Science is not infallible but it’s our best hope for progress.
Case in point, measles and other diseases that were on the decline but have resurged due to irrational fears that vaccines somehow cause harmful side effects.
The vaccine paranoia goes back to a single 1998 study that claimed a link between vaccines and autism. The study was later retracted and the authors’ medical license revoked when it was revealed that his research was fraudulent and he was on the payroll of a group suing a vaccine-maker.
On the other hand, many, many studies have been conducted to independently verify the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. This repetition and reproducing of results is what makes science reliable.
So, don’t put too much stock in a single study but if the results are repeated and confirmed by multiple studies then you can rely on the results. And, above all, don’t pay any attention to actors and other charlatans who spread paranoia and misinformation. Trust the science! —Dr. Strangegloves
This article appears in Feb 5-11, 2015.
Allow the idiots to kill their children; no sweat off our arses!
Polio is back in Pakistan. Another contribution to civilization from the R.O.P.
WHAT IS PROGRESS?
“Science is not infallible but it’s or best hope for progress.” Dr. Strangegloves
The only difficulty here is that science cannot, of itself, define “progress.” Progress is an interpretive concept and science does not deal in interpretive concepts. You may say it deals in “results” but the assessment of the validity (or not) of such results is not, of itself, a scientific concept. By the way, how did you know that science is not “infallible?” On what grounds do you make that universal claim since infallibility is not itself a scientific concept. Do you see self-contradiction here? I do.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
http://www.newyorker.com/cartoons/daily-ca…
^^^
HAHAHHAHHAH!
Blame D-celebrity Jenny McCarthy. She was the twit who publicized that so-called link and milked that bitch dry. That’s one lady who needs a certain naughty bit pulled over her head like a cabbage leaf.
Vaccines are not foolproof as some viruses can mutate but they are the best thing to guard the more susceptible members of society from serious illness. Children with immune deficiencies are at serious risk when others aren’t vaccinated. Schools act pretty quick with the allergy issue. Why not this one?
you mean to tell me Jenny McCarthy isnt as reliable as thousands of peer reviewed and proven tests done by the health and science geniuses across the world?!? say it aint so!! I know an anti-vaxxer and shes so vapid and delusional its scary that she has children. She got mad when i posted to her pictures of diseased children suffering from MMR…and i congratulated her on wanting to risk her children’s lives by being a complete moron and terrible mother SHEEESH. The old arguments of they dont protect from everything…true and they arent always going to work on everyone…but thats the .0000001% of population. Thimersol also hasnt been used in Canada since 1991 either. and the chemicals they use in prep for them, well, you get more mercury in a can of tuna (and its not even the same type of mercury compound) as you do in a needle…same thing for formaldahyde and blah blah blah. GET your vaccinations…especially for the children ffs.
Just because Jenny McCarthy is an Actress and comedian doesn’t mean she hasn’t researched the subject or had first hand experiences. Check out the people who died after receiving the Gardisil vaccine. Doctors can be negligent and not screen for allergies to the vaccine ingredients. The Gardisil Vaccine contained aluminum. There was a patient who was allergic to metals. She was 13 years old. She disclosed this several times before receiving the vaccine, the doctors didn’t clue in and gave her the shot anyway and now she’s dead. Do some research into what is in these vaccines. It doesn’t make much sense to me to inject disease in someone who is not sick to begin with to prevent disease the person will likely never even get.
^^ That sort of illogical thinking is maddening…quit your fear mongering fool!
The risk of a reaction to a vaccine is minuscule compared to the risk of dying of the disease it prevents. For example, there is one “life threatening” adverse reaction in a million to the measles vaccine versus two deaths in a thousand (2000 per million) from measles itself. In 2013, there were 145 700 measles deaths globally.
The number of serious Gardisil reactions is minuscule in comparison to the huge number of potentially prevented cancer deaths every year.
Personally. I’ll take all the vaccinations they offer me.
Post ‘Em: “Personally. I’ll take all the vaccinations they offer me.”
Dats why you autistic mafucka!
I didn’t fully vaccinate my children. My oldest child stopped all verbal communication for 4 months after receiving the MMR vaccine. That prompted my wife and I to do some “research”. I should note the I am an engineer and my wife is lawyer (who essentially does research professionally) and we don’t consider a TMZ article on Jenny McCarthy to be research.
