It would be helpful if you spoke more directly, since I don’t understand what you mean by this.
I don’t know how much I can help since I have difficulty understanding it myself. I checked out a couple of the Dr. McCullough links, and he really comes off as a crank. This isn’t because he asserts a view that is outside of the mainstream but rather because he conspiratorially connects his views on the COVID vaccines to a vast web of other things. Furthermore, he characterizes his opponents as apparently under a spell and almost hypnotized. Dr. McCullough would carry much more credibility with me if he stayed on point and calmly and systematically laid out the case why he was right and why his opponents were wrong.
I can see why people have doubts about the official narrative, but embracing cranks and conspiracy spinners isn’t a superior alternative. Why would people do so? Perhaps it provides a satisfying comprehensive explanation of the world that affirms one’s rightness in rejecting authority.
4 Likes
Thanks for the reply, Joel. I appreciate your thoughts. Alastair Roberts made the case recently that those who are taking their scientific appeal directly to the public are more likely to be cranks. They are unable to gain traction in the “expert discussion” and so they move on to an easier target. In some cases that may be the only route available because they academy, the think tanks, and the three letter organizations simply won’t give ideas a hearing for ideological reasons, but I don’t think that is true of most of the covid/vaccine stuff. People are appealing to the public with sciencese YouTube videos because they are either attention seekers, or they can’t compete where competency/proficiency matters. That said, I think there have been instances of group think where the mavericks can provide real value.
I thought this old piece from Alastair was good at diagnosing some of the problem/genesis. But doesn’t provide much direction toward a solution.
1 Like