Hacker News Reader

Comment by ejstronge | Hacker News Reader

> I am not defending the following claim, but among other claims is one that states a popularly cited measles outbreak occurred with 95% of the people catching having been immunized. The claim is that the immunizations are no longer effective

One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.

If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.

View on HN

> One of the key aspects of science is presenting data and methodology to support a claim - this enables reproducibility.

> If we don't have these pieces of information, we're essentially back in the realm of religion: believing statements without evidence.

You have, for whatever reason, grabbed a single sentence and addressed it as if it has no relation to other paragraphs.

Why?

Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time").

I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.

[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

> Because your whole argument is an example of an "argument to moderation" fallacy[1] that is only valid as long as there is some evidence that points to the fact that the majority medical opinion on vaccines is wrong (and of course, the majority opinion is not "everyone should get every vaccine there is all the time").

> I mean, I get the point that name-calling doesn't help, but we can't just accept statements that contradict established scientific opinion without any strong evidence, otherwise there is no means to progressing as a society.

There was nowhere in my arguments that I stated to accept anything from their arguments. I stated to disprove their arguments with science and to not engage in name-calling.

I did state that the people labeled as "anti-vaxxers" support their claims with scientific studies. I am not addressing their claims, so I am not providing the evidence they use to support their claims. I am stating how they make their claims.

Your claim that I am in line with the linked fallacy demonstrates that you do not understand what that fallacy is or where to apply it.

With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate.

I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).

> With all due respect, if you defend a position you don't even agree with (or where you can't/won't even point to a single piece of evidence) makes for a very unfruitful kind of debate.

> I mean, for every fringe position you can find some crank that "supports" it with some badly designed study, but strong claims (e.g. contradicting majority scientific opinion) require strong evidence not just "there are studies" (without pointing to any such study; how should one even refute this?).

With all due respect, you are demonstrating a reading comprehension level of a 10 year-old. You have not even one time responded to my claims.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com