Follow

One common feature of various anti-science ideologies is that their adherents lack a sense of scale. don't understand distance, don't understand time, change don't understand levels of emissions or rate of temperature change, don't understand population morbidity and mortality. Probably other types of looniness with which I'm less familiar have the same underlying problem.

In a way I sympathize with this, because the numbers are so far outside normal human experience. But learn the and suddenly everything makes a lot more sense. We're not talking about anything particularly advanced. Just grasp that intution breaks down when measuring something very large or very small.

I've received a lot of comments on this post, in various locations, to the effect of "don't bother, you're never going to convince these people anyway." So this is a copy-and-paste reply. My apologies for the impersonality, and please don't take this as a lack of interest in discussing the finer points of the issue.

Absolutely, there are many people who will never be convinced. I think there are, more or less, three types of people who hold / / etc. positions, and two of them are hopeless cases. But the third is a different story.

1. Hardcore believers. For , this usually boils down to "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." The others are more complicated, although there's often a religious element there too: e.g. "we're made in the image of God so are blasphemy" (they never seem to object to wearing glasses, though) or "the Earth is a divine creation and we mere humans could never change the ." Once they make their beliefs clear, the best thing to do is walk away. No one in that debate is going to change anyone else's mind.

2. Propagandists. They may or may not believe what they're claiming, but they think they can gain some political advantage by doing so. "If you don't want telling your kids they come from , elect me to the school board!" That kind of thing. You're not going to change their minds either—especially since the is often horrible effective—but it may be worth countering it to try to persuade the people they're trying to recruit.

3. People who just don't know any better. Members of the first two groups, particularly #2, are much more sophisticated than they used to be, and a lot of their propaganda is very slick and superficially convincing. So a lot of people with little (or *bad* science education: that's a separate post or ten) fall for it. The longer they believe it, the more resistant they get to alternatives—they can slide into #1 very easily. But if you can catch them at a critical moment, you can *sometimes* bring them around.

I know this is possible, because I've done it. Not often, and less often lately, with the hardening of political identities and the ever-stronger association of profoundly anti-scientific views with one political identity in particular. But it still happens now and then.

Of course if you assume everyone is in group #3, you'll waste a *lot* of time and energy on 1s and 2s. It's really dispiriting to put effort into a clear, simple explanation presented with tolerance and good humor, only to be met with dismissal or mockery or baffled rage. Telling the difference is a survival skill, and a tough one to learn.

No one should feel obligated to tackle every case they encounter, or even most cases. That's a game for the very young, and if you play too much of it you'll get old before your time. (Trust me on this.) But *when you can* ... well, sometimes you win. Those small victories feel pretty good. I have to believe they still matter.

@medigoth I think related is that we humans seem to think in terms of linear growth, not exponential. We just don't instinctively get exponential growth

@johnallsopp @medigoth I think as babies our innate number sense is supposed to be logarithmic, and we unlearn that as we get older

@medigoth Math and statistics can be hard. You are probably more knowledgeable than me in statistics. I have been struggling to find faults in the analysis of this data. Can you spot anything in the data or analysis that weakens or invalidates the conclusions? kirschsubstack.com/p/data-from

@Bernard @medigoth
A few quick things to note about this guy's "analysis"
1) Does he share the raw data including the dates of death, age, any other comorbidity, which vaccine version/dose, etc?
2) How representative is the data (e.g. Is Medicare really a source for vaccine administration?)
3) His analysis seems overly simplistic. Did he conduct regression analysis with a model that includes multiple covariates. Just counting excess mortality is what a high school stats student would use.

@ForeverExpat @medigoth
1. Yes all the raw data including the leaked ~4M records from NZ ministry of health is available there. It includes those dates, ages, batches and more.
2. The most representative is the NZ data.
3. Yes it includes multiple covariates.

I would be very interested if you can find anything that weakens or invalidates the conclusions.

@Bernard @medigoth There are epidemiologists with advanced statistical degrees who do this full time. The red flag for me is: Extraordinary claims - ie. a worldwide conspiracy of countries' epidemiologists purposely downplayed stats on vaccine caused deaths - require Extraordinary Proof. This guy downloaded excel files and created ppts to feed his biased audience. I find it unbelievable that 1000s of people from dozens of different countries remain silent despite such "obvious" findings.

