Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

pab_guy t1_itvk10m wrote

TLDR:

Some people mistake contrarianism for critical thinking. Aaron Rogers is one of them.

1,139

mick_ward t1_itvo3pl wrote

And he's not humble.

454

wooyeah-awwyeah t1_itwvvd4 wrote

"How I Overcame Arrogance And Became The Most Humble Man Alive: The Aaron Rodgers Story"

474

randeylahey t1_itxcvtl wrote

By Aaron Rodgers. Featuring Aaron Rodgers.

156

chickennoobiesoup t1_itxfeyv wrote

Foreword by Aaron Rodgers. On the dust jacket: “Best thing I’ve ever read.” —Aaron Rodgers

127

randeylahey t1_itxfkft wrote

Brought to you by the Aaron Rodgers Institute of Aaron Rodgers

58

rich8n t1_itxn2oa wrote

With a grant provided by the Aaron Rogers Objectivism Association

45

JoeyRobot t1_ity3c0i wrote

Dedicated to a very special person in Aaron Rodgers’ life, Aaron “Aaron Rodgers” Rodgers

33

who519 t1_itvusa4 wrote

I have so many of these people in my family. They automatically judge consensus as group think and as such judge all alternatives to consensus as truth. It is infuriating.

221

Kyocus t1_itxqziy wrote

Sounds like current conservative contrarianism.

19

Alphamoonman t1_itx6trd wrote

So your family comes to the consensus that alternatives to consensus are truth....

4

runningmn9 t1_itw9qgb wrote

Seriously. I don’t know whether Aaron Rodgers is a critical thinker, but I do know that all of the times he’s tried to project himself as a critical thinker, he’s just advocating for easily disproven nonsense.

People that are really smart / experts in one field, can sometimes assume that it makes them experts in other fields. He intuitively knows that I can’t read some google results and then process a live football play as well as he can, but he doesn’t seem to understand that reading a few web pages on topics that he has no education or experience with does not make him an expert on those things.

76

Hotrodkungfury t1_itxldao wrote

Lmao, and we all know that experts are NEVER wrong!

−67

runningmn9 t1_itxlk5i wrote

Experts are right infinitely more often than non-experts.

44

Hotrodkungfury t1_ity09iv wrote

Sycophants and zealots are wrong more often than not too…

−60

beingsubmitted t1_itybpjz wrote

That's a completely different statement.

In your first statement, you compared experts to omniscience. Your argument can be interpreted as "experts are not always correct, therefore we shouldn't value their opinion"

The rebuttal was that instead of comparing experts to omniscience, the more appropriate comparison is to the alternative: non-experts. Neither is always correct, but those are the options, and the experts are preferable.

You then mischaracterize this, "experts are correct more often than non-experts" as "experts are correct more often than they are incorrect". That's an entirely different statement. It is not the statement being made in the comment you're replying to.

Was that on purpose, or a mistake?

56

yiannistheman t1_itvzv3r wrote

Any kind of critical analysis or philosophical deconstruction goes immediately out the window where dishonesty and disingenuousness is involved. And Aaron Rodgers is as dishonest and disingenuous as they come.

72

pab_guy t1_itw0lqp wrote

I dunno, seems hard to know, but I'm not exactly following the guy around listening to everything he says.

I've been playing "Stupid, or Asshole?" for a very long time now and my conclusion is that it's usually both LOL.

35

fjccommish t1_itworhx wrote

Specific to what?

2

pab_guy t1_itxb4wy wrote

Mostly politics I guess... is that politician or pundit lying because he believes what he's saying? Or are they just an asshole?

10

Willing_Rub_9356 t1_itw37xn wrote

I find it hilarious. It exceeds simple contradictory, and becomes stupidity. Unproductive, misleading and deleterious to a mind not previously exposed to discussion/thought that has inherent value and purpose.

Being exposed to the semblance of “intelligent thought” to the average individual will lead them to believe it blindly. That logic is intensified in severity with media exposure.

