Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#281

Post by sbuttgereit » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 5:21 AM UTC

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…

An argument based on altruism wouldn't ring true with me. I'm not an altruist and, while I'm absolutely in the minority in that regard, there are others that don't accept altruism as a valid moral system either. I don't think you need altruism to make a good argument for vaccines and that you can construct good arguments for altruists and egoists alike. Perhaps the only argument I need is to know that I need to protect myself from the damn fools that don't get them... I expect your assessment of risk to the non-vaccinated compared to the risk of the vaccines themselves in a generally vaccinated population is not correct depending on the disease. I expect that if you're not vaccinated against small pox, your chance of getting it is very low compared to the risk of the vaccine itself... but that if you're not vaccinated against measles you're risking much more than the what risk the vaccine presents.

Having said all this I can assure you that, as an egoist, I have most vaccinations and have had my young child get all the normal vaccinations. Not for some greater good, but because it's in our self interest.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#282

Post by invisible » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 5:22 AM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #186

FabHK wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

Everyone is selfish but being selfish in a way that could, if enough people also followed that movement, cause an epidemic is worth labeling as such.

Selfish is not a broad term. It is an adjective used to describe a person, usually in conjunction with some action they are taking.

Your anecdotal experience with both pro- and anti-vaccination supporters has no real backing beyond ignoring the above and generalizing the term selfish to something it is not.

The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms. It would be tragic if a ton of people died because of the movement. If it goes unchecked, it could happen given enough unvaccinated people.

Maybe there is more to be said about how these vaccines are scheduled but that warrants some scientific data I don't have.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#283

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 5:48 AM UTC

unabst wrote: post #280

Fake news is essentially a man-in-the-middle attack. Who's actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan? Who has actually seen first hand evidence of global warming or water pollution or of anything? Most facts are too detached from ordinary reality. That's why the person in charge of relaying them can alter them as they see fit. We're not to the point where we're faking wars (I don't think), so there are starting points. Bu…

> Who has actually seen first hand evidence of global warming or water pollution or of anything?

Many people have, they just may not have known it.

Personally I've seen the retreating glaciers of New Zealand's south island as a stark example of global warming. As an example of water pollution, I've seen dead fish floating in rivers after storms had caused the overflow of a tailings dam at a mine here in Australia.

These are pretty extreme examples, but the evidence is everywhere if you know what to look for.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#284

Post by BeetleB » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 6:20 AM UTC

invisible wrote: post #282

BeetleB wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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-…

Everyone is selfish but being selfish in a way that could, if enough people also followed that movement, cause an epidemic is worth labeling as such. Selfish is not a broad term. It is an adjective used to describe a person, usually in conjunction with some action they are taking. Your anecdotal experience with both pro- and anti-vaccination supporters has no real backing beyond ignoring the above and generalizing th…

>The purpose of moralizing is to shame those that ignore our struggle as living organisms.

So how is that working out?

Think of all the campaigns that have effected change. How often did shaming work? Sure, you have a few cases like the fight against Apartheid, but in general? Not effective.

Here's the thing. I'm as pro-science as they come. However, I've been blessed to come from communities that fall prey to anti-vaccine and other "nonsense". And one thing I know is that fact based ridicule and moralizing has a low success rate.

As someone who somewhat understands both communities, I am already not on your side. If a pro-vacciner like me is turned off by such rhetoric, imagine it from an anti-vacciner's side.

Think I'm an outlier? I'll hazard a guess that most pro-vacciners are close to someone who is not (family connections, etc).

There is comfort in being "right". But being "right" does not in itself translate to right outcomes.

The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a very worthy read. A few things it points out:

1. On a polarized issue, facts will increase the polarization (and I'm guessing justifying shame with facts will exacerbate the issue)

2. To persuade someone, you will have a lot more success appealing to emotions than to the rational mind. This does not mean playing games where you manipulate people.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#285

Post by unabst » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 6:32 AM UTC

Intermernet wrote: post #283

unabst wrote: post #280

Fake news is essentially a man-in-the-middle attack. Who's actually been to Iraq or Afghanistan? Who has actually seen first hand evidence of global warming or water pollution or of anything? Most facts are too detached from ordinary reality. That's why the person in charge of relaying them can alter them as they see fit. We're not to the point where we're faking wars (I don't think), so there are starting points. Bu…

> Who has actually seen first hand evidence of global warming or water pollution or of anything? Many people have, they just may not have known it. Personally I've seen the retreating glaciers of New Zealand's south island as a stark example of global warming. As an example of water pollution, I've seen dead fish floating in rivers after storms had caused the overflow of a tailings dam at a mine here in Australia. Th…

Right. But seeing retreating glaciers after being told why they are retreating is still relying on something you were told.