@andynormancx
This focuses on how the data is incomplete and noisy. Data to be analyzed is usually imperfect, but that does not invalidate the conclusions. Would be good if governments would release more, but it is a statistically significant set.

The piece also claims flawed methodology, but I couldn't find where they showed that it was flawed enough to invalidate.

The comparisons to other studies was helpful.

Whoever wrote this should take up Kirsch's offer to publicly debate.

@medigoth

@Bernard @medigoth I rarely seen anything useful come out of such a “debate”

@andynormancx If debate was not useful, we would not be talking here.

I find it unusual that no author is listed on the piece you referenced.

@medigoth

@Bernard @medigoth the name is at the bottom of the article and this page explains that their editors are their authors science.feedback.org/about/

@andynormancx
That is the editor. An editor is still different from an author.

This site is one of many fact checker sites funded by globalist institutions to promote vaccines and help censor information contrary:

"Health Feedback is a member of the World Health Organization’s Vaccine Safety Net, a network of websites that provide reliable information on vaccine safety."

We must fact check the fact checkers. Here is an example: sott.net/article/439390-Fact-C

@medigoth

@Bernard @medigoth editor can mean many different things in practice, which is why I linked to the page where they explain what they mean by editor “Our reviews are written by editors who are scientists or science journalists and abide by strict editorial standards.”

Sounds an awful lot like an author to me.

Your fact checking site appears to be a bunch of anti-science conspiracy theory nonsense.

But it seems you have a settled opinion on all of this, I’ll bow out of this debate thanks.

@andynormancx
I change my views and positions whenever new evidence, testing, and debate reveals previous conclusions to be invalid. This is the scientific method. Skeptical questioning is fundamental to science. 'The' science we are not allowed to question is just authoritarianism and not science.

@medigoth

@medigoth I'd be more sympathetic if the adherents of various anti-science factions cared to learn at all. Their delusion - especially among the more politically inclined of them - seems willful, rather than mere ignorance which might be mitigated by exposure to the right information.

@medigoth There's a related issue that too many people don't understand probability. I feel like it's one of the most important things that should be taught in schools.

The lack of understanding of probability was painfully clear at the start of the permademic, and has continued following the introduction of COVID vaccines.

@medigoth so the future of the planet is determined by how well my monkey brothers do math? Fuck.

@medigoth

I find David MacKay an invaluable tool in introducing quantitative thinking:

https://www.withouthotair.com

@medigoth Moon conspiracy people have absolutely no concept of how most of the space numbers work out, either (which, to be fair, is -very- strange and counter-intuitive, when you start trying to grasp the distances between things).

@medigoth @woody So basically, humanity is so huge that humans can’t apprehend it?

@alarig @medigoth

Billions of people? How many people can conceive of a billion in any useful way?

@woody @medigoth Billionaires, but useful means something different for them

@medigoth A couple of years back I had to explain to a cheeky little kid why face masks are still useful even though one can smell a fart through them. I did a quick back-of-an-envelope calculation and worked out that a virus is about a billion times larger than a fart (i.e. hydrogen sulphide) molecule.

@medigoth The current Powerball Jackpot in the USA is ~$700M. So at least they contribute to the ecoomy.

@medigoth

I believe there is another common feature to these: ideology. To some extent they all start with the idea that either humans are special or protected by god, take your pick. After that confirmation bias is easy when "every day" observations don't easily reveal the numbers you point out.

If you already assume the earth is flat (from the bible?) it is pretty easy to not see the reality given the scales we deal with in everyday life.

@medigoth folks who believe in miracles don't understand statistics.

@medigoth one recurring thing I saw with anti-vaxxers especially is treating all small numbers the same. When comparing the risks of vaccines vs the risk of contracting a disease and dying from it, they would act like .1% is the same thing as .0001% (not the actual numbers obviously but it was something like that).

@medigoth I think if you changed out 'don't understand' and made it 'choose not to understand' it would be as true.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.