From the anti-vaxxers to flat earthers: what makes people distrust science?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What is hilarious is the fact you assume your feelings about something is obvious fact.

I agree with his comments. They do not look at all like a Democrat comment (they look more like Donal Trump a couple of months ago saying all three vaccines are safe, effective, and everybody should be vaccinated).

And he is right. It is not enough just to tell science-deniers they are wrong. You have to think of them as children (not that they are unintelligent but that they misplaced information and make unwarranted assumptions/ conclusions).

You did this, in fact. You assumed the article sounded like something from the DNC. You could not help but place it (and anything about the isdue) into a primary political context.

I have said that I belueve the vaccines are statistically safe and effective against covid. I did not go as far as Trump by calling on everybody to get vaccinated (it is not up to me to decide for others). But I have been labeled liberal for being more conservative than Trump.

That does not matter because conspiracy theorists and science-deniers have created their own narrative and cultures which are loose with facts. Heros of such natitives (like Trump) transcent facts. Anybody who challenges the narrative (other than the heroes worshipped by the group) belongs to the opposing entity (whatever that may be).

Since you are a political conspiracy theorists anybody except your heroes that disagrees with you sounds like a Democrat.

Feelings? Assumed? Balderdash. My post did not imply he is from the DNC, merely that he is being fooled by the Dem Progressive Left. Here's a prime example of what he says that makes him sound very much like a Dem parrot:

"There are five tropes of science denial reasoning. Those five were used in the Republican pushback against the Mueller report, in “Stop the Steal,” and the pushback about the January 6 insurrection: cherry-picking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, illogical reasoning, reliance on fake experts, and belief that if your opponent isn’t perfect, then you’re right. That is the strategy used by COVID deniers or evolution deniers. There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

His three examples and general attack against the Republican party might be a good opening to get someone who leans Democrat to listen to whatever he has to say about science, right or wrong. But it is building a wall of hostility against those who don't share that assessment of those political issues, and they have nothing to do with science. An inability to recognize that will simply mean that one will arrive at all manner of wrong conclusions regarding the impasse. Thus your post.

 

[JonC]

Feelings? Assumed? Balderdash. My post did not imply he is from the DNC, merely that he is being fooled by the Dem Progressive Left. Here's a prime example of what he says that makes him sound very much like a Dem parrot:

"There are five tropes of science denial reasoning. Those five were used in the Republican pushback against the Mueller report, in “Stop the Steal,” and the pushback about the January 6 insurrection: cherry-picking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, illogical reasoning, reliance on fake experts, and belief that if your opponent isn’t perfect, then you’re right. That is the strategy used by COVID deniers or evolution deniers. There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

His three examples and general attack against the Republican party might be a good opening to get someone who leans Democrat to listen to whatever he has to say about science, right or wrong. But it is building a wall of hostility against those who don't share that assessment of those political issues, and they have nothing to do with science. An inability to recognize that will simply mean that one will arrive at all manner of wrong conclusions regarding the impasse. Thus your post.

Maybe he was fooled into thinking the vaccine is safe and effective, that those who deny this do so because they reject science in favor of politics, by Donald Trump.

Trump said that those who reject the virus do so because of the DNC, that the vaccine is scientifically sound and proven using the normal scientific methods (that the only thing cut was red tape).

Do you could have just as easily attributed the article to the guy sounding like a Trump supporter.

But you didn't, you chose the DNC. This proves my post correct.

 

[Two Wings]

Donald Trump.

voted for him in 2020.

rejected the cv vaxes.

not political here. Unlike that of our current POTUS/Veep/et al.

At least Trump was never anti-cv jab as the current POTUS/VEEP/ET AL

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Maybe he was fooled into thinking the vaccine is safe and effective, that those who deny this do so because they reject science in favor of politics, by Donald Trump.

Trump said that those who reject the virus do so because of the DNC, that the vaccine is scientifically sound and proven using the normal scientific methods (that the only thing cut was red tape).

Do you could have just as easily attributed the article to the guy sounding like a Trump supporter.

But you didn't, you chose the DNC. This proves my post correct.