What we found for research was studies paid for by pharmaceutical companies (conducted by government, Universities or the companies themselves) which said all vaccines were safe. We found the criteria for what constitutes a vaccine side effect to be unrealistically narrow (for instance, our daughter not communicating for 4 months immediately after the vaccine was not listed as a possible side effect so therefore not documented). On the other side we found pseudo science, mommy blogs, “healing through yoga”, you name it and it is on the internet. We also found a shocking amount of concerned parents asking the same questions we were and also not finding honest answers.
What I would like to see is an actual conversation about this. Not entrenched camps that throw insults and pictures of diseased children at each other – screaming on a soap box for the sake of their supporters and not for the progress of the conversation. I would also like to see some real impartial science done on this. Asking pharmaceutical companies if vaccines are safe is like asking oil companies if man made climate change is real.
I am looking to make the best decisions for the health of my kids. I am terrified to vaccine my youngest child at all or continue the vac schedule with my oldest. I am also frightened they will catch a terrible disease that I could have prevented.
EastCoastKid,
I understand your concern and can’t fault you for being careful. I think if I were in your position and having doubts I would ty to reassure myself by looking at each vaccine in terms of risk of vaccinating vs. risk of not vaccinating (potential harm). Public health authorities keep stats on adverse reaction and, being educated people, I’m sure you know that you can only evaluate those documented and verified side effects – not anecdotal and simply coincidental ones – as your child’s period of non-communciation may have been.
The risk of dying or suffering serious harm from certain diseases is usually infinitely greater than the risk of any adverse reaction to the vaccine. That’s why we vaccinate. For example, elderly people should get the pneumonia vaccine because if they are hospitalized with a broken hip they probably won’t die from the hip injury but there is a significant risk they will die from pneumonia -which is common when the elderly are immobilized.
http://www.aaos.org/news/aaosnow/jan13/cli…
With children, measles can and does kill. The stats are readily available. As far as I know there is no proof or evidence, other than pure coincidence, that a vaccine causes autism. Might as well say that being toilet trained causes autism because it is often first noticed around the same time. I think it is very telling that the experts in autism have all said that there is no link to vaccination and strongly recommend children be vaccinated.
http://www.autismspeaks.ca/about-autism/fa…
The other issue to consider is public responsibility. If you don’t vaccinate your children they may contract a disease and pass it on to other children or the elderly who can’t be vaccinated because they are undergoing medical treatment. The virus can then be lethal for that third person. That’s one of the main reasons I get flu shots. I don’t want to be the person who passes it on to another who is elderly or has a comorbidity that leads to their death – all because I was afraid to get the shot.
Here’s an article on social responsibility:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey…
Anyway, I don’t mean to lay a guilt trip on you. I totally understand that you just want what’s best for your children. That’s one of the things that I find so maddening about what I consider unnecessary fear mongering. It preys on intelligent people who, like you, want to be the best parents you can and puts nagging doubts in your mind.
Good luck with your decisions.
Check the VAERS database – over 100 children have died in the past 10 years from the MMR vaccine. Check the CDC, there have been no deaths from measles in the past 10 years. Measles hasn’t been a deadly disease since the 1800s and early 1900s (like all infectious diseases at the time). By the times the vaccine was introduced in 1963, measles was considered a generally mild disease because of labor laws, sanitation, nutrition, electricity, pasteurization, chlorination, etc. But, a billion dollar profit can be made from the vaccine. I’d rather have measles, stay home and rest for a couple days and be immune for life – just as most of the population born before 1970.
There is plenty of peer reviewed research studying the side effects ad (in)effectiveness of vaccines. You need to search past all the pro-vac propaganda though. The science behind vaccines is far from settled. Anybody can spread measles – vaccinated or not. People who were recently vaccinated are especially contagious since they are injected with a live attenuated virus, it is fact that these types of vaccines shed (influenza, MMR, varicella, etc.).
