Social constructs are real and they matter

[Valka D'Ur]

The current one is "People not vaccinating their kids has had a negligible impact on the number of cases of a disease that is far more comparable to the common cold than it is to anthrax, but since they are disregarding mighty science they should have their kids taken by force". No one can in any way point to effects of these people not vaccinating their kids that even justify assigning a reporter, but because "science says we are right we can justify our moral outrage."

When the next one comes up, probably within the next couple days, I'll point it out.

I've posted that myself, so you don't need to point it out to me. Unless there's some verifiable medical reason not to, I consider it irresponsible and even neglectful to refuse to vaccinate a child.

And when you have significant numbers of sick kids, school closures, and quarantines, it does so "justify assigning a reporter."

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I've posted that myself, so you don't need to point it out to me. Unless there's some verifiable medical reason not to, I consider it irresponsible and even neglectful to refuse to vaccinate a child.

And when you have significant numbers of sick kids, school closures, and quarantines, it does so "justify assigning a reporter."

Certainly would...if there were significant numbers of sick kids.

 

[cardgame]

You know why there aren't significant numbers of sick kids, right?

 

[Arwon]

When did this board become an antivax forum

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Certainly would...if there were significant numbers of sick kids.

All it takes are a few irresponsible and selfish parents to get it going.

When did this board become an antivax forum

It's all over the internet these days.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

All it takes are a few irresponsible and selfish parents to get it going.

Actually, it takes a whole bunch of selfish parents to "get it going". About three times as many as the anti-vaccination fad peaked at might be significant, maybe. But the numbers that the fad brought in were nowhere near enough to produce any significant issues and certainly don't warrant the current hysterical reaction calling for any variety of crazy draconianism.

But as I said to start with, the righteous believers in science are highly offended, so the hysteria is grossly magnified.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You know why there aren't significant numbers of sick kids, right?

Yeah. There aren't a significant number of sick kids because despite the hysterical response to the anti-vaccination crowd that crowd is actually way too small to matter. Thanks for asking.

 

[Farm Boy]

Tim, I admire the tenacity. I particularly like the assessment of measles statistics against the seizure rates of the MMR shot. But man, you're arguing with what might as well be creationism at this point. It takes a better man than me to keep it up for any amount of time.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Tim, I admire the tenacity. I particularly like the assessment of measles statistics against the seizure rates of the MMR shot. But man, you're arguing with what might as well be creationism at this point. It takes a better man than me to keep it up for any amount of time.

I'm not a better man, I'm just working off the good karma I earned in my last life as a mule. You're right though, creationist faith and science true believer righteousness are very similar.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But as I said to start with, the righteous believers in science are highly offended, so the hysteria is grossly magnified.

I'm not a better man, I'm just working off the good karma I earned in my last life as a mule. You're right though, creationist faith and science true believer righteousness are very similar.

What's next, accusing me of door-knocking on Saturday mornings with a Carl Sagan book in one hand and a Richard Dawkins book in the other? It would be really nice if you would stop equating science with religion. Quite frankly, that's offensive.

 

[Bootstoots]

What's next, accusing me of door-knocking on Saturday mornings with a Carl Sagan book in one hand and a Richard Dawkins book in the other? It would be really nice if you would stop equating science with religion. Quite frankly, that's offensive.

Science and religion aren't at all the same. Nonetheless, I think there is some merit to the idea that secular people often use science to back their own moral positions in much the same way that religious people often use their religion to derive their values.

I'm quite irreligious myself, but I can't watch something like Symphony of Science* and miss the fact that most of the scientists featured are talking, more or less explicitly, about the spiritual value of science. It's not much of a leap from here to see how replacing religion with science as a means of spiritual fulfillment might also lead to scientific values that are used the same way religious values are used by religious people.



*Contains bad autotuning. Viewer discretion is advised. But other than that, it's fantastic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

What's next, accusing me of door-knocking on Saturday mornings with a Carl Sagan book in one hand and a Richard Dawkins book in the other? It would be really nice if you would stop equating science with religion. Quite frankly, that's offensive.

To who, the science true believers or the religious faithful?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

To who, the science true believers or the religious faithful?

You still don't get it. You carry on as though I stand on a street corner and preach at people, or go door-knocking and preach vaccination, evolution, or the Big Bang. I don't know what offends you. I know what offends me, and your insistence on equating science with religion is something I find offensive.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You still don't get it. You carry on as though I stand on a street corner and preach at people, or go door-knocking and preach vaccination, evolution, or the Big Bang. I don't know what offends you. I know what offends me, and your insistence on equating science with religion is something I find offensive.

Do you not realize that the vast majority of religious people do not knock on doors or stand on street corners and preach at people either? Active proselytizers are a pretty small minority, and the "your unbelief threatens the believers, burn you heretic" crowd is even smaller. Most religious people meeting a polite "well, I don't really share your beliefs" will move right on to the weather or the local sports team.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Language is a social construct....

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Language is a social construct....

Absolutely.

Thus by extension so is everything else except the actual physical world. If you can touch it, great, but as soon as you start to describe it...social construct.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Do you not realize that the vast majority of religious people do not knock on doors or stand on street corners and preach at people either? Active proselytizers are a pretty small minority, and the "your unbelief threatens the believers, burn you heretic" crowd is even smaller. Most religious people meeting a polite "well, I don't really share your beliefs" will move right on to the whether or the local sports team.

Do you not realize that you don't live in my community and I just might know more about my encounters with pushy proselytizers on my doorstep, on the city bus, and Mormons following me down the street than you do? Forpetessake, my sociology instructor in college tried to convert me! And then there are the myriad instances where religion gets shoehorned into public schools and there are still some officials who give people like me dirty looks when we refuse to swear on a bible.

Now if someone on the street says a quiet "I'll pray for you" and they're not obnoxious, I'll just say 'thank you' and let it go. But if that is accompanied by a nasty rant about how I'm going to hell for not being a believer (or in one case because my major in college was anthropology), then that's something I'm not okay with.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Hey! That's kinda how I respond to "If the scientific evidence I have selected because it supports my point doesn't sway you you must be stupid."

Fancy that, yet another parallel.

 

[Flying Pig]

Science and religion aren't at all the same. Nonetheless, I think there is some merit to the idea that secular people often use science to back their own moral positions in much the same way that religious people often use their religion to derive their values.

I'm quite irreligious myself, but I can't watch something like Symphony of Science* and miss the fact that most of the scientists featured are talking, more or less explicitly, about the spiritual value of science. It's not much of a leap from here to see how replacing religion with science as a means of spiritual fulfillment might also lead to scientific values that are used the same way religious values are used by religious people.



*Contains bad autotuning. Viewer discretion is advised. But other than that, it's fantastic.

Yes, I think we all say we believe scientific reports because somebody's done tests and worked it all out, but how many of us actually investigate for ourselves how they came to their conclusions? To be honest, in many cases I doubt I'd be able to make a really informed judgement about how trustworthy a given scientific report was. So I don't think the line's as defined as we might make out.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Hey! That's kinda how I respond to "If the scientific evidence I have selected because it supports my point doesn't sway you you must be stupid."

Fancy that, yet another parallel.

Was this remark directed toward me?