Re: [Phys-L] vaccine deniers and per

[O A <omarakhtar01@gmail.com>]

Thank you Paul. I appreciate the answer.

Definitely agreed that there's overlap, and that's largely what I was
thinking of when mentioning that this topic could be useful to impart
broader lessons (or reminders).

Also agree that the scientific method isn't really geared toward nuance;
it's simplex for a reason - but perhaps nuance isn't really needed in this
day and age where there appears to be a need to have a little 'back to
basics' first (always good to check the axioms, or at least go over them;
can't hurt : )

Communication is certainly more than going through a checklist of key steps
in the scientific method, agreed, but if the subject of the communication
is science/scientific evidence then a little review doesn't hurt. You might
be surprised to see just how necessary it is (I've literally had
to...remind people who certainly should/maybe do know better that there's a
fundamental difference between probabilistic model 'studies' and actual
RCTs). If you're implying that the guidance in this publication is purely
for the communicator who is already aware of these...fundamentals and
choosing to speak to their audience at a different level, then I get that.
Then maybe there's an opportunity to do a little review in a 2nd
conversation(?).

Cheers

On Thu., Dec. 15, 2022, 2:47 p.m. Paul Nord, <Paul.Nord@valpo.edu> wrote:

> O,
>
> Bernard has some interesting thoughts that are not always about physics.
> But, in this case, there are numerous relevant science and science
> education topics that overlap.  Doing science is also about communicating
> science.  The "scientific method" doesn't offer much nuance when it comes
> to good communication.  Whether it's vaccines, global warming, flat earth,
> or anti-gravity, we're all going to have these discussions at some point.
> For those who set themselves up to be the spokespeople for science, this
> offers guidance to take some care in understanding the critics perspective
> and doing the best to explain well.
>
> Paul
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 15, 2022 at 1:19 PM O A via Phys-l <phys-l@mail.phys-l.org>
> wrote:
>
> > New here so just a sincere question:
> >
> > is this germane to the purpose of this listserve? Also: a simple argument
> > from data and actual scientific evidence (as in: the output of the actual
> > scientific method) should both suffice as well as be a possible broader
> > lesson and reminder.
> >
> > The clinical data from Pfizer - the same they fought hard to keep from
> > releasing for 75 years, alongside the US FDA that was ostensibly
> regulating
> > them) is freely available, updated monthly with each c.500pg
> court-ordered
> > release 'package', and easy to search:
> > https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
> >
> > On Thu., Dec. 15, 2022, 2:02 p.m. Keith C Tipton via Phys-l, <
> > phys-l@mail.phys-l.org> wrote:
> >
> > > The link from the WHO has a different link from where I sit --
> > > <
> https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/WHO-EURO-2017-2899-42657-59427
> > > -- "How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public: best practice
> > > guidance" -- and you can download from there.
> > >
> > >
> > > bernard cleyet wrote on 12/15/22 12:40 PM:
> > > >
> https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/315761/Vocal-vaccine-deniers-guidance-document.pdf
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Forum for Physics Educators
> > > Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
> > > https://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > Forum for Physics Educators
> > Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
> > https://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@mail.phys-l.org
> https://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l