Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.
But you do have to be anti science to reject the ToE.My mistake. Actually, when I was talking about testimony and memoirs, I was talking about actual history and not historical science. I admit that did go a bit off-tangent there, but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present, and as a result its claims cannot be tested, verified or falsified in the same way a chemical analysis can. It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.
My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.
I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.
My mistake. Actually, when I was talking about testimony and memoirs, I was talking about actual history and not historical science. I admit that did go a bit off-tangent there, but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present, and as a result its claims cannot be tested, verified or falsified in the same way a chemical analysis can. It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.
My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.
I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.
The deadly consequence's started with people's behavior long before there were any vaccines. This is the 3rd strain of coronavirus to create a pandemic. SARS in 2002-2003 and MERS in 2012.
This is the first time we considered a Vaccine to be of value through other outbreaks were far more lethal. You can't just blame antivaxers for not jumping in the pool all of a sudden. Perhaps some people don't trust "Trump's vaccine".What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
This is the first time we considered a Vaccine to be of value through other outbreaks were far more lethal. You can't just blame antivaxers for not jumping in the pool all of a sudden. Perhaps some people don't trust "Trump's vaccine".
He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.
Livestream from yesterday from Creation Myths (creationism debunking channel run by evolutionary biologist Dan Cardinale).
The thesis of the stream is the idea that creationist organizations (e.g. professional creationists) have spent decades training their followers to distrust science and science professionals. In the context of evolution-denial, it's theoretically not a big deal. In the context of the current pandemic and vaccines, however, science distrust is causing real harm.
The video specifically shows examples of professional creationists and creationist organizations promoting vaccines, and then proceeding to get into arguments with anti-vax contingents of their own followers.
There is a palpable irony in seeing creationists arguing in favor of science against other creationists arguing against it. At one point, a quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, whereby Sarfati states that anyone thinking that the vaccine is worse than COVID-19 is living in a "magical world". Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "you mean like people who believe the world is only 6000 years old? Those people?"
Dr. Dan does credit these creationists and orgs that at least they are being responsible in promoting the vaccines and trying to save lives. But also laments that a lot of the folks posting vaccine conspiracies and other nonsense are basically just "gone" at this point. Words on the internet are not likely to convince them, even from people they otherwise had trusted.
He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.
When approaching these discussions in online fora, or with my students, my greatest fear is that something I write or say will, because of my approach, encourage behavior that will lead to someone's death.
One voice has little effect on these things.
I will be when I read your evidence from my trusted sources.You'd be surprised. People in leadership roles can have tremendous influence.
That's not your problem. One voice has little effect on these things. It takes about 7 encouraging "touches" to make a difference. You can't overrule somebody's parents and friends.
You'd be surprised. People in leadership roles can have tremendous influence.
Livestream from yesterday from Creation Myths (creationism debunking channel run by evolutionary biologist Dan Cardinale).
The thesis of the stream is the idea that creationist organizations (e.g. professional creationists) have spent decades training their followers to distrust science and science professionals. In the context of evolution-denial, it's theoretically not a big deal. In the context of the current pandemic and vaccines, however, science distrust is causing real harm.
The video specifically shows examples of professional creationists and creationist organizations promoting vaccines, and then proceeding to get into arguments with anti-vax contingents of their own followers.
There is a palpable irony in seeing creationists arguing in favor of science against other creationists arguing against it. At one point, a quote from Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, whereby Sarfati states that anyone thinking that the vaccine is worse than COVID-19 is living in a "magical world". Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "you mean like people who believe the world is only 6000 years old? Those people?"
Dr. Dan does credit these creationists and orgs that at least they are being responsible in promoting the vaccines and trying to save lives. But also laments that a lot of the folks posting vaccine conspiracies and other nonsense are basically just "gone" at this point. Words on the internet are not likely to convince them, even from people they otherwise had trusted.
He ends the video by calling on professional scientists to take more responsibility in debunking anti-science and pseudoscientific views no matter what they are. And that by not doing so, scientists are allowing general mistrust of science and science professionals to foster. Which in the context of anti-vax movements has deadly consequences.
Comparing believers of Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxers is a false equivalence.
Creation Ministries, especially, has always been careful to distinguish operational science and historical science. The study of immunology fall under the latter; the experiments involved in that field are repeatable and reproducible, and therefore the reports on the efficacy of a newly-developed vaccine is easily falsifiable by a different laboratory/research team testing the sample of the vaccine on a sample of the virus strain and see whether or not the product works as advertised (although, of course, in vitro and in vivo experiments may produce different results due to the variety of the human body response in different individuals -- which are in turn affected by a myriad of other factors from genetics to pre-existing health conditions -- and this adds the complexity of verifying any scientific claims, especially when it involves health & wellness).
