From the anti-vaxxers to flat earthers: what makes people distrust science?

Feelings? Assumed? Balderdash. My post did not imply he is from the DNC, merely that he is being fooled by the Dem Progressive Left. Here's a prime example of what he says that makes him sound very much like a Dem parrot:

"There are five tropes of science denial reasoning. Those five were used in the Republican pushback against the Mueller report, in “Stop the Steal,” and the pushback about the January 6 insurrection: cherry-picking evidence, belief in conspiracy theories, illogical reasoning, reliance on fake experts, and belief that if your opponent isn’t perfect, then you’re right. That is the strategy used by COVID deniers or evolution deniers. There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

His three examples and general attack against the Republican party might be a good opening to get someone who leans Democrat to listen to whatever he has to say about science, right or wrong. But it is building a wall of hostility against those who don't share that assessment of those political issues, and they have nothing to do with science. An inability to recognize that will simply mean that one will arrive at all manner of wrong conclusions regarding the impasse. Thus your post.

 

voted for him in 2020.

rejected the cv vaxes.

not political here. Unlike that of our current POTUS/Veep/et al.

At least Trump was never anti-cv jab as the current POTUS/VEEP/ET AL

 

That response is so far off base I really must ask, did you even read the quote?

He sums up by saying, "There’s a good case that that’s the reasoning used by today’s Republican party."

How does that or any other part of the paragraph quoted sound like a Trump supporter? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does he say anything close to any of that about the Democrat party? Nowhere in the article.

Do you really think someone who disagrees with his assessment of those political issues pointed out, which again have nothing to do with science, will be ready to listen to whatever he has to say about science? They almost certainly will not.

His methodology is horrendous. He is just creating a wall of hostility with it, unless he's just trying to reach those who lean Democrat. Or should it be assumed that is his point, almost all science deniers lean Democrat?

 

aye. but only one has switched advocation about the cv jab.

you're right, they have no soul.

After what happened in 2020 ... I think a lot of folks will hang-up their voting booth ... register to maintain the civic duty of jury pool ... but clearly voting matters not.

 

Hmmm. That seems to be a non sequitur, completely ignoring my comments about the author's approach sounding like a Dem parrot.

Again, it's a very bad idea to unnecessarily and ignorantly employ divisive politics when trying to convince someone of what is supposedly good science. If it is, many will probably not find out from him.

 

That's just dead wrong wishful thinking. Your posts haven't proven any point contrary to mine. He sounds like he's parroting Dem politics.

Again, how does that offending paragraph sound like Trump? It doesn't. Not at all.

Where does the author say anything similarly derogatory about the Democratic party? Nowhere in that article.

Unless you can answer those questions to the contrary by bona fide argument then you prove nothing.

 

...Also, try explaining precisely how the three examples he cites in the quote have anything to do with science.

 

I am still waiting to hear if you agree with fossil fuel causing global warming.

 

I have no desire to PM you.
Do you believe fossil fuel caused climate change? If you don't, you are a flat earther.

 

another break in the dam ...

A pandemic of the vaccinated or Ivermectin ignored?

 

No, your posts entirely miss the point I made. They've been nothing but accusations and ad hominem and non sequitur rather than bona fide counterargument.

The author sounds like a DNC parrot. Whether he means to be or is a Dem is beside the point.

He is derogatory about the Republican party but not about the Democrat party, and regarding issues that have nothing to do with science.

If he wants people to listen to him about science, he should not start off by displaying his gross political ignorance or bias regarding issues that have nothing to do with science.

His approach means that whatever he has to say about science becomes suspect to those he unnecessarily offends.

It isn't that one should entirely disagree with him about science denial, or about science particulars, but rather that he may be as much a science denier as those he labels as such, especially when it comes to science regarding political issues. That is what some may conclude, possibly rightly, from seeing his political ignorance and bias on display.