And finally, Jenny MacCarthy has nothing to do with why I chose not to vaccinate, or why I wasn’t vaccinated 28 years ago. Don’t criticize and name call those who have done their research, just because you haven’t done yours. We have the freedom to choose, it is in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In order to make an informed decision, you need to know both sides of the issue. And reading CBC (which is only sharing one side of the issue) Huffington Post, Up Worthy and personal blogs, don’t count.
by the way, aluminum is used in many many injections, as it is a natural catalyst…and its not straight ALUMINUM its an aluminum compound, you know, we have iron compounds in our blood, bit of heavy metals naturally…fuck just because it says some chemical or element name everyone goes crazy…mercury as well.
my cousin cole did nothing but cry and roll his head for 2 years after getting his first needles as a baby. turns out he had a grapefruit sized tumor sitting on his brain. after he woke up in recovery he spoke like he had been doing it all his life, imagine that, from not being able to converse or make any sort of indication to his family and then to HI mom! hi dad! oh and the vaccinations had nothing to do with his tumor either. coincidence was behind the timing 😀
Post ‘Em: “The number of serious Gardisil reactions is minuscule in comparison to the huge number of potentially prevented cancer deaths every year”
The number of Gardisil reactions is very serious! Is it serious when one person dies from the flu? Yes. Then, it is very serious when someone reacts or dies from the Gardisil vaccine!
Also, how do you account for POTENTIALLY prevented cancer deaths?? Could we also say that eating an apple a day has potentially prevented millions of deaths every year? Or, wearing a hat outside has potentially prevented millions from catching a cold. You can say “potentially” in front of anything and make a claim! You don’t know if Garisil prevented ANYONE from cancer. There is absolutely no way to prove that.
The more real information we can get out there the better. It seems the conversation revolves around attacking another person’s views as opposed to presenting facts that might sway an opinion, and thank you The Cat for the links.
As far as my family vaccinations go I believe my daughter’s reaction was solely caused by the vaccine. In all fairness though, I had a severe reaction to the same vaccine as a child and my own vaccines were rescheduled because of this. With my youngest child, he reacts severely to everything so I will not even try him on any vaccine for quite some time. In my case I believe we have an allergic reaction to the vaccine or a compound contained in it.
That said, I struggle to find information around vaccines that I deem credible. With the pharmaceutical companies funding the studies and many sketchy government/pharmaceutical relationships it is difficult to know who to trust. Fighting about specifics is difficult and really gets you no where. How much aluminum is in a vaccine and does it hurt you? Valid question but one on thousands and thousands of questions. Discussing one seems to sidetrack the big picture discussion.
RSVPS
“AN INFORMED DECISION”
“In order to make an informed decision, you have to know both sides of the issue.” bbop (02/12/11:31AM)
But once you know both sides of the issue, on what basis will you then make an informed decision? Where did you get your Ph.D. in epidemiology? From what university? What was your thesis on? Or is it all just hot blow?
“THE REAL INFORMATION”
“The more real information we can get out there the better.” EastCoastKid (1:45PM)
On what basis will you be able to distinguish “real information” from the counterfeit? Where did you get your Ph.D. in epidemiology? From what university? What was your thesis on? Or is it all just hot blow?
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
^^Very good point montrelman. I find it ironic that the people who are most likely to be sceptical of vaccination are often experts in their chosen field, and expect respect for their education, credentials and experience, but will not, in turn, respect the training, experience and credentials of experts in the field of medicine.
bbop said: “over 100 children have died in the past 10 years from the MMR vaccine. Check the CDC, there have been no deaths from measles in the past 10 years.”
Below is a link to an article which debunks both of those claims. (It took me one minute to find it.) Also, pay attention to the last paragraph which says:
“.. the possibility of death is not the only reason one should ….vaccinate a child against measles. As the CDC notes in their measles fact sheet, in some children measles can lead to pneumonia, lifelong brain damage, and deafness.”
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/mmr…
RSVP
The Cat (02/12,4:26PM)
Can you give examples of those people who are “most likely” to be sceptical of vaccination are “often experts” in their chosen field? Can you demonstrate the truth of your claim that, while expecting respect for their education, credentials and experience, they will not respect the training, experience and credentials of experts in the field of medicine? How likely is “most likely?” How often are the experts “often experts?” What are you talking about? Like bbop and EastEndKid you lack the grounds to determine the truth or falsity of any on the multitude of links found on the Net.
