COVID AND THE VACCINE - TRUTH, LIES, AND MISCONCEPTIONS REVEALED, page-5459 - HotCopper | ASX Share Prices, Stock Market & Share Trading Forum

Originally posted by DocMcstuffins: ↑

Thanks for that.

Just read the paper.

The conclusions were essentially that they found anti-maskers often used similar data sources, but came to different conclusions, and were often better at graphically representing their conclusions and propagating the information online.

So it's the interpretation of the data that's the difference. And that's the major issue that I've been harping on about as well.

As we saw earlier, the people I was arguing about the validity of PCR tests turned out to not even understand what PCR was.

How do you expect them to interpret data if they don't understand where it comes from.

Another guy was bringing up the fact there were "130 deaths and counting" from the vaccine in Australia. But he didn't understand the nuances associated with the reporting system (a system I understand a bit better because I've personally submitted reports).

So sure, maybe a lot of these videos and memes originate from someone looking at actual data. That's never been the issue.

The issue is the interpretation.

The conclusion of that paper you linked wasn't "maybe they're on to something, those antimaskers", but rather was suggesting different ways of approaching the problem of how to get through to them. How to reason with them.

And the fact that you didn't mention that major aspect of the conclusion means either you didn't fully understand the purpose of the paper, or you are trying to misconstrue it.

Which fits very well with my point.

Expand

Just a couple snippets from the conclusion to support what I've said.

First one goes on to theorise how we can approach getting through to antimaskers given these findings.

Second one compares anti-maskers to fake news propagation and climate change deniers. Unless you guys agree with being lumped in with them

This was a very interesting paper. Thanks for posting. It does actually shed a bit of insight into how people appear to become so fervently "anti-science".

They aren't anti-science, they often understand just enough to be persuaded by these nut job videos and interviews (likely made by someone smart enough to eloquently discuss data, but not smart enough to draw sensible conclusions from it).

However, they don't understand enough to question, or to see the flaws in the arguments being produced.

Appeals to authority won't work. They don't trust the scientific community. And maybe with good reason, there's been lots of pretty shady things that drug companies in particular have been involved with.

Its a pretty major issue, however, that has real world consequences. And I'm glad groups like this MIT group are attempting to figure out how to combat it.