That response is so far off base I really must ask, did you even read the quote?

He sums up by saying, "There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

How does that or any other part of the paragraph quoted sound like a Trump supporter? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does he say anything close to any of that about the Democrat party? Nowhere in the article.

Do you really think someone who disagrees with his assessment of those political issues pointed out, which again have nothing to do with science, will be ready to listen to whatever he has to say about science? They almost certainly will not.

His methodology is horrendous. He is just creating a wall of hostility with it, unless he's just trying to reach those who lean Democrat. Or should it be assumed that is his point, almost all science deniers lean Democrat?

 

[JonC]

voted for him in 2020.

rejected the cv vaxes.

not political here. Unlike that of our current POTUS/Veep/et al.

At least Trump was never anti-cv jab as the current POTUS/VEEP/ET AL

Both the sides (GOP and DNC) are all about politics. They have no soul.....no moral compass.

That said, I also voted for Trump (twice). I don't vote now and should not have then - not because of Trump but because I had been wrestling with voting for some time and allowed my politics to overshadow my conscious (I was disobedent).

 

[JonC]

That response is so far off base I really must ask, did you even read the quote?

He sums up by saying, "There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

How does that or any other part of the paragraph quoted sound like a Trump supporter? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does he say anything close to any of that about the Democrat party? Nowhere in the article.

Do you really think someone who disagrees with his assessment of those political issues pointed out, which again have nothing to do with science, will be ready to listen to whatever he has to say about science? They almost certainly will not.

His methodology is horrendous. He is just creating a wall of hostility with it, unless he's just trying to reach those who lean Democrat. Or should it be assumed that is his point, almost all science deniers lean Democrat?

I don't know what the GOP says on the topic. Other than the executive orders I don't know what the DNC says.

I do know that Trump went to great lengths to explain that to reject the vacvines is to reject science, that no sjort cuts were taken with the vaccines, that he was instrumental in providing the vaccines, that the failure of the DNC was in not providing the vaccines in a quick and effective manner, that the DNC is responsible for people not trusting the vacvines, that vacvines are the key to defeating the virus, that all 3 vacvines are safe and effective, and that everybody should be vaccinated as soon as possible.

 

[Two Wings]

Both the sides (GOP and DNC) are all about politics. They have no soul.....no moral compass.

That said, I also voted for Trump (twice). I don't vote now and should not have then - not because of Trump but because I had been wrestling with voting for some time and allowed my politics to overshadow my conscious (I was disobedent).

aye. but only one has switched advocation about the cv jab.

you're right, they have no soul.

After what happened in 2020 ... I think a lot of folks will hang-up their voting booth ... register to maintain the civic duty of jury pool ... but clearly voting matters not.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't know what the GOP says on the topic. Other than the executive orders I don't know what the DNC says.

I do know that Trump went to great lengths to explain that to reject the vacvines is to reject science, that no sjort cuts were taken with the vaccines, that he was instrumental in providing the vaccines, that the failure of the DNC was in not providing the vaccines in a quick and effective manner, that the DNC is responsible for people not trusting the vacvines, that vacvines are the key to defeating the virus, that all 3 vacvines are safe and effective, and that everybody should be vaccinated as soon as possible.

Hmmm. That seems to be a non sequitur, completely ignoring my comments about the author's approach sounding like a Dem parrot.

Again, it's a very bad idea to unnecessarily and ignorantly employ divisive politics when trying to convince someone of what is supposedly good science. If it is, many will probably not find out from him.

 

[JonC]

Hmmm. That seems to be a non sequitur, completely ignoring my comments about the author's approach sounding like a Dem parrot.

Again, it's a very bad idea to unnecessarily and ignorantly employ divisive politics when trying to convince someone of what is supposedly good science. If it is, many will probably not find out from him.

Except the author sounds very much like Donald Trump, who is not anything near a DNC parrot.

This is what I mean. To you anybody who disagrees with you on this topic sounds like the DNC. You prove my point.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Except the author sounds very much like Donald Trump, who is not anything near a DNC parrot.

This is what I mean. To you anybody who disagrees with you on this topic sounds like the DNC. You prove my point.