(10:47PM)
It was unsurprising that your link debunked bbop’s claims but my question is now directed at you: Why believe your link and not bbop? In other words, on what grounds are you able to assess the truth of competing claims about the efficacy of vaccines against measles? The short answer is that you are not. You are unable to distinguish one from the other, and for the same reason that bbop and EastEndKid are not either.
It was also unsurprising to see that neither bbop nor EastEndKid was able to report the particulars of their respective Ph.D.s in epidemiology (or anything else). That is because neither has a Ph.D., neither has conducted his own research into the efficacy of the vaccines against measles resulting in a Ph.D. thesis and neither has published their findings in legitimate scholarly journals specifying the journal title, volume and issue number and page references for each. It was unsurprising because both of their comments, like yours, were little more than hot blow.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
I agree with montrealman. I read the responses to my comment last night, but had absolutely no interest in replying to them because my goal was never to persuade anyone to change there mind – not because I didn’t want to state my credentials (which was laughable). There is science and research on both sides of the issue. Majority of people are just doing research based on their own biases. My bias is mine, and my family’s, experience with vaccines.
RSVPs
1. mm said: ” give examples of those people who are “most likely” to be sceptical of vaccination are “often experts” in their chosen field?:
Here’s two- eastcoastkid said: “I am an engineer and my wife is lawyer (who essentially does research professionally) “
2. mm said: “neither has a Ph.D., neither has conducted his own research into the efficacy of the vaccines against measles resulting in a Ph.D. thesis and neither has published their findings in legitimate scholarly journals specifying the journal title, “
I say: Are you implying that it is necessary for every person considering vaccination to do their own research and publish a thesis? Of course not. But we should take the advice of those with the credential who have done the research rather than, as the anti-vaxx folks do, the advice of charlatans and fear mongers with no medical background.
There are many people (and yes many of them have Ph.Ds) who do research and all indications are that vaccines are a lot safer than many activities that we take for granted. I’m guessing the stats would say it is more dangerous to drive your kid to a playdate than to have them vaccinated.
Much research has gone into vaccine safety. The Vaccine Safety Datalink is a sort of clearing house for information: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activitie…
The problem is that the anti-vaxxers cherry pick and misinterpret the information to justify their positions. Here’s an example of how people like bbop have been duped by misinformation:
bbop said: “The number of Gardisil reactions is very serious! Is it serious when one person dies from the flu? Yes. Then, it is very serious when someone reacts or dies from the Gardisil vaccine! “
Here’s the real answer: People die after Gardisil injections just like they die after eating a banana. It’s purely coincidental. The most serious side effect that can be attributed to Gardisil is fainting in the few minutes directly after the injection so patients are asked to sit for a bit. Is that so terrible?
Here is a link to the VSD info on Gardisil safety. See the “Has anyone died” section:
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/…
Anyway, that’s my last word on this. If someone has already decided to take the word of fear mongers over experts (with their Ph D.s and thorough research) then there is not much else to be said.
My main man Rex gives a stern sermon on the ant-vaxxers:
http://www.cbc.ca/player/News/ID/265222936…
THE ARROGANCE OF IGNORANCE
RSVP bbop (02/13, 9:26AM)
Your first and last sentences contradict each other. Your claim that you agree with me is irrelevant to the truth or falsity as to whether vaccines prevent measles. That is a matter of scientific knowledge, not any agreement of whatever kind.
But then you go on to claim that while there is “science on both sides of the issue” you will proceed to go with your own bias. While obviously that is the result of your inability to distinguish the truth of one side as opposed to the other, it is more importantly a complete admission of that inability. In other words, you have no coherent criteria to distinguish truth from falsity in respect to the efficacy of vaccines preventing measles. The question then arises as to why you posted on the matter in the first place. It can only be the arrogance of ignorance.
