"Oh, you don't know?"

And another thing . . .

Since this discussion has evolved into the gospel of statistics, I should point out that statisticians themselves are famous for cherry-picking. Countless polls and surveys have been flawed because representative segments of the population weren't queried. Asking Floridians if they're satisfied with this year's walrus harvest might not be very informative, if you know what I mean.

In other news, aren't you glad the politicians, bureaucrats, and statisticians are telling us the economy is doing fine? I was worried about our $34 trillion debt (forecast to soon increase annually by $2 trillion), the junk bond crisis, de-dollarization, automation (I was laid off for 3 1/2 months because of that, though I fortunately got rehired . . . for now), artificial intelligence, the ever-growing gulf between the rich and the poor, and the almost incomprehensible corruption in our government. (Thank God we're going to get to choose between four more years of "Genocide Joe" Biden and Donald Trump.) Fortunately, the statisticians are calling me delusional, and there's a growing army of homeless people who would be happy to back up the statisticians in exchange for $2. Thank God statisticians can't be bought that easily. ;)

"Macfarlane pointed out we have successfully mandated vaccines against Rubella, Diptheria, Whooping Cough, Small Pox and Polio is proof that mandated vaccinations work."

That's a fallacy right there. This is actually proof that SOME vaccines work SOME OF THE TIME. In fact, most vaccines may work most of the time, but they aren't 100% effective or safe.

Perhaps this is overly fastidious but couldn't you argue that some vaccines working some of the time is  them working? In other words, they're doing what they sought out to achieve, i.e. broad success.

In the same way, I would say that seatbelts work. And one may say that's a fallacy because, in truth, some  seatbelts work  some  of the time. Some seatbelts are faulty and sometimes you can wear one and still suffer an injury. But they still work! They still do what they sought out to achieve.

[To Sam]

Not fastidious at all. All vaccines come with a list of side effects that few will be susceptible to in varying degrees. Like the virus itself, there are those particularly vulnerable and at risk. The vaccine is less dangerous than the virus. Therefore its worth the risk.

No, it's not. It is statistically true. It's only since we've seen a resurgence in recent anti-vax movements along with unvaxxed immigrants that these diseases are spiking upwards again.

Ah, "statistically true." That sounds fallacious itself. It certainly doesn't mean anything to the people - including some of my neighbors - who had bad experiences with the COVID vaccine.

First thing I'm going to point out about this comment: We're on a forum dedicated to identifying and picking apart logical fallacies. If you're going to claim that someone's argument is a fallacy or "sounds fallacious" without even identifying what fallacy you think they're committing, your claim isn't going to hold much water.

The second is that the statistics that are being referred to here are compiled by public health organizations who are monitoring populations of millions. Trying to counter that with anecdotal evidence of a minority of people who have been accounted for in the statistics is a pretty clear example of cherry picking .

Saying I can't claim fallacy without defining that fallacy is a bit of a stretch, considering that most questions posted on this site ask "What is that fallacy?" In addition, many examples of bullshit aren't strictly fallacious. The U.S. government's claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, for example was a lie.

As for your charge of "cherry-picking" - well, that might hold water if we accept your "statistical" model. Moreover, I don't share your blind trust in the government, and I certainly don't trust the corporations that had an enormous profit motive in producing a COVID vaccine. In fact, some, if not all, of these corporations have been in legal trouble before.

Although my experience with COVID wasn't all that bad, I did have some amazing experiences with the system. It's nice knowing that it doesn't really mean anything, because they were just "statistical" problems. Maybe you're the one who's cherry-picking.

The issue with claiming fallacy without specifying one is that it's intellectually lazy. Your claim is too vague for anyone to actually engage with, and as a result is not going to convince anyone. It's roughly equivalent to responding to a claim with "You're wrong" and leaving it at that.

So, it is true that the US government and the pharmaceutical companies have lied about some fairly major things, but they've also been right about a lot of things. To assume that any data they publish is inherently incorrect is an example of the genetic fallacy . But, you also have medical universities in the US, and international counterparts looking at the data, coming up with similar results, and posting their findings in scientific journals, which does reinforce the idea that the data is correct in this case. If you want to prove that the data is wrong, you need better data, not anecdotes.

Now, if there were multiple statistical models or there or conflicting data and I had just chosen the one that suits me, that would be cherry picking. Choosing robust data over anecdotes is not cherry picking. Considering that there have been roughly 5 billion people who got the COVID vaccine, most of whom have not had major side effects, choosing a handful of people who had them is cherry picking.

