[ SECRET POST #2718 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2718 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mayim Bialik]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.
[Pacific Rim]











Notes:

Might be another 12 am day. Response time will be slow, sorry.

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 016 secrets from Secret Submission Post #388.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 2 - this is getting spammy now ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

When that belief is about basic science? YES! HELL TO THE "Y" YES! She should know better.

[fauxkaren]

Yes.

I believe that everyone above a kindergarten level of education should believe the earth is round.

I believe that if someone has the scientific background to have graduate degrees in neuroscience, that person should be intelligent enough to not be anti-vaccine.

[fauxkaren]

I mean, I think critical thinking should be a requirement for graduate programs, yes.

And if someone has critical thinking skills and is able to evaluate studies (which lmao a graduate student in the sciences needs to be able to do), then they should see how the anti-vax arguments are bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

I'd agree with OP, but not because of what you're suggesting, that does sound utterly ridiculous. I'd think that anyone with a PhD. in neuroscience knows enough about what the anti-vaccine movement is saying (because a lot of it is neuroscience, which they should know about) to know that it's wrong.

[ariakas]

Worldviews based on scientific rationalism are not "beliefs", though - I'm not sure why you keep using that word.

Unless you think that the whole earth is round and orbits the sun thing is a "belief", in which case, yes, I agree with fauxkaren - everyone above a certain level of education should hold the same "beliefs".

[(Anonymous)]

There is so much stupid bad science promoted by the anti-vaccine movement that I think, hell yes, if you know anything about science at all you should know better.

Well...

[nyxelestia]

Values? No. Understanding of science and research principles? Yes.

The alleged causation between vaccines and autism has been disproven multiple times, and even the original study alleging it in the first place has been retracted. The cons of vaccines are vastly outweighed by the pros, and the best way to protect the few who can't take vaccines is to make sure everyone around them is vaccinated.

But the more people go un-vaccinated, the less effective herd immunity is. Being against all vaccines is spitting in the face of over a century of scientific advancement and research.

[(Anonymous)]

This isn't a matter of values, this is a matter of basic scientific fact. Vaccines save lives, and they certainly don't cause autism. That whole scare was started by ONE researcher with ulterior motives conducting ONE flawed study. He has since been barred from medicine, and his study has been discredited through and through.

[(Anonymous)]

nayrt

Science is not a belief though. It's studies and facts and evidence. The "Anti-vac" movement quotes faked studies and makes things up. Anti-vaxxers are literally wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

This this this.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure, but you've fallen for dumb shit before, haven't you? Intelligence doesn't safeguard against that. Everyone thinks something stupid at some time or another (and if you claim you haven't, you're full of shit).

[(Anonymous)]

A million times YES!!!

[diet_poison]

Exactly. Thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

YES

These hateful, wilfully ignorant, smug, "okay if your kid gets sick and dies, just not mine, herd immunity is great as long as it protects my kid MINEMINEMINE FUCK THE HERD" fuckheads deserve to be punched in the face. HATE.

If they won't vaccinate, quarantine their asses. No school, no church, we airdrop their food in. Fuck them all. They don't care about anyone else, why should we care about them?

[(Anonymous)]

Vaccines aren't a belief. It's fucking science. Diseases have all been eradicated because of them.

[(Anonymous)]

And on top of that, diseases we were this close to eradicating are making a comeback because of anti-vaxxers. Not too interested in indulging someone's "oh, we don't know all the facts" bullshit.

[(Anonymous)]

No, but they shouldn't be so f*cking STUPID as to believe the anti-vax crap. This is why we're having a measles outbreak, because of stupid people like her.

[(Anonymous)]

If by "same set of beliefs" you mean "science > unsubstantiated feels", then yes.

[cushlamochree]

This is more about facts than about beliefs.

Like, we shouldn't expect everyone with a basic science education to get everything right. Intelligent people are wrong about stuff all the time. It's not surprising or anything. But it's hard to see how her position on vaccinations stems from some different fundamental value or anything. It comes from being right or wrong about whether there's compelling evidence that vaccines cause autism and other serious health risks.

[(Anonymous)]

It's true, many very highly educated people hold beliefs that are ridiculed in wider society. Most are not beliefs that are dismissed in those people's field of expertise though.

Look at it from the other way round: she has reached a very high level of science education, which means that she should have a better skill set to determine the worth of claims made in scientific articles, especially scientific articles that have been roundly proven to be dodgy.

Considering this, I don't think there is any problem with questioning her critical thinking skills on this level at least.

(But I don't think that makes her PhD worthless or anything like that, that's silly.)

[lunabee34]

About factual information? 100% yes. About ethical questions and literary interpretations and how to cure cancer, let's have robust academic debate. Over stuff the worth of vaccines and how many feet are in a yard and whether the earth orbits the moon not so much.

I think we sometimes fall into a logical fallacy perpetuated by the media that all issues have more than one side and all of them deserve equal air time. Some ideas are just demonstrably wrong.