6

[deleted] t1_itw8mon wrote

What’s philosophical deconstruction? Like Derrida ‘deconstruction’?

1

fjccommish t1_itxzffg wrote

Dishonest about what?

1

Ryans4427 t1_ity1j20 wrote

Intentionally letting everyone think he had been vaccinated and thereby breaking league rules for unvaccinated players.

11

AaronRodgersToe t1_ity2tdd wrote

He deserves major shit for lying to the media. But he was completely honest with the team, management and the NFL. If you’re mad at anyone about him breaking protocol (rightfully so) it should be the NFL and the packers organization who allowed him to do so knowing he was unvaxed. Which to be fair, anyone with a brain knew “immunized” didn’t mean vaxxed. Lol

−10

Seattle2017 t1_ity6ij2 wrote

No, we should be unhappy with him. He knew his public comments were extremely misleading.

9

AaronRodgersToe t1_ity8dr9 wrote

I literally said he deserves major shit for lying to the media. Why did you choose to ignore that?

−8

Seattle2017 t1_itydqfo wrote

I interpreted the rest of your comments as excusing his behavior, regardless of saying he deserved major shit for lying.

10

AaronRodgersToe t1_ityeuw0 wrote

I should have used paragraphs.

The first part about lying to the media was my opinion on his statements. I do think that people deserve to be upset that he lied when asked about his status.

The second part of my comment was addressing the person who I was replying to. I was telling them that I feel like the league and team deserve shit for him breaking protocols, because they knowingly allowed it to happen. His status was no secret and they allowed it to pass when they should have punished him like they claimed would happen.

0

Trucktub t1_itxn4oc wrote

It was awesome to see him on the Rogan podcast literally tell Rogan he had to make up a lie about getting vaccinated and then in the same sentence turned it around like he was a victim because people were calling him a liar lol.

The dude is brain dead

62

goodcleanchristianfu t1_itxj8an wrote

I think it's more like "Some people mistakenly think that declining to defer to other people's opinions is invariably a good thing." It's not valorizing coming to contrarian opinions, but rather failing to recognize that coming to opinions without deference to people who know more than you carries a high risk of being incorrect.

30

Kooshdoctor t1_itwh1l7 wrote

I really liked the idea of "critical" vs. "individual" thinking. Definitely made me examine it from a different angle. And I think it's true people are using it as a shield to avoid criticism because they want to be different. I'm not sure Joe Rogan has ever done much "thinking," let alone the "critical" variety.

7

natty_herbdoctor t1_itxrfnm wrote

So perfectly stated. A phenomenon I have witnessed over and over again but have lacked the words to describe it. Thank you 🙏🏼

3

Sprucecaboose2 t1_itw5kpp wrote

To be fair, and spoken as a Packers fan, my man Aaron is a professional quarterback. While he is no doubt well versed in football knowledge, and he might even be reasonably intelligent on a variety of issues, he is also not a philosopher, a epidemiologist, or a doctor. The fact that anyone, including the news media, was giving any credibility to Aaron's views about COVID is baffling. We shouldn't need reporting on random people's unscientific and incorrect views.

333

BMXTKD t1_itwdme1 wrote

As a Vikings fan, I'm chuckling

88

ADefiniteDescription OP t1_itx99q9 wrote

I would've posted this even if I weren't a Vikings fan, but it certainly doesn't hurt..

37

snuggie_ t1_itxv64n wrote

I’m a commanders fan over here. Going to be enjoying that one for awhile

6

BalderSion t1_itxuj5y wrote

I understand why Rodgers' opinion was reported on. It impacted whether the team was going to win, therefore it was sports news, and in parts of Wisconsin sports segments are more than half of the 5, 6, and 10 o'clock news reports.

What frustrated me was that no reporter asked the simple question, "What evidence would change your mind?". It's such a simple question to ask, and would completely reveal if he was engaging in honest skepticism or using the language of a skeptic as cover for an indefensible position.

