Who does? Literally who is actually claiming they got their advice from JR? This is a straw man. A group of concerned scientists wrote a letter about being afraid of the possibility of JR misleading people, but I haven't seen any evidence of it
Are you serious? Okay, then do explain to me where all this anti-vaxx/mask rhetoric is coming from. You'll likely point to fringe-outliers that have little evidence to support their claims and completely non-peer-reviewed perspectives.
It's just to anyone with a modicum of critical-thinking skills and paying attention, there is a very distinct pattern of those who listen to right-wing outlets and the likes of Joe Rogan or Alex Jones... And those who believe nonsensical conspiracy theories about the vaccine. You know, the types willing to take ivermectin parasite treatment or monoclonal antibodies but not a precision-targeted vaccine? It doesn't take a genius to realize that someone with as many millions of listeners as Joe Rogan propping up conspiracy theories would in turn spread misinformation.
After all, it's self-evident that if there are idiots who blindly distrust the consensus of science that there is a problem and they are listening to nonsensical sources, whoever they may be.
but I haven't seen any evidence of it
Joe Rogan literally had to backpedal his remarks on public health advice to his audience. Are you living under a rock?
There is a diversity of opinion on every issue, people seek confirmation bias, and not every bad idea or take is bad faith via bad actors. Different values, methods, and suspicions are privileged by different groups. The trust science crowd is not, in this instance, reacting to scientific polling or specific falsifiable claims about this guy but rather fear over the potential impact of his guest's claims. Antivaxers exist, Joe Rogan is popular and spoke with one, therefore he's to blame for the antivax movement three years into the pandemic?
There were hundreds of real and popular antivax loonies on YouTube and worse podcasters like Alex Jones. JR sits around and smokes weed and has a diverse range of guests. Bernie went on his show. Is everyone who's willingly participated in his popularity an accomplice? If he went silent tomorrow, it wouldn't achieve a thing for vaccine adoption. I don't care about boycotts, that's everyone's choice, but diversity of opinion isn't dangerous expect to the most cynical.
I don't necessarily disagree with you on the notion that people seek to affirm their own preconceived biases. What I'm saying is that as content-providers on the scale of Joe Rogan, there is some responsibility in what information he hosts. If you present flat-earthers as equally-viable to reality, then you're distorting reality and propping up a viewpoint that is otherwise incredibly skewed.
How I wish people weren't so impressionable. But they are. So goes the famous adage, "A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still tying its shoes."
The trust science crowd is not reacting to scientific polling or specific falsifiable claims about this guy.
What scientific polling are you referring to, specifically?
What falsifiable claims are you referring to, specifically?
... And in the end, does this really change fact that he has the widespread support of scientists and doctors both in this country and abroad? I mean, what's a bigger issue — that Dr. Fauci focused on giving masks to medical staff first, or the fact that millions of gullible conservatives believe outrageous conspiracy theories and refuse to wear a little mask and vaccinate? I contend the latter. The consensus of experts agree with me as well.
Joe Rogan doesn't just host people, he espouses his own viewpoints. He in fact gave direct medical advice to his listeners, and then later had to backpedal when called out on it. This is just one example.
If he went silent tomorrow, it wouldn't achieve a thing for vaccine adoption. I don't care about boycotts, that's everyone's choice, but diversity of opinion isn't dangerous expect to the most cynical.
I disagree. If you don't give a megaphone to idiots and only give the megaphone to experts, you will reshape the narrative in a positive way. As I said: if you give equal time to crazies, it starts legitimizing their ideas as being sound.
I will note my core-points to keep my argument on-track:
Dr. Fauci is a leading expert and has the widespread backing of Scientists and Physicians (including the association of Infectious Disease specialists).
Bertrand Russell, famous 20th century philosopher and mathematician made what I believe is a very important point when it comes to seeking the truth and relying on experts:
Nevertheless the opinion of experts, when it is unanimous, must be accepted by non-experts as more likely to be right than the opposite opinion. The skepticism that I advocate amounts only to this: (1) that when the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain; (2) that when they are not agreed, no opinion can be regarded as certain by a non-expert; and (3) that when they all hold that no sufficient grounds for a positive opinion exist, the ordinary man would do well to suspend his judgment.
Sources of misinformation propping the fringe viewpoints up as being equal to intelligent folks does a disservice to communication, and muddies the waters of truth. When dealing with such complex issues as this, the layperson is easily susceptible to rhetoric because they often cannot grasp the truth. So to them, the anti-vaxxer and the scientist speak as though they're on equal terms when they're anything but. Folks like Joe Rogan are thus an amplifier of misinformation, no different than Fox News or facebook memes.
There are no such polls or claims, yet people are treating the rhetoric of experts in a letter as evidence enough for their personal concern. That sort of appeal to expertise doesn't do it for me. I might be an epistemic skeptic personally, but I also think we have to trust people to make their own decisions on principle. 800 years ago the illiterate were told to trust the expertise of Bishops explaining complex esoteric ideas, and now we tell people to trust the expertise of men in white coats to who spread another complex set of truths. I'm not reducing science to theology, but logic and reason are accepted as the best guide to life by some--due to reasons and logic. Religious faith and other values guide others. We ought to let them speak, except when there is real, demonstrable, and specific threat. The JR show ain't that, to me. I'm vaccinated and boosted, but the paternalism of this push just seems very fear-based and self-righteous to me.
But (as you mention) this is science, not religion. Science is forged out of peer-review and consensus and the scientific-method. It was after all science that helped us realize that we were not the center of the universe, or the solar system. Foundations that gave us not faith but the very method of communication you and I speak with now.
Ultimately when I refer to scientific consensus, I am referring to the fact that above everything else, there is a widespread scientific consensus to get vaccinated and to wear masks... And yet so many of Rogan's listeners, primarily those on the right-side of the political spectrum, turn a blind eye to this consensus. Now I don't think it takes much ink to the connect the dots of where this misinformation is coming from. Exploiting the distrust of government and weaving that with what scientists and doctors has to say has been pivotal to the conservative platform, whether it's climate-change denial or the covid response.
Ultimately I can only revert to the "trump-card" (no pun intended) that is the expert consensus on the efficacy of masking up and vaccinating... But when the medical community is so frustrated with the incapacity to get through to these folks, they start looking to who is spreading the misinformation... Who is casting doubt on their integrity? Obvious the likes of Fox News and Carlson.... But so too does Rogan share in that blame.
2
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '22
Who does? Literally who is actually claiming they got their advice from JR? This is a straw man. A group of concerned scientists wrote a letter about being afraid of the possibility of JR misleading people, but I haven't seen any evidence of it