Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 347 posts

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#181

Post by rl3 »

sgt101 wrote: post #16

Vaccines are safer for a population, and they are safer for individuals in an unvaccinated population. In a vaccinated population the risks to the individual having a vaccine are low, but non zero. The risk of not having the vaccine may well be lower. The problem is that by not being clear that having a vaccination is an altruistic act with marginal risk but a massive social good the way is left open for claims of du…

The acrimonious and often zealous tone taken by many doesn't help matters either. What you just wrote was nuanced, and there's very little room for nuance recently. Most of what qualifies as discourse today simply degenerates into a shouting match with each side not giving an inch.

For example: compulsory vaccination via mandate, coercion, exclusion, or otherwise. While there are compelling motivations to pursue such ends for the greater social good, doing so is a slippery slope fraught with the risk of trampling individual medical freedoms in the process, such as informed consent.

I've seen people on the latter side of that argument treated as if they were analogous to axe murderers for even suggesting anything but 100% compliance, all the while being shouted down by the angry mob.

The fact is, vaccinations carry the risk of very rare but sometimes serious adverse reactions. As long as that remains true, there can be no absolute moral high-ground when demanding compulsory vaccination.

In the current climate however, stating such a position outside of tiny civilized bubbles like HN is tantamount to heresy. I suspect when the autism link was debunked, many people conflated this to mean vaccines were completely safe, when in fact they're simply very safe.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#182

Post by dllthomas »

conistonwater wrote: post #161
dllthomas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds right. How is that in conflict with what you said? I saw it as expanding on the reasons to reject the "bad heuristic" under discussion.

I like the idea of seeking out good arguments in favour of other people's ideas, but I dislike the way it contradicts the principle that one has a responsibility to state good arguments for one's own position. Stating poor arguments for an idea should be grounds for not accepting that idea, which is why I thought what you said wasn't compatible with what I said. One reason I thought the bad heuristic was so bad is it…

The fact that there might be good arguments for a proposition doesn't mean I'm responsible for looking for them. There's an abstract sense in which I should be seeking all good arguments for everything, but the world is big and my resources limited and even if all I'm doing is rationally seeking truth I need to prioritize. And in a rhetorical context, there are certainly burden-of-proof considerations.

My point was simply that a flawed argument for "X" should not lead me to think "not X" is more likely. Otherwise, I can get you to think any "Y" by presenting flawed arguments that "not Y" - I have an infinite supply of them regardless of whether "Y" or "not Y" in fact.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#184

Post by conistonwater »

dllthomas wrote: post #182
conistonwater wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like the idea of seeking out good arguments in favour of other people's ideas, but I dislike the way it contradicts the principle that one has a responsibility to state good arguments for one's own position. Stating poor arguments for an idea should be grounds for not accepting that idea, which is why I thought what you said wasn't compatible with what I said. One reason I thought the bad heuristic was so bad is it…

The fact that there might be good arguments for a proposition doesn't mean I'm responsible for looking for them. There's an abstract sense in which I should be seeking all good arguments for everything, but the world is big and my resources limited and even if all I'm doing is rationally seeking truth I need to prioritize. And in a rhetorical context, there are certainly burden-of-proof considerations. My point was s…

Okay, I think I just misunderstood you at first.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#185

Post by enord »

unit91 wrote: post #21
enord wrote: post #13

The interactionist perspective presented is enlightening. It both motivates and explains many of the classic reasoning snafus that we "suffer" from. In the end our mental artefacts (including beliefs) are just tools, and their value (or "truth") is a function of their utility. If we were to present a 19th century carpenter with a nail gun he would agree upon demonstration; "that is very nice and all, thanks but i'll…

> Beliefs are the same, and a relation to "facts" or "truth" is not a requrement for their utility. Is that statement true? > When presented with new facts and truths we always evaluate their utility before we ascribe to them. Did you evaluate the utility of that "fact" before believing it? I'm not trying to be rude here, but the problem with this sort of postmodern view is that it's ultimately self-refuting.