37

Adventurous-Text-680 t1_ity42ru wrote

That's because it doesn't bring much to the table

Imagine this:

Rodgers: hi, I think people should get vaccinated, but I don't feel comfortable quite yet

Reporter: what would change your mind?

Rodgers: more testing and studies because I feel it went too fast and it might affect my athletic performance. Others are free to get the vaccine if they feel safe and everyone should have that choice. It shouldn't be mandated, but everyone should get it if they want to and feel safe. I don't feel the COVID is a large risk for my demographic based on the data. I don't bother people getting the vaccine or treat them differently. I am not sure why people are making a big deal about my choice and harassing me about it.

Reporter: Thanks back to in the studio.

The problem is the argument made by most were they were "afraid" of how it might impact them and felt COVID wasn't a large risk to them. Even though vaccines would help, people mentally did their gymnastics to say they didn't need them. You get it being mandated and it becomes an argument of choice. Naturally anyone given a choice but told you should do this need to do the opposite of authority to feel they are exerting choice and have some control in the matter. It's the reason why you kept hearing everyone including him telling people it's a choice and everyone who wants the vaccine should get it. They would also say things like "I think everyone should get the vaccine if they want to".

The whole problem is that reporters did ask questions like that and it results in it becoming about choice. It would turn into a harassment thing and why he played the victim because everyone bothered him to do something he didn't feel was necessary.

It's why it's impossible to really reason with such people because they can twist the narrative. We can see that the reasoning is obtuse but it don't matter because they feel satisfied with the reasoning and so do people that agree.

13

rich8n t1_itxnn8l wrote

>We shouldn't need reporting on random people's unscientific and incorrect view

People elected a silver-spoon baboon to the highest office in the land because he fake fired people on a faux-real-life game show. Stupid people will lend the trappings of authority to someone just because they are famous and recognizable and no other reason.

12

Kooshdoctor t1_itwhoy4 wrote

Agreed. You bring up an excellent point on media and coverage. How they spin it, discuss it, focus on it can change the way a lot of people view it. It's a shame we don't create an environment to openly discuss these things I honestly think there could be some positives from it but "cancel" and "woke" culture destroys everything. If people felt less attacked and judged maybe they'd be more open to talk about why they think or feel a certain way.

4

Nails_Bohr t1_ity07to wrote

You kind of undermine your own point by demonizing cancel and woke culture, because those are conservative terms used to attack and judge people who are asking to be treated like everyone else

12

Diztrakted t1_itx386c wrote

IDK, not that baffling in the context of American trends towards hero worship. Sad to say, I won't be surprised when the Republican party goes full Khmer Rougue against intellectuals.

4

rybacorn t1_itxu5bw wrote

News media. That's it. The people getting upset at the box in their living room have critical thinking problems if they allow it to make them mad at Aaron Rodgers, a football player, for something that is not football.

−2

Sniffy4 t1_itx3g2p wrote

the smartest people I've read always admit to how much they dont know, and are able to explain why they dont in detail

184

[deleted] t1_itw14h3 wrote

[removed]

94

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itx98i9 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

SamuraiJackBauer t1_itxmcc8 wrote

The best guide to critical thinking I’ve encountered is in Carl Sagan’s The Demon Haunted World.

He actually provides a way to teach it if I recall.

I miss him and it’s been 28 years.

PLEASE: if you are reading this and want to be blown away by how a book from 1996 accurately describes QANON and it’s inevitability…

The Demon Haunted World.

Give it a shot.

80

coyote-1 t1_itwiah2 wrote

There is nothing wrong with Rodgers imagining himself a critical thinker. There is nothing wrong with arriving at different conclusions and standing by them.

But Rodgers did not do that. He instead deliberately misled folks. We all knew he was doing this of course, but no one wanted to press the point. To publicly ”go after” him.

Which is a shame. Because what he was really doing, under the guise of his supposed critical thinking, was STEALING. He disinformed, in order that he might play, in order that he would make money.

nothing philosophical here. His episode is the opposite of philosophy. Anti-woke, indeed.

