There’s a new paper out analyzing how antimask activists weaponize the tools of data visualization and scientific argumentation to produce convincing antimask propaganda. Antimaskers are claiming that it shows that they are more “scientific” than those supporting the consensus viewpoint with respect to COVID-19 and masks. What it really shows is that they are good at weaponizing the tools of data visualization and scientific arguments to come to the conclusions that they want to come to.
Search: “"christopher shaw"”
We found 63 results for your search.
One Conversation was originally sold as a public debate or discussion about vaccine that would represent “both sides.” When the real scientists who had been enticed by Britney Valas and Shannon Kroner’s seeming sincerity found out about the antivaxers on the panel and just what they do and believe, things fell apart. Now what’s left is an antivaccine crankiest.
Share this:
Ethan Siegel at Forbes argues that you “must not ‘do your own research.’” While the title grates, Siegel is correct that most of us are not really capable of “doing our own research” about most scientific and medical questions because we lack the necessary background. We must therefore be humble and be very, very careful about “doing our own research.”
Share this:
I was invited to discuss vaccines with antivaxers for a panel called One Conversation. Recognizing an antivaccine trap, I politely declined. Unfortunately, other legitimate medical authorities did not, thus enabling the illusion of legitimization of antivaccine views.
Share this:
Gayle DeLong finally responds to the retraction of her incompetent paper linking HPV vaccination to lowered fertility in women in—of course—the antivaccine propaganda blog Age of Autism. It doesn’t go well.