I cant find when i subscribed to that particular belief in my ledger, it feels self-evident to me at this point. Whether it's true or not is mostly a semantic argument. You might personally define a beliefs "utility" to be strictly tied to its "objective truth" (or whatever epistemic ideal you assume), but the linked article posits a particular intersection of "rationality" and "utility" of beliefs (as far as I read it anyway). I found it agreeable and chose to share my musings on the topic.

I do not agree that the view is particularly post-modern, but since you called it first i guess i must concede. The point was not "all is subjective and nothing is true", rather "whether or not i take on this belief (or fact or whatever) presented to me is a function of the degree to which i understand it combined with my intuition of the ramifications of me holding this belief". We don't have truth-seeking minds, we have "value-" or "utility"-maximizing habits.

We understand things and we underestimate things. We prefer things and we reject things. Not always knowingly and sometimes intentionally.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#186

Post by BeetleB »

FabHK wrote: post #178
crpatino wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would upvote you twice if I could. The anti-science crowd and not idiots, but rather moderately intelligent individuals that go bersek after catching the Science spokeperson's oversimplifications and/or white lies. Fool me once and it's your fault, fool me twice and it is mine.

The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).

>The anti-vac crowd might not be idiots, but they're selfish as hell (free-riding on herd immunisation while not willing to accept the (very very tiny) risk of vaccination to their precious child).

You mean, selfish like everyone else is?

Is it even appropriate to use a broad attribution like "selfish" to a specific case of selfishness?

I know both pro and anti-vaccines. I can definitely assert that some of the anti-vacciners are less selfish than the pro-vacciners I know.

I'd like you to examine your need to make a statement like this. It's a wonderful path of discovery (I am not being facetious here).

You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish. Why the need to moralize? What was the purpose?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#187

Post by gregpardo »

bambax wrote: post #23

> There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. There is: have them been born outside the US. Those two beliefs are specific to Americans; hardly a good example of "humanity" as a whole.

Good... Dangerous.... See how even the writers of this article see in black in white.... I can believe handguns are dangerous and still believe they should be legal.

It's reasonable to look for reasons why Trump won but this is really stretching it all.

People often care more about fighting against something they don't like than they do about being 'right'. If the author needs a scientific study to tell her that maybe she's a little out of touch herself...

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#188

Post by Danihan »

balabaster wrote: post #138
meheleventyone wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dictionaries are not sources of objective facts either. The subject you're looking to know more about is the philosophy of science and in particular how it relates to epistemology which tackles this subject.

These days I wonder if anything is a source of objective fact. The more I try and remain objective and strive for enlightenment, the cloudier everything seems to become.

There is no such thing as enlightenment, only the worldview you choose to adopt and the results that it confers.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#189

Post by eagsalazar2 »

77pt77 wrote: post #113
eagsalazar2 wrote: post #46

Translation: "Why did Trump win the election even though he and his policies are obviously nuts?" Seriously, not trying to inject politics or my opinion on Trump, but there do seem to be a lot of these "why do people make act so crazy" articles lately. I too am trying to make sense of it all and failing.

It's quite explicit: > If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration. Not even being subtle.

Hah, well I guess I'm busted (didn't read the article, just the title and other comments)

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#190

Post by dllthomas »

conistonwater wrote: post #184
dllthomas wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that there might be good arguments for a proposition doesn't mean I'm responsible for looking for them. There's an abstract sense in which I should be seeking all good arguments for everything, but the world is big and my resources limited and even if all I'm doing is rationally seeking truth I need to prioritize. And in a rhetorical context, there are certainly burden-of-proof considerations. My point was s…

Okay, I think I just misunderstood you at first.

Yeah, there is separately the principle of charity, where if I understand an argument to be flawed, I should look for similar correct arguments and check if that's what the other party meant. In some contexts (here, for instance) that's appropriate and even important. But it's not quite the same notion.
Post reply on HN