Poll: Anti-Vax content on AvCanada

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

* drops the mic and does a nerdy chicken dance

* trips over the mic and makes a total ass of himself

[OneYonge]

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

It isn't. I said Scientist vs Scientist.
The experts that currently research masks and lockdowns are scientists. Including a minority who fall on one side.

The folks that promote flat earth, are not Scientists. It is odd that people insist on putting legit Scientists on the same bin as Conspiracy Theorists.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

I say the opposite. In Risk Management terms, a current 95% has more weight even if the 5% turns out to be right.
Your job is just get the info and assess the risks. You don't choose "which is true" but you do choose what to do with the information.

Are there worthwhile debates? Not for us. But not amongst experts, ABSOLUTELY. They would stop researching if it isn't worthwhile.

You are still making a mistake by dismissing a minority(automatic "yahoo").... as if Science were up to the popular vote.

[ReserveTank]

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

That is an example of Conspiracy Theorist vs Scientist...which is not what we were talking about.
We were talking about Scientists vs Scientists.

It is also irrelevant if a Scientist calls another Scientist a "yahoo", if they don't debunk them as well.

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

Mic drops are immature, all-in emotional tantrums.

Funny, you "mic drop" over 5% because it is an insignificant amount, but 0.058% is enough to board up the entire country. That's 99.942%, A damn swell significance in favour of neither masking nor closing the country.

This is how we know that masking is absolutely political. Once you start doing math, these people revert to emotions. They know it makes no logical sense, but they are so emotionally invested in the party politics that they cannot reason.

[mbav8r]

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

But it is what we're talking about. I call the 5% of anti-mask "scientists" conspiracy theorists. But that's not entirely my point.

If 5% of scientists tell me not to wear masks, and 95% of them do, and I give equal weight to all "experts", then I am therefore 95% in favour of keeping masks on. To argue that "there is still a worthwhile debate" is to give far more weight to the 5% minority. The whole "experts disagree so you can't choose which expert to believe unless you're an expert" argument falls flat on its face if you simply give them all equal weight.

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

Mic drops are immature, all-in emotional tantrums.

Funny, you "mic drop" over 5% because it is an insignificant amount, but 0.058% is enough to board up the entire country. That's 99.942%, A damn swell significance in favour of neither masking nor closing the country.

This is how we know that masking is absolutely political. Once you start doing math, these people revert to emotions. They know it makes no logical sense, but they are so emotionally invested in the party politics that they cannot reason.

Blah blah blah, I’ve tuned you out now

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Blah blah blah, I’ve tuned you out now

And therein lies the problem.

* drops the mic and does a nerdy chicken dance

[RyanWalker90]

We should always consider all points of view, even the most unpopular. Otherwise, we simply will not see the full picture of everything that happens. I am totally for

[AirFrame]

Yes, it should be allowed. This is a forum. Where we discuss ideas. In a civil manner.

Ideas about aviation in Canada. Find another forum to spread anti-mask and anti-vax bullsh*t.

[digits_]

If news would evolve into some kind of tutorial or lecture, for those who really care, our society would make a giant leap forward.

But I know, that is unrealistic. Which is a shame.

Well I for one have no wish to be lectured to by the evening news. Your argument here is rather paternalistic.

Maybe. But if you have no desire to understand the subject in depth, then what do you hope to gain from a discussion?

[OneYonge]

We should always consider all points of view, even the most unpopular. Otherwise, we simply will not see the full picture of everything that happens. I am totally for

Newton discovered gravity, 200+ years later Einstein proved he was wrong. And now we have articles that say "scientists are coming for Einstein"
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ei ... cna1038671

Useless to us, but worthwhile among expert researchers.

Even so called "settled science" gets supplanted with more research. The COVID or VAX stuff isn't even anywhere near "settled".

The "there is no debate" crowd is wrong, but they are right that scientific debates are useless to us.

Fortunately, we don't need to fully understand "science" in order to make good decisions. If you learn how to manage risks, you can compensate for lack of expertise in understanding science.

[montado]

Yes, it should be allowed. This is a forum. Where we discuss ideas. In a civil manner.

Ideas about aviation in Canada. Find another forum to spread anti-mask and anti-vax bullsh*t.

This is not the aviation forum, it’s the covid forum. Click elsewhere if you don’t want to participate.

I can’t understand where people have an opinion they think should be enforced on everyone else. I’m perfectly fine with you wearing a mask and keeping distance from people. Have at it. I hear countless anecdotal stories of people who followed all the rules and are dumbfounded how they still got covid. This is because they believe the government policies are about health. No sheeple wake up! If this was about your health we would not be talking about masks, vaccines and lockdowns. We would be talking about the human immune system and how to make it more resilient. Diet, exercise, vitamins and nutrients. The biggest defence from all viruses is to start with a healthy lifestyle. How hard is that to comprehend. Why are some people asymptomatic or only mild symptoms?

