This is a post that I shared on Facebook:
Facebook stated that ‘the post includes information that independent fact-checkers said was missing context.
Context, as I understand it, is the setting in which something is placed so as to give it a clearer understanding. As an example, my Sorrow Song Trilogy novels, as they are a work of historical fiction, are put into context by the actual history that inspired the story.
As a writer, I believe that the more complex, an idea is then the greater the need for a degree of context. Conversely, the simpler the idea the less context is required.
If you require the Smallpox vaccine then you need one shot, repeated every three years if exposure continues, not three shots in nine months!
The above statement is true even though Smallpox is more contagious than Covid-19 and has a mortality rate of at least 30%, (Covid-19’s is less than 2%).
Does that make the point clearer?
Peter C Whitaker 
So you added a little bit of selected context; but the context you added was as misleading as the original meme. Please don’t claim any scientific knowledge or understanding if you are going to reduce your argument to comparing apples with oranges. Smallpox and Covid are both viruses but they are completely different viruses that act in different ways. Both can be treated by vaccines, but ENTIRELY different types of vaccines and the frequency of dosage needed for one has no relation to the dosage required for the other.
LikeLike
How is the context misleading?
The ‘apples and oranges’ argument only works where the comparison involves two subjects that can be proven to be unrelated. As you admit, Smallpox and Covid-19 are both viruses, therefore they are related and so your accusation logically fails.
All vaccines are related by the fact that they area designed to treat viruses. The claim to them being ‘entirely different’ is therefore false as they possess similarities in structure, methodology, and application.
Dosage is actually a very important comparator. The more effective a medicine is the lower the frequency and dosage that is required to treat the ailment.
As I stated, Smallpox has a higher mortality rate and is more contagious than Covid-19, but it also has a more effective vaccine. A comparison of the two states of treatment for two viruses is therefore valid and the question of context is actually superfluous as the inherent logic of the argument remains sound.
Again, how is the context I added misleading?
LikeLike
“How is the context misleading?
The ‘apples and oranges’ argument only works where the comparison involves two subjects that can be proven to be unrelated. As you admit, Smallpox and Covid-19 are both viruses, therefore they are related and so your accusation logically fails.”
No, the only connection between apples and oranges is that they are both classified as fruits. The only connection between coronavirus and the virus that causes smallpox is that they are both classified as viruses. In fact apples and oranges are different in taste, size, shape, colour, texture, internal and external structure, and chemical composition. The two viruses mentioned have even less in common with each other than apples and oranges do. My accusation is scientifically correct.
“All vaccines are related by the fact that they area designed to treat viruses.”
That is pretty much the only thing they have in common actually. It is a bit like saying a bicycle and an aeroplane are related by the fact that they are both designed for transportation.
“The claim to them being ‘entirely different’ is therefore false as they possess similarities in structure, methodology, and application.”
That is where your scientific knowledge is lacking. Vaccines come in a wide range of chemical structures, are based on a wide variety of methodologies and are applied in many different ways.
“Dosage is actually a very important comparator. The more effective a medicine is the lower the frequency and dosage that is required to treat the ailment.”
That statement is completely false and has no relation to scientific reality. Dosage actually depends on many things including the amount of the medicine used, the speed at which the body can absorb the key compounds without damaging organs, the weight and health of the patient and a host of other factors. To put it another way, the fact that one shot of morphine or heroine will seem to cure your headache completely doesn’t mean it is better for you than two aspirin tablets four times a day for a couple of days.
“As I stated, Smallpox has a higher mortality rate and is more contagious than Covid-19, but it also has a more effective vaccine. A comparison of the two states of treatment for two viruses is therefore valid and the question of context is actually superfluous as the inherent logic of the
argument remains sound.”
No, as I have explained above, the meme comparison of two completely different treatments for different viruses makes less logical sense than comparing apples and oranges and has no scientific credence at all.
It is an argument that is unworthy of you or the notion of critical thinking you claim to value.
LikeLike
You seem to be confusing science with logic.
