= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
satt comments on ClearerThinking's Fact-Checking 2.0 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (40)
In that case, I don't see the point. After all, anti-vaxxers don't deny that there are prominent medical professionals who don't agree with their position. They, however, suspect that said professionals are doing so due to a combination of biases and money from the vaccine industry.
But not all people in the audience would react like that to michaelkeenan's example warning. Some people would presumably value being informed of authoritative sources contradicting a claim that vaccines cause autism.
(And if your objection went through for fact checking framed as contradiction reporting, why wouldn't it go through for fact checking framed as fact checking? My mental model of an anti-vaxxer has them responding as negatively to being baldly contradicted as to being informed, "The Lancet says this is wrong".)