However, you are not alone. I’m still waiting to hear from EastEndKid. I wonder if he will be as honest as you and admit his complete incompetence in assessing truth from falsity in the case of vaccines preventing measles. What, one wonders, are his criteria? What can they possibly be? It looks like we’re just going to have to wait and see.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
THE ARROGANCE OF IGNORANCE (II)
RSVP
The Cat (02/13, 9:44AM)
As expected you have failed to understand my point. What was that point? My point was that those without scientific knowledge are unable to distinguish truth from falsity in assessing the competing claims of online posters in respect to the efficacy of vaccines in treating measles. That includes you. A Ph.D. in the relevant subject area gives evidence of such knowledge including, of course, published articles in legitimate scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Note the word “legitimate.” I’m not talking about your online “links.”
Now, on what grounds do you claim such scientific knowledge? What are the criteria on the basis of which you will be able to assess the validity of competing claims in respect to the efficacy of vaccines in treating measles? Do you understand my question? In the absence of such criteria your online “links” are meaningless. So what are your criteria?
My guess is that you have none. My guess is that you have no Ph.D. and no published articles in legitimate scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case you must post your scholarly credentials immediately. Failure to do so will betoken the fact that your case is just another instance of the arrogance of ignorance.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
^^^ A Universal Philosophical Refutation
A philosopher once had the following dream.
First Aristotle appeared, and the philosopher said to him, “Could you give me a fifteen-minute capsule sketch of your entire philosophy?” To the philosopher’s surprise, Aristotle gave him an excellent exposition in which he compressed an enormous amount of material into a mere fifteen minutes. But then the philosopher raised a certain objection which Aristotle couldn’t answer. Confounded, Aristotle disappeared.
Then Plato appeared. The same thing happened again, and the philosophers’ objection to Plato was the same as his objection to Aristotle. Plato also couldn’t answer it and disappeared.
Then all the famous philosophers of history appeared one-by-one and our philosopher refuted every one with the same objection.
After the last philosopher vanished, our philosopher said to himself, “I know I’m asleep and dreaming all this. Yet I’ve found a universal refutation for all philosophical systems! Tomorrow when I wake up, I will probably have forgotten it, and the world will really miss something!” With an iron effort, the philosopher forced himself to wake up, rush over to his desk, and write down his universal refutation. Then he jumped back into bed with a sigh of relief.
The next morning when he awoke, he went over to the desk to see what he had written. It was, “That’s what YOU say!”
montrealman, what I agreed with was that no one on this feed is %100 able to determine the truth.
When I say there is science on both sides of the issue, but then say I’m biased, I mean – my bias, my experiences with vaccines, has inspired me to research vaccines, to look at the science on the “other side”.
Is it not ignorant to say, or to believe, vaccines are %100 percent effect, %100 safe. Should our right to choose should be taken away? Should they be mandatory? Who knows then what vaccines will be pushed on us in 5 or 10 years. Are they all necessary? What are the side effects? Is it safe to give children, starting in utero with the Tdap vaccine, 14 vaccines in 29 doses before they are 6 years old? Include 6 more if they are getting the flu shot every year. Does that do harm to a developing immune system? Are babies born with weak immune systems, and therefore need to be “saved” from our harsh environment that is apparently polluted with infectious disease? Can our immune systems not be built up naturally over time by being exposed to natural pathogens?
Is there no room for questioning anything? Should we believe everything the media is telling us?
*please excuse my typing mistakes. I’m writing from my phone. Anyway, those questions are meant to be rhetorical. My point is only that, it would be ignorant not to ask questions and it is ignorant to criticize, and completely dismiss, that there is another side to this “debate”. Oh, but “we are recognizing the other side, and those people are quacks, nothing they say or think is true, they cherry pick, there is no scientific evidence, they only listen to Jenny McCarthy, let use all these studies paid for by pharmaceutical companies to debunk them.. etc. ” does not count as looking at the other side.
Alright, well I’m done here. I agree to disagree.
Take care.
I repeat: Allow the idiots to kill their children; no sweat off our arses!
THE ARROGANCE OF IGNORANCE (III)
RVPS
The Cat (2/13, 10:45AM)
In addition to failing to give any criteria by which you are able to assess the validity of competing claims in respect to the efficacy of vaccines in treating measles, in addition to failing to answer my request that you post your scholarly credentials including a Ph.D. in epidemiology or a related field and published articles in peer-reviewed, legitimate scholarly scientific journals, you have clearly demonstrated my thesis that, where science is concerned, both your arrogance and your ignorance have shone through.
