Unlike the Russell Teapot, the claim on whether vaccines are safe, or not, is verifiable.
I am sure this is uncomfortable to many, but you are taking the position that many did take with tobacco, or asbestos. They were safe. Until they weren't.
Human life is limited in length. The burden of proof rests on those tampering with the natural (ie the human body) over the un-natural.
The counterfactual. Should we feed supermarket milk to babies ? At least in this case, milk is proven to be safe for humans long term. Would you give supermarket milk to babies ?
If you did, the burden of proving this is safe rests on you, not on the person stating they want to continue to provide breast milk to the baby
It seems that you are arguing that human life span being finite makes every medical assertion effectively testable, but it does not. You still don't have an infinite population and you still do not have an repeteable way to measure "life span".
And the claim that there is a "natural" and "un natural" order of things is as unscientific as it gets.
I am not going to expect anyone with a half brain to verify the health effects of mixing milk powder with and without a Bible below it, even though a large magnitude of people claim it has an effect. Nor I am going to ask for a full medical study to show that there is no difference.
>>>> You still don't have an infinite population and you still do not have an repeteable way to measure "life span".
I genuinely dont understand youe point here. Are you saying that 7B people arent enough to test every medical claim. Are you saying that because we cant determine with precision life span that we cant precisely understand medical results ?
>>>> the claim that there is a "natural" and "un natural" order of things is as unscientific as it gets.
The fallacy of misusing the naturalistic fallacy
According to the critique made, we should not claim that natural things are better than scientific experimentation. Yet, my original claim was not to use nature to derive a notion of how things "ought" to be organized.
Rather, as scientists, we respect nature for the extent of its experimentation. The high level of statistical significance given by a very large sample cannot be ignored.
Nature may not have arrived at the best solution to a problem we consider important, but there is reason to believe that it is smarter than our technology based only
on statistical significance.
The question about what kinds of systems work (as demonstrated by nature) is different than the question about what working systems ought to do.
We can take a lesson from nature —and time— about what kinds of
organizations (such as human vaccines, or viruses) are robust against, or even benefit from, shocks, and in that sense systems should be structured in ways that allow them to function.
Conversely, we cannot derive the structure of a functioning system from what we believe the outcomes ought to be.
>>>>> I am not going to expect anyone with a half brain to verify the health effects of mixing milk powder with and without a Bible below it,
See above. It is not the same claim. Being cautious about taking actions you dont fully understand; is not the same as believing you understand certain actions
> Are you saying that 7B people arent enough to test every medical claim
There are conditions where there are currently single-digit known sufferers among thar 7B, far fron sufficient to adequately test even one claim about that condition or its treatment, so, yes, 7B people isn’t enough to test every medical claim.
> Are you saying that because we cant determine with precision life span that we cant precisely understand medical results ?
Since one of the questions about medical results is about effect on lifespan, the former would certainly imply the latter.
> Nature may not have arrived at the best solution to a problem we consider important, but there is reason to believe that it is smarter than our technology based only on statistical significance.
Funny. The two examples that you have used as "thought harmless but then found out to be harmful", tobacco and asbestos, are as natural _as it gets_. One is a leaf and the other is a rock. They have in fact been in use _literally_ since the STONE AGE. Dunno how to redefine "natural" to not include them without also excluding domestication, most cooking or practically all of civilization.
You can definitely take a lesson here. The "natural order of things" is either on the eye of the beholder and therefore useless as a scientific concept or outright amongst the most dangerous thing to happen to humanity, and hardly "smarter than our technology" which is what detected its harmfulness in the first place. Your choice.
Oh, it would probably be lethal. But luckily Russell claims the teapot is in a stable solar orbit between Earth and Mars, so we should be fine for now.