"The issue with claiming fallacy without specifying one is that it's intellectually lazy."

Well, it's true that I don't really feel like taking the time to dissect and analyze each of the multiple examples of deception I've identified in certain posts and elaborating on them in this discussion. I think it would be better to ask a new question about each case and let other people add their two cents. The statistical trick I mentioned may be an example moving the goal posts, but perhaps other people have better ideas.

"Your claim is too vague for anyone to actually engage with, and as a result is not going to convince anyone."

My claim(s) may be too vague for ignorant/stupid people, but I think most reasonably intelligent people can understand them. As a matter of fact, they fall roughly in line with the claims that convinced millions of people to not get the COVID vaccine, a decision that is more indicative of intelligence than the dumb-sheep response - just listen to Donald Trump and Facebook and get one vaccine after another, while continuing to wear your mask. Really sensible, huh?

"It's roughly equivalent to responding to a claim with 'You're wrong; and leaving it at that."

Actually, you're the one who seems to be making that argument. I love your reference to "robust data," by the way. I'm sure you're a medical expert and an expert statistician all rolled into one.

"So, it is true that the US government and the pharmaceutical companies have lied about some fairly major things, but they've also been right about a lot of things."

If a used car salesman tells me the truth about a car's tires, rear view mirrors, and glove compartment, then tells me it only has 100 miles on it when it actually has 10,000, I'm not going to trust that used car salesman. Frankly, I don't like the idea of a pharmaceutical company that sells drugs my life might depend on lying about "some fairly major things."

[To David Blomstrom]

The entire first paragraph of my last post was in reference to you claiming fallacy without specifying one. Choosing to apply that to other parts of the thread is not an accurate reading. But, if you're defense of that is "I'm right, I just don't feel like telling you why" then don't expect anyone to believe you.

While I'm not an expert in medicine or statistics, I've spent a bit of time working in a lab that did medical research, so I have some information literacy. I've looked at a lot of the data available and found the known side effects, rates at which they occur, demographic risk factors, how likely vaccination is to prevent symptoms, hospitalization and death compared to control groups and how that is affected by age and time since vaccination. While I didn't mention any specific research, I did touch on a few reasons why the research is robust. It's been conducted, not only by Pfizer and the CDC, but also by reputable medical universities like Johns Hopkins. There is redundancy, so you don't have to take any individual entity's word for it. You can find papers referenced by the CDC, or find them on Google scholar, look at the research methods, see the MD and PhD titles on the author's names, and see that they're working with sample size of hundreds or thousands of people, not 3. So, neither of us may be doctors or statisticians, but the people who write the research papers are.

Thank you for giving us your credentials. I have one more question, however: Who are you? I mean, when some stranger who calls himself "Mr. Wednesday" tells me he's a certified lab technician, I'm tempted to refer him to Miss Friday, another certified lab technician who has a strikingly different story to tell.

Your reference to Google Scholar is the final nail in your coffin. Do you realize how many scams and scandals Google has been involved in? Are you aware of the massive lawsuit Google is embroiled in right now?

Should we trust the CDC? I could tell you stories about the PhD's I met when I worked as a wildlife biologist in Alaska. They couldn't get jobs as wildlife biologists, so they sold out to corporations, after which they dutifully fudged their data.

By the way, the fallacy you're committing here is called appeal to authority, or appeal to false authority, as I call it.

Oops, am I being lazy again? Maybe I should just Google "Mr. Wednesday, COVID vaccine expert"!

[To David Blomstrom]

FYI, Google Scholar doesn't write any of this data. It's a search engine, but the results are limited to published scientific research papers, which are typically peer reviewed as part of the publication process. The authors, and which research institutions they work for, are written on the paper.

If you don't trust Google, you can subscribe to the individual academic journals that publish these papers, but expect to spend a few hundred dollars on each of them.

Also, you may want to read the full entry for appeal to authority . Notably, the exception section.

Yes, Google is in part a search engine, and boy does it have some flaws. Like I said, research Google's scams and scandals. As for "peer reviewed," well, that's yet another term that can be abused by propagandists. Yes, scientists have "peers," but so do fake scientists, politicians, and on and on.

I did some research on the conspiracy literature and was not surprised to discover plenty of propaganda rags masquerading as authentic "scientific journals," with footnotes crediting the same blatant propagandists over and over.