75

OceanicLemur t1_itx4u0j wrote

“The problem with being a critical thinker of this variety, however, is that it can come at the expense of other intellectual virtues. For instance, one important intellectual virtue is that of humility: one needs to be able to recognize what one knows and is capable of finding out, and not try to tackle problems one does not have the training or capacity to meaningfully contribute to. While it is, of course, worthwhile to learn new things, part of being intellectually humble means recognizing when one needs to listen to others.”

I’d say the author disagrees with you saying there’s nothing wrong with Rodgers thinking of himself as a critical thinker.

15

coyote-1 t1_itxcvsn wrote

The author is free to do that, as are you.

−9

nonzer0 t1_itxvstw wrote

The Packers and the NCL knew his vaccine status the entire time. He was tested daily as a non vaxed member of the football team. They all collectively decided that this wasn’t the general public’s business.

12

AaronRodgersToe t1_itx1a2r wrote

What was he stealing in your scenario? His lie served no role in playing or getting paid. (Please look past my username and know I’m genuinely commenting in good faith).

3

coyote-1 t1_itxd3ik wrote

Are you saying the Packers would have paid him even if he chose to sit out in support of his erstwhile principles?

1

AaronRodgersToe t1_itxldq7 wrote

No I’m saying I think you’re confused on the rules. There were no rules stating that he had to sit out or go unpaid if he chose to not get the vaccine. So I don’t know how it’s stealing. And was hoping that you would clarify that.

7

mdemo23 t1_itye0zx wrote

I think if you are in a position of public admiration and respect, you have a greater burden of responsibility for the messages you put out into the world. Rodgers branding himself a critical thinker in this case is further reinforcement for others who have drawn the same conclusions from thinking in the same way, and even worse, those who may have been on the fence. It’s not a great source of harm for Joe Shmoe to suffer from Dunning-Kruger, it’s another matter entirely for someone with a platform, who others look up to.

1

CarlJH t1_itvagch wrote

This is tangential to something called "epistemological intelligence", a concept explored by Stephen James Bartlett of Williamette University.

I think that intellectual humility is an important part of epistemological competence, i.e. the ability to accurately evaluate claims and assign some sort of realistic probability value to their truthfulness. For example, how likely is it that I would know better than an expert in a given field of study?

46

Merfstick t1_ity6x9r wrote

Thanks for the tip. I've referred to that as "epistemological awareness" before, but never got too in depth with it; I've just over time become increasingly frustrated when people make claims that they do not seem to recognize the complexity involved in verifying (if possible at all), as well as fully understanding the constructs and limitations of the types of knowledge they're wielding.

An obvious example off the top being "there are no gays in Russia". Like, obviously a ridiculous statement, but also absurd to claim to know, even if it was somehow true because how on Earth are you going to gather that kind of data with integrity? You need access to peoples' lives we simply do not have. Further, "gayness" can manifest in a myriad of ways, so you have to first define a set of acts that you can actually bear witness to, then go about doing it. But gayness cannot always be seen, so you have to go about defining gayness in such a way that you can notice it. At that point, you might as well retroactively define it as exclusive to Russians. "Sure, Russian men might suck each other off, but that's not gay because they can't be gay, they're Russian!" It's all just absurd.

On the other side, being conscious of this (empowered by my irritability of dealing with it in others) has really dialed in my own thinking.

10

Bakedpotato1212 t1_itve0ik wrote

He was allergic to an ingredient in the vaccine and his doctor advised him to not get it. But you knew that already right?

−93

MazerRackhem t1_itvlh7y wrote

Which he only claimed without evidence after it was discovered he lied about being vaccinated. Regardless, not all the vaccines have the ingredient he is supposedly allergic to. But you already knew that, right?

67

CarlJH t1_itvlvy9 wrote

"Claimed" he was allergic.

Cough(bullshit)cough.

