You Know I'm Chat Thread

[ilikeplanets]

Back home from an ER visit with my oldest kid. Stupid croup. She's fine now but is literally a 5 year old on steroids and that's quite the experience.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by ovary

i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth.

2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts.

3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier.

4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them.

so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries.

and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

I'm not high enough for most of this rn (not an insult) but I want to clarify one thing. Science doesn't just change its answers. It refines its answers. For example, it might sound really stupid that not that long ago many people thought the Sun went around the Earth, but that was much closer to the truth than not even accepting Earth was moving, or thinking Earth wasn't a planet at all.

[reprise85]

Although I'm not clear if you believe that the earth goes around the sun, really, after that

[topleybird]

Originally Posted by ovary

i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

I think your four broad points here are worth considering, and are all things I've thought about, but I also think you need to, like, stop considering them at some point just to get through life. I could make very similar, and true, statements about the automobile industry, but at some point I need to drive to the store, you know?

Originally Posted by ovary

i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand […] but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

[ilikeplanets]

I hope you vaccinate your baby, ovary.

[vixnix]

I vaccinated my kids but not because I believe the scientific method produces reliable results. I don’t understand a lot of science relevant to immunology, epidemiology, vaccines etc. so I can’t make up my own mind about whether vaccinating my kids is a good idea. It requires specialist knowledge I don’t have.

I vaccinate because those who are specialists in those areas seem in agreement that vaccination is worthwhile.

So I vaccinate - but I have never have strong enough opinions about vaccinating that I would enter into an argument about it.

[duovamp]

Originally Posted by yo soy el mejor

He seems like a treasure.

[vixnix]

There were specialists in the last 100 years who were agreed that the best position for a woman to give birth was on her back with her legs up in stirrups. We know that’s wrong now. And specialists who believed prefrontal lobotomies were an effective psychiatric treatment - we know that’s not true.

So, I’m open to the possibility that the specialists I place trust in are also wrong. I don’t trust them because I think they’re definitely right. I just don’t have any better options (and I guess the parents who trusted specialists to give their kids prefrontal lobotomies were the same).

There’s a lot of talk now about the ineffectiveness of SSRIs - for the last 20 years people have trusted medical professionals in taking these.

So I can appreciate ovary’s lack of confidence, I tend to share it. It’s just that trusting the experts often seems like the best option despite the strong possibility their advice will change in a few decades

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by vixnix

I vaccinated my kids but not because I believe the scientific method produces reliable results. I don’t understand a lot of science relevant to immunology, epidemiology, vaccines etc. so I can’t make up my own mind about whether vaccinating my kids is a good idea. It requires specialist knowledge I don’t have.

I vaccinate because those who are specialists in those areas seem in agreement that vaccination is worthwhile.

So I vaccinate - but I have never have strong enough opinions about vaccinating that I would enter into an argument about it.

Well, the eradication of diseases sure seems like proof to me

[vixnix]

Though vaccination I didn’t spend much time thinking about.

When one of my kids started having seizures I thought a lot more about specialist advice. There’s a lot about epilepsy that nobody understands. And two specialists can disagree about diagnoses and treatment (this was the case for us). So maybe I’ve spent more time agonising over trusting the experts.

Actually, the first expert we spoke to (a paediatrician) didn’t believe me about the seizures. I had to argue with him to get a referral to a neurologist for an EEG.

The story of Jill Viles really hit home after that https://www.thisamericanlife.org/577...only-i-can-see

And this story of medical error and negligence was so chilling
https://amp.theguardian.com/lifeands...pital-mistakes

I guess I went to high school with enough people who are now doctors and scientists that I could never be 100% sure of anything. Everyone is human and prone to error or bias

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by vixnix

There’s a lot of talk now about the ineffectiveness of SSRIs - for the last 20 years people have trusted medical professionals in taking these.

I never bought the story about SSRIs, because they never helped my symptoms (anxiety/OCD, not depression) despite being pushed as the "best and most effective treatment" for most common mental health concerns. I've had psychiatrists that would just write me off as non compliant and not work with me upon my refusal to take yet another version of an SSRI. I'm very soured towards therapy and psychiatry because of that, and haven't tried it since my early 20s. Luckily, I'm able to self manage quite well, because those attitudes could definitely alienate someone and wind up harming them. Though from what I hear, therapy and psychiatry have improved greatly since then.

So apparently I feel one way about vaccines and the opposite about mental health care. Am I sciencing right?

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

Well, the eradication of diseases sure seems like proof to me

For polio, definitely. But for pertussis (and meningococcal B in NZ where arguably incidence was waning before the introduction of a new, relatively untested vaccine) it’s less straightforward. I still vaccinate…but the vitriol that was directed at anti-vaxers when there was a pertussis outbreak in NSW 2010-11, when it was not at all clear that unvaccinated children had anything to do with the outbreak…was something I just couldn’t get on board with

[ilikeplanets]

Well it's unvaccinated people that have to do with the outbreaks. No one here gets chicken pox anymore, I saw that change in my lifetime.

