My previous blog was about a video in which someone first clearly explains how the mRNA vaccine works and then adds questionable scenarios to it Link. He fills in uncertainties, which (still) exist scientifically, with unlikely doomsday scenarios. That 'someone' was Andrew Wakefield, a very controversial figure and that is a euphemism. For those who don't know the name: see the two links on same blog
On Facebook, Daniel Tuinman debunks the same video, albeit with -for my taste- far too much attention for Wakefield himself, so not just on content. Furthermore, there also seem to be some empty assumptions in the debunk itself, at least statements of which I should find the sources.
'Debunkers' (especially the critics who debunk articles) have a strong tendency to disqualify themselves with their bias.
I just see it again in the first paragraph by Pepijn van Erp (whom I once followed because of his skeptical look) about Peter Borger's Retraction Paper. Paraphrased:
“To show that the test is flawed, you will have to come up with your arguments because it was designed by internationally renowned scientists such as Christian Drosten and 'our' Marion Koopmans".
Pepijn van Erp, Concerns about the 'retraction paper' for the Corman-Drosten PCR test
That's bar talk. It all depends on how the justification of the test itself is put together. Who wrote or designed it is not of argumentative importance, unless there is a conflict of interest – but even that is secondary if the argumentation is conclusive.
With this misplaced respect, people, especially civilized, respectful and decent people, all too easily stick to the inconsistencies that, for example, the RIVM spreads. Because those are excellent scientists in an eminent institute with great authority... Wrong starting point!
Always that ad hominem
Because of those personal attacks, a debunk like Daniel Tuinman's looks a bit too much like how Maurice is treated in the media instead of his sources or content. Willem Engel has also said sensible things, but they are ridiculed because of other statements that made no sense. Pieter Borger, same story: creationist so never mind.
But perhaps some of those rebels have quite an important piece of the puzzle with their 'crooked' perspectives. After all, the dust has not settled yet. The single-mindedness denies science, which is supposed to be an arena, not a VIP lounge.
Recently, someone refused to look at a peer-reviewed study that I suggested, even after my insistence. The reason? He had seen that someone else had also led that study. How ad hominem can you be!? "From the quiver of..., I don't read that" they say. Inconceivable.
Besides: It's also only a ten-minute zoom. My goodness... Wouldn't it make more sense to debunk something like the criticism of Jan Bonte (Jan B. Hommel)? But please without references to how despicable that person undoubtedly is. That battle is uninteresting. Anyone who is furious on the one hand or panicked on the other deserves empathy. They all go off the rails in parts and thus invalidate their own valid arguments. Then they pick each other up again. Such a shame!
Therefore: Best wishes to everyone who contributes to advancing insight, pro and con, even if little or nothing is happening with it at government level at the moment. What is happening there cannot be called science for that reason alone.
The link to the debunk of Daniël Tuinman on Facebook.
Another fallacy
Critical thinking raises questions. Conspiracy theories are answers to those questions, usually the very answers that have little to do with critical thinking. They arise from non-critical fantasy and simplistic tunnel vision in self-reinforcing information bubbles. Evidence is lacking, certainly scientific evidence.
Fake arguments are also accepted uncritically and reinforced around echoed. These times are driving many people towards a (possibly temporary) state-of-mind in which complexity is no longer accepted. Everyone is either right or wrong. Literally everything that supports their own right is immediately accepted as true.
For most critics, the conclusion is decisive for whether or not to accept the premises and dd arguments. That is the upside-down world: The premises must be correct, the argumentation must be conclusive and lead to the conclusion, whether it suits your own stall or not.
I also think the current approach to the virus is almost scandalous, but fallacies of course solve nothing and conspiracy theories only change those who are guilty. That's nice for later, but for now?