And that had absolutely nothing to do with my comment, which was addressed toward the subject of the blog post, that being the misapplication of critical thinking.

22

[deleted] t1_itvj2jz wrote

[removed]

39

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityf97r wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

0

[deleted] t1_itwavy5 wrote

[removed]

24

[deleted] t1_itx98q9 wrote

[removed]

−13

[deleted] t1_itwknhb wrote

[removed]

−26

[deleted] t1_itx1lor wrote

[removed]

−19

[deleted] t1_ity248o wrote

[removed]

2

hypatia888 t1_itwukc6 wrote

Dunning Kruger is a hell of a drug

14

Kiwidad43 t1_itxlble wrote

Because some excels at a sport doesn’t make them wise or informed.

13

FacePuncher500 t1_itxmkqi wrote

Nothing screams critical thinking quite like getting medical advice from a failed comedian who used to coerce game show contestants into eating bull testicles and drinking donkey semen.

9

badger299 t1_itxq1nb wrote

There have been plenty of interviews of him going over his stances and why he said he was “immunized”. Mostly the one with Joe Rogan. Check those out then comment this article from Nov 2021…

9

[deleted] t1_itx7iax wrote

[removed]

8

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityf94x wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itxikjx wrote

[removed]

6

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityf90i wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

kardiogramm t1_itwrzrb wrote

The problem seems to be that the actions of politicians, other powerful people in business and people in the media have completely derailed the public trust in science and evidence based facts. It seems to be that politicians and those in power do not want truth because they would be shown for what they are so they are happy to create this stew of BS to mask it all. It’s just a really sad state of affairs in this world and some days I feel like John Malkovich

3

dankscience t1_itxw4hu wrote

Wow you must have actual thought about this yourself... inspiring.

1

AaronRodgersToe t1_itx3p9q wrote

True. The pandemic was somehow the best thing to ever happen to the pharmaceutical industry. Right as people started to catch on to the shit they pull they get a PR opportunity on a silver plater and everyone is back in on them. The 180 from before pandemic to now is remarkable.

−8

dankscience t1_itxw8ov wrote

hilarious how you get downvoted for comments like this.. its obviously true, yet it makes the hivemind angry

−2

AaronRodgersToe t1_itxx57c wrote

It is insane to me. It is one of the craziest things that I have noticed in my life. 2019, most of the left and right was in on the fact that big pharm was taking advantage of us and knowingly getting a massive amount of the country addicted to opioids. Posts and comments about the leeching nature of big pharm were widely popular and upvoted. Covid hit and it’s a literal 180 from the year before. It’s truly amazing. Big pharm could not have asked for a better scenario.

2

scharise t1_itxsj6g wrote

Oh dear...he thinks he is a critical thinker....too funny.

3

bobbib14 t1_itw7921 wrote

Aaron Rogers is a not the brightest. Wonder why with his phenomenal talent he started at a JC? Forget this guy. He will probably come out as a Kanye supporter soon.

2

oman54 t1_itxekyo wrote

Eh he'll support Kanye but as a "free speech absolutist"

5

DeliciousCanary4711 t1_itxrugz wrote

> "free speech absolutist"

This is a PHILOSOPHY sub for Plato's sake, I would think if anywhere, free speech absolutism ought to be held in high regard here?

1

[deleted] t1_itw89fc wrote

[removed]

2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itx9h0v wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

SovArya t1_itx54eg wrote

In pursuit of the truth is not wrong. This is believe is what a critical thinker is. If the majority follows the truth, reject the minority view. If the minority view follows the truth reject the majority. As long as we can measure it, we can therefore know the truth. But before that measure, we truly don't know.

2

[deleted] t1_itvwcez wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxqmh wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itwc73a wrote

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

kishmalik t1_itx7g4e wrote

“What does Aaron Rodgers think he has but doesn’t?”