As long as we are being "told" we can change the channel and choose our preachers. There is nothing that can stop anyone from doing so in a "free" country.

The point is, normal people have no way of knowing about most things anyway, that it isn't just fake news that is fake, it's that news as we know it is unreal. That's why they need that story of a cute cat or a new study on coffee at the end.

The battle against fake news isn't the hard part. It's the battle to legitimize their own that is turning out to be an uphill battle. And when you know you go for the cookie jar once in a while, it becomes even harder.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#286

Post by kaoD » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 6:58 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #269

Mz wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.[5] He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of results where ha…

I completely disagree. These particular incidents highlight those occasions when new knowledge had to overcome challenges between experts, It completely ignores the many times experts knew things, and applied them and improved the working of their field. You are absolutely overfitting an example used to highlight a pitfall. Instead you are using it to dismiss experts. In other words you are re-broadcasting the anti e…

Honestly, he has a point. It's not even that their jobs depend on stagnation: often being an expert makes you blind to new facts and change, shielded on your own expertise. Being an expert only means you've had lots of exper-ience in the field.

Less empirical sciences rapidly change (or worse, simultaneously holds contradicting) views and thus, generate distrust.

Experts, except the truly groundbreaking ones, are only good at touting the status quo. They're just more likely to be correct because, well, the status quo in science is the most "unincorrect" knowledge we have. So far.

You're just bringing up a strawman with the homeopathy "example".

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#287

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 7:33 AM UTC

unabst wrote: post #285

Intermernet wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who has actually seen first hand evidence of global warming or water pollution or of anything? Many people have, they just may not have known it. Personally I've seen the retreating glaciers of New Zealand's south island as a stark example of global warming. As an example of water pollution, I've seen dead fish floating in rivers after storms had caused the overflow of a tailings dam at a mine here in Australia. Th…

Right. But seeing retreating glaciers after being told why they are retreating is still relying on something you were told. As long as we are being "told" we can change the channel and choose our preachers. There is nothing that can stop anyone from doing so in a "free" country. The point is, normal people have no way of knowing about most things anyway, that it isn't just fake news that is fake, it's that news as we…

I agree with your larger point "normal people have no way of knowing about most things", but the glacier example was pretty clear. Just the change in vegetation over the course of the valleys was a pretty obvious indication that a huge amount of the glaciers had retreated quite suddenly from their previous, well established positions. The moraine topology was another indicator.

Even if you had never heard of "global warming" you'd look at these two signs and have suspicions that something fairly significant had caused a largish area of an entire country to increase in average temperature. You'd probably not initially blame it on human carbon emissions, but, if you had some understanding of global climate patterns in the short term, you'd probably assume that this wasn't happening as just a local effect. It's pretty difficult to locally melt all the glaciers in a few thousand square kilometers of land without changing the rest of the world's climate.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#288

Post by miclill_kit » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 7:41 AM UTC

>Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water—and everything that’s been deposited in it—gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen?

Why would that handle be depressed?

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#289

Post by rimantas » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 8:10 AM UTC

miclill_kit wrote: post #288

>Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water—and everything that’s been deposited in it—gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen? Why would that handle be depressed?

It's in a shitty place, that's why.

Re: Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

#290

Post by sjy » Wed, Mar 08, 2017, 8:41 AM UTC

Mz wrote: post #264

goatlover wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The community of people who have spent their time becoming knowledgeable in that field. Or do you suppose that any quack peddling snake oil is as knowledgeable as someone who went to medical school and practices medicine?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis Semmelweis proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 while working in Vienna General Hospital's First Obstetrical Clinic, where doctors' wards had three times the mortality of midwives' wards.[5] He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of results where ha…

It would be better if you provided more recent examples: medical science was very primitive in the 19th century, and Galileo was not persecuted by scientists. More recently, Marshall and Warren's research on stomach ulcers quickly led to the rejection of the expert consensus which had prevailed for decades, because technological advances enabled them to present convincing evidence to a profession which had come to accept the importance of scientific research.