To establish a false equivalency, you need to demonstrate that the argument claims that two separate things are equal to each other. The connexion between apples and oranges, for example, is not only that they are both fruit, it also extends to their being grown in orchards, being edible, similar in size, weight and shape, contain vitamins, can be made into juice, etc. To truly render apples as totally distinct from oranges you would have to limit the characteristics used for comparison severely. The question is one of the order of magnitude. Both apple and orange trees share the following classification traits: Kingdom: Plantea, Clade: Tracheophytes, Clade: Angiosperms, Clade: Eudicots, Clade: Rosids, but they then separate at Order, oranges being Sapindales and apples Rosales. As you can see, the fact that they are both fruit is not the only connexion that they share.
You repeat the same mistake in reference to vaccines, where you actually use a false equivalency to attempt to disprove a simple statement, and dosage, where the effectiveness of a medicine remains an important variable used when making a comparison, such as when a newer drug is released to replace an older version. Note, I never said that either effectiveness or dosage were the only characteristics to be used in making such a comparison.
My final statement, that a comparison of the two treatments for two viruses is valid, remains logically sound. You claim to have proven that there is no scientific credence to my argument and that it possesses weak logic, but you fail to demonstrate such.
LikeLike
I disagree.
LikeLike
Then prove me wrong with a rational argument that is not based purely upon subjective opinion.
LikeLike
No Peter, if my argument is subjective at all, then yours is equally so. (You alluded to this yourself in another recent post about fact checking). The reality is you don’t get to dictate how people react to or answer your posts or questions. What you are basically asking people to do is first subscribe to your way of thinking and then subscribe to ‘evidence’ that you approve of and finally argue in the same style that you would argue. In other words they should agree with you first. You don’t really want debate, you want confirmation. Anything outside of that you don’t really engage with.
LikeLike
I asked you to respond with a rational argument, which is a reasonable request, not a dictate. All genuine debate is conducted by a discussion of the facts. An argument stands or falls according to the strength of the evidence that supports it. When an argument lacks that support then it is simply wrong; that is the way it works.
I have to ask why you are consistently opposing my comments on this subject. If you believe that what I am saying is wrong then you should be able to prove that by presenting a better argument, but you have consistently failed to do so. As you do not appear to have access to facts that successfully contradict what I say then there has to be another motive.
You appear to have placed your faith in the mainstream narrative of Covid-19 without question. Science is about asking questions, faith is about not asking questions. Bad science and poor arguments attack the person, good science and proper arguments attack the concept. People who rely strongly on faith often do the former and avoid doing the latter. If you wish to employ a little psychological analysis then the fact that you consider a request to employ reason as an unacceptable dictate suggests that you find my arguments on this subject too disturbing to tolerate. Why that is only you know.
LikeLike
“I asked you to respond with a rational argument, which is a reasonable request, not a dictate. All genuine debate is conducted by a discussion of the facts. An argument stands or falls according to the strength of the evidence that supports it. When an argument lacks that support then it is simply wrong; that is the way it works.”
Really Peter, you demean yourself by trying to demean me.I hand in scientific papers to professors who are more qualified than you on an almost weekly basis. None of them have ever criticised me for the reasons you do. You really should step back and try and see how your own arguments come over to me. There is no need to lecture me on how to conduct a discussion or debate nor how to frame an argument. The point I made at the end of my last answer, still stands; you do not actually want debate, you want people to agree with you and praise your arguments.
“ I have to ask why you are consistently opposing my comments on this subject. If you believe that what I am saying is wrong then you should be able to prove that by presenting a better argument, but you have consistently failed to do so. As you do not appear to have access to facts that successfully contradict what I say then there has to be another motive.”
I have explained numerous times why I oppose what you are saying. I think it is dangerous. Every single thing I have said to you on this subject over the past couple of years is jam pack full of facts. They just happen to be facts you don’t agree with, and you dismiss them rather than argue against them.
“You appear to have placed your faith in the mainstream narrative of Covid-19 without question. Science is about asking questions,”
You have never made a convincing argument about why what you describe as the mainstream narrative about Covid 19 is wrong. And again you don’t really need to lecture me about what science is or how to conduct a debate. That is getting a bit tiresome, I’m nearly half way through a six year masters degree in Veterinary Science. I AM a scientist, you are not. I mention this only because you always accuse me of being unscientific, illogical, subjective and any other words you can find to avoid actually saying stupid.