As for your personal credentials, don't feel bad; I never expected any transparency from you. This entire discussion reads like a peer-reviewed roller coaster ride from the pages of the New York Times or Rolling Stone.

"Also, you may want to read the full entry for appeal to authority . Notably, the exception section."

Ah, the magic exceptions clause. Yes, we must defer to LEGITIMATE AUTHORITIES. The question is, who gets to decide which authorities are legitimate? George W. Bush was deemed the authority on 9/11, even though he never had a clue about preventing it, and he and his friends made gazillions of dollars off it. And Bill Gates seems to be a legitimate authority on everything from genetically modified food to medicine, public education to mosquito eradication. Funny thing is, Seattle's public schools continued going downhill under his stewardship. Maybe that's why he gave up and ushered in charter schools. Next thing you know, he'll be breeding mosquitoes for sale as fish food!

Hearsay and fallacy fallacy. You're also making a Fallacy of Division. 

P1 Statistics show that vaccines work for the majority of the population. True

P2 My neighbors had bad experiences with vaccines. Hearsay

Therefore statistics don't matter. false

1. Figures don't lie, but liars do figure. In addition, you're suggesting that all vaccines are the same. The polio vaccine worked, and the flu vaccine appears to work (for most people), therefore, let's not question any vaccines.

2. Actually, it was more than my neighbors. I've also heard "hearsay" from other people telling me about problems with their family and neighbors. I worked with people who had bad experiences with the COVID vaccine. When I was in the hospital, I heard some interesting stories from medical staff - and isn't it amazing how many medical personnel were fired? I also saw some powerful evidence that "the system" was utterly dysfunctional . . . and not terribly trustworthy. I mean, when we're told to trust a conman like Bill Gates, and Facebook and Google are appointed guardians of the truth, you have to wonder what planet you're on.

3. I think it's hysterical that people were told to get one or two vaccines, followed by two or three booster shots (I lost count of the actual numbers), after which they were told they could still catch COVID again and should continue wearing a mask. Yeah, that's what I call an effective vaccine. Statistically speaking, of course. ;)

What have I started.

Yep, that's the one!

Thanks for saying exactly what I had neither the guts nor the eloquence to say myself!

I agree that it's some combination of ad hominem and avoiding the issue. The anti-vaxxer not only fails to answer their own question ( avoiding the issue ) but also chooses to make the discussion about the person they're responding to instead ( ad hominen ). It's even more fallacious due to the use of "the truth" in the statement.

Firstly, this is fantastic.

But I don't know if it is just an ad hom. Yes, there's a little personal attack in there but I don't think it's relevant to the fallacy.

I think the core of the fallacy is pretending to the know the answer to something and then, when asked to provide the answer, making up an excuse to supposedly withhold it. I think that can be achieved without even addressing the hominem, let alone ad-ing him.

Oh, is it just a red herring? I'm getting worried this is just a very basic fallacy.

Please let me know if and where I've gone wrong!

He's also claiming that statistics don't matter and vaccines don't work because he doesn't trust the government.  Whoosh!

Ah, now you've made the big leap from possible fallacies to bald-faced lies.

Where did I say that statistics don't matter? I don't trust the people behind most of the statistics we read about in the media. However, many statistics are reliable, and they do matter.

Nor did I say vaccines don't work. I've received many vaccines myself, and I have no complaints. However, I did not get the COVID vaccine because there were too many warning signs. Eventually, I contracted COVID - but the statisticians you so adore told us that you could catch it even after getting multiple vaccines.

Finally, the statement "vaccines don't work be cause he doesn't trust the government" is utterly absurd. Let's break it down:

1. Some vaccines work better than others, and some may not be safe, period. (True.)

2. I don't trust the government. (True.)

3. In related news, I think Israel's October 7 attack was a false flag attack, similar to 9/11.

Using your logic, you might argue that I think no vaccines work because October 7 was another 9/11.

If it sounds like I'm calling you a liar, then that's a good sign your comprehension skills are beginning to kick in. ;)

I'm unsure if this is the proper venue for your misological conspiracy rants. Have you tried Truth Social? You don't seem to understand logical fallacies, nor respect the community here.

"He's also claiming that statistics don't matter and vaccines don't work because he doesn't trust the government."

Well, one of us doesn't respect the community. And I have a very good understanding of mind control and deception; that's why it was so easy to spot the pile of bullshit in your comments. I was beginning to wonder if this is Amateur Hour. ;)