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

91–100 of 170 posts

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

#91

Post by kstenerud »

falcolas wrote: post #75
kstenerud wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to feel exasperated. It's not fine to treat people in such a condescending manner. People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault. The doctor did not try to educate the mother. He tried to lecture her. He offered her a bad user experience, which she naturally rejected. People are not machines. Y…

“As I said, there is always a small risk, but if you look, you will see that this is less than the probability of...” Sacha held up her hand. “Please, Doctor. Don't try and confuse the issue.” --- Education attempt, and rejection of such education, in three sentences. After previous education attempt (plus a pamphlet) and rejection of such education. What more should the doctor have done?

Doctor attempts to educate in a format of his own choosing. Patient rejects. Doctor then rejects patient.

Normally when something doesn't work, you look for reasons why it doesn't work. You then take some educated guesses at what might be blocking success, and try altering your approach. After some trial and error, you eventually discover how to make it work.

This doctor-patient situation is the same kind of thing, except that the doctor is simply dismissing the patient because his attempts at education on his own terms have failed. He makes no attempt at figuring out WHY the patient is rejecting the education, nor does he try altering his approach. Instead, he ram-rods what in his own opinion makes the best education down the patient's throat, and then has the gall to blame the failure on her.

It's just like in the bad old days of web apps with no UX.

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

#93

Post by IanCal »

ISL wrote: post #54
suprgeek wrote: post #36

I think we should be making a financial/societal incentive to do the right thing if the science is settled enough. The trouble with the view presented here is that sure the children get the vaccine due to this hypothetical rule. what happens when later the children get a severe cold (say) and the mom who remembers the previous visit thinks - bloody doctors I will just keep my kid home and pray for him to get better?…

Do you want people to read up on the science, or to accept what's "settled"? As a professional scientist, there are few things more anathema than the idea that a scientific theory is "settled". Experiments can only falsify theories; they can never be proven to be correct. The best a theory can hope for is to remain consistent with observation. Once upon a time, it was well-settled in large communities that the univer…

> Do you want people to read up on the science, or to accept what's "settled"?

You're assuming that both of these things are possible / likely. I want people to stop killing each other but that's not necessarily realistic.

It's an interesting problem, trying to achieve the theoretical best situation (everyone understanding and accepting science) vs 'tricking' people (just getting them to accept what you say).

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

#94

Post by cstross »

api wrote: post #63
micro_cam wrote: post #50

Things like this makes me ashamed to have my name on papers in Nature. First, lets set aside the hypocrisy of a non open access journal publishing this[1]. (What happens if Sacha wants to inform her self by reading a few old nature papers?) I am pro vaccine but far too many doctors have this fantasy that they should have unlimited control and articles like this just serve to validate that view point. Medicine is an i…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polio_vaccine#Contamination_co... I'm not at all anti-vaccination, but I am anti-authoritarian and anti-closed-science. People have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies. The SV40 contamination turned out to not be that serious, but it was a close call. Had SV40 been potently carcinogenic, we would have had a medieval plague of cancer. In the end it reduces to the problem…

Viral pandemics do not respect your personal boundaries: your "right to be an idiot" over vaccination may not be intended to result in deaths, but that's what will happen if we indulge such beliefs until herd immunity is lost.

We need to draw a distinction between idiotic behavior with no externalities -- side-effects for others -- and idiotic behavior that can damage third parties. Upshot: there's no simple dichotomy between an open society and an authoritarian one.

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

#95

Post by prestadige »

This is a fantasy of course, which is a defence mechanism for frustrated minds.

However, the quasi-religious defence of Science as a settled body of knowledge which people must be forcibly 'educated' about is becoming depressingly common. Becoming more like a religion isn't a good way to counter superstitious falsehoods.

