I'm sure that any Republican would give the same fair shake to a pandemic inquiry that they gave to an inquiry into Iraq's nuclear program 20 years ago.
A really fair pandemic inquiry into the efficacy of lockdowns and masks and vaccines would compare different polities with different polices, and see if the restrictions correlate to deat…
I'm sure that any Republican would give the same fair shake to a pandemic inquiry that they gave to an inquiry into Iraq's nuclear program 20 years ago.
A really fair pandemic inquiry into the efficacy of lockdowns and masks and vaccines would compare different polities with different polices, and see if the restrictions correlate to death rate at the end.
The reference to this opinion is reasonable and person without deep knowledge on the topic should respect that opinion when most of the experts in the field have an agreed consensus on the matter.
If another expert disagrees with such opinion he would be probably wrong, If non-expert disagrees then he would be certainly wrong. We should take into account that scientific knowledge is evolving and improving.
Another aspect - it’s best to trust not the opinions but the facts. A bright person is distinguished not by what he believes, but how and why he believes it. His faith is built on experience and therefore not dogmatic; it is based on evidence, not authority or intuition.
Additional requirement to the expert is to be independent. The government can not reference the ministry official, they should do the scientist or other opinions leader.
================
By these standards, Neal is appealing to "legitimate" authority, the "I'm a cardiologist" guys are not.
I think you're entirely right. I 100% expect that a real, thorough inquiry — one that hears from both the credentialed cardiologist with zero insight into epidemiology, and from the respected virologists who actually understand pandemic response — will make quick work of the "herd immunity" and hydroxychloroquine crew. I think the bulk of the work will focus on what style of lockdown, or what shape of mandates, are really the most effective.
So I'm really arguing, here, for an incidental benefit: A chance to get these frustrated and alienated folks to the table.
But the core benefit of such an inquiry, of course, is to figure out how we deal with the next pandemic.
Yeah, we have to bring them to the table, we're all stuck on the same planet.
But, #$@#%()#)(#$)(#$*%, do we ever need logic, fallacies, How We Know What We Know, and all that, to become a school subject like math and English. Nobody even gets taught how to spot a phone-scam, much less how to spot bullshit herbal medicine; valuable skills when there's no pandemic.
I'm sure that any Republican would give the same fair shake to a pandemic inquiry that they gave to an inquiry into Iraq's nuclear program 20 years ago.
A really fair pandemic inquiry into the efficacy of lockdowns and masks and vaccines would compare different polities with different polices, and see if the restrictions correlate to death rate at the end.
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/19/1098543849/pro-trump-counties-continue-to-suffer-far-higher-covid-death-tolls ... note graph at the bottom. Death on the Y, your politics on the X.
Or, just at extremes, 5400 in BC died of COVID (so far). If we'd been Floridians, an additional 15,000 would lie in their graves.
The numbers are just slap-in-your-face obvious when you compare different places.
The discussion at this site could have been made for the question of who is really making the logical mistake of "Appeal to Authority":
https://www.logical-fallacy.com/articles/appeal-to-authority/
==================
Legitimate Reference to Authority
The reference to this opinion is reasonable and person without deep knowledge on the topic should respect that opinion when most of the experts in the field have an agreed consensus on the matter.
If another expert disagrees with such opinion he would be probably wrong, If non-expert disagrees then he would be certainly wrong. We should take into account that scientific knowledge is evolving and improving.
Another aspect - it’s best to trust not the opinions but the facts. A bright person is distinguished not by what he believes, but how and why he believes it. His faith is built on experience and therefore not dogmatic; it is based on evidence, not authority or intuition.
Additional requirement to the expert is to be independent. The government can not reference the ministry official, they should do the scientist or other opinions leader.
================
By these standards, Neal is appealing to "legitimate" authority, the "I'm a cardiologist" guys are not.
I think you're entirely right. I 100% expect that a real, thorough inquiry — one that hears from both the credentialed cardiologist with zero insight into epidemiology, and from the respected virologists who actually understand pandemic response — will make quick work of the "herd immunity" and hydroxychloroquine crew. I think the bulk of the work will focus on what style of lockdown, or what shape of mandates, are really the most effective.
So I'm really arguing, here, for an incidental benefit: A chance to get these frustrated and alienated folks to the table.
But the core benefit of such an inquiry, of course, is to figure out how we deal with the next pandemic.
<shoulders slump>
Yeah, we have to bring them to the table, we're all stuck on the same planet.
But, #$@#%()#)(#$)(#$*%, do we ever need logic, fallacies, How We Know What We Know, and all that, to become a school subject like math and English. Nobody even gets taught how to spot a phone-scam, much less how to spot bullshit herbal medicine; valuable skills when there's no pandemic.