They did screw up, that’s true. Almost everyone everywhere has been wrong about this virus, mostly several if not many times. That’s because for a long time we were working with very limited and sometimes contradictory or misleading information. I do not believe that the WHO did this for nefarious reasons, or knowingly lied, although they did make some mistakes as a result of leverage and coercion by various states. I blame those states more than I do the WHO.

Not denying your right, never have, but choice of where to apply your scrutiny and time spent on it says a lot. A very popular fight commentator, comedian, pod caster, or the people actually creating the guidelines you and your family will live under, right or wrong, is another. Choose your battles kind of thing. I am more fearful of the quiet wrong doers. NYT finally admits many emails in Hunter Biden laptop are authentic. NPR, others dismissed it all as a waste of time, Russian disinformation. Jack Dorsey censored anyone trying to share the NY Post article even through PMs. Joe Rogan has many different people on his show. I find it entertaining and thought provoking. I can't say the same for mainstream media; I am very saddened and worried by this more than Joe Rogan. As a matter of fact, I am happy he stirs the pot. To paraphrase the WAPO's line, "Democracy Dies in Silence".

In nearly no internet debate does "logical fallacy" invalidate an argument. After all, none of these arguments are truly logical, instead being deeply embedded in empiricism and intuition. While their criticism may not be useful, to imply that arguments on the internet are wrong (or to be ignored becaues they provide no value) seems like an unrealistic expectation.

I am unaware of any situation outside of pure mathematics where logic is the sole arbiter. I am curious to hear about such situations, though.

Other than as a substitute for bird watching I don't have much use for logical fallacies: https://maartenboudry.be/2017/06/the-fallacy-fork-why-its-ti...

s/to/tu

So you think Rogan has more influence than the CDC's guidelines that are adopted as legistation for the most part - masking children, vaccines for 5-11 year-olds, ignoring natural immunity, not releasing data? You don't think he gets negative press or death threats? Not to mention Fauci has a direct link to COVID, and has admitted to openly lying "for your own good". Rogan has a diverse assortment on his show, and admits he is not an expert. You cannot hold him responsible for anyone's ignorance or inability to think for themselves. However, when bodies of so-called authority or expert credentials make policy you and your family will have to live by, that is more of a concern of mine, and where I turn my attention. You are free to go after Rogan. A lot of influencers have millions of listeners, and they speak in isolation without lengthy dialogues with any guests. Mainstream media does one-minute edited blurbs for you to digest like pablum. And they carry forward the status quo. Look at how much they have been collectively wrong, or misleading, sometimes intentionally.

I don't really like this fallacy as I think it is really dangerous. Because you're wrong about something (or even everything) doesn't mean you're wrong about another thing.

Because there are examples of the medical community getting it wrong (btw they did not get it wrong when it came to opiates - everyone knew opiates were addictive) doesn't mean they are always wrong.

Also there is no way for you to figure out who the quacks are (of course they exist, there are MDs suggesting insane things all the time) and who the correct but contrarians are.

So, by default you assume if the opinion is not mainstream it must have validity.

Now, I'm not saying the opposite is true. I'm saying it is just as bad (or maybe even worse statistically) to form an opinion because it isn't mainstream as it is to form an opinion just because it IS mainstream.

You're not a critical thinker because you dismiss the mainstream because it is mainstream. Just the opposite.

"But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." -- Carl Sagan

Point is we also have a long history of genuine quacks and loonies, and they outnumber the genuine Cassandras to such an extent as to invalidate your heuristic. Statistically, if someone disagrees with the mainstream scientific consensus, they aren't a brave voice fighting the tide of darkness - just wrong.

You can make a long list of times outsiders were right and the establishment was wrong. You can also make a long list of times outsiders were wrong and the establishment was right.

Why would you mention only one list and not the other?

Why would you want to enlist as a soldier in one side of a cause where neither side is reliable, neither side has your best interests in mind?

You're playing yourself for a fool.

Going down the "Some quacks were right, therefore all quacks are right" path will not lead you to a healthy place.

Yes, there is inertia in the scientific community, and sometimes the dissenting voices have a hard time being heard. That much is true.

But that is true because most of the time, the dissenting voices are wrong, if not outright lunatics.

The same thought came to mind regarding how easily manipulated the US population is regarding wars. They keep falling for the same fallacy of making conclusions without enough evidence.

Not to mention Frances Oldham Kelsey and thalidomide. She'd be slated as anti-science on CNN etc today for sure.

Rogan is not a news program and doesn't claim to be one . His thing is conversations with interesting people.H It can be serious scientists, questionable scientists, flat earthers, UFO people, Alex Jones and many others. He lets them talk and it's up to you do with it whatever you want. I personally find it very interesting to listen to political extremists, conspiracy guys, COVID deniers or flat earthers and learn what they are thinking. I don't need or want to be protected from wrong information. Actually it's very important to know where people you are disagreeing with are coming from. It's very unhealthy to only hear what you think is true.

If people want to get protected from wrong information a good start would be advertising. Maybe the woke people at Spotify should start there.

Agreed. News Hour is definitely left leaning but they let people talk and seem to make a genuine effort to provide information. Which is something most other news programs have stopped doing. They just want to produce outrage and conflict. You can listen to CNN, MSNBC or Fox for hours and the only thing you have learned is what you should be angry about. You will have learned nothing about the actual topic.

> are far more representative of the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community

But that isn't the answer to the question asked in the parent comment. The parent was wondering which media would choose guests that have a differing view from theirs. The mainstream media happened to align with the people representing the general opinion of the medical and epidemiological community, and were rarely inviting Robert Malone, Peter McCullough, or Jay Bhattacharia, who had different views.

The media manufactures opinion so that isn't surprising, the same can be said for the Hunter Biden laptop story, or WMD in Iraq.

Yes, as the evidence comes in, it seems probable that the mainstream media got Invermectin right. They've gotten other things wrong.

Whether they ultimately turn out to be right or wrong about any particular topic, the problem occurs much earlier: they choose their position before conclusive evidence is available, often, as in this case, based mostly on politics, then skew their coverage to fit.

I'd prefer to hear the arguments and evidence from an impartial source, not a political position.