At the beginning of the pandemic I said we will get over this as we are resilient. I’m beginning to think this is no longer true about humanity. We are so hung up on control, fear, protection of the weak. Humans were resilient until technology turned us all into lemmings. There are definitely less resilient human inhabitants.

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

If news would evolve into some kind of tutorial or lecture, for those who really care, our society would make a giant leap forward.

But I know, that is unrealistic. Which is a shame.

Well I for one have no wish to be lectured to by the evening news. Your argument here is rather paternalistic.

Maybe. But if you have no desire to understand the subject in depth, then what do you hope to gain from a discussion?

I have no issues with tutorial / lecture type broadcasts, even if they're publicly funded. In fact, I do watch some of them, and listen to quite a bit of talk radio, which is always rife with opinion. But I don't want that to come from the news, which should be informing me of what happened, not why it happened. That should be left to formats designed for opinion and discussion, not formats designed to simply inform - much like the opinion pages of print media (when it's one correctly).

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

We should always consider all points of view, even the most unpopular. Otherwise, we simply will not see the full picture of everything that happens. I am totally for

Newton discovered gravity, 200+ years later Einstein proved he was wrong. And now we have articles that say "scientists are coming for Einstein"
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ei ... cna1038671

Useless to us, but worthwhile among expert researchers.

Even so called "settled science" gets supplanted with more research. The COVID or VAX stuff isn't even anywhere near "settled".

The "there is no debate" crowd is wrong, but they are right that scientific debates are useless to us.

Fortunately, we don't need to fully understand "science" in order to make good decisions. If you learn how to manage risks, you can compensate for lack of expertise in understanding science.

You're "right" that Newton was "wrong". But remember this: I can fully well use nothing more than Newtonian physics to perfectly accurately calculate where a howitzer shell will land. It is far more correct to say that Newton wasn't wrong - his theory is merely an incomplete simplification of Einstein's.

The same thing happens in medical science when we don't yet know the full picture.

[OneYonge]

You're "right" that Newton was "wrong". But remember this: I can fully well use nothing more than Newtonian physics to perfectly accurately calculate where a howitzer shell will land. It is far more correct to say that Newton wasn't wrong - his theory is merely an incomplete simplification of Einstein's.

The same thing happens in medical science when we don't yet know the full picture.

Noone would ever suggest you throw out everything Newton got right just because some were "wrong".
Sometimes things still work even though the principle behind it was not what you thought.

You say Newton's was just incomplete, I read he actually got some things wrong and incompatible...im not smart enough to argue or understand the difference. But that isn't the point.

It is that the non-scientists who say "there is no debate"...really have no idea.

We aren't involved in the Science, and we don't really need the whole picture and full understanding to make good decisions.

[BigQ]

Yes, it should be allowed. This is a forum. Where we discuss ideas. In a civil manner.

Ideas about aviation in Canada. Find another forum to spread anti-mask and anti-vax bullsh*t.

As my esteemed colleague mentioned above, it's in the covid subforum on avcanada. Evidently, if it wasn't on topic, we wouldn't have a subforum, now would we?

Also, how does one know "it's bullshit" or not? Ultimately, we prove the science, and then we discuss the ideas. Since we would then have proof, through the use of logic and evidence, the discuss would prove to "unbelievers" that the science is right. And then the discussion would end, with everyone taking the science as fact.

Now we are in a situation where the science is still iffy on some things pandemic-wise, the messaging from TPTB is strong, and the discussion is quashed. How can we go about actually improving society like that?

[RedAndWhiteBaron]

Also, how does one know "it's bullshit" or not? Ultimately, we prove the science, and then we discuss the ideas. Since we would then have proof, through the use of logic and evidence, the discuss would prove to "unbelievers" that the science is right. And then the discussion would end, with everyone taking the science as fact.

Now we are in a situation where the science is still iffy on some things pandemic-wise, the messaging from TPTB is strong, and the discussion is quashed. How can we go about actually improving society like that?

Username checks out. (I assume the Q stands for "Question" and not "Q400"?)

[shimmydampner]

And you have to give them all equal weight, because you're not an expert.

This is a mic drop moment, who could argue against this logic. I like it, if you’re not an expert in the field, give equal weight to each expert and go with the majority, if they are swayed, I too will be!

Ah yes. Let's abandon critical thinking and just follow the herd. And then celebrate our wilful logical fallacy. When has that approach ever failed the human race?