12 Comments
Jan 19Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

Sciencetism.

Expand full comment
Jan 13Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

“Beginning with the suffering of our encephalitic children”... ouch. But true. So concise.

Expand full comment
Jan 13Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

Immensely frustrating. I applaud your optimism and persistence. I ran into each of these headlong starting in 2005 when I first started defending others parents' reported facts surrounding their children's encephalitis. Their reports might have saved my kids the same fate.

I hope you're right that the public is taking notice. I thought the perpetrators overreached with HPV vaccine because surely injured teens can actually communicate with us unlike infants or babies, but no I was wrong about that one. I thought last year, surely even small percentages of injured adults could not be ignored by their colleagues. In the general public, I still sense there are a lot of heads in the sand. I sincerely hope you're right.

Expand full comment

It was not ever thus.

Expand full comment
Jan 13Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

Love the list it's so helpful to have the tactics consolidated into rational pieces.. it helps to redirect the outrage to a more practical part of my brain that thinks beyond bitch-slap that punk reflex! <3

Expand full comment
Jan 13Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

That was Prima facie - auto-correct drives me bonkers sometimes!

Expand full comment
Jan 13Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

There’s nothing actually wrong with inductive research - quite the opposite, in fact - it’s just that the outcomes are actually “reasonable theories” - ie theories which, primarily facie, are worth going to the trouble of trying to falsify.

One of the problems of empirical science is the time wasted exploring implausible theories which have little chance of standing up to critical analysis but which “fit the narrative”.

Refinement through grind is, of course, valuable (if suitable only for dedicated but second rate minds, IMHO) but weird empirical results, like inductively generated theories, form the seeds from which much of the most innovative scientific flowers grow. The main requirement for innovation is an open mind (in rather short supply, today).

Expand full comment

Those that follow the science.. are incapable of analytical thought.. science is ever changing.. it is never written in stone.. we learn new things each day we open our eyes.. but those who follow another persons thoughts.. and call it science will never learn anything new... never adapt to change.

Expand full comment
Jan 12Liked by Ethical Skeptic ☀

A lot of those meaningless phrases thrown around. "The speed of science" and "Vaccine hesitancy" are 2 that spring to mind.

Expand full comment