Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Lootman wrote:Or perhaps you comment on here on what some experts are saying, typically those whose views align with your own? We all exhibit confirmation bias like that to some extent. Although some more than others, and I do think you have a rather gloomy and pessimistic take on the subject. The "experts" that I read are more positive than your "experts".
Who are your "experts"?
The most recent example I cited was the CDC which is advising that fully vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks. And that they can travel. The UK equivalent is not telling us that at all.
I can't explain the thinking of the (American) CDC, but just one small difference between here and there is, AFAIK, the US vaccination regime followed the manufacturer's recommendations (you illustrated this yourself), whereas the UK took another course. Now I do not know the significance of that difference in approach here, but it is just one difference.
Lootman wrote:XFool wrote:Lootman wrote: is correct in that none of us here are experts in this field. That is not to say that every opinion expressed here is worthless. But it does seem to me that people exhibit on this topic some of the traits that they exhibit on other topics as well. And their submissions are selective. Some here even admit to shutting out some sources since they have decided such sources are unreliable (i.e. offer views contrary to their own).
there are always "experts" with "contrary" views (or even contrary views...) on anything you want. Personally, I think a little discrimination is called for, especially in these Internet days.
Yes but that "discrimination" tends to be based on one's personal biases, and therein lies the problem I was referring to.
OK. This is a complex (I think) and interesting matter...
Your approach seems to me to be based on a symmetry of position: On the one hand, on the other hand.
In many situations in life this 'relative' approach is indeed the case, indeed there is no way of establishing correctness on one side or the other. Nobody is 'wrong' because nobody
can be wrong. "
Homosexual relationships are natural and good."; "
Homosexual relationships are unnatural and an abomination."
But: "
The Earth is in the shape of a globe"; "
The Earth is flat and they have been deceiving us for years." Here I believe the symmetry is broken, either one or the other of those views is just flat(!) wrong. One view is rationally refutable - the other view can only be held, and is so held, by choosing to give up on rationality. The truth here seems to me absolute, not relative.
Now, you will say those two examples are simple extremes, that most things are more complex, not as black and white. I agree! I gave them simply as clear, artificially simple, illustrative examples. I fully realise many/most 'real life' cases are more complicated and messy (though I also think you don't think I do...).
I think what I am saying is I just don't accept all "views" and opinions are of equivalent value -
in the case of real world events. WRT the pandemic, we had quite a few "contrary" (even contrary...) opinions strongly pushed and publicised during the pandemic year. We can look back a them now and see how they faired, in the face of reality. Mostly, they didn't.
But, as ever, many of those really committed to whatever ideological thinking motivated their original "contrary" approach will be in denial.
Of course, none of this exactly explains how to go about deciding between "contrary" views in the first place, so the
arguments(whoops!) debates can continue.