Anti-Vaxxers, Conspiracy Theories, & Epistemic Responsibility: Crash Course Philosophy #14
video description
Date: 2022-04-04
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Rick
I'm not Antivax or Flat Earth, however I will argue that there is significant evidence to cause skepticism. With respect to vaccinations the ratio of lives saved to lives lost may be 99 to 1, but vaccinations still kill, sicken, and ruin lives, and friends and family of these low probability events see things differently than those without direct experience.
Regarding Flat Earth, as an astronomer I have virtually no doubt about earth's slightly oblique spherical nature. However, it is easy to see how some are skeptical.
First, there are plenty of high quality fake videos and pictures, and it's not hard to see motive for NASA and the USA to have filmed a fake landing to use in case the real attempt failed, and subsequently some of this fake footage has leaked over the years.
Second, it's not easy to prove the shape without photos or film, even educated professionals have trouble, they mostly just defer to authority.
reply
I'm not Antivax or Flat Earth, however I will argue that there is significant evidence to cause skepticism. With respect to vaccinations the ratio of lives saved to lives lost may be 99 to 1, but vaccinations still kill, sicken, and ruin lives, and friends and family of these low probability events see things differently than those without direct experience.
Regarding Flat Earth, as an astronomer I have virtually no doubt about earth's slightly oblique spherical nature. However, it is easy to see how some are skeptical.
First, there are plenty of high quality fake videos and pictures, and it's not hard to see motive for NASA and the USA to have filmed a fake landing to use in case the real attempt failed, and subsequently some of this fake footage has leaked over the years.
Second, it's not easy to prove the shape without photos or film, even educated professionals have trouble, they mostly just defer to authority.
reply
Anna
Ok hold I'm confused. Morally I am wrong if I don't vaccinate my children because I am putting others at risk. However, it is morally fine to use aborted fetal cells in the vaccines that we are giving to children. There is plenty of evidence for aborted fetal tissues, thimerosal, preservatives, formaldehyde, antibiotics, Aluminum etc. Not to mention that in the vaccine inserts acknowledge injuries like encephalitis, which is part of the reason we get a vaccination for the measles. So this would mean that there is evidence for people choosing not to vaccinate their children. Just throwing it out there. I don't care if people choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. They know their kids better then I do. I would just hope that people would give everyone else the same consideration in return.
reply
Ok hold I'm confused. Morally I am wrong if I don't vaccinate my children because I am putting others at risk. However, it is morally fine to use aborted fetal cells in the vaccines that we are giving to children. There is plenty of evidence for aborted fetal tissues, thimerosal, preservatives, formaldehyde, antibiotics, Aluminum etc. Not to mention that in the vaccine inserts acknowledge injuries like encephalitis, which is part of the reason we get a vaccination for the measles. So this would mean that there is evidence for people choosing not to vaccinate their children. Just throwing it out there. I don't care if people choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate their children. They know their kids better then I do. I would just hope that people would give everyone else the same consideration in return.
reply
preciousinfinity
For me it's my religion and life, or nihilism and death. So my belief in an afterlife means that suffering does not stop at death, that it continues, at least for a time. If there is no afterlife then suffering stops at death, and since life = suffering then I might as well die. Sure that would mean that people who care about me would suffer for the loss, but they could always die to end their own suffering. However if suffering continues after death then not only would mine but so would the suffering of those I care about, and while being alive causes me to suffer it reduces the suffering in others.
reply
For me it's my religion and life, or nihilism and death. So my belief in an afterlife means that suffering does not stop at death, that it continues, at least for a time. If there is no afterlife then suffering stops at death, and since life = suffering then I might as well die. Sure that would mean that people who care about me would suffer for the loss, but they could always die to end their own suffering. However if suffering continues after death then not only would mine but so would the suffering of those I care about, and while being alive causes me to suffer it reduces the suffering in others.
reply
Braden
We-re not the same people who made vaccines in the -60s, -70s, We are quite comfortable that Amazon can deliver a package to anyone in the world from anyone in the world in just a few days, yet we suspect that all these unusual, uncharted things are happening with our vaccines, and they-re not. They-re monitored just like (packages) with similar computer models and systems.
Hesitancy toward vaccines is likely the result of them becoming victims of their own success. They-ve completely eradicated some diseases, such that people have never seen what polio or scarlet fever can do.
reply
We-re not the same people who made vaccines in the -60s, -70s, We are quite comfortable that Amazon can deliver a package to anyone in the world from anyone in the world in just a few days, yet we suspect that all these unusual, uncharted things are happening with our vaccines, and they-re not. They-re monitored just like (packages) with similar computer models and systems.
