, but confirms the fear that blindly trusting science can be dangerous. And as much as we don’t want to admit it, that fear of placing unconditional trust in science contains an element of truth.”

“We trust the vaccine not because it is perfect, but because it greatly increases the odds of not getting sick. The real and obvious problem lies in the fact that most of us cannot understand how probabilities work: that is why casinos and lotteries are so successful.”

Vatican Astronomer: ‘Trust the Science’ Does Not Convince Those Who Most Need to be Convinced

--------------------------
The above is quite insightful

Bradskii · Jan 14, 2022

But as the article says, 'the science' doesn't say that any vaccines are 100% effective. Or 100% safe. If someone thinks science does actually say that, then that's a problem they have in not understanding it. They just need to be educated as to the facts.

It's not a problem with science.

Taodeching · Jan 14, 2022

Absolutely

RestoreTheJoy · Jan 14, 2022

Taodeching said:
“The phrase ‘trust the science’ does not convince those who most need to be convinced, especially if it reinforces the fear that science is challenging the authority of religious faith.”

“In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific evidence in favor of vaccination is overwhelming. Those who are aware of this and see this universal prophylaxis as the only way to end the pandemic often use the mantra ‘trust the science,” he wrote in a 5,000-word essay, entitled “COVID, faith, and the fallibility of science” and published in Italian.

“At first glance, the expression does not lack a certain charm, also because it refers to that trust in science as a path to truth that our society has learned to accept since the Enlightenment.”

“But the evidence of the facts around us suggests that instead this slogan is not so motivating. Large sectors of the population … have continued to reject vaccination.”

A summary of the article in English on La Civiltà Cattolica’s website said: “The no vax and conspiracy theory proponents uphold a misconception of what science is all about, as well as what it can deliver. When science fails to live up to its supposed infallibility, it only fuels further skepticism.”

“In addition to reconsidering how we argue in favor of science, as in the case of promoting vaccines, it is worth taking a closer look at how we try to use science or faith as bulwarks against our fundamental human fear of uncertainty.”

“And while I am entirely pro-vaccination, a motto like ‘trust the science’ leaves me very puzzled. It embodies a popular conception of science that is not only misleading, but makes it vulnerable.”

“Yes, the vaccine prevents disease in the vast majority of the vaccinated and reduces the severity of disease even in cases of so-called ‘breakthrough infections.’ But vaccines are not perfect. Fully vaccinated people can become ill with COVID-19, and indeed this does happen, although rarely with serious effects.”

“To those who oppose vaccines, the fact that such failures happen not only suggests that the vaccine is not perfect, but confirms the fear that blindly trusting science can be dangerous. And as much as we don’t want to admit it, that fear of placing unconditional trust in science contains an element of truth.”

“We trust the vaccine not because it is perfect, but because it greatly increases the odds of not getting sick. The real and obvious problem lies in the fact that most of us cannot understand how probabilities work: that is why casinos and lotteries are so successful.”

Vatican Astronomer: ‘Trust the Science’ Does Not Convince Those Who Most Need to be Convinced

--------------------------
The above is quite insightful

Well, when those leading "the science" have lied many times, yeah, that tends not to be persuasive.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine ever paid a decade ago. Many are not going to trust it now. That's just one. Fauci lied about gain of function, and is hailed as the go-to expert.

People have common sense. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine in U.S. history – lawsuit details

Taodeching · Jan 14, 2022

RestoreTheJoy said:
People have common sense.

Common sense is not knowledge and can be wrong sometimes.

RestoreTheJoy said:
The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Not really people can change. Christ doesn't hold our past against us and that is the better way to live. It wasn't science that lied it was politicians and those whom fancy themselves as politicians. The problem became that information and history of the vaccine type wasn't talked about, which is the fault of the politicians. So people lost and continue to lose their heads because they fear, quite irrationally

pescador · Jan 14, 2022

RestoreTheJoy said:
Well, when those leading "the science" have lied many times, yeah, that tends not to be persuasive.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine ever paid a decade ago. Many are not going to trust it now. That's just one. Fauci lied about gain of function, and is hailed as the go-to expert.