Still further, in your fatuous account of “A Universal Philosophical Refutation” in which you absurdly attempt to reduce philosophy to a matter of opinion, you have also shown yourself equally incompetent in matters philosophical. You are an empty vessel. You must be gone.
bbop (11:07AM)
Your first sentence is incoherent. I never maintained that no one on this feed is 100% able to determine the truth. In fact my claim was not scientific at all but rather philosophical.
I never asked, “What is the scientific truth here?” I asked the epistemological question, “How do you know?” They are completely separate questions. What I in fact maintained was not that no one on this thread is 100% able to determine the truth but rather that, in the absence of objective criteria to assess the competing claims of the efficacy of vaccines to treat measles, any claim to such knowledge was vacuous. Of course there is room for questioning. Of course you don’t have to believe everything the media is telling us. But – this was my only point – you must have reasons – that’s REASONS – not to believe. Otherwise you are just being irrational.
(11:51AM)
I fully agree that it would be ignorant not to ask questions and to recognize that there is another side to the “debate.” However my point, as always, was that such questioning should be informed questioning and not just questioning for the sake of questioning. That is just hot blow. Underlying all this, of course, is the erroneous belief that every opinion is of equal worth. That is false. It is based of a corruption of democracy called “democratism” – hey, we’re all equal, right? No, that’s wrong. We’re al equal before the law but that’s all.
So, the opinion of someone with a Ph.D. and a record of scholarly publications (not internet “links”) in epidemiology on the question of the efficacy of vaccines treating measles is of more worth than one who does not have a Ph.D. It’s a simple as that. I have a Ph.D. but not in science and would no more question one who does without good – you guessed it – REASONS. But the fact is that I am not qualified to pass on competing claims in science generally or on the efficacy of vaccines in treating measles in particular. Want to talk philosophy? Well, that’s another story. Anyway, nice talking.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
^^^”reduce philosophy to a matter of opinion”
Philosophy is nothing but opinion. So add this to the pile:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could drink you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was twice as sloshed as Schlegel.
There’s nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach yer ’bout the raising of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, on half a pint of shandy was particularly ill,
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whisky every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: “I drink, therefore I am.”
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed –
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he’s pissed.
THE ARROGANCE OF IGNORANCE (IV)
“Philosophy is nothing but opinion.”
But that itself is a philosophical assertion. You do understand that, don’t you? You are making a universal truth claim. But simple assertion of a truth claim is insufficient. You must go to the next step.
Philosophy does not consist simply of empty assertions (the kind you make) but in addition reasons are required to support those assertions. I know this will be difficult for you but you must bring forward reasons to support your assertion that philosophy is nothing but opinion. Failure to do so will result in your truth claim itself falling to the level of rank opinion. That’s called self-contradiction, the cardinal sin of all philosophizing. You do understand that, don’t you?
So there’s your choice: You must bring forward reasons in support of your assertion that philosophy is nothing but opinion or stand convicted of self-contradiction, of incoherence. You will also stand convicted of being little more than an “empty vessel,” that which I called you yesterday. Empty vessels make empty assertions. That is why they are called “empty vessels.” So here’s your chance. Reasons please or remain an empty vessel.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
“The Arrogance of Ignorance (IV)” (02/14, 8:56AM), my reply to The Cat (02/13, 7:32PM), was not posted on “Recent Comments” although (1) The Cat’s comment is, (2) it remains at #34 on the board comments and (3) remains also on my profile. This is a puzzle. Ordinarily when a comment is deleted it disappears from the board as well as from one’s profile. Does anyone have an explanation?
“philosophy is nothing but opinion”
An opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. ***What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred.***
In the Physics lab I can prove that a thermometer has been properly calibrated or I can conduct an experiment to prove the speed of light – all based on fact.
You cannot factually prove anything that any philosopher has ever said so philosophy remains in the realm of opinion.
I’m not implying that philosophy is not useful In fact, as science progresses, and we have more and more powerful computer systems, humanity will need to address some very important philosophical issues with regards to the degree to which we will allow machines to control our world…….. but that’s just MY opinion.