That's just dead wrong wishful thinking. Your posts haven't proven any point contrary to mine. He sounds like he's parroting Dem politics.

Again, how does that offending paragraph sound like Trump? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does the author say anything similarly derogatory about the Democratic party? Nowhere in that article.

Unless you can answer those questions to the contrary by bona fide argument then you prove nothing.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Except the author sounds very much like Donald Trump, who is not anything near a DNC parrot.

This is what I mean. To you anybody who disagrees with you on this topic sounds like the DNC. You prove my point.

...Also, try explaining precisely how the three examples he cites in the quote have anything to do with science.

 

[JonC]

That's just dead wrong wishful thinking. Your posts haven't proven any point contrary to mine. He sounds like he's parroting Dem politics.

Again, how does that offending paragraph sound like Trump? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does the author say anything similarly derogatory about the Democratic party? Nowhere in that article.

Unless you can answer those questions to the contrary by bona fide argument then you prove nothing.

You don't get it.

I am not saying he does not affirm the DNC view of the vaccinations.

But you cannot deny that he also affirms Trumps view of the vaccines.

That you assign his position to be parroting the DNC proves my point because Trump has said the same things.

Anybody that disagrees with you, on this issue, sounds to you like the DNC.

You prove my initial point.

 

[JonC]

...Also, try explaining precisely how the three examples he cites in the quote have anything to do with science.

He explains that "the autism theory has been debunked several times". Yet anti-vaxers deny the science of vaccines to make unsubstantiated claims.

 

[Reynolds]

You don't get it.

I am not saying he does not affirm the DNC view of the vaccinations.

But you cannot deny that he also affirms Trumps view of the vaccines.

That you assign his position to be parroting the DNC proves my point because Trump has said the same things.

Anybody that disagrees with you, on this issue, sounds to you like the DNC.

You prove my initial point.

I am still waiting to hear if you agree with fossil fuel causing global warming.

 

[JonC]

I am still waiting to hear if you agree with fossil fuel causing global warming.

When I don't answer you just pm me. I don't read many of your posts.

I believe climate changes. Sure, we may contribute, but I believe climates have always changed. It's nature.

 

[Reynolds]

When I don't answer you just pm me. I don't read many of your posts.

I believe climate changes. Sure, we may contribute, but I believe climates have always changed. It's nature.

I have no desire to PM you.
Do you believe fossil fuel caused climate change? If you don't, you are a flat earther.

 

[JonC]

I have no desire to PM you.
Do you believe fossil fuel caused climate change? If you don't, you are a flat earther.

No. Science affirms climate change and that fossil fuels contribute. The idea fossil fuels cause climate change has not stood the test of the scientific method.

Somebody (I can't recall who) made the same idiotic claim about evolution. But science does not affirm evolution as fact. It remains a theory unproven via scientific methods.

If you don't want to let me know when you ate waiting on an answer then don't whine if I don't answer. Man up, dude.

 

[Two Wings]

another break in the dam ...

A pandemic of the vaccinated or Ivermectin ignored?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You don't get it. …

No, your posts entirely miss the point I made. They've been nothing but accusations and ad hominem and non sequitur rather than bona fide counterargument.

The author sounds like a DNC parrot. Whether he means to be or is a Dem is beside the point.

He is derogatory about the Republican party but not about the Democrat party, and regarding issues that have nothing to do with science.

If he wants people to listen to him about science, he should not start off by displaying his gross political ignorance or bias regarding issues that have nothing to do with science.

His approach means that whatever he has to say about science becomes suspect to those he unnecessarily offends.

It isn't that one should entirely disagree with him about science denial, or about science particulars, but rather that he may be as much a science denier as those he labels as such, especially when it comes to science regarding political issues. That is what some may conclude, possibly rightly, from seeing his political ignorance and bias on display.

 

[JonC]

another break in the dam ...

A pandemic of the vaccinated or Ivermectin ignored?

Who cares about cases? We know covid survivors and vaccinated people can get covid.

How does the death rate look? (I'm asking because it seems we just started going backwards....and I have not looked up the rate).