People have common sense. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine in U.S. history – lawsuit details

So if you don't trust the CDC, NIH, Dr. Fauci, et al, whom do you trust? The common sense of the untrained, unscientific opinion of "the people"? Really? You want the local auto mechanic to manage your health care?

I trust my primary doctor, who tells me to get all the COVID-19 vaccinations.

Belk · Jan 14, 2022

Taodeching said:
“The phrase ‘trust the science’ does not convince those who most need to be convinced, especially if it reinforces the fear that science is challenging the authority of religious faith.”

“In the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific evidence in favor of vaccination is overwhelming. Those who are aware of this and see this universal prophylaxis as the only way to end the pandemic often use the mantra ‘trust the science,” he wrote in a 5,000-word essay, entitled “COVID, faith, and the fallibility of science” and published in Italian.

“At first glance, the expression does not lack a certain charm, also because it refers to that trust in science as a path to truth that our society has learned to accept since the Enlightenment.”

“But the evidence of the facts around us suggests that instead this slogan is not so motivating. Large sectors of the population … have continued to reject vaccination.”

A summary of the article in English on La Civiltà Cattolica’s website said: “The no vax and conspiracy theory proponents uphold a misconception of what science is all about, as well as what it can deliver. When science fails to live up to its supposed infallibility, it only fuels further skepticism.”

“In addition to reconsidering how we argue in favor of science, as in the case of promoting vaccines, it is worth taking a closer look at how we try to use science or faith as bulwarks against our fundamental human fear of uncertainty.”

“And while I am entirely pro-vaccination, a motto like ‘trust the science’ leaves me very puzzled. It embodies a popular conception of science that is not only misleading, but makes it vulnerable.”

“Yes, the vaccine prevents disease in the vast majority of the vaccinated and reduces the severity of disease even in cases of so-called ‘breakthrough infections.’ But vaccines are not perfect. Fully vaccinated people can become ill with COVID-19, and indeed this does happen, although rarely with serious effects.”

“To those who oppose vaccines, the fact that such failures happen not only suggests that the vaccine is not perfect, but confirms the fear that blindly trusting science can be dangerous. And as much as we don’t want to admit it, that fear of placing unconditional trust in science contains an element of truth.”

“We trust the vaccine not because it is perfect, but because it greatly increases the odds of not getting sick. The real and obvious problem lies in the fact that most of us cannot understand how probabilities work: that is why casinos and lotteries are so successful.”

Vatican Astronomer: ‘Trust the Science’ Does Not Convince Those Who Most Need to be Convinced

--------------------------
The above is quite insightful

It is certainly valid. The issue is the same we see with other knowledge such as evolution and astronomy. If you think the entire scientific community is either lying or idiots how do you go about convincing people that the information they produce is valid?

Brihaha · Jan 14, 2022

Citizens of America used to have faith in each other. "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what You can do for your country". When our leader spoke these words, Americans valued our unity, recognizing unity as our strength. Sadly today, Americans have grown soft and spoiled with the conveniences now available. Many people care nothing for neighbors or unity. While our government has a responsibility to protect Americans, Americans have an obligation of personal responsibility to protect each other and our freedoms. They mistakenly believe that being born in the USA guarantees them freedom without responsibility. As Lao Tsu wrote, sometimes the most effective action is to take no action at all. Maybe in America we would see higher vaccination rates if leaders said absolutely nothing about getting vaccinated. It is counterintuitive to be sure, yet so was electing a conman like trump. The wise folks will still get vaccinated and the holdouts may be more likely to help America recover if they didn’t feel pressure.

Irkle Berserkle · Jan 14, 2022

Even when we filter out the lunacy at both ends of the spectrum, as well as the rational but non-science-based arguments against the vaccines, and strictly limit ourselves to "the science," it seems to me that the science - about the disease itself and the effective treatment(s) and risks - is a hopeless jumble of conflicting opinion, evidence and information.

