Poll: What is your opinion of Vaccines/Vaccine Policy?
Vaccines saved the world. Bring them on.
I don't entirely trust big pharma, but vaccines have done more good than harm.
Some vaccines are effective and useful. Some are not.
Vaccines are of questionable value, like many pharmaceuticals, but I might want one if an epidemic hits.
Vaccines cause more health problems than they prevent. Parents and individuals should have the right to refuse any/all of them.
Vaccines are part of a population-reduction conspiracy on the part of the global elite and are intended to sterilize/kill as many as possible.
[Show Results]
 
Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2014, 01:23 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 12:51 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  Seriously, can anyone who's tried to tell this guy that the burden of proof on vaccines working is on him please go away and shoot themselves. Yes

This is an atheist forum, we spend our lives saying "the burden of proof is on the believer". It's practically our catchphrase. We are the ones asserting it works, we have to provide the proof for, in this instance, the "skeptic".

If someone came here and said "homeopathy works and the burden of proof is on you to prove it doesn't" we'd tear them to shreds (and quite rightly), yet here we are doing exactly the same ourselves.

Frusty
Is this supposed to be satire? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 01:26 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Is this supposed to be satire? Consider

No, it's a valid point against the hypocrisy of anyone here claiming that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:23 PM)Vosur Wrote:  Is this supposed to be satire? Consider

No, it's a valid point against the hypocrisy of anyone here claiming that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.

Don't be a fuckwit, Hughsie.

The burden of proof is on the one upsetting literally centuries of rock-solid established knowledge.

And that's without the additional claims. Claiming conspiracy, fraud, collusion, or even bias needs to be substantiated.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
30-04-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:26 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  No, it's a valid point against the hypocrisy of anyone here claiming that the burden of proof is on the non-believer.
No, Hughsie, it really isn't. OP is no different from an ID proponent who attempts to argue against the scientific community's universal consensus concerning the evolution of life on Earth. The "pro-vaccines" side has already made its case long ago; it's up to him to demonstrate that they're wrong.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
30-04-2014, 01:44 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't be a fuckwit, Hughsie.

The burden of proof is on the one upsetting literally centuries of rock-solid established knowledge.

So when people first started openly questioning Christianity that had been for "literally centuries" the established knowledge of pretty much the entirety of Europe the burden of proof was on them? What about now, there are more theists than atheists in the world so does that mean the burden of proof remains on us?

(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's without the additional claims. Claiming conspiracy, fraud, collusion, or even bias needs to be substantiated.

Now here I agree. On the fraud, and conspiracy stuff he is asserting something and the burden of proof is on him. As far as simply whether or not vaccines work I still see it as on us.

What are we saying (let's be consistent)? Is the burden of proof on the believer? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions established views? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions popular views. If we are drawing a line where are we drawing it? I don't think "the burden of proof is on those who question the accepted views on TTA forums" is really a fair answer.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:39 PM)Vosur Wrote:  No, Hughsie, it really isn't. OP is no different from an ID proponent who attempts to argue against the scientific community's universal consensus concerning the evolution of life on Earth. The "pro-vaccines" side has already made its case long ago; it's up to him to demonstrate that they're wrong.

So, in relation to my previous post, your answer would be that the burden of proof is on the person who questions established knowledge?

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
I'm confused, should we have the burden of proof to believe the earth is round.
If so we have evidence and 99.999% of the scientific community to supports us.

Just as in the vaccinations and the fear mongering of side effects:

i posted a link to the Autism society page that categorically dismissed Vaccination's as a cause, yet this evidence was dismissed as "big pharma collusion"

we have met our burden of proof, so the anti-vaccs need to put their case forward in a scientific way, not anecdotal "i was not vaccinated and i'm ok" (sing that to the lumberjack song).

All the links I clicked that were supposed to support the antivax side were ambiguous or were actually recommendation for vaccination.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 01:56 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:51 PM)sporehux Wrote:  I'm confused, should we have the burden of proof to believe the earth is round.
If so we have evidence and 99.999% of the scientific community to supports us.

Just as in the vaccinations and the fear mongering of side effects:

i posted a link to the Autism society page that categorically dismissed Vaccination's as a cause, yet this evidence was dismissed as "big pharma collusion"

we have met our burden of proof, so the anti-vaccs need to put their case forward in a scientific way, not anecdotal "i was not vaccinated and i'm ok" (sing that to the lumberjack song).

All the links I clicked that were supposed to support the antivax side were ambiguous or were actually recommendation for vaccination.

I fully agree. I'm not questioning whether or not we've met our burden of proof. I've seen a few suggestions that the burden of proof is not on us, that's what I'm taking issue with (especially on an atheism forum). Replies should be focused on showing the evidence to prove him wrong, not dismissing him out of hand because "the burden of proof is on him anyway".

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2014, 02:10 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 01:44 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Don't be a fuckwit, Hughsie.

The burden of proof is on the one upsetting literally centuries of rock-solid established knowledge.

So when people first started openly questioning Christianity that had been for "literally centuries" the established knowledge of pretty much the entirety of Europe the burden of proof was on them? What about now, there are more theists than atheists in the world so does that mean the burden of proof remains on us?

That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison, but okay. Let's play a game. One the one hand - all of modern virology and related fields. On the other - early modern Christian theology. One of those bodies of knowledge was rigourously established through gradual, skeptical, scientific inquiry. One was not. Can you guess which is which?

