Talk - Skepticamp Melbourne 2011
Download as PPTX, PDF
0 likes619 views
This document discusses the futility of directly rebutting anti-vaccine arguments online, as those making the arguments will not change their views no matter how rational the rebuttal. Instead of direct rebuttal, it recommends discussing the issues to address misinformation while documenting the arguments, and joining external networks working to promote vaccination.
Talk - Skepticamp Melbourne 2011
- 1. Jason Brown
- 2. The Scenario Antivaxer posts idiotic argument Skeptic posts rebuttal Antivaxer denies or avoids rebuttal Skeptic responds Rinse, repeat
- 3. The misconception That somehow, if a rational enough rebuttal is offered, the original poster will change their mind and withdraw This will never happen NEVER
- 4. Why? Ignorance or denial of basic concepts needed to grasp science Disconnection from reality and inability to process Solipsism and magical thinking Dunning Kruger Backfire effect Among other reasons
- 5. What to do instead? DISCUSS Do not ignore Antivaxer or parrot? Soliloquise If possible, use regulatory channels Time is a non-renewable resource Take screenshots Blog and tweet, sidewiki*
- 6. Come and join us http://www.stopantivaxnetwork.com http://www.facebook.com/stopavn #stopavn DISCUSS
Editor's Notes
- #2: Intro
- #3: First: define antivaxer
- #5: Not smart enough to understand the actual situation most of Doreys followers. They end up getting angry, spittle flecked and impotent, but remain unconvinced. Theyll ban you and bad mouth you until someone gives them their warm milk.Mike Adams, Meryl Dorey, ideological opposition. Have been exposed to counter-arguments so often that they should know them by heart. If theyre beaten theyll ban you, then calmly call you a shill and tell the world theyre not talking to you because youre anti-free-speech or anti-choiceSolipsists like Erwin Alber they really do live in a different universe in which their opinion is more important than evidence. Possibly mentally ill. If theyre beaten they merely go silent and pretend you dont exist. They probably wouldnt ban you. Fran Sheffield may fall in this categoryVieraScheibner, who believes she is the best authority and will not admit to anyone else having knowledge she possesses.Previously honest people falling prey to a known cognitive effect this is a big risk. There may be worried people just on the brink of the hook, and spending time on them may drive them onto the hook.
- #6: Dont leave them unchallenged (yes, I know, this is paradoxical)Ensure they are actually antivax and not merely a fencesitterparrotting nonsense theyve heard elsewhere. Parrots may be turnable, though the effort is expensiveIdentify the audience; Talk to the audience, not the antivaxerIf this person is another Dorey, take her to the cleaners, and when I say cleaners, I mean the regulatory authorities in your state. An individual skeptic has little individual power, but a complaint well written can set the bulldozers in motionDont waste time. Debating anyone online is a timesink, so unless youre specifically trying to hone skills, demolish the argument hard, call in reinforcements and spend minimal time.Screenshot everything, and publish those screenshots elsewhere. You cannot convince an antivaxer, but you can turn them into an example, which I guess is the entire point.