[ 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

[crunchysunrises]

For what it's worth, it makes sense to me.

[(Anonymous)]

It's not worth much, because it doesn't make sense, period. This is zip to do with values and beliefs and everything to do with FACTS. And fucking dangerous pseudo science.

[ariakas]

Being pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine isn't based on "belief" or "political orientation", which is a point you seem to be intentionally glossing over (or at least have yet to reply to the several people making it on that count).

You're right, there is no reason for her to stop "believing in the issue" because you think it's stupid or smart, the reason for her to stop "believing" is that there is literally no credible scientific evidence that vaccines are harmful. You're trotting out a red herring with this "belief" and "view" nonsense. No, it is not unreasonable to expect that a scientist should not be anti-vaccination based on said lack of evidence, and fall for fear-mongering, selfishness, and pseudoscience.

You're falsely equating this with political and religious views, when this is neither a political nor a religious issue - it's a scientific one. And she's wrong. Utterly, staggeringly, wrong. And no, someone with her level of education has no reason to be this wrong. You're also falsely equating this with meaningful dissent over a scientific controversy, which this isn't either. Vaccines are in no way controversial in the scientific community. This is not a "value" judgement.

[tabaqui]

THIS, jayzus.

[ariakas]

your profanity

Where is the profanity in my comment?

italics

I italicized part of one line amongst several paragraphs, for emphasis.

hyperbole

What hyperbole? Which of my statements was hyperbolic?

Are you confusing me with someone else, or just dodging here, seriously? Now you're saying you're not referring to her "views" on vaccines, but rather the notion that a PhD "needs to be a certain way", in general, but the issue at hand is her "views" on vaccines. Nothing else. Why would you immediately ask the OP - who specifically addresses her anti-vaccination stance, which they are disappointed in because of said scientific education - a complete non sequitur, then, about "subjective expectations"? This issue is neither subjective nor unreasonable. It is not about religion, politics, or evidence-based scientific controversy, all of which you've equated it to here.

Sure, my tone is firm, here, but it should be. "It's just (my/their) opinion", "you can't 'attack' someone for their views", "you shouldn't stifle dissent/controversy!" is exactly the kind of language the anti-science movement uses (and quite successfully) to sway the uneducated about issues like vaccines and climate change now, the link between cigarette smoking and cancer historically, etc. As someone with a scientific education I won't let those arguments pass unchallenged and give rise to more misinformation, or the tolerance of misinformation.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you, thank you and thank you! Well said!

[diet_poison]

I would like to add to this that the statement "she should believe this because she has a Ph D in science" is 100% valid when it comes to a stance on an issue that's scientifically very clear-cut, especially where the well-being of other people is involved.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't disagree with your idea that it is unreasonable to expect all PhDs to have identical views on everything merely because they have doctorates.

However, it seems clear that most, if not all, of the people here are speaking specifically about Bialik's belief in anti-vaccination, given her PhD in a science field. This is what the secret OP already indicated by stating that Bialik's degree in neuroscience seemed to conflict with her anti-vaccine standpoint. I don't see where the secret contradicts your idea that "a scientist should want her kids vaccinated because vaccination is a sound science that has saved probably billions of lives."

In fact, the only other belief/view that I've seen you use to support your protest about the subjective expectations placed upon educated & intelligent people regards religion, and as the other OP already pointed out, a belief in God(s) is not mutually exclusive with intelligence - all the intelligence in the world won't help you prove or disprove the existence of a god. If you've heard people saying that (to you or to others), then they're obviously wrong...but as far as I've seen, no one here has been making that claim. At this point, it seems as if you're either taking that supposed accusation too personally or being purposefully obtuse about responding to the people who've disagreed with you.

(And I don't always agree with ariakas, but I didn't see anything objectionable in the profanity/italics of the comment above.)

[ariakas]

(Lol what profanity, seriously? I do swear a lot but I'm just not finding it in that comment.)

[(Anonymous)]

Well said, thank you. I was trying to put my finger on why stella_down's reasonable sounding argument didn't feel right, but you nailed it.

[diet_poison]

this. this whole comment.

