"The position Harris and Adams hold is at root that accepting uncritically (or to the extent criticism is deemed valid) the “expert” scientific consensus in a potential doomsday emergency is both required and righteous —making those who do not do so outliers whose arguments hold no persuasive weight ..."
Harris holes his argument at the water line. Summarizing, he asserts that, okay, maybe Bret Weinstein will turn out to be right, but it will only be by chance, while Harris might be wrong, but only in the way that experts occasionally are wrong.
Now, had Harris shown that Weinstein was claiming that, say, vaccines could turn out to be very dangerous because they debuted under the wrong astrological sign, then Harris would have at least part of a point.
But that isn't how it went. I happen to listen to both Dark Horse, and Making Sense.
Weinsteins argument was multi-faceted: we have never successfully controlled an infectious upper respiratory virus; we have never developed a successful vaccine against any corona virus; a non-sterilizing vaccine will provide obvious pathways for new variants; natural immunity is superior to artificial immunity; universal vaccination eliminates a control group; and it requires a great leap of faith to assume the safety of a novel approach to vaccination without anything like the sort of track record previous vaccines have required.
(Bret omitted, but it bears mentioning, that thanks to early natural experiments — cruise ships, aircraft carriers, prisons — we had every reason to believe that the mortality rate for C-19 was not going to be anything like would justify socially coercive measures, and that, in any event they wouldn't do any good.)
Harris completely neglected to address any element of Weinstein's argument, and therefore didn't reach the conclusion that Bret will turn out to be right for very good, knowable at the time, reasons.
And Harris will turn out to be wrong because Harris's opinions are correct because Harris thinks them.
I long ago learned to be skeptical of the 'experts'. Even leaving aside improper motives (greed, animus towards perceived political enemies, etc.) there are ample subconscious pressures to interpret the data in certain ways.
Then there's the fact that vast swathes of the 'experts' are part of organizations/institutions that are explicitly aligned with objectively false ideas, e.g. that a man can call himself a woman, and voila! he's a woman, and all must agree with this. This does not inspire confidence in their pronouncements in other areas.
Amen. When Covid first hit, I assumed, without any study or thought, that vaccination would be the cure -- no bad or long-term side effects -- all benefit and no cost. But then I started reading people like Drs. Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Martin Kuldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya, and had very big second thoughts. But when I try to share with family and friends, I hit a brick wall. We must TRUST the CONSENSUS of our health EXPERTS.
Harris and Adams are great examples that humans, especially highly intelligent humans, make at least 80% of decisions from a deep emotional part of the brain (habit, greed, envy, or plain desire) and only use the prefrontal cortex to rationalize the irrational decision they already made. Trust the experts! I define “expert” as a paid liar that hides deceit in complexity.
"The position Harris and Adams hold is at root that accepting uncritically (or to the extent criticism is deemed valid) the “expert” scientific consensus in a potential doomsday emergency is both required and righteous —making those who do not do so outliers whose arguments hold no persuasive weight ..."
Harris holes his argument at the water line. Summarizing, he asserts that, okay, maybe Bret Weinstein will turn out to be right, but it will only be by chance, while Harris might be wrong, but only in the way that experts occasionally are wrong.
Now, had Harris shown that Weinstein was claiming that, say, vaccines could turn out to be very dangerous because they debuted under the wrong astrological sign, then Harris would have at least part of a point.
But that isn't how it went. I happen to listen to both Dark Horse, and Making Sense.
Weinsteins argument was multi-faceted: we have never successfully controlled an infectious upper respiratory virus; we have never developed a successful vaccine against any corona virus; a non-sterilizing vaccine will provide obvious pathways for new variants; natural immunity is superior to artificial immunity; universal vaccination eliminates a control group; and it requires a great leap of faith to assume the safety of a novel approach to vaccination without anything like the sort of track record previous vaccines have required.
(Bret omitted, but it bears mentioning, that thanks to early natural experiments — cruise ships, aircraft carriers, prisons — we had every reason to believe that the mortality rate for C-19 was not going to be anything like would justify socially coercive measures, and that, in any event they wouldn't do any good.)
Harris completely neglected to address any element of Weinstein's argument, and therefore didn't reach the conclusion that Bret will turn out to be right for very good, knowable at the time, reasons.
And Harris will turn out to be wrong because Harris's opinions are correct because Harris thinks them.
I long ago learned to be skeptical of the 'experts'. Even leaving aside improper motives (greed, animus towards perceived political enemies, etc.) there are ample subconscious pressures to interpret the data in certain ways.
Then there's the fact that vast swathes of the 'experts' are part of organizations/institutions that are explicitly aligned with objectively false ideas, e.g. that a man can call himself a woman, and voila! he's a woman, and all must agree with this. This does not inspire confidence in their pronouncements in other areas.
Amen. When Covid first hit, I assumed, without any study or thought, that vaccination would be the cure -- no bad or long-term side effects -- all benefit and no cost. But then I started reading people like Drs. Peter McCullough, Robert Malone, Martin Kuldorff, and Jay Bhattacharya, and had very big second thoughts. But when I try to share with family and friends, I hit a brick wall. We must TRUST the CONSENSUS of our health EXPERTS.
Harris and Adams are great examples that humans, especially highly intelligent humans, make at least 80% of decisions from a deep emotional part of the brain (habit, greed, envy, or plain desire) and only use the prefrontal cortex to rationalize the irrational decision they already made. Trust the experts! I define “expert” as a paid liar that hides deceit in complexity.
Creative and convincing work, JG -
You brought forth sophists for review with a fine 'deconstruction', roping in Mitch Hedberg and Eric Stratton for support.
Thanks as well to you, Jeff Guinn, for summarizing Bret Weinstein's argument, which does feel quite solid.