Hesitancy toward vaccines is likely the result of them becoming victims of their own success. They-ve completely eradicated some diseases, such that people have never seen what polio or scarlet fever can do.
reply
Teddy
wauw, the thought bubble is very interesting for my determinism. i mean.
after some thinking. she just ruined it by saying that there would be a quiz,
the only way she can solve it is by having it like. that same day? does that still work?
what does it require to make the 'quiz' a 'pop'?
that he was not able to study?
then the teacher has half the day i guess (consider lunch time is a study option.
Edit: that last part is just trying to make sense of it. as soon as she announced the pop-quiz she ruined her own definition
reply
wauw, the thought bubble is very interesting for my determinism. i mean.
after some thinking. she just ruined it by saying that there would be a quiz,
the only way she can solve it is by having it like. that same day? does that still work?
what does it require to make the 'quiz' a 'pop'?
that he was not able to study?
then the teacher has half the day i guess (consider lunch time is a study option.
Edit: that last part is just trying to make sense of it. as soon as she announced the pop-quiz she ruined her own definition
reply
Mariam
So if we all have epistemic responsibility in which beliefs that lack evidence but are live, forced, and momentous are exempted, why don't we add an extra criteria to those exemptions that is it should be a must for those beliefs to have no other possible existing evidence in order for them to be morally exempted from epistemic responsibility, and that is how we differrentiate belief in God from belief in hazards of vaccinations, because unlike belief in god, belief in hazards of vaccination could be contradicted by an existing evidence
reply
So if we all have epistemic responsibility in which beliefs that lack evidence but are live, forced, and momentous are exempted, why don't we add an extra criteria to those exemptions that is it should be a must for those beliefs to have no other possible existing evidence in order for them to be morally exempted from epistemic responsibility, and that is how we differrentiate belief in God from belief in hazards of vaccinations, because unlike belief in god, belief in hazards of vaccination could be contradicted by an existing evidence
reply
Frequently
The elementary school where my grandkids attend in Austin, TX has the highest level of unvaccinated children in the school system. You might think poor and ignorant neighborhood, right? The opposite. Mostly well educated young professionals.
I was one of the first people in the world to get the Salk vaccine, a -Polio Pioneer. - I saw friends suffer from polio as a kid and even as an adult, a woman from Mexico whose mother. ta ta. did not want her vaccinated.
Anti-vaxxers are both idiots and a threat to us all.
reply
The elementary school where my grandkids attend in Austin, TX has the highest level of unvaccinated children in the school system. You might think poor and ignorant neighborhood, right? The opposite. Mostly well educated young professionals.
I was one of the first people in the world to get the Salk vaccine, a -Polio Pioneer. - I saw friends suffer from polio as a kid and even as an adult, a woman from Mexico whose mother. ta ta. did not want her vaccinated.
Anti-vaxxers are both idiots and a threat to us all.
reply
Jenn
This video hits harder now lol.
So. How exactly is it okay to believe in something just because it's momentous? It doesn't have to be good to change your life significantly. A belief in god for some people today means they won't get a vaccine or wear masks or do anything to protect themselves or others because god will protect them.
Also anti-vaxxers are ridiculous. Somehow it's better for your kids to die than have autism? Smh
reply
This video hits harder now lol.
So. How exactly is it okay to believe in something just because it's momentous? It doesn't have to be good to change your life significantly. A belief in god for some people today means they won't get a vaccine or wear masks or do anything to protect themselves or others because god will protect them.
Also anti-vaxxers are ridiculous. Somehow it's better for your kids to die than have autism? Smh
reply
CraftyF0X
While I completelly agree with Clifford's view, one could point out that 2: 20 statement (-it is wrong always, and everywhere, for anyone, to belive anything upon inssuficient evidence. -) might just be a belif of his which can not obtain sufficient evidence. I mean just by the nature of statement, how do you prove the -wrongness- of something all the time and everywhere? A valid question if one aspires to be difficult: D
reply
While I completelly agree with Clifford's view, one could point out that 2: 20 statement (-it is wrong always, and everywhere, for anyone, to belive anything upon inssuficient evidence. -) might just be a belif of his which can not obtain sufficient evidence. I mean just by the nature of statement, how do you prove the -wrongness- of something all the time and everywhere? A valid question if one aspires to be difficult: D
reply
Daniel
-The world is full of people who hold beliefs without any evidence. -
Sorry, but you are a fool if you think that is accurate or persuasive. People don't hold to positions just because or in the absolute void of evidence. They may not have the preponderance of evidence, but there is some something they can point to that their belief is based on.
reply
-The world is full of people who hold beliefs without any evidence. -
Sorry, but you are a fool if you think that is accurate or persuasive. People don't hold to positions just because or in the absolute void of evidence. They may not have the preponderance of evidence, but there is some something they can point to that their belief is based on.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