At some point one must accept that things can be proven. This is an implicitly limited judgement - human beings are, naturally, limited. We call this body of knowledge science and we refine it continuously. To refuse to acknowledge even the concept of consensus knowledge is to degenerate into solipsism.

Accepting as given the cumulative body of scientific knowledge we inherit, that becomes our starting point for further inquiry.

Having established a claim or theory as the better current explanation, we accept it as our new default position. That's the entire point of investigating it in the first place - so that we know whether to keep it or reject it.

The burden of proof necessarily falls on the one who then objects to the body of prior investigation. This, of course, may be warranted - that's how knowledge evolves! And this may also be ludicrously unwarranted.

I leave it to you to decide for yourself where, in your estimation, the OP falls on that scale.

(30-04-2014 01:44 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  
(30-04-2014 01:36 PM)cjlr Wrote:  And that's without the additional claims. Claiming conspiracy, fraud, collusion, or even bias needs to be substantiated.

Now here I agree. On the fraud, and conspiracy stuff he is asserting something and the burden of proof is on him. As far as simply whether or not vaccines work I still see it as on us.

It's not "on us". It's been done.

(30-04-2014 01:44 PM)Hughsie Wrote:  What are we saying (let's be consistent)? Is the burden of proof on the believer? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions established views? Is the burden of proof on the person who questions popular views. If we are drawing a line where are we drawing it? I don't think "the burden of proof is on those who question the accepted views on TTA forums" is really a fair answer.

Aaaaand there you go being disingenuous again. Well; that's not fair. But you're being very fuzzy.

Conflating "the accepted views on the forum" with "the accepted consensus view of the scientific community" is some grade-A equivocation. They are not the same thing, and I hope you see the difference.

There is (obviously!) no absolute hard and fast rule. The more fundamental the theory questioned, the greater onus on the one doing the questioning.

"VACCINES R CONSPIRCY LOL" needn't be taken seriously.

Is the burden of proof on you, the "believer", when faced with someone who questions a heliocentric solar system?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
30-04-2014, 02:27 PM
RE: Vaccine (Public Health) Policy Needs to Be Challenged
(30-04-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That's a bit of a disingenuous comparison, but okay. Let's play a game. One the one hand - all of modern virology and related fields. On the other - early modern Christian theology. One of those bodies of knowledge was rigourously established through gradual, skeptical, scientific inquiry. One was not. Can you guess which is which?

At some point one must accept that things can be proven. This is an implicitly limited judgement - human beings are, naturally, limited. We call this body of knowledge science and we refine it continuously. To refuse to acknowledge even the concept of consensus knowledge is to degenerate into solipsism.

Accepting as given the cumulative body of scientific knowledge we inherit, that becomes our starting point for further inquiry.

Having established a claim or theory as the better current explanation, we accept it as our new default position. That's the entire point of investigating it in the first place - so that we know whether to keep it or reject it.

The burden of proof necessarily falls on the one who then objects to the body of prior investigation. This, of course, may be warranted - that's how knowledge evolves! And this may also be ludicrously unwarranted.

I leave it to you to decide for yourself where, in your estimation, the OP falls on that scale.

You say that you disagree with me but for the most part this is in support of what I'm saying. That vaccines work is accepted knowledge because people have proved it beyond reasonable doubt. The people who provided the proof accepted that it is on the person asserting something and stepped up. Our role is easy, all we have to do is point to their work, or say that we don't think the debate is even worth having. The only dumb thing to do is enter the debate, but then not even be prepared to back up our claims when doing so is literally as easy as doing very basic googling.

To clarify, if someone's view is "this is such accepted knowledge that I shouldn't even have to link to the evidence to back up my views, it's pointless" then I don't even have any issue with that. But if they are that apathetic what the fuck are they doing involving themselves in the debate. People should either state their personal views but refrain from properly debating the merits of them, enter debating the validity of their views but be prepared to back them up, or stay out altogether. If you watch a real debate people turn up prepared with the evidence to back up their points, however well accepted their views are. You don't see many debates won by people going "well I can't back up my points but that's only because I haven't bothered finding the evidence as they are well accepted in society, therefore I win".

(30-04-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It's not "on us". It's been done.

I never said it hasn't.

(30-04-2014 02:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Aaaaand there you go being disingenuous again. Well; that's not fair. But you're being very fuzzy.

Conflating "the accepted views on the forum" with "the accepted consensus view of the scientific community" is some grade-A equivocation. They are not the same thing, and I hope you see the difference.

There is (obviously!) no absolute hard and fast rule. The more fundamental the theory questioned, the greater onus on the one doing the questioning.

"VACCINES R CONSPIRCY LOL" needn't be taken seriously.

Is the burden of proof on you, the "believer", when faced with someone who questions a heliocentric solar system?

Really? Accepted consensus view of the scientific community should not be questioned? So if enough prominent scientists come out and say the Earth is actually pyramid shaped (but offer zero evidence) then the burden of proof should fall to the people who still think it's round?

"VACCINES R CONSPIRCY LOL" would leave the burden of proof on the person saying it as they are the person asserting something.

Best and worst of Ferdinand .....
Best
Ferdinand: We don't really say 'theist' in Alabama. Here, you're either a Christian, or you're from Afghanistan and we fucking hate you.
Worst
Ferdinand: Everyone from British is so, like, fucking retarded.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: