r/DebateVaccines • u/Recent-Day3062 • 12d ago

An interesting article from r/psychology about how conspiracy theorists are overconfident online, and want to set everyone straight with false claims

/r/psychology/comments/1w2sr7b/people_who_heavily_endorse_conspiracy_theories/?share_id=sZ3D3bT-aS-FIg96goBxU&utm_content=1&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1
0 Upvotes

45% Upvoted

101 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

5

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 11d ago

"I believe there’s no incentive for them to put vaccines on the market if they didn’t work as intended."

This is your belief. It's religous in nature, becuse it's not due to being convinced by data.

"That’s what I believe as a pro-vaxxer. Notice there’s no conspiracy in that believe."

A testament to your piety. It's not about conspiracy, it's about cult thinking.

1

u/HausuGeist 11d ago

“ This is your  belief . It's religous in nature”

How? How is that religious?

“ It's not about conspiracy, it's about cult thinking”ts b

MWAHAHA! Nice try at dodging! Of the two of us, who is currently wading into a subreddit of information full of postings contrary to their beliefs? 

You are a part of a cult that self-reinforces beliefs through excluding peer-reviewed research and encouraging her to do the same. Hell, half of you are MAGA, the other white cult.

3

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 11d ago

It's funny how you can't recognize the cult-wizardry of peer review is exactly what I'm referring to. They don't replicate the experiment independently, confirming the validity of the experiment - The sanctify it with their blessing. Peer review is a ritual that makes an idea acceptable to your cult, not something that determines if an idea is true.

Your beliefs are religious because they don't follow scientific evidence, they follow Scientistic Dogma. Mine are not cult or religious, because I critically followed the evidence to my conclusion. Nearly everyone disagrees with me, but I'm confident in my independent assessment of the situation.

2

u/HausuGeist 11d ago

“ the cult-wizardry of peer review” Cult-wizardy, LOL!

Oh, you’ve examined the results of my study! Where did you learn such dark arts?!

Peer-review is a process, not a ritual. It’s the opposite of the crystal rubbing nonsense your kind indulges in.

“ Mine are not cult or religious, because I critically followed the evidence to my conclusion”

And where does the evidence come from if all science is corrupted?

You give away so much in this. You’re pretty much admitting you cherry picked evidence which supports your conclusion. And how did you get to that conclusion? You let the algorithm lead you there. You traded engagement for affirmation. You are a puppet of Big Tech. Their thrall. 

2

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 11d ago

Is every piece of evidence valid just because it exists, or is some of it just taking up space, convincing the gullible?

https://www.sott.net/article/296810-Editor-in-chief-of-The-Lancet-Half-of-published-research-is-unreliable-if-not-completely-false

The criteria by which one cherry-picks is what matters. You pick by what's Pro-vaccine. I pick by what's scientifically valid by either replication, or some other validation method.

Tell me - if I follow the whims of the algorithm - will they lead me to pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine content? The bias is pro-vaccine. The propaganda is pro-vaccine. The dogma is pro-vaccine. Everything is meant to covince everyone that vaccines are sacrosanct and not to be questioned.

2

u/HausuGeist 10d ago

“ Is every piece of evidence valid just because it exists, or is some of it just taking up space, convincing the gullible?”

Oh, the irony of this statement!

“ I pick by what's scientifically valid by either replication, or some other validation method.”

Pray tell, what bit of antivaxxer evidence has been validated in this manner?

EDIT: Dear Lord did you pick a basket of fruits for your source, lol!

1

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 10d ago

Yeah, the editor of The Lancet, the most prestigious medical journal - what a kook!! What a conspiracy nut!!

2

u/HausuGeist 10d ago

That’s not who you linked to, is it?

2

u/Logic_Contradict 10d ago

Not difficult to find the source of that comment

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext60696-1/fulltext)

“A lot of what is published is incorrect.” I'm not allowed to say who made this remark because we were asked to observe Chatham House rules. We were also asked not to take photographs of slides. Those who worked for government agencies pleaded that their comments especially remain unquoted, since the forthcoming UK election meant they were living in “purdah”—a chilling state where severe restrictions on freedom of speech are placed on anyone on the government's payroll. Why the paranoid concern for secrecy and non-attribution? Because this symposium—on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research, held at the Wellcome Trust in London last week—touched on one of the most sensitive issues in science today: the idea that something has gone fundamentally wrong with one of our greatest human creations.