The patient-doctor relationship has waned, IMO. Here in the UK for most ailments I see a GP for about 10 minutes. I never see her again. No follow up, no chat, etc. Different GP next time. Perhaps social media could help build trust within practices.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

autokad wrote: post #31
lazyant wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People die because some idiot parent didn't vaccinated their children, so I say yes, enforce it or don't live in society, go to some isolated island because you are causing harm, it's as totalitarian as allowing people to play Russian roulette with other people's children (actually you'd go to jail so I think we're too lenient with these parents).

your child has more chance of dying by going to the morning bus stop than their child does of dying from not being vaccinated. in fact, i'd bet your child has a better chance of dying by catching the flu from a vaccinated child than some other child not vaccinated by MMR. i understand if someone doesn't want their child vaccinated and they can't go to public school, but forcing people is another thing, even if it is…

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by JonnieCache »

bane wrote: post #64
JonnieCache wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are really measels parties? I've heard of chicken pox parties, which makes sense because there's no vaccine and the adult form is vastly worse than the infant form. But measels parties, that's just medieval. EDIT: apparently there is a chicken pox vaccine, but it isn't administered to the general population in the UK, only NHS workers. Interesting.

That's interesting, the MMR vaccine is a normal vaccine here in the U.S. as part of the normal shots infants get. There's usually a booster shot as a young adult and again in middle-late age. edit apparently I forgot reading comprehension, I see now that you were talking about Chicken Pox vaccines. I didn't know either, I just know the MMR. AFAIK people just have Chicken Pox parties for their kids and make sure they…

I'm talking about the chicken pox vaccine. Everyone gets MMR in the UK, except the hippies.

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

#98

Post by sliverstorm »

autokad wrote: post #69
sliverstorm wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in fact, i'd bet your child has a better chance of dying by catching the flu from a vaccinated child than some other child not vaccinated by MMR. Oh good, argument based on conjecture.

Do you want a gold star because someone on the internet, who said something you didn't agree with on a post, did not publish citations? you failed human.

We're getting an impressive variety here! After argument by conjecture fails, we move on to ad-homenim!

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

#99

Post by ISL »

jbooth wrote: post #61
ISL wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you want people to read up on the science, or to accept what's "settled"? As a professional scientist, there are few things more anathema than the idea that a scientific theory is "settled". Experiments can only falsify theories; they can never be proven to be correct. The best a theory can hope for is to remain consistent with observation. Once upon a time, it was well-settled in large communities that the univer…

Yeah, but we're talking about not vaccinating your kids, here. It might be that we're all living in a computer simulation and none of this matters but we should still act on what we observe.

I'm personally convinced that vaccination is worthwhile; I've been convinced of that by my education, my experience, and my understanding of the scientific literature. The benefit to the individual and to society of vaccines is, to me, well-established.

I'm willing to compromise part of my herd's immunity for those who wish not to receive a vaccine, even if it increases my risk somewhat. I don't think that anti-vaccine activists are correct, but it's a hell of a thing to inject stuff into their children that they think could bring them harm. Though we do it every day as a society, I don't want to be a part of a herd that resorts to compulsion on ethical questions.

Inextricable from this discussion is the fact that the children won't reach majority before the decision must be made. If we could wait until people turned eighteen before presenting them with the choice of vaccination, this debate would be different.

As a final thought -- if everyone else is immunized, it may be to your advantage to skip vaccination to avoid a tiny risk of side-effects. There's an equilibrium here, and it's not at 100% vaccination rates, even if 100% vaccination could yield eradication.

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

#100

Post by kstenerud »

Jtsummers wrote: post #87
kstenerud wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fine to feel exasperated. It's not fine to treat people in such a condescending manner. People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault. The doctor did not try to educate the mother. He tried to lecture her. He offered her a bad user experience, which she naturally rejected. People are not machines. Y…

> People are rational, and want to understand, but unless you make the information properly accessible in the UX sense, your exasperation is due to your own fault. This is not accurate. Have you ever tried to discuss evolution with a creationist? The US Civil War with a "The South Shall Rise Again!" sort (the kind that call it "The War of Northern Aggression")? Many people are rational, but people are also emotional.…

Yes, that's what I mean by UX. UX is about the intellectual AND emotional experience.

We have the psychological knowledge. It's just a question of putting it into practice instead of taking these knee-jerk reactions of "they'll never come around. Better to just force it".

Post reply on HN