"Research"

submitted by FediNetizen from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Canbot's argument seems to be a influenced by anti-vax talking points, which have no basis in reality or science. I know someone who believes in the anti-vax arguments, but the articles she sends me are all nonsense, without any evidence that can be corroborated. She will not be deterred from her beliefs, however, and will continue to send me these articles. It's insane, and it predates Trump. Groups that push this pseudo-science nonsense are harming people.

[–]ReeferMadness 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

influenced by anti-vax talking points

This is an ad hominem. Instead of addressing the argument you are making the blanket statement that it must be wrong because of the source. That is ignorant.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

independent research shows higher instances of autism, allergies, and auto immune diseases

You're not paying attention. Canbot noted "independent research shows higher instances of autism, allergies, and auto immune diseases," which is almost a cut and paste from the anti-vax consipracy playbook, and is not corroborated in scientific research. Which part of this argument do you not understand? Canbot said something that is not supported corroborated by scienticfic research. I noted that it's not corrobotated by scientific ressearch. Is that clear?

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

All you did was repeat the claim that it must be wrong because of the source. Repeating it 5 times does not make it any less stupid.

and is not corroborated in scientific research.

All research is scientific research even if it comes from non authority figures. Unless canbot is lying and there is no independent study, whatever they are talking about IS scientific research.

You are simply making the baseless claim that they are wrong because their evidence is not something you recognize because it does not come from a source that you call "scientific research" and it just so happens that nothing that proves you wrong will ever be considered scientific research by you. This is ignorant AF.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

OMFG, ReeferMadness, this:

"All research is scientific research even if it comes from non authority figures."

Is not true. And this:

"...whatever they are talking about IS scientific research."

Is not true.

Do you understand why those statements are not true?

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

So if two identical studies are done the thing that determines which one is science is who did the research? Do you understand that this is illogical?

Look up appeal to authority fallacy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

No - that's not true. And the best way to avoid the interference of authoritarian or more powerful influences is to have a democracy support the science of the research. Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.

Science is supported by the scientific method, and must be supported by rigorous attempts to negate the hypothesis. The least refutable evidence is the scientific result.

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You literally just contradicted yourself.

Otherwise, the more powerful group (oligarchy &c) will tell you what is and what is not 'science'.

That is exactly what IS happening and you are the fool enforcing it by denying unapproved science. It doesn't matter who does the science as long as it follows the scientific method and is sound in its execution.

You literally made the opposite claim, that it is not science, not because the scientific method wasn't followed, but because it wasn't done by oligarchy approved scientists.

As of right now no study has been provided, either for or against the correlation hypothesis. But I suspect even if one is provided you will deny it anyway. Facts be damned.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

No, ReeferMadness, it's very simple:

1) There is science, based on math and facts and a rigorous approach to the scientific method

2) There are comments like yours that question obvious facts

Why do you have to complicate the issue?

[–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

1) please point out where the science that you are attacking is not based on math, facts, or a rigorous approach.

2) "obvious facts" is not a thing. Just because you are sure of something doesn't make it a fact.

I honestly don't think you are capable of understanding the arguments. If you want your friend to stop sending you "conspiracy stuff" just tell her you don't give pearls to a swine. She will understand.

[–]Comatoast 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Alright, I have questions about this, and please keep in mind that I'm not antivaxx, I'm just deeply disconcerted by the time the Covid-19 vaccine has been researched.

Alright, food for thought here and I'm talking hypotheticals to clarify: when looking at the data taken from research papers, it's easy enough to see the direct information noted in the results of the study and looking at the data to see how the researchers came to their conclusions. So it says within the results that by looking at X particular criteria, they could determine no correlation between Y and Z. I think that the problem comes in when we're not looking at a complete picture. Let's say that a girl in her teens receives Y and starts having side effects. It's not necessarily clear that Y caused it directly, but could Y have actually caused Z in a roundabout way by creating a domino effect to another bodily process? A lot of things are missed this way even in diagnosing illnesses, so I could see it being an issue.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actually - I think that's true. It's often difficult to isolate the cause of a side effect. Drug manuals have so many side effects listed perhaps for legal reasons, though also to admit that there is a small percentage of the test group that will have horribly adverse effects. Antidepressants are for example famous for having the side effect of depression and death. Thus concerns about potential side effects of vaccines are understandable in this context of drug side effects. Do they cause autism? I've seen no reliable report that can connect autism to vaccines (though I've received reports from a friend who believes this). Is it too early to know what will happen with the COVID vaccine? I am not sure. Vaccine research has come a long way in the past century, solving a number of epidemics and pandemics. Hundreds of people are tested in the trials, which have to show very good results to be accepted. The trials lasted several months. I was invited to be in a couple of them (and did not reply). So, yes, using basic logic, we know that there will be prolems. But the history of vaccine research and trials also offers reliable evidence.

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

This is not an ad hominem. How is it that the tards on this site can't even understand a handful of basic terms even when they're referenced all the time. An ad hominem is an attack on the character of the one making the argument.

That aside, even "anti-vax" could be replaced with any other group, and it's still just an observation that you're repeating often-used lines by that particular group. It's only with the tacit acknowledgement that most people (correctly) think of anti-vaxxers as conspiratorial anti-science quacks that the phrase can be interpreted as some kind of attack.

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Calling someone a conspiracy theorist as an argument is attacking the speaker instead of the argument. What part of that don't you understand?

[–]FediNetizen[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

They weren't doing that, and it's only when this is done instead of addressing the actual points that it qualifies as an ad hominem. If I refute your point, and separately call you a tard for making "such a stupid claim", it's not an ad hominem, as the argument doesn't rely on the attack on your character. It is obnoxious and dickish, so it should be reserved for when the other guy is also being obnoxious, but it isn't an ad hominem.

The exact quote that you took issue with was stating that the person was using cliches that come from bad sources. How is what they actually said an ad hominem?

[–]ReeferMadness 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What makes the sources bad? That is a baseless claim.

What are you doing in an ad hominem other than making the claim that the argument is wrong because the source (the speaker) is a bad source?

It's literally the same thing but you can't seem to put two and two together.