1

dankscience t1_itxvue7 wrote

"There are certain kinds of critical thinking, then, which may very well be bad for one’s intellectual character"

1

Seattle2017 t1_ity6b2k wrote

Ok, that article was actually worth reading. Gives him a fair consideration but ultimately also gives the rational review of his choices and claims.

1

[deleted] t1_ityduz6 wrote

[removed]

1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfd46 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

gouldilocks123 t1_itwr65a wrote

There's nothing wrong with conducting your own research and coming to your own conclusions.

But you have to recognize and admit when you don't have the intellectual capacity or accumulated knowledge to conduct meaningful research and come to meaningful conclusions.

Without a background in biochemistry,what good is it going to do to do your own research on the Covid vaccine?

−1

DeliciousCanary4711 t1_itxtul2 wrote

> Without a background in biochemistry,what good is it going to do to do your own research on the Covid vaccine?

So only lawyers should question law, only engineers should work to develop technical solutions to human problems etc?

5

RaindropsInMyMind t1_itx17al wrote

If Rodgers was indeed being honest when he talked about it then it was at some point some actual doctors who he talked to who reinforced a lot of his thoughts on the vaccine. Those people obviously should know better but I do believe he got some other opinions of people that he believed to be professionals at some point.

−3

iveseensomethings82 t1_itwzk34 wrote

Critical thinking but refuses to get the COVID vaccine

−1

[deleted] t1_itx0cen wrote

[removed]

−1

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfb1s wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itvisjm wrote

[removed]

−2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvwm08 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

0

[deleted] t1_itwre04 wrote

[removed]

−2

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfb58 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Be Respectful

>Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itw444k wrote

[removed]

−3

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfdi4 wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Argue your Position

>Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

MrWoodlawn t1_itwp14f wrote

There’s a lot of “shut up and dribble” vibes in this thread. Why don’t you guys provide thoughtful critique of details instead just circle jerking?

−3

[deleted] t1_itx6t1o wrote

[removed]

−3

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfd7d wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itxmxgf wrote

[removed]

−3

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityf79h wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

Giggalo_Joe t1_itw6rjp wrote

This reminds me of a couple of things.

Person A and Person B are arguing. Person A is fervent in his/her beliefs. So is Person B and they are opposing. The difference, Person A has more knowledge on the topic. This will often result in the perception that Person A wins the argument due to Person B not being able to fully refute a given point. However, the fact is that while the odds increase that Person A may be right, Person B could still in fact be right and only lacks the ability to prove it. Further, even if Person A was the foremost expert on the topic in the world, and Person B is a four year old kid with virtually zero knowledge of the topic, there is no guarantee that Person A is correct and Person B is wrong. The point, knowledge is virtually impossible (if not in fact impossible) within the constraints of current existence, only evidence and probability can point to the more likely correct answer. Ultimately, arguing and debate may prove to be of little assistance to show the actual answer and 'rightness' in a given situation.

The above applies to all things, even established science that we think of as having well established laws. As long as there is a scenario in science where the information available does not conform to the scientific law/theory governing the situation, there is the possibility that the law/theory is wholly wrong even if the math works for most scenarios. Ex: if you go into a physics forum and try to argue against relativity or that time and space are in fact separate things and that gravity only impacts the perception of time and not 'actual time' you will be met with heavy resistance. Some of it backed by argument and data. But ultimately, those arguments and data may mean nothing. Only further exploration of the topic will reveal how likely we are to be approaching the correct answer.

−6

[deleted] t1_itvomqm wrote

[removed]

−8

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxqti wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itx1md1 wrote

[removed]

−9

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfdcy wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

[deleted] t1_itvxr2u wrote

[removed]

−10

BernardJOrtcutt t1_ityfbev wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

1

Several-Guarantee655 t1_itw5q2w wrote

He was using critical thinking -

Definition - "the objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment"

He objectively assessed his own personal situation and formed a judgement that, for him, it would be better to not get the vaccine. He is young and healthy and likely was not overly worried about the virus bringing him much harm. Whereas, even with the risks being very low for side effects, they weren't zero with the vaccine. It's kind of a dance with the devil you know versus the devil you don't. At the time, there was more known about the virus than the vaccine side effects.

