Why Vaccinations Shouldn't be Optional

[ananda]

The difference, off course, is that the data concerning vaccination is properly documented and scientific. And if for some reason you assume a world-wide conspiracy, there really isn't anything really stopping you from setting up experiments yourself. It might be dificult to do in terms of logistics and budget - sure. But, given you have a solution for those two obstacles, you could easily check it out for yourself.

As for the bible... very different story. That's anecdotal hearsay. And not even all the money and resources in the world, would be enough to verify any of it. Because it can't be done.

This is the difference between science / evidence and religion.

I just explained how that isn't correct.

"Documented and scientific" is irrelevant, when I speak of direct experience. E.g. I have no direct experience regarding Jesus' death/resurrection (I didn't see that event for myself, it's hearsay). Or, I have no direct experience regarding vaccine findings (I didn't witness those alleged "scientific" experiments for myself, they're hearsay).

 

[GeorgeJ]

 

[ananda]

Good, so that scepticism is not restricted to vaccines. You have sufficient reason for them to exist, you use things that make use of these. Have you not seen the decline of polio, and eradication of smallpox in India?

No, I have not seen for myself the decline of polio, or the eradication of smallpox in India. It is hearsay, and though I might believe it, I have no direct knowledge of those things.

Also, do you "believe" that I do not exist, do you "believe" that the internet and all abstract nouns like friendship, love, etc exist?

I know these things exist in the sense that I've directly experienced what I call the "internet", "friendship", "love", etc.

 

[GeorgeJ]

No, I have not seen for myself the decline of polio, or the eradication of smallpox in India. It is hearsay, and though I might believe it, I have no direct knowledge of those things.

You confuse "hearsay" with well documented facts.

 

[ananda]

You confuse "hearsay" with well documented facts.

I disagree:

• Christians would claim that the Bible contains "well documented facts".
• Muslims would claim that the Koran contains "well documented facts".
• Jews would claim that the Torah contains "well documented facts".

I have no direct knowledge of any of the claims made in the Bible, Koran, or Torah (I cannot and have not directly observed their deit(ies), miracles, etc.) Therefore, all these things are all hearsay - for me.

• Likewise, many scientists claim that their Scientific Papers contains "well documented facts".

I also have no direct knowledge of any of the claims made in those Scientific Papers (I cannot and have not directly observed their tests, results, etc.) Therefore, these things are also hearsay - for me.

Though I may believe something based on the evidence of all these things I've seen for myself, I do not confuse that with direct knowledge.

 

[Skreeper]

Who gets to decide when a "source is reliable"? Christians would claim that their source (Bible) is reliable.

A source is reliable when the results and findings line up with reality.

If everyone gets to decide whats reliable for themselves then flat earthers and anti-evolutionists would be justified in denying reality.

 

[ananda]

A source is reliable when the results and findings line up with reality.

If everyone gets to decide whats reliable for themselves then flat earthers and anti-evolutionists would be justified in denying reality.

I accept that you have your own experience with reality based on the data you have directly observed for yourself, and so you come to conclusions as to what sources are reliable for you.

Likewise, other people have different experiences with reality based on data they have directly observed for themselves, and so they often come to different conclusions as to what sources are reliable for them.

 

[Skreeper]

I accept that you have your own experience with reality based on the data you have directly observed for yourself, and so you come to conclusions as to what sources are reliable for you.

Likewise, other people have different experiences with reality based on data they have directly observed for themselves, and so they often come to different conclusions as to what sources are reliable for them.

Our own experiences can be misleading and downright wrong. The senses can be quite untrustworthy that's why we rely on others to confirm our experiences so we can be certain that what we experience is actually true.

It would be foolish only to rely on your own senses.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

No, I have not seen for myself the decline of polio, or the eradication of smallpox in India. It is hearsay, and though I might believe it, I have no direct knowledge of those things.

