His fans (I’m one) expect a lot more critical thinking from him. You don’t need a Phd in immunology to know that natural immunity is better than a vaccine. He fell for the LIE that the shot would prevent transmission and prevent getting it. In retrospect this was far from accurate. But even if you bought the line during the worst months, the answer was, offer a serology test to those concerned about the shot. If they have the Ab, no shot needed. He went along with the shot nazi approach. This was one of the biggest breaches of individual human rights in history! To coherence a medical intervention with money as the motivation for a disease caused by the same parties. People lost their livelihoods. The negative impact on the psyche of millions was immeasurable. Kids lost years in proper development and mental health. None of this was anticipated. He’s smarter than this
You don't have a Phd in immunology is what I can reasonably assume. And neither does he. So don't care what either of you think about it.
Furthermore critical thinking requires you to not "fan" anyone. It's your job to think and seek out insights from relevant experts where necessary. Not to fan a philosopher or "follow" them blindly.
I don’t understand your comment. Of course we care more about opinions of people we respect and admire on particular topic and of course we can be disappointed in them, especially when that opinion so damages your own basis for that admiration. His opinion on shelving human rights is absolutely relevant.
the question is not about vaccines. The philosophical question is around individual freedoms vs general and individual safety and the risk of corruption in balancing that decision. Chomsky is uniquely suited for that kind of conundrum.
Please also stop with the ‘I follow science’ narrative which was a clear tactic to shut down debate, which is inherently anti science. ‘The science’ should be challenged and critiqued as this leads to better outcomes. The science can be and has been wrong.
Talking about using basic logic as a "narrrative" is just pure ignorance.
Presumably you don't go around talking about science as a "narrative" - unless you are one of the people designing and manufacturing planes at Boeing these days.
Science should always be challenged....by people who have scientific knowledge or who have sufficient qualifications to digest briefings from qualified scientists.
Oh my, so we should just do what we’re told because the science (your new god) and scientist bureaucrats (your new church hierarchy) mandates it and don’t ever question it because it’s blasphemy to do that and you’re not qualified to know what is or isn’t good or bad for you? No thanks. That’s just fascism and arrogance. I reserve the right to question scientists, doctors, and politicians on anything that effects me personally and I don’t need to be an expert. What the fuck?
His fans (I’m one) expect a lot more critical thinking from him. You don’t need a Phd in immunology to know that natural immunity is better than a vaccine. He fell for the LIE that the shot would prevent transmission and prevent getting it. In retrospect this was far from accurate. But even if you bought the line during the worst months, the answer was, offer a serology test to those concerned about the shot. If they have the Ab, no shot needed. He went along with the shot nazi approach. This was one of the biggest breaches of individual human rights in history! To coherence a medical intervention with money as the motivation for a disease caused by the same parties. People lost their livelihoods. The negative impact on the psyche of millions was immeasurable. Kids lost years in proper development and mental health. None of this was anticipated. He’s smarter than this
You don't have a Phd in immunology is what I can reasonably assume. And neither does he. So don't care what either of you think about it.
Furthermore critical thinking requires you to not "fan" anyone. It's your job to think and seek out insights from relevant experts where necessary. Not to fan a philosopher or "follow" them blindly.
I don’t understand your comment. Of course we care more about opinions of people we respect and admire on particular topic and of course we can be disappointed in them, especially when that opinion so damages your own basis for that admiration. His opinion on shelving human rights is absolutely relevant.
Vaccines are scientific issues not philosophical opinion. First you must have a grasp of the science before any opining is relevant.
the question is not about vaccines. The philosophical question is around individual freedoms vs general and individual safety and the risk of corruption in balancing that decision. Chomsky is uniquely suited for that kind of conundrum.
Please also stop with the ‘I follow science’ narrative which was a clear tactic to shut down debate, which is inherently anti science. ‘The science’ should be challenged and critiqued as this leads to better outcomes. The science can be and has been wrong.
Talking about using basic logic as a "narrrative" is just pure ignorance.
Presumably you don't go around talking about science as a "narrative" - unless you are one of the people designing and manufacturing planes at Boeing these days.
Science should always be challenged....by people who have scientific knowledge or who have sufficient qualifications to digest briefings from qualified scientists.
Oh my, so we should just do what we’re told because the science (your new god) and scientist bureaucrats (your new church hierarchy) mandates it and don’t ever question it because it’s blasphemy to do that and you’re not qualified to know what is or isn’t good or bad for you? No thanks. That’s just fascism and arrogance. I reserve the right to question scientists, doctors, and politicians on anything that effects me personally and I don’t need to be an expert. What the fuck?