“faith is about not asking questions. Bad science and poor arguments attack the person, good science and proper arguments attack the concept. People who rely strongly on faith often do the former and avoid doing the latter. If you wish to employ a little psychological analysis then the fact that you consider a request to employ reason as an unacceptable dictate suggests that you find my arguments on this subject too disturbing to tolerate. Why that is only you know.”
Yeah, blah, blah blah… You accuse me of relying on faith rather than reason. That’s just rubbish. Again, you refuse to accept anything as ‘reason’ unless it comes to the same conclusions as you do. I doubt that many people except you and I are reading this Peter. And if they are, I invite them to come to their own conclusions.
LikeLike
Me: use a rational argument.
You: no!
That just sums up your ability to discuss a subject in an adult manner, along with “Yeah, blah, blah blah…”
LikeLike
The first and second answers I gave in this discussion were factual and logical criticisms of the meme you originally posted. The fact that you posted a third party “meme” and then accuse me of being the irrational one is quite ironic in itself. I have explained myself fully in subsequenst replies (and in other posts over the past couple of years).
I have also asked you several questions which you have ignored, hoping no doubt, that your attacks on me will distract readers enough that they won’t notice that you wouldn’t and couldn’t answer them. Again, if anybody else is reading this I invite them to read the whole discussion and come to their own conclusions.
I have publicised, recommeneded and linked your historical and other novels over the years and have no reason to go back on that, nor to doubt the histoical accuracy on which they are based. I continue to wish you well in your writing career.
However, on the subjects of Coronavirus and vaccines I find your views lack any logical or scientific credibility and that your tone of argument never strays far from being angry that other people don’t just agree with you. You are putting forward a minority view and therefore the onus is on you to prove the case you are choosing to make in public via Facebook or Wordspace. Getting angry with those who disagree with you is not going to convince anybody of anything other than that your argument has failed. You don’t have to post on these topics, but if you do you will have to accept that people will argue with you in their own style; and having temeper tantrums with those who engage with you is probably not going to impress people much.
LikeLike
Your first and second replies were dealt with in my explanation of a false equivalency, which demonstrated that yours was not a valid criticism by listing the classification traits shared by apples and oranges, as defined by scientists who specialise in taxonomy, that goes well beyond them being just fruit. It does not matter whether you agree or disagree with the argument, you have to demonstrate that it is factually and/ or logically incorrect in a manner that includes verifiable proofs for your opinion to be substantiated.
Which questions have I been ignoring?
Why haven’t you answered my question on how the context I added to my original post on Facebook is misleading?
What attacks? You chose to reply to my blog post, I did not compel you to do so, and I responded by criticising what you have written, but not you personally.
It is curious that you recognise the integrity of the research that I conduct to ensure that my novels are factually correct and yet you think I do not apply that same approach to writings on other subjects.
What you find in my arguments is expressed as your opinion, which you are entitled to. If you do not agree with what I have written, then then you are free to reply; social media is a public arena after all. If I did not wish anyone to disagree with me then I would not post in a public forum, or I would not enable the comments on my WordPress blog at least, but then I frequently quote William Blake; ‘without contraries is no progression’. A proper debate requires a minimum of two opposing views, otherwise all you have is a consensus.
You are quite right, I do not have to post about this or any other subject, it is something that I choose to do. Judging by the responses I receive most people either agree with what I write or cannot be bothered to reply (whether they agree with it or not) or actually just do not read it at all. I am okay with that. I am not trying to force anyone to agree with me, just to look at the facts I present and consider the implications of an alternative interpretation. I have done this in relation to a wide variety of subjects, such as: prejudice and discrimination, climate change, religion and spirituality, literature, philosophy, cinema and theatre, politics, palaeotntology, history, and social commentary; all the things that interest me. If anger creeps into my writing it comes from my reaction to the subject, how disabled people are marginalised for example, rather than whether anyone else agrees with me.
Why do I write about these subjects? Because it is better to do something than nothing.
Am I always right? I doubt that very much.
Do I believe that in order to learn you have to ask questions, often posed as arguments that invite contrary responses? Yes, because that is how science and philosophy work.