Well, be my guest and become a scientist and study the effect of a vaccine. Otherwise, if you refuse to "believe" in its effectiveness and refuse to examine for yourselves, it really smells of ignorance. Wait, it is ignorance.

I know these things exist in the sense that I've directly experienced what I call the "internet", "friendship", "love", etc.

Maybe you "believe" that you have experienced friendship? Have you SEEN it?

 

[ananda]

Our own experiences can be misleading and downright wrong. The senses can be quite untrustworthy that's why we rely on others to confirm our experiences so we can be certain that what we experience is actually true.

It would be foolish only to rely on your own senses.

How do you personally decide on whom to trust to confirm your experiences?

 

[ananda]

Maybe you "believe" that you have experienced friendship? Have you SEEN it?

Yes, I have seen what I define as "friendship" with my own eyes.

 

[Skreeper]

How do you personally decide on whom to trust to confirm your experiences?

I ask my all-seeing glass ball of course...

Your type of skepticism seems really tiring. Don't you trust anybody other than yourself?

 

[Jjmcubbin]

Yes, I have seen what I define as "friendship" with my own eyes.

...... Ok
Now, if you could please respond to the first part.

 

[keith99]

I disagree:

• Christians would claim that the Bible contains "well documented facts".
• Muslims would claim that the Koran contains "well documented facts".
• Jews would claim that the Torah contains "well documented facts".

I have no direct knowledge of any of the claims made in the Bible, Koran, or Torah (I cannot and have not directly observed their deit(ies), miracles, etc.) Therefore, all these things are all hearsay - for me.

• Likewise, many scientists claim that their Scientific Papers contains "well documented facts".

I also have no direct knowledge of any of the claims made in those Scientific Papers (I cannot and have not directly observed their tests, results, etc.) Therefore, these things are also hearsay - for me.

Though I may believe something based on the evidence of all these things I've seen for myself, I do not confuse that with direct knowledge.

Hearsay is NOT everything you have not personally seen. It is the passing on of something someone else told the person who is telling it to you.

A scientific paper is direct testimony, not hearsay.
My claim that my Minnie Royal is starting to leaf out is not hearsay.

Both are direct testimony.

 

[Jjmcubbin]

I ask my all-seeing glass ball of course...

Your type of skepticism seems really tiring. Don't you trust anybody other than yourself?

It really does. I'm almost sure that s/he is a troll.

 

[ananda]

I ask my all-seeing glass ball of course...

Your type of skepticism seems really tiring. Don't you trust anybody other than yourself?

Yes, and then there are degrees of trust. Based on my personal experiences, I may trust some whom you do not trust, and vice versa.

 

[ananda]

...... Ok
Now, if you could please respond to the first part.

I believe I have experienced "friendship" as I define it, but I also know that I have directly experienced that "friendship" too.

 

[ananda]

Hearsay is NOT everything you have not personally seen. It is the passing on of something someone else told the person who is telling it to you.

A scientific paper is direct testimony, not hearsay.
My claim that my Minnie Royal is starting to leaf out is not hearsay.

Both are direct testimony.

Hearsay is defined here as "Unverified information heard or received from another" and "evidence based on the reports of others rather than on personal knowledge".

I have not personally seen (verified) your Minnie Royal, so it is hearsay for me, even though it may be direct knowledge for you.

Your claims via "direct testimony" still remains hearsay for me, at least until I verify it for myself. The claims via the "Bible" still remains hearsay for me, at least until I verify it for myself. The claims of "scientific papers" also remains hearsay for me, at least until I verify them for myself.

Let's not confuse "direct testimony" with "direct knowledge". Anyone can directly testify something to me, but that doesn't make it my direct knowledge (something I know directly & for myself).

 

[ananda]

It really does. I'm almost sure that s/he is a troll.

Ad hominem much?

 

[GeorgeJ]

...so unless you were there and actually witnessed it happen, it's all hearsay....gotcha.......