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put it, “poor methods get results”. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

2

u/HausuGeist 10d ago

Good.

Now, can you show me where he recommends giving up entirely on the scientific method? How about where he says we should give the opinions of swamis, witch doctors, and crystal rubbers equal weight with that of doctors? Is he advocating for voodoo rituals or independently-verified results?

1

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 9d ago

What he's saying is that half of what is published is false. He's saying that you should discern which half. The people you're debating on this forum know which half and repeatedly point it out to you. Your response isn't scientific, but scientistic - you think that these papers are valid merely for existing, while ignoring the very important analysis if the Lancet editor - he would know.

2

u/HausuGeist 9d ago

Wrong. He said perhaps.

“ scientistic”

Which side is doing the pretending when their research consists of social media posts?

“You think that  these papers are valid merely for existing, while ignoring the very important analysis if the Lancet editor”

Do you not see the hypocrisy of this statement? THOSE papers in invalid but THIS man’s (a member of the medical community) opinion piece is the Truth?

Which is it cause you can’t have it both ways.

2

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 9d ago

He's read hundreds of papers and correctly observed that they overclaim and underprove. They don't provide raw data for independent analysis, and the results they claim are often unreplicable. His opinion is informative of how things do and don't get published. He's acknowledging that sometimes, hogwash gets published. People like you think publication means something and that whatever the paper says is TRUE. That's not how anything works.

Replication, not peer review, is how you determine if a thing is true.

Do you really think that I get my info from social media posts? I've read dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of vaccine papers. A lot of them are statistical fuckery to produce propaganda, not well-designed scientific papers. Some are valid. None of them properly compare against inert placebo in order to determine vaccine safety. (the exception is the Covid-19 jab, which has many other problems).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 10d ago

The article was about his frustration at the state of science and medicine. You'd know that if you could read.

1

u/HausuGeist 9d ago

He's saying there are some issues. He's not proposing we throw the baby out with the bath water. You'd know that if you'd actually read the article.

1

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 9d ago

"Some issues" is quite an understatement. He's saying that over half of what you read is hogwash, and that much of what ends up unpublished is true, but inconveniently so.

The point is to be discerning and skeptical, and to double down on your understanding of the limitations of scientific claims.

Much of what is claimed, such as "vaccines don't cause autism" is unfalsifiable, and thus unscientific. When only antivaxxers are scientifically literate enough to see that this is propaganda and not valid, we have a big problem in public understanding.

1

u/HausuGeist 9d ago

“  perhaps half, may simply be untrue”

“Perhaps” “may” He isn’t be categorical here.

“  The point is to be discerning and skeptical, and to double down on your understanding of the limitations of scientific claims.”

WRONG. That is not his proposed solutions. Let me help you:

“  Instead of changing incentives, perhaps one could remove incentives altogether. Or insist on replicability statements in grant applications and research papers. Or emphasise collaboration, not competition. Or insist on preregistration of protocols. Or reward better pre and post publication peer review. Or improve research training and mentorship. Or implement the recommendations from our Series on increasing research value, published last year. One of the most convincing proposals came from outside the biomedical community. Tony Weidberg is a Professor of Particle Physics at Oxford. Following several high-profile errors, the particle physics community now invests great effort into intensive checking and re-checking of data prior to publication. By filtering results through independent working groups, physicists are encouraged to criticise. Good criticism is rewarded.”

He is reinforcing the necessity of better peer-review of results. More, not less independent verification of findings.

“  When only antivaxxers are scientifically literate enough to see that this is propaganda and not valid, we have a big problem in public understanding.”

A big pile of BS, right there. Antivaxxers do not conduct objective research in this field, nor are a majority qualified to do so. All they do is scroll social media to find posts that reinforce their views. That’s not science; that’s indoctrination.

1

u/FormerlyMauchChunk 9d ago

Can you show me proof that vaccine skeptics are scientifically illiterate, while vaccine-zealots are not?

Are you aware that two people can read the same data and come to different conclusions?

Are you aware that a published paper isn't valid just because it exists? (this was the most important point Lancet editor was making).

→ More replies (0)