[jordanpg]

Putting aside any special reverence we might have for the dead, I guess the abstract question is: is there any social value to publicly shaming those who uncritically call into question settled scientific claims, putting others at risk?

I would say there is some value. Our society will not survive if it is socially acceptable to do this. COVID is exhibit A. Climate science is exhibit B.

Settled scientific matters, like the usefulness of safe vaccines, is not on the same playing field as politics or religion. If there is a belief among some that settled scientific questions are a matter of non-expert public debate, then that needs to be corrected. Public shaming might help.

[Jon_Lowtek]

public shaming, and more so mobbing, is not an adequate method of civilised dialogue. The argument in favor is highly consequentialistic: if the total result is a net positive, the method is deemed morally right. However i consider this method wrong on principle as it uses emotional/psychological violence at the hand of vigilantes. More so the use of such violence is eristic: the method itself doesn't lead to a deeper truth or understanding, it just aims at winning a dispute, claiming that the victims must best be forced to see the truth. Because of this it can easily be abused to lead away from truth as well. It does not matter how obviously stupid or wrong you consider your opponents opinion to be: the restriction that the use of such methods is ok, when it is used by the right side of an argument, doesn't lend itself to an enlightened discourse. Now one may argue that humans are naturally violent, that their behavior is highly linked to how it influences their social status and that shaming and mobbing are natural phenomenons in how group dynamics work, that humans are not, at large, enlightened, but from the perspective of civilized morality it is a barbaric method. It is unsurprising that it happens, but one should sneer at it and clearly show those who use it that they are not morally sublime ;-)

[giantg2]

I guess that depends on who gets to decide value and in what manner.

Settled scientific facts are not the same as politics and policy. They can be useful in determining policy, but are not a default policy. It also depends on how those facts get linked together. You need to question the n-order impacts to devise good policy.

"If there is a belief among some that settled scientific questions are a matter of non-expert public debate, then that needs to be corrected."

Policy should be debated by the people. You need an informed citizenry for democracy to function.

Sure, we can publicly shame people for just about anything (1st Ammendment). What is acceptable depends on what the group or society decides. For example, should we fat shame people to reduce healthcare costs on aggregate?

We also need to weigh societal benefit of shaming against any societal detriment like a reduction in civility.

[mindslight]

> Settled scientific facts are not the same as politics and policy

Except that we are talking about scientific facts here, and not policy. If the political movement accepted that vaccines are seemingly safe and effective, but still rejected getting them based on some other critique, that would be a political topic. Or if say the "anti-mask" movement were solely against mask mandates, while encouraging everyone to be personally responsible and wear a mask, that would be political (I myself would have been in this camp if more people had worn respirators). But rather than making a defensible political point in the wider context of scientific reality, these movements have backstopped their positions with blatantly false scientific-seeming disinformation. And so the overall situation really is a matter of scientific facts having been politicized, and not science being used to dictate policy.

[giantg2]

Perhaps the lumping together of various opinions and he implication that the political movement doesn't accept general safety is what's causing the disconnect here. It seems that many of those being shamed on that Reddit did not share misinformation, or even any public misinformation on the vaccine.

Vaccines are generally safe. There are a number of factors that an individual may weigh to consider their value. Many of the opponents are against mandates so that individuals can weigh the choice themselves.

Sure, there are people who say things that are blatantly untrue (on both sides). We can try to shame them for false information. We still have the question of how civil this shaming should be. It also depends on group/public sentiment on how useful this will be - it could be seen as a badge of honor, group think can play a role too.

[disambiguation]

Shame is like a gun, it's only as good as the hands that its in.

And even then winds up doing more harm than good.

Best case scenario, you shame someone into compliance and then there's a good chance they harbor negative feelings over how they were treated.

[cxr]

The results of Millikan's oil drop experiment were settled. They were also wrong.

Calling for people to not subject fact claims to scrutiny because they're considered settled is not a pro-science position. It's anti-science.

Matters of science don't need anyone to come to the universe's aid by telling people to give it a rest. They'll hold up.

[jordanpg]

There is a difference between the results of one experiment in a narrow subfield, and the results of an uncountable number of experiments across disciplines and time.

There is a difference "subjecting fact claims to scrutiny" and people without scientific training weighing in on scientific questions.

Most people on this forum would have no problem mocking someone who believed their cell phone worked by magic. Somehow the logic is different when the topic is vaccines.

[cxr]

> people without scientific training weighing in on scientific questions

Tell Faraday.

What is the end goal? What you're describing carries a non-zero risk but provides zero benefit. To repeat: science by its nature doesn't need anyone to ensure the scales are tipped in its favor. They're welded into that position.

> Most people on this forum would have no problem mocking someone who believed their cell phone worked by magic

Should they? If you're doing something for sport, then be honest about it. Don't couch it in pro-science terms when actual belief goes the other way just because circumstances mean you can get by without having to show your work this time.

> Somehow the logic is different when the topic is vaccines.

This is pretty blatantly dipping a toe into waters of both strawmanning and ad hominem. Stop trying to read between the lines. It's not helping you get the right answer here. (I'm vaccinated. Cast your insults and aspersions somewhere else.)

[ifyoubuildit]

In a general sense, can you call something a "settled scientific matter" if so many people are in disagreement about it (ignoring your or my own personal beliefs)? The idea that anything is "settled" with regards to something as young as covid seems a little bold to me.

That aside, there is plenty of social value to trashing people that are in the out group. If you meant is there utility for the whole population, sure, if you can guarantee that you are correct in your position and that shaming will have the desired effect. That seems unlikely in general, but especially in the case of a bunch of redditors shitting on dead people.

[angelzen]

The OA story is a great illustration why we should never put aside common decency. Break down indecent behavior dampening barriers at the risk of fickle mobs looking for the next target to shame. No one is safe. Even the most self-interested person has plenty to gain from a society that highly values common decency.

* Meet other people? The settled science is that you are putting others at risk of infectious disease.

* Drive a car? The settled science is that you are putting others at risk of blunt force trauma.

* Have a barbecue party? The settled science is that you are putting others at risk of food poisoning.

[raxxorrax]

The usefulness isn't settled at all. We don't even know how long it protects. It pretty much doesn't severely help people under the age of 50 by mortality rate.

We know it does not protect against transmission or infection. It probably only reduces the severity of the disease. But that data is anything other than settled.

[ipaddr]

Settled science matters is an oxymoron. The very nature of the scientist method is to continually question.

Public shaming of anyone who questions non-experts who only remain experts if they parrot the party line?

Sounds like you've moving into religion.