As one who is duly vaccinated and boostered, I have no confidence that this was necessary, wise or even helpful.

Taodeching · Jan 14, 2022

pescador said:
I trust my primary doctor, who tells me to get all the COVID-19 vaccinations.

Your right we need to trust somebody and our primary doctor is the best, imho. My doctor told me because of my disability to get the shot.

Sparagmos · Jan 14, 2022

RestoreTheJoy said:
Well, when those leading "the science" have lied many times, yeah, that tends not to be persuasive.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine ever paid a decade ago. Many are not going to trust it now. That's just one. Fauci lied about gain of function, and is hailed as the go-to expert.

People have common sense. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Pfizer paid the largest criminal fine in U.S. history – lawsuit details

But you don’t have to trust Fauci and Pfizer. What about all of the other scientists, and 96% of doctors who are vaccinated?

Bradskii · Jan 14, 2022

Irkle Berserkle said:
As one who is duly vaccinated and boostered, I have no confidence that this was necessary, wise or even helpful.

Do you often do things that you consider to be uneccessary, unwise and unhelpful? Presumably you didn't inject yourself. And if you think the vaccine was uneccessary etc, then I must assume that you talked to your doctor about having it before he stuck what you considered to be uneccessary etc into your arm.

What did he say?

Captain Ahab · Jan 14, 2022

He who loveth the authorized experts, abideth in the approved narrative, and doeth the will of the nanny state shall be saved. Fear of the mainstream media is the beginning of wisdom. And the mainstream media begets fEeLz. Lean not unto thy own understanding, but the mandates of your BigBro that is in authoritarian government. For there is neither cisgender male nor cisgender female, we are all non binary Genderfluid pansexuals in the New Order. In Fraudci’s name, amen!

Irkle Berserkle · Jan 14, 2022

Bradskii said:
Do you often do things that you consider to be uneccessary, unwise and unhelpful? Presumably you didn't inject yourself. And if you think the vaccine was uneccessary etc, then I must assume that you talked to your doctor about having it before he stuck what you considered to be uneccessary etc into your arm.

What did he say?

Nice try at putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I thought the vaccine was unnecessary, unwise and unhelpful. I said that because the science is such a conflicting morass, I'm not sure that getting the vaccine was necessary, wise or helpful. I exercised my best judgment at the time.

You assume my doctor is a he. My doctor is actually a she. She offered no advice at all about the vaccine.

What's apparently an emotional issue for you is not an emotional one for me. I simply exercised my best judgment at the time. Whether you got vaccinated, and why you did or didn't, are simply of no interest or consequence to me.

Bradskii · Jan 14, 2022

Irkle Berserkle said:
Nice try at putting words in my mouth. I didn't say I thought the vaccine was unnecessary, unwise and unhelpful. I said that because the science is such a conflicting morass, I'm not sure that getting the vaccine was necessary, wise or helpful. I exercised my best judgment at the time.

You assume my doctor is a he. My doctor is actually a she. She offered no advice at all about the vaccine.

What's apparently an emotional issue for you is not an emotional one for me. I simply exercised my best judgment at the time. Whether you got vaccinated, and why you did or didn't, are simply of no interest or consequence to me.

You didn't say you were unsure. You said you had no confidence. There's a significant difference. But we'll go with 'unsure at the time'. But personally speaking, I think your judgement at the time (for the first vaccine, for the second and for the booster) was correct.

Irkle Berserkle · Jan 14, 2022

Bradskii said:
You didn't say you were unsure. You said you had no confidence. There's a significant difference. But we'll go with 'unsure at the time'. But personally speaking, I think your judgement at the time (for the first vaccine, for the second and for the booster) was correct.

Thanks. I'm certainly hoping it was correct, but I don't know or have any great confidence that it was. If the vaccine had been J&J rather than Moderna, I'd be feeling more unsure. I really couldn't argue with my wife when she refused to get the booster.