THE EMPIRICIST’S “VERIFIABLE PRINCIPLE”
“What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e., can be objectively proven to have occurred.”
The difficulty with the verifiability principle is that it is not, of itself, verifiable. You obviously don’t realize that your statement is not susceptible to empirical verification in the Physics Lab in the same way that a properly calibrated thermometer can accurately tell the temperature or the speed of light can be verified by the appropriate experiments. You have made a “category mistake,” applying the scientific criteria of observation and measurement to that which is not explicable in terms of matter in motion, i.e., to human thought in general and philosophy in particular. Of course, your reduction of human beings to the rigours of scientific observation and measurement has been seen before, particularly in Nazi Germany.
Your comment on more and more powerful computers eventually addressing “some very important philosophical issues” is, in addition to misconceiving the nature of those issues, is consistent with your radical empiricism with the difference that instead of the iron law of objective scientific verifiability we now see the reduction of humanity to the equally iron laws of cybernetics. In both cases, however, you seek to reduce man to little more than matter-in-motion.
Finally, your reference about the “use value” of philosophy – that’s called “utilitarianism” or “instrumentalism” in case you didn’t know – reflects your empiricist mindset but, as the old saying goes, there are those even today who know the price of everything but the value of nothing. Real value, of course, is not reducible to your instrumental or utilitarian criteria.
But I realize that, blinded by your own (philosophical) empiricism, all this talk of reducing man to matter-in-motion will be incomprehensible to you. I may as well be talking to a board. Don’t write back.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
^^^You mis-read my post. I didn’t say that computers will address philosophical issues. I said, “humanity will need to address some very important philosophical issues with regards to the degree to which we will allow machines to control our world.”
An example of that is the missile defense systems that a number of countries have. As they become more and more sophisticated, one of the philosophcial questions raised is: how much faith do we want to put in these systems to automate the response to missile threats?
TRYING AGAIN
My original reply was deleted. I don’t know why. I’ll try again.
The difficulty with your assertion that humanity will need to address some very important philosophical issues with regards to the degree to which we will allow machines to control our world conflicts with your previous empiricist claim that “philosophy is nothing but opinion.” (02/14, 11:10AM) If philosophy is nothing but opinion there will, by definition, be no correct answer to those important philosophical issues. One opinion will be as good as the next and there will be no further opinion by which the conficting opinions might be adjudicated.
It is the same in the case of the philosophical question relating to how much faith we want to put in our missile defense system to automate our response to hostile missile threats. Since your empiricist principles maintajn that “philosophy is nothing but opinion” there can be no correct answer to that question. One opinion will be as good as the next and there will be no further opinion by which the conflicting opinions might be adjudicated.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!
^^^We adjudicate conflicting opinions (philosophies) on a regular basis. We call those adjudications elections and they are simple adjudications of the opinions (philosophies) of each of the competing parties. Right wing politics is based on a free market philosophy which is merely an opinion that capitalism is the cure for all of society’s problems. The left wing philosophy (opinion) is that social democracy is the answer. I realize I’m grossly over-simplifying here, however, neither of the two approaches can be proven to be true in an absolute sense so we continue to oscillate back and forth between the two philosophies at various points in our electoral history.
PHILOSOPHY AND ELECTIONS
But if you adjudicate conflicting opinions on the bass of elections this merely pushes back your claim that “philosophy is nothing but opinion” one step, that is that elections are merely the opinions of the electorate. That may be true in the case of the uninformed voter but others vote on the basis of political principle. In other words, they can give reasons for the way they vote which need not reduce to selfish advantage.
But – and this was always my point – such reasons take the issue out of the realm of simple opinion and elevate it to that of philosophy. You confirm my point in your reference to right-wing and left-wing politics but when you say that neither can be “true in an absolute sense” you incoherently invoke to your empiricist beliefs which maintain that only that which can be verified by observation and experiment can be true in an absolute sense.
It is incoherent because such empiricist beliefs, while functional at the level of the verification of matter-in-motion, are inoperative at the level of philosophy which deals in reasons and not causes. As the old saying goes, “science describes but does not explain” where, of course, to “explain” something means to give reasons (and not simply physical causes) for it.
A pleasure as always,
Cheerio!