Things you didn't realise you felt strongly about until recently


#1

For me it’s anti-vaxing. Never had a conversation with anyone about it until last week, but when I did, I got proper fired up about it.

What about you?


#2

Toblerone


#3

Vaccinations? Yeah the anti lot are the worst humans on earth.


#4

Yep (to both sentences).


#5

Always fun hearing these people back-pedal when you explain that your daughter is going through tests for autism. Suddenly they’re not so bold.


#6

Of course, I use the word “fun” in the loosest sense.


#7

I vaguely know a guy in Facebook that I’ve got into arguments with a couple of times when posting that vaxxed documentary.

It’s difficult because you have to defend the government, media, big pharma etc and they gave a narrative of Wakefield as a brave hero who lost everything for a noble cause, when really he is a straight up crook, thousands of people are dead because of him, kids are given bleach enemas as ‘treatments’ based on pseudoscience he has contributed to, and he has muddied the waters of the public understanding of autism, there is no epidemic just broader criteria.

These pages from neurotribes summarise it pretty well http://imgur.com/mH7EfFz
Normally just post that at the Jenny McCarthy death count website when I see people post that stuff now


#8

recently had a debate with my gf over the nature of knowledge. I believe that it is possible to know things with 100%certainty, she claimed that this was not possible. So I might not even know my name? Bullshit.

the philosophy of knowledge


#10

Hmmmmm. I came down on the side of externalism on knowledge. You can know things, but 100% certainty isn’t required for that to be the case. Fucked if I can remember why.
Reckon the only thing you can be 100% certain on is cogito ergo sum.


#11

The independence of the judiciary.


#12

I just thought that was dangerous. Like it’ll lead to being able to deny objective scientific facts, and will allow you to believe stupid conspiracy theories. Our argument was actually over 9/11 and whether bush did it or not. Because he fucking didn’t


#13

heh heh
love it when they claim that there can be objective standards for things, then put a subjective qualification on it.


#14

What’s the reasoning behind her argument? So, could she argue with simple maths? 1+1=2 and all that? (Apologies if I’m providing fuel to some basic level A Level Philosophy fire?)


#15

Makes it even worse in my opinion, as parents they should know the facts, basically

‘As a parent I’d rather expose my children to the proven risk of contracting illness that can lead to death or permanent life changing damage, rather than expose them to the unproven and thorough debunked risk of contracting autism’


#16

It started when she claimed that Bush probably had some involvement with 9/11 based on youtube conspiracy shit. I then claimed that I knew that Bush didn’t do 9/11 (because it’s just insane to think that he could, and all). She said that you can never know anything with 100% certainty, even objective facts like evolution. So yeah, apparently 1+1= 2 could be disputed under this theory of knowledge and facts, so its just not very good or convincing to me.


#17

Librarian to the rescue…

There is a theory known as the DIKW pyramid which basically represents the links between all types of information and how it is organised and understood. Data -> Information -> Knowledge -> Wisdom

ie it begins with a lot of unorganised data that is then loosely grouped together by themes and concepts into information, which when someone begins to learn about it, understand the concepts and apply it, it then becomes knowledge, and this knowledge becomes wisdom when you have an advanced understanding and can add to the information and link it to other concepts.


#18

DIKNWYA,P


#19

Nah, there’s a difference between what is reasonable to believe and what you can be absolutely 100% certain about with no possible element of doubt. Like, it could be that you are in a Truman Show style situation where the whole world you experience is geared towards making you believe that 9/11 wasn’t an inside job. Can you ever 100% with absolute certainty prove that that’s not the case? No. Can you know that that’s not the case? Yes. If it objectively isn’t the case, and you have good reason to believe it isn’t, then I think it’s reasonable to say you know it’s not the case, even though you can never be 100% certain.

From a philosophical standpoint, I think Christopher Hill did an excellent job of arguing for process reliabilism as a way of justifying our claim to have uncertain knowledge.


#20

I can’t be in the Truman show. My masters would never let DiS exist.


#21

I wasn’t sure what you meant there, is it that they suddenly lay off the anti-vax because it might be implying that you caused the autism by giving your child a vaccination?