I mostly agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

But this isn't true "literally no credible scientific evidence that vaccines are harmful". No, they don't cause autism. But there are absolutely people who have adverse reactions to them, sometimes severe adverse reactions. Yes, the number is small, but it does exist. I do absolutely think most people should get vaccinated, but there are some that have compromised immune systems or allergies that make it not a good idea.

Almost anything can be harmful to someone.

Re: I mostly agree with you.

[ariakas]

You're right, thank you for that correction - I should have said no credible evidence in way she "believes" them to be.

Like you say, water and sunlight can be harmful to those with bad reactions to them.

Re: I mostly agree with you.

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you.

I, too, don't believe that everyone should avoid vaccinations.

However, in my case, my younger brother had a severe allergic reaction to the live pertussis vaccine (this was back in 1983. The current vaccine is not live anymore BECAUSE of this), and he's one of the "lucky" ones who lived.

He needs 24-hour care. He cannot speak or use sign language (he has no fine motor skills). He cannot dress himself. He can't even wipe his own behind.

I'm not taking the chance if I ever have children, because there is provable, documented history. Even if the vaccine isn't live anymore, the risk is too great.

Yes, it's just my personal anecdote, but saying that no one has ever been hurt by a vaccine is false.

[a_potato]

Okay. So it seems that your position is sort of what I thought it was, in that you're for true objectivity and true skepticism. Science has its dogmas, and there's a tendency for people to overlook that because HEY, it's science!

That said, I think that when there is overwhelming evidence in favor of a particular position, it's reasonable to expect that one start to change one's beliefs. Really, the realm of science has become most dogmatic in the face of hard evidence; intelligent, highly educated scientists have denied the weight of it rather than face what it means. That sort of supports what you've been saying, in the sense that if some people hadn't dared to forge on despite prevailing opinion, then many incorrect paradigms would never have been overthrown. But, at the same time, it demonstrates that there's a point at which belief becomes grounded in something other than what's real, and I think it's worthwhile to challenge that sort of belief.

[a_potato]

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I think people are taking you in the completely wrong way (which I was in danger of doing).

[nyxelestia]

same personal views, beliefs, political orientation, etc. as everyone else who's intelligent and has a Ph.D.

I think that's the disconnect right there.

You're calling it a political belief. The rest of us are calling it a scientific fact.

To put it in perspective, I view an anti-vax Ph.D. graduate the same way I'd view a doctor who believes that pregnancy can't results from rape. It is a very politicized belief, but more importantly, it's dismissing and ignoring a proven scientific fact - and if they don't know this basic thing, what else do they not know? Why should I trust them or anything they know?

In terms of intelligence and capability, I'd trust the doctor who thinks women deserve rape and should endure the ensuing pregnancy whether they want to or not, if he acknowledged that it was a rape that caused the pregnancy in the first place - even if his morals are bullshit, his science is sound.

I get that people aren't perfect and people say and fall for stupid shit all the time. I do it all the time, everyone does. But given the amount of attention this particular issue has received, if a hard-science Ph.D. grad says they don't believe in vaccines, then I am distrustful of their education because either a.) they have done their research and are dismissing it all to support this viewpoint, or b.) they haven't done their research and still made this claim. Even if she was somehow put on the spot and forced to answer the issue without a chance to research, then the best answer would have been "I don't know enough about this issue to answer this".

[nyxelestia]

I am glad to see that she doesn't (seem to) support anti-vaccination in general and has a good reason for not vaccinating in her own family.

I'll be the first to admit right that I basically just became a hypocrite right now, talking without doing all my research about what she actually said. Thanks for correcting me.

That said, I was using the comparison of the doctors just to explain the perceptions, not trying to state they were necessarily alike. And I still stand by the fact if she did support the anti-vax movement in general, then I would still doubt her scientific credibility.

[(Anonymous)]

hmm, you raise a point here (i admit that i didn't actually look into her public statements; for shame). i can see where that personal experience would lead her to choose not to vaccinate, though it opens an interesting debate.

by avoiding vaccinations, she avoids the chance of an adverse reaction, but it's not as much of a risk as if she lived in a society where the chance of catching one of these diseases were super high; it's very likely that herd immunity would successfully protect her kids here - the best of both worlds.

it seems a bit unfair to take advantage of those who actually vaccinate (and therefore open their children to the possibility, no matter how slim, of detrimental effects)...but then, life isn't fair etc etc.