[redbreegull]

Are your kids being indoctrinated by the Cult of Free Will?

It's time to have the talk.

Speak to your kids about determinism today.

[vixnix]

I think that’s true for many communicable diseases, I’m just not sure it’s universally true. I agree with you about chicken pox. My kids caught it when they were 3 and 9 months and my older kid still has a small scar near his nose because of it. It wasn’t on the schedule when we left NZ, and in Australia the first dose was given at 12 months, at that stage. So they were both unvaccinated. If I could do it over, i would have paid out of pocket in NZ to have my older son vaccinated.

But in the case of pertussis in NSW, it appeared to be a vaccine efficacy/longevity issue, because immunity wore off relatively quickly. But anti-vax parents were still abused and blamed even though it wasn’t clear their choices made any difference to the outbreak.

It was similar with the newly developed MeNZB (tm) vaccine in New Zealand. I wasn’t sure the vaccine was responsible for reducing incidence of meningococcal B, but I vaccinated anyway. But didn’t find it easy to stomach the insults and abuse that parents faced when they declined it for their kids.

Anti-anti-vax sentiment just has a bit of a witch hunt/scapegoat vibe to me.

[ilikeplanets]

I do understand vaccine hesitance with regards to specific new vaccines. But I have no patience for those choosing to refuse highly effective and safe childhood vaccines, and can't tolerate how it's not just about "vaccine hesitance" but becomes a whole conspiracy theory lifestyle, buy my essential oils to cure cancer big pharma lies.

[redbreegull]

There are very few people with truly reasonable and legitimate vaccination objections. And I've never met a hardcore vaxxer who didn't know that there are literally some people who cannot safely be vaccinated and respect that.

But if you choose not to vaccinate against the incredible amount of scientific evidence because of personal feelings, that's both illogical and disrespectful to everyone else's choices around you because you are putting them in increased danger. You get vaccines the same reason you shouldn't drive 120 miles an hour on the highway. It's not just for you and your family.

Specific cases and nuances exist always, but I don't see any kind of witch-hunt against vaccine hesitancy. If we are identifying cognitive biases, it's much easier to discern the antisocial and narcissistic patterns in antivaxxer thought.

[ilikeplanets]

Originally Posted by redbreegull

But if you choose not to vaccinate against the incredible amount of scientific evidence because of personal feelings, that's both illogical and disrespectful to everyone else's choices around you because you are putting them in increased danger. You get vaccines the same reason you shouldn't drive 120 miles an hour on the highway. It's not just for you and your family.

This is a HUGE component of my ire about it. I don't want your kids bringing the fucking measles into my space because you're willfully wrong about what causes autism.

[ilikeplanets]

Nothing more rage inducing to me than an anti masker, either. There's literally no risk to you, you're just trying to be SpEcIaL and contrary. I'm not a sheep for wanting to prevent the spreading of dangerous diseases

[duovamp]

People who don't understand vaccines are people who don't understand statistics. There's always a Gaussian distribution for outcomes of any individual who received a vaccine. Idiots like to point to outliers and act like that's the rule. It's especially hard to teach large numbers of people how statistically they benefit from doing things. Plus there's the problem where individuals act extremely selfishly - WELL IF EVERYBODY ELSE GETS ONE I DON'T NEED ONE - which is a race to the bottom.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by duovamp

People who don't understand vaccines are people who don't understand statistics. There's always a Gaussian distribution for outcomes of any individual who received a vaccine. Idiots like to point to outliers and act like that's the rule.

yes. it's as stupid as pointing to instances in which seatbelts have killed or maimed people instead of saving them

[ilikeplanets]

My own father is so right wing that he hates seat belt laws and says he sees "Hillary Clinton's smug face" every time he buckles up. Uh, yikes.I have never heard of anyone else hating seat belts, but of course they do!

[ilikeplanets]

DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO WITH MY BODY, UNLESS I'M PREGNANT

[redbreegull]

Have you seen that viral news clip from the 80s with Californians freaking out about communism because dui and seatbelt laws?

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by ovary

i do have some general and significant concerns with science as an epistemological method:

1. results and consensus is constantly changing. this is an intrinsic feature of science, and in some ways/instances one of its strengths. *but* it makes it difficult to trust "the current science" as a metric for truth.

2. scientific knowledge is so specialized and bureaucratized, it is difficult to translate the actual scientific consensus into terms laypeople can understand and discuss. genes, for instance, are so complex that it is really impossible for us on this board to have any kind of discussion about them at all that really relates to or reflects "the current science." we are discussing a dumbed-down version that is not accurate, but that dumbed-down version is all we have access to. this makes regular people forced to "trust" the experts. i don't trust the experts.