The evolution vs. creation debate, meanwhile, is a historical science. It is neither repeatable, reproducible nor falsifiable, as we cannot re-create the Big Bang or whatever origin story one believes in, and as a result the proponents of any such theory would rely more assumptions and presuppositions (i.e. faith) in order to reach a conclusion on the narrative. History, after all, are based more on eyewitness accounts, testimonies, written records such as letters and memoirs, rather than actual empirical evidence. And while the origin narrative a person holds can have philosophical implications that might influence the rest of their worldview, it doesn't determine the authenticity of their scientific authority -- just as a programmer doesn't need to know how their computer and the history behind its invention, to be able to create a functioning software.
As for the issue of fostering science distrust, I think it has more to do with the people's general wariness against government bodies, large institutions and media outlets who tend to have something to gain by promoting their version of truth claim (whether or not it actually true) and have the power to get away with the consequences if they are disproven. What they believe about the origins of the universe seems hardly a factor in these issues.
Whether a medicine is "safe" or "effective" is highly situational. If one has cancer, anti cancer drugs are "safe and effective" when compared to the alternative. But a drug useful for one illness is not necessarily safe, and rarely useful, for another illness. Antivaxxers and other science deniers too often use a black and white fallacy assuming that a drug that cures one thing should cure all things. Medicine is much more complicated than that.
And as far as antivaxxers they are not all right wing science deniers, but a large percentage of them are. There are studies that show the Trump counties are suffering much more than the Biden counties. This is not due to services offered but by acceptance of the vaccines.
Speculations? Do you consider recreation of a specific event a requirement in science?...but what I meant is that historical science deals with speculations about events in the past that can't be re-created in the present,
Eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.It's a bit more like forensics, I guess, in that while DNA testing can reveal a lot about a crime scene, to reconstruct the story, the police usually rely on other circumstantial evidences outside of the lab, such as eyewitness testimonies and alibis.
True, yet a very common creationist tactic is to conflate the theory of evolution with abiogenesis, demanding that we must explain how life began in order to assess how it changed later. Anti-science types often append such idiosyncratic and arbitrarily-applied requirements to scientific issues so as to avoid having to admit their ignorance/inability to deal with material they do not like. For example, creationist Paul Nelson used to claim the entire field of molecular phylogenetics moot because we did not also explain what the shared mutations did, which he should have understood is totally irrelevant.My point is that, in scientific practices, you don't really need to know how an object came to be (i.e. its history) to know how it works and use it for various purposes (i.e. its operation). A scientist looking to test the reactivity of elements based on its periodic grouping doesn't have to know how the periodic table is developed, and one's beliefs on the origins of the universe has no bearings on how well they can, say, prepare standard solutions to quantify analytes in a sample.
You do have to be anti-science to think a dichotomy dreamed up by creationists to avoid having to admit they've got nothing to offer scientifically has merit.I'm not going to argue about evolution vs. creation because that's not the point of this thread, but you don't have to be anti-science to reject certain scientific claims.
His memoirs are not evidence. His writings explained his findings, and his theory was premised on his findings. He actually collected a great deal of evidence.From Darwin's travels?
You don't really explain anything, you just assert.See, here's the thing. I explain to you why I don't believe something
Your reasons are vacuous and unfounded. And pretty arbitrary, especially given that I provided evidence that the 'alternative' treatment of the day' is hardly reliable, when advocates of its success rely on fraud and exaggeration.and you want this to be a debate where one of us wins the argument about whether or not the vaccines are worth it. You've got me wrong. I don't need to keep a library of references and links, because I'm not trying to prove anything, unless it is simply that I don't see enough reason to get the vaccine, and I am even generous enough to tell you WHY I don't.
Cool, we agree! But it looks like your fellow super-Christian Mark doesn't... Oh dear...Oh. I've mentioned that the military should be defunded in favor of healthcare development. I'd like to see us pull out of other countries and set up hospitals here for people to get repaired here after we do. For profit and non-profit healthcare, either one.
okYou don't really explain anything, you just assert.
Your reasons are vacuous and unfounded. And pretty arbitrary, especially given that I provided evidence that the 'alternative' treatment of the day' is hardly reliable, when advocates of its success rely on fraud and exaggeration.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?