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

“You're not allowed science any more”

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 170 posts

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#21

Post by sbhere »

wmeredith wrote: post #6
[deleted] wrote: post #4

[deleted]

You're being reductive, The refusal to read the pamplet while demanding impossible assurances is symbolic of the willfull idiocy of the scientific illiterate making impossible demands on society.

The mother in the narrative is requesting to be informed. A pamphlet does not inform, although it may. Face-to-face conversation has the opportunity for an asker to ask questions for an authority on the matter to answer.

However, more to the point: is this pamphlet science or marketing? Many such pamphlets about medicine blur that line quite well...

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#22

Post by tormeh »

spindritf wrote: post #3

I have spotted this totalitarian streak among some of my friends who went to med school. We should ban smoking, force everyone to do this or that. As bad as they can be, we're probably better off with lawyers in charge.

We would be better off if nobody smoked, but let's not expand the war on drugs. I'm actually OK with a bit of this kind of totalitarianism, but not when it doesn't actually work.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#23

Post by falcolas »

kstenerud wrote: post #15

This is so telling. The sheer arrogance is plainly visible, as is the doctor's complete lack of empathy. There are plenty of ways to motivate people, and this is most certainly not a good one. You don't get a mule to move by pushing it.

Arrogance, which I'd call exasperance in this case, in the face of repeated ignorance of reality, is justified. You can only deal with willingly ignorant people for so long before giving up on the human race.

And the doctor in the tale did try and educate the mother before she was cut off. She just didn't want to listen.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#24

Post by gloob »

VikingCoder wrote: post #8
lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

"You're not allowed sarcastic metaphors any more." "Why not?" asked the scientist. "Because you haven't learned to employ them in a way that doesn't alienate the very people you are trying to help. Now please send in Dawkins on the way out, we need to discuss internet memes with him."

You're right, but you're wrong. You're right - we shouldn't celebrate alienating people who need help. You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. After all, these people are content in risking the health of MY child on their Jenny McCarthy-inspired HUNCH that vaccines are bad. If anti-vaccine folks were only…

> So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this.

Apologies for my pedantry, but dreaming about harming people is actually pretty much the opposite of gallows humour. A more appropriate phrase might be "power fantasy."

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#25

Post by DigitalJack »

VikingCoder wrote: post #8
lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

"You're not allowed sarcastic metaphors any more." "Why not?" asked the scientist. "Because you haven't learned to employ them in a way that doesn't alienate the very people you are trying to help. Now please send in Dawkins on the way out, we need to discuss internet memes with him."

You're right, but you're wrong. You're right - we shouldn't celebrate alienating people who need help. You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. After all, these people are content in risking the health of MY child on their Jenny McCarthy-inspired HUNCH that vaccines are bad. If anti-vaccine folks were only…

My main issue with "science," which I put in quotes because there is the ideal of science and the reality of science which are unfortunately not the same. It is purported that science is objective, and that is the admirable goal, but it hasn't been successful.

For every study purporting one thing, one can find an equal an opposite study purporting the opposite (or nearly opposite). Now, that is hyperbole, as usually one of they studies is inferior in some way that is not obvious to the lay person, but it won't stop them from taking an overly strong stance based on an inferior study.

I believe a lot of the "vaccines are bad crowd" fall into a few categories:

1) the group that is very susceptible to confirmation bias

2) the group that has seen some studies that weren't conducted very well and were possibly informed by the first group.

3) those that fall victim to circular references in their proof (e.g. wikipedia article citing a magazine citing the wikipedia article, with possibly a few steps in between)

4) those who choose to believe something because the alternative is terrible for them. I see this one a lot. If you are discussing with someone of some modicum of intellect, you'll detect the situation when "slippery slope" starts being mentioned.

I'm sort of friends with a "vaccines are bad" person. I've cited numerous studies, which, while I'm no expert at interpreting studies, seemed to have rigor. Didn't phase her in the slightest, and we just don't talk about that subject anymore. Or at least I don't, and I don't take the bait. I believe she has an autistic grandson, and if she didn't have vaccines to blame, she'd have to believe that God caused the autism and that's too terrible for her.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#27

Post by aganders3 »

kstenerud wrote: post #15

This is so telling. The sheer arrogance is plainly visible, as is the doctor's complete lack of empathy. There are plenty of ways to motivate people, and this is most certainly not a good one. You don't get a mule to move by pushing it.

I agree, but consider that it's on Nature.com and the expected audience. This was an entertaining read for those who have felt such frustration, but it's ultimately unhelpful as a published article.

I did appreciate the point about being proud to be bad at math. I think that attitude is damaging and probably deserves a (more reasoned) article of its own.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#28

Post by jstanek »

VikingCoder wrote: post #8
lotsofmangos wrote: post #2

"You're not allowed sarcastic metaphors any more." "Why not?" asked the scientist. "Because you haven't learned to employ them in a way that doesn't alienate the very people you are trying to help. Now please send in Dawkins on the way out, we need to discuss internet memes with him."

You're right, but you're wrong. You're right - we shouldn't celebrate alienating people who need help. You're wrong, because there is no argument that can convince someone who doesn't care about evidence. So, please forgive us our gallows humor about this. After all, these people are content in risking the health of MY child on their Jenny McCarthy-inspired HUNCH that vaccines are bad. If anti-vaccine folks were only…

If your child is vaccinated, they aren't really at significant risk of catching a preventable infection from an unvaccinated child, since that's the sort of thing vaccines are designed to prevent. This isn't to say that anti-vax is a rational position, but I don't think (disclaimer, I'm not a medical professional) it puts vaccinated children at additional risk.

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#29

Post by vonklaus »

If only there was a way to outsource all decision making to an over-arching centralized authority to make all decisions for us. That entity would have all our best interests at heart and make the tough decisions for us. It would be auch a weight off my shoulders of I didn't have to think anymore. I would even be willing to pay 20-30 percent of my paycheck to it, just so it could help me stay safe. What would we call such authority?

Re: “You're not allowed science any more”

#30

Post by darkstar999 »

vonklaus wrote: post #29

If only there was a way to outsource all decision making to an over-arching centralized authority to make all decisions for us. That entity would have all our best interests at heart and make the tough decisions for us. It would be auch a weight off my shoulders of I didn't have to think anymore. I would even be willing to pay 20-30 percent of my paycheck to it, just so it could help me stay safe. What would we call…

Big Brother
Post reply on HN