Relative to the point in the OP, I generally do "follow the science" on issues where there is a scientific consensus. My point here is that the more I've learned the more iffy the science seems right across the board - the nature and risks of the disease, the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, and the efficacy and risks of other measures. I don't expect miracles from the flu shot I got a month ago, but I certainly don't have the same level of concern either. I don't think getting the COVID vaccine is a no-brainer or that those who refuse are all wackos; either way, it's a calculated and hopefully well-informed risk.

Ponderous Curmudgeon · Jan 14, 2022

Irkle Berserkle said:
Even when we filter out the lunacy at both ends of the spectrum, as well as the rational but non-science-based arguments against the vaccines, and strictly limit ourselves to "the science," it seems to me that the science - about the disease itself and the effective treatment(s) and risks - is a hopeless jumble of conflicting opinion, evidence and information.

As one who is duly vaccinated and boostered, I have no confidence that this was necessary, wise or even helpful.

Bradskii · Jan 14, 2022

Irkle Berserkle said:
Thanks. I'm certainly hoping it was correct, but I don't know or have any great confidence that it was. If the vaccine had been J&J rather than Moderna, I'd be feeling more unsure. I really couldn't argue with my wife when she refused to get the booster.

Relative to the point in the OP, I generally do "follow the science" on issues where there is a scientific consensus. My point here is that the more I've learned the more iffy the science seems right across the board - the nature and risks of the disease, the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, and the efficacy and risks of other measures. I don't expect miracles from the flu shot I got a month ago, but I certainly don't have the same level of concern either. I don't think getting the COVID vaccine is a no-brainer or that those who refuse are all wackos; either way, it's a calculated and hopefully well-informed risk.

We have to bear in mind that the disease is a moving target. Australia is revising its policies even as I write this. The recommendation is still to definitely get vaccinated but the Omicron is running through the state so rapidly that a policy that was relevant even a week or so ago is not applicable now. And the policies are based on scientific recomendations.

I'm pretty much certain that my wife and I will get it sooner rather than later (someone we know who tested positive on Wednesday was briefly at our house on Tuesday - it's unavoidable). So we've got our boosters booked for next week. When I do get it, I want it to be as mild as possible.

Ponderous Curmudgeon · Jan 14, 2022

OK, lunacy aside, if you have been vaccinated with any of the Covid vaccines, your probability or possibility of having a strong negative response to exposure to any version of
Covid 19 is greatly reduced. That is why we have developed vaccines and why we are attempting to get people to take them to reduce their chances of dying or being significantly compromised such that they are in need of ICU facilities.

Pommer · Jan 14, 2022

Irkle Berserkle said:
Thanks. I'm certainly hoping it was correct, but I don't know or have any great confidence that it was. If the vaccine had been J&J rather than Moderna, I'd be feeling more unsure. I really couldn't argue with my wife when she refused to get the booster.

Relative to the point in the OP, I generally do "follow the science" on issues where there is a scientific consensus. My point here is that the more I've learned the more iffy the science seems right across the board - the nature and risks of the disease, the efficacy and risks of the vaccines, and the efficacy and risks of other measures. I don't expect miracles from the flu shot I got a month ago, but I certainly don't have the same level of concern either. I don't think getting the COVID vaccine is a no-brainer or that those who refuse are all wackos; either way, it's a calculated and hopefully well-informed risk.

Thank you. This is a well-balanced, considered opinion. Clear and concise, and I probably like it so much because it’s pretty darned close to my own, though I do tend to think the unvaxxed are the “incorrect” ones (this time).

Another bug going around in 2032 and I might opt out, assuming I guessed right this time and got vaxxed and boosted and survive ‘til then!

My own rubric (that I violate more oft than needs be) is to generally read vaccine/COVID threads, but for the most part decline to participate, (which is also my “abortion thread” strategy); the battle lines are drawn and both sides will “fight-the-good-fight” and not a single mind will change, (is it worth the effort?, usually “no”).

Thank you again for a delightful post!

‘Trust the Science’ Does Not Convince Those Who Most Need to be Convinced

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wise old man

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Active Member

Active Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Can you tell a green field from a cold steel rail?

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Similar threads