3. because scientific research is corrupt. this happens in blatant ways, such as the food companies' infiltration of agricultural, medical, and nutritional science, or the fact that the federal government controls most grant funding. but there are also more banal forms of corruption, such as the "publish or perish" mentality forcing individuals and labs to make sexy claims and find significant results if they want to make career progress. and there's also a lot of groupthink and social pressure to both work on certain areas and find certain results. the groupthink is exacerbated by the intense specialization and bureaucratization i mentioned earlier.

4. scientific knowledge is based philosophically in empiricism, or an assumption that the sensory devices of human beings are our best access to the truth of reality. we are now able to extend our sensory experience through technology like x-rays and telescopes and carbon dating and whatever else. i do not trust that the human senses are an accurate depiction of reality. even if i were to concede that, i think it is obvious that the human sensory experience is extremely limited and distorted. i do not trust that what we see is what is actually happening. you might say "well, the senses are all we have, so we have to trust them." yes, i agree, and i do trust that they are good enough to get along okay here on planet earth, but i think there is a lot more out there. specifically, i think that we can access to non-empirical forms of truth through imagination, theological revelation and reflection, and emotion. science has no framework to explore these apprehensions of reality, and so ignores them and often actively discounts them.

so, my issue with genes kind of fires off on all these fronts. first off, i am absolutely unable to access the scientific consensus itself without years of study that i have no interest in pursuing. i'm not going to profess belief in something i can't even begin to understand. second, scientific consensus is changing, and what i'd be studying/reading about now will likely disproven later anyway, *especially* in such a new and complex field like genetics. third, i will not put uninformed trust in "experts" because of the ways all scientific knowledge is corrupt. in the case of genetics research, i assume it's largely tied up in the interests of the pharmaceutical industries.

and finally, philosophically, what are the questions that "genetics science" can answer for me? why i look like my father? why i am an alcoholic? why i am struck with certain illnesses at certain times? there are scientific answers to those questions that involve "genes," but there are also emotional answers, imaginative answers, and theological answers. the latter are generally more useful and interesting to me.

Ovary explaining how science is useless

[MyOneAndOnly]

I don't have a thorough knowledge of the science behind the Tacoma Narrows bridge, but I trust that it's sound when I drive my science based car across it.

[MyOneAndOnly]

It's very possible to be a spiritual or religious person AND accept science as valid. Millions... if not billions of people do so

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by ilikeplanets

This is a HUGE component of my ire about it. I don't want your kids bringing the fucking measles into my space because you're willfully wrong about what causes autism.

Has there been a measles outbreak that risked affecting your kids, or is your ire directed at a hypothetical outbreak?

There was a measles outbreak in my mother’s home country of Samoa in 2019. The vaccination rate had dropped - vaccine hesitancy was caused by (among other things) two babies dying in 2018 from incorrectly prepared doses of MMR. The vaccination rate (first dose of MMR at 1 year) had been 91% in 2013 and dropped to 31% right before the outbreak.

Back in the 1980s my mum vaccinated us but a lot of her Samoan relatives didn’t vaccinate their kids. It’s true they didn’t understand statistics - most of them had never studied it and they were brought to New Zealand for factory jobs that didn’t require them to learn anything academic when they arrived. They had also been the target of political ads scapegoating them for the woes of stagflation in the 1970s, had been subject to dawn raids to locate overstayers, experienced racism in the workplace, in stores, and yes - at the Dr’s office and hospitals etc.

I think middle class parents who have had every opportunity to furnish themselves with knowledge and choose to be ignorant are annoying in many respects - not just about vaccination, but also with regards to education policy, ownership of combustion engines and use, single use plastic, fast fashion, food production, etc.

But vaccine hesitancy includes a larger group than this privileged group. So if you spray hate generally in that direction you’re also targeting people who haven’t had the same opportunities as you to learn the necessary facts and processes in science and statistics to help you process information about vaccines, and people who haven’t had the same experience as you building trust in Dr.’s offices and healthcare services generally, because they’ve received a different level of service to you, caused by the biases and shortfalls of the professional healthcare workforce.

My Dad worked in scientific research institutes most of my childhood so I grew up surrounded by it and was good at it, at school. But I still do not get the emotion that people feel about a lack of education that causes people to make difference decisions to them. My emotional response is sadness and curiosity. But I guess that’s because I most often come across vaccine hesitancy in good people who have been good and kind to me, and who are interested in doing the best thing for their family and community but just have a totally different idea about what that involves

[vixnix]

Duo, MOAO, ilp and rbg are all white or white passing, and have college degrees. And you’re all angry at my brown cousins who experienced racism in classrooms with few brown teachers, so who dropped out early and got jobs in retail and manufacturing to support their parents on similar low incomes. I dunno it just feels a bit like punching down

[vixnix]

Like I get you being angry at people like you (white, College educated) being wilfully dumb about vaccines. I just wish you would specify that rather than doing this blanket hate thing