Should we accept what we are told without question? No. A doctor told my parents that I would be dead before I reached 16. He was ignorant as to what my medical condition actually was, but he spoke both with and from a position of authority. Also, history repeatedly demonstrates how apathy leads to the greatest evils being enacted.
Am I on a mission to convert people to my way of thinking? Only in respect to apathy. As Helen Keller observed, ‘science may have found a cure for most evils; but it has found no remedy for the worst of them all: the apathy of human beings’.
In conclusion, my experience of Covid-19 began in Italy when I contracted the virus in early 2020. That experience did not then, nor does not now, agree with the accounts seen in mainstream media, which led me to question what was being said. I am going to continue to ask questions and offer an alternative interpretation supported by empirical evidence until I receive an incontrovertible answer. If that answer proves or disproves my argument then I will have learned something, which is always a valuable achievement.
LikeLike
Peter, I must say that I found your last reply more civil, illuminating, and constructive than some of the things you have previously written in this discussion. The latter part of your answer in particular shed some light your opinions and tone. In the rest of this reply I will try not to bore you or your readers by endlessly re-quoting you but I will signpost the points you made with brief introductory quotes in the order you made them.
“Your first and second replies were dealt with in my explanation of a false equivalency, which demonstrated that yours was not a valid criticism by listing the classification traits shared by apples and oranges, as defined by scientists who specialise in taxonomy…”
The thing is that while you believe you demonstrated false equivalency, I am not at all convinced that you did. As somebody who has to study and work with the effects of viruses and vaccines, I know for sure that viruses come in thousands of different forms and that vaccines are designed in many different ways. Even with the relatively small number of vaccines designed to combat covid 19 there are at least three different methods in which they work. Moreover, in the meme you began this discussion with you insinuated that the fact that people may need repeated boosters of the vaccines somehow proves they are not very effective. That is simply not true. It simply means the defensive effects of some vaccines wane with time and therefore people may need another dose. Nobody would argue that aspirin is an ineffective medication because one tablet doesn’t cure headaches for the rest of your life.
“Which questions have I been ignoring?”
In fact in your last answer you did at least partially answer this. But to reiterate, why should people doubt the mainstream and often official institutional views about covid and the vaccines which can combat it? You know me well enough to know that I live a relatively unconventional life and I don’t accept much of anything without questioning it. I have asked the same questions as you about covid, about the social restrictions and health controls we have used to combat it and about the rollout of vaccines. As a fairly intelligent person with a scientific mind I have not yet seen anything to make me doubt what you would call the mainstream views.
“Why haven’t you answered my question on how the context I added to my original post on Facebook is misleading?”
I will go back and look at that, although I doubt I will have anything to add there that I haven’t said here.
“What attacks?…”
Well for the sake of keeping things cordial I don’t want to dwell on this point, but I would ask you not to insinuate that I am stupid or immature for not accepting your points or arguing in the same style as you.
‘without contraries is no progression’. A proper debate requires a minimum of two opposing views, otherwise all you have is a consensus.
That is true to a degree, but should not be applied to all things. There is no point in debating whether the world is flat of spherical. Elvis is dead. The Jews are not conspiring to take over the world. I think conspiracy theories are more dangerous than drugs and do as much damage as corruption.I find it particularly troubling that anti-covid and anti-vax protests are increasingly being used and hijacked by people on the extreme right.
“If anger creeps into my writing it comes from my reaction to the subject, how disabled people are marginalised for example, rather than whether anyone else agrees with me.”
Okay understood. But for the record you know that I am generally supportive of you in advancing the rights of disabled people. I personally try to advance the rights of women and the LGBTQ community. I also get angry when people use my age, my sex or my gender as a way to sideline my opinions.
“Should we accept what we are told without question?”
No. However, just because I have a different opinion to you doesn’t mean I haven’t questioned things.
“In conclusion, my experience of Covid-19 began in Italy when I contracted the virus…”
I understand. But wouldn’t it be fair to say that your own subjective experience has played a large part in the way your views on the topic have developed? When I have stated previously that I have known people who died or became seriously ill from covid you have accused me of being over emotional.
LikeLike