> If you're claiming something that hasn't been demonstrated through peer-reviewed scientific research, then you're offering your opinion.
By that standard, this entire website and most of the software industry is misinformation. In fact, most political speech is misinformation.
> If you're pushing a narrative that implies that you shouldn't get vaccinated, then yes, that's "anti-vax".
GP is saying that the conversation is, and should be recognized as, more nuanced than that. There sure is an undercurrent of people making narratives but that's not a new problem. The left and right have weaponized narratives to the detriment of this country ad infinitum. If you're arguing we should only have evidence based discussion and that anecdotes and opinions don't matter, then you have new problems. The new problems will alienate and harm anyone that your current telemetry (and understanding) doesn't reflect. To me, that's an age-old problem where some value technocracy while others value bureaucracy; my personal opinion being that both are valuable but they need a distribution model in government that optimizes for problem solving.
> If you're publishing your opinion, or if you're discussing your research before it's been peer-reviewed, you have the responsibility to make that clear, and even to point out that it does not agree with the current scientific consensus (if any exists).
I agree, but it seems GP was indicating this doctor was doing just that and was still silenced.
> By that standard, this entire website and most of the software industry is misinformation.
Sure, if we ignore the context of my statement and this whole discussion, which happens to be about COVID vaccines.
Also, please note that what I said -- and what you quoted -- is that if your claim is not supported by peer-reviewed scientific research, then you're offering your opinion. I didn't say that offering your opinion is the same as spreading misinformation.
It's only when you're presenting your opinion as a fact that you're engaging in misinformation, which is what I said in the next sentence that you didn't quote.
> GP is saying that the conversation is, and should be recognized as, more nuanced than that.
"Having a nuanced discussion" and "being responsible with how you say things" are not mutually exclusive propositions.
> If you're arguing we should only have evidence based discussion and that anecdotes and opinions don't matter, then you have new problems.
Anecdotes and opinions should be clearly presented as such, so that everyone who encounters them can decide how much they matter to them. That's what I'm arguing.
> I agree, but it seems GP was indicating this doctor was doing just that and was still silenced.
I see nothing there that indicates whether the doctor was doing that or not. Like I said, I don't know whether the doctor "insisted" in a way that made it clear it was his opinion, unsupported by current research.
> I didn't say that offering your opinion is the same as spreading misinformation.
> Anecdotes and opinions should be clearly presented as such, so that everyone who encounters them can decide how much they matter to them. That's what I'm arguing
Agreed. Though, even data driven analysis is best-effort these days and that is a fact that folks like to ignore in these kinds of discussions. If someone has to make abundantly clear that something is anecdotal or opinion based I can agree to that, but I think a counter-weight needs to be assigned to data: explain the potential for gaps and how historically fraught this area of data has been. That arms folks with the information to assign weights themselves.
Ask liberals or conservatives and they will quickly point out their it's not their side that's misinforming.
The fact is that they are all misinfoming. Just yesterday in the congressional testimoney, Gen Milley, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin and Gen McKenzie - all said they informed the president for keeping 2,500 troops in May. President Biden couple of weeks ago denied that he had any recommendation from the generals or anyone in the government.
By that standard, this entire website and most of the software industry is misinformation. In fact, most political speech is misinformation.
> If you're pushing a narrative that implies that you shouldn't get vaccinated, then yes, that's "anti-vax".
GP is saying that the conversation is, and should be recognized as, more nuanced than that. There sure is an undercurrent of people making narratives but that's not a new problem. The left and right have weaponized narratives to the detriment of this country ad infinitum. If you're arguing we should only have evidence based discussion and that anecdotes and opinions don't matter, then you have new problems. The new problems will alienate and harm anyone that your current telemetry (and understanding) doesn't reflect. To me, that's an age-old problem where some value technocracy while others value bureaucracy; my personal opinion being that both are valuable but they need a distribution model in government that optimizes for problem solving.
> If you're publishing your opinion, or if you're discussing your research before it's been peer-reviewed, you have the responsibility to make that clear, and even to point out that it does not agree with the current scientific consensus (if any exists).
I agree, but it seems GP was indicating this doctor was doing just that and was still silenced.