10:17 AM
@Oddthinking On that "Magnetic vaccines"§ thing: Votes are harsh & "the pattern". "Fact-checkers" of that quality: third hand ad-auctoritas persuaders at best, the usual, since '20 & in bad reputation.
What else in As? Perhaps looking at the better made claims that float around, not just "aw, that nut-job does… shootemdown". EG those 'theorists' that rely on pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22848170 or henrymakow.com/2021/06/-dr-jane-ruby-warns.html chemicell.com/home/index.html genengnews.com/topics/omics/…
chemicell.com/products/Magnetofection/… europepmc.org/article/CBA/601211 nature.com/articles/3301624
But it is exactly 'the pattern' I describe & lament: ideological trench warfare when it comes to vaccines.
2 hours later…
12:06 PM
@LаngLаngС Sure. The original SE developers strove for upvotes and comment likes to be anonymous, and "thank yous" to be deprecated. I sometimes feel that decision exaggerates the size of small disagreements. I especially want the ability to publicly like a comment or edit.
@LаngLаngС I am confused here. It reads like you endorse the claim that vaccines cause you to become magnetic. I don't believe that is the case, so I am not sure what you are endorsing.
@LаngLаngС I see this magnetism claim as very much a leap from the old-school "Look at my supernatural ability to stick metal to my body" to the anti-vax camp. I hadn't heard the idea that vaccines turn you magnetic until this year.
12:37 PM
Magnetic may be old news as such. But when people then use articles like those about magnetofection tech being explored, they have a totally different web of rationales in place. That is not 'sciences that underpins' but 'science used as interpreted'. The mentioned web may be full of errors and non sequiturs. But if these articles are used those need to be taken at serious face value and weighed against the other arguments.
What I see with most 'fact checkers': take the most ridiculous part, then throw something at it, get an 'expert' testimonial. That's ideal for talking past each other.
Take Coronavirus: Outcry after Trump suggests injecting disinfectant as treatment, where it is absolutely clear in the body text that it is a active listening question, explorative, and working with analogy; not what the headline made of it.
Below the magQ you commented "already have an answer" (meaning the Reuters 'fact-check'?)
Do we have any policy on that?
Do we have any policy on that?
That's not a very good policy per se on HSE, and cannot be read as 'that should suffice in any case'. Its main intention is to nudge people to research their Qs beforehand and document that within the post.
For SekpticsSE, I see that sometimes an answer is basically "Snopes did that already and here's it".
This is x-hand info, relies on authority of the nth degree, the fact-checking is often very sloppy (there are good ones, TBS, but at least we have not the slightest guarantee for any case)—and in the last year was very often quite 'motivated'.
12:54 PM
@Oddthinking Well, are we drawn in when reading stuff like this henrymakow.com/2021/06/-dr-jane-ruby-warns.html ? For some it is exactly underpinned by that. IDK how popular that is now. And I agree that we cannot cover absolutely all angles. But that one seems quite big right now?
4 hours later…
4:41 PM
@LаngLаngС The answers should provide more robust references than the question. If the question provides high-quality references debunking the nonsense (as the magnetism one did), it makes it much tougher to answer. At some point you are left asking the OP "Why don't you believe the sources you are quoting?"
2 hours later…
6:23 PM
@Oddthinking Nothing "relitigating"; just illustration (and imo pretty self-evident) that reliance on the label 'fact-checker' is misguided (and some so called outright fraudulent as well). Illustration for x-hand level information, of chinese whispers.
@Oddthinking Not 'banned' (way too radical) just encouraging users to try to avoid using that as primary point in any A. I'd allow an A to contain theory, math, own research, logic etc. But: we do not allow logic as the sole basis for an answer More like that for 'fact-checking'-sites shouldn't be your only material you use as references?
« first day (3771 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1014 days later) »
Transcript for
Jun22
Jun '2123
Jun24
Hub of Reason
General discussion about skeptics.stackexchange.com