Quote:
Originally Posted by javadog
That maybe so but I suggest you don’t call me a liar.
|
I'm not calling you a liar I'm calling those other people you're listening to liars. It's a grift, they can poo-poo the vaccine and get more ad revenue to their site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by john70t
I see that article back-pedaling and trying to "re-explain" the authors findings by the presiding powers. Oh and like posters here they emphasize the need to "combat misinformation on the internet by conspiracy theorists". That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me. More like the accusers of Copernicus. The scientific method should put all the information on the table and allow all the different interpretations equally. And that is not happening.
|
It is happening, though, it's just that one side is losing badly because the data is not in their favor and instead of going "okay yeah maybe the vaccines are good" they've realized they can show the same poor information to uneducated internet readers and generate ad revenue and get invited onto right-wing TV programs.
I would also point out that the scientific method does not require that all information be put on the table for
everyone to review*, but rather those people who have the necessary background to properly understand it. Improper data, which can be quickly proven inaccurate and misleading, can still cause an uproar once released to the uninformed public. It sounds ****ty to say it like that but when I say "uninformed public" I mean it in the most direct way--just look at what happened with vaccines and autism. One bad, actually fraudulent study that was never corroborated caused an international uproar.
*Well the information is always out there for anyone to access, but quantum physicists across the world are not waiting for Joe Blow with no formal education to chime in on his experiment with light bulbs.