When is a stance towards a topic "proven"?
To create this example I will take the anti vax topic.
My first impulse is:
anti vax people are stupid. They ignore basic science.
I myself would (unreflected) instantly agree that vaccines are beneficial.
But why actually?
I cannot prove that vaccines are beneficial myself (im no doctor / medical scientist).
I basically believe what others tell me (Wikipedia / articles / studies).
But unreflected belief in what others tell you is darn irrational isnt it?
My three narrow factors then are:
- source count
- source quality ( experiment or theory? number of guinea pigs etc. )
- source relation ( big pharma / independent lab )
But all of these can be faked / manipulated.
Until I myself proved that something is true I cant be sure it really 100% is right?
Vaccines could be big pharma trying to sell us snakeoil right?
(I dont believe that)
But as I cant be 100% sure it seems I choose what to believe on guts not on facts ( because I cant even determine what is a fact and what not ).
Therefore I have no right to say someone else is wrong?
In this example basically I could not 100% percent be sure that anti vax people are wrong because I could not 100% verify sources and experiments/studies that were made?
What do you guys think?
thank you for your time.