As it turns out, in many ways he may have had the correct decision based on information known now and still being questioned.

In my mind, thinking critically means not accepting purely at face value any supposed "consensus". It means to make one's own evaluation, absent of external bias, other than pure facts. How many believe in a certain fact should not come into play. If one person believes one thing and has evidence supporting it, and 1,000 people believe another thing and have evidence supporting their views, the numbers do not matter, only the idea and the supporting evidence. How many times have we seen 95% of people being wrong? The entire history of scientific advancement is basically built on the 1-5% going against the 95% "consensus".

From looking at other comments, I'm wondering if this is a place to discuss topics, or its it just another forum to trash those who don't follow group think? So many comments are just trashing Aaron Rodgers and not even discussing the premise of the article.

Edit: i went back and re-read the article to make sure i fully understood the premise. The writer is using quite a number of logical fallacies in his writing. Clearly Bandwagon Fallacy is at play. One could argue for False Dichotomy and even possibly Straw Manning. The most egregious one is False Equivalence by comparing the story regarding his knowledge of the cosmos, which has little to no bearing to his own body and health, with the situation Aaron Rodgers was faced with that directly affected his own body and health either way he ended up deciding on the issue. The two situations do not even remotely compare with each other, and is disingenuous to even suggest so.

To address those who claim Aaron thinks he's an expert - I'm fairly certain he'd have been plenty happy never talking about the issue publicly. It's only because of the constsnt poking and prodding by the public and reporters basically taunting his beliefs out of him, that forced him to have to say something to quell the ravenous hunger of those after him. I doubt he thinks of himself as an expert on any of the topics at hand. What I'm sure he does believe though is that he weighed the decision critically for himself and his health and made the best decision for himself without succumbing to Bandwagon Fallacy or any other external pressure.

−13

PortalGunHistory t1_itwil9s wrote

“It means to make one’s own evaluation, absent of external bias…”

You are really stretching if you think antivaxxers (or at least Covid deniers) are making their decision “absent of external bias.”

What greater bias than the desire to get back to normal, not be told what to do, and not have your life inconvenienced, disrupted, or in some cases put into financial turmoil?

7

Several-Guarantee655 t1_itwpqs8 wrote

In my mind, there is a difference between those who are overtly and repeatedly speaking out or otherwise being loud in general for years against vaccines(Not just this one vaccine, but the entire concept of vaccines), and those who make very personal decisions about their own health and what they choose to put in their body on a case by case basis in a private manner. The only reason we even know about his situation is that he happens to be a public figure and was no doubt hounded until he spoke on the topic.

I don't recall reading anything about him denying that covid exists. Perhaps i missed it? Beware the straw man.

And to address your third point, there has been some evidence coming to light in the news recently that in fact the vaccines have not been effective at all in stopping transmission of the virus. There has been news and information showing quite the opposite. But I'm not here to have s debate on the efficacy of any vaccine, let alone this one. I'm no expert on the topic. Just relaying some of the data points as i don't accept your statement as an argument without question. Surely there are many asking very tough questions about all of that right now. We'll maybe know more as time goes on.

−1

dragonsmilk t1_itwskfg wrote

My only issue is that vaccines for contagious diseases are not necessarily a personal or private matter.

What if a new strain of covid made your penis fall off with 20% likelihood. And the chances of spreading it were reduced to 0 if vaccinated. Would you be invested in your neighbors getting the vaccine?

I think there'd be broad political support for everybody getting the vaccine so that we could preserve everyone's penises. Even if mandates be required for the crazy, malicious and/or stupid.

Same idea but with the variables slightly tweaked.

3

[deleted] t1_itvmsgq wrote

[removed]

−15

BernardJOrtcutt t1_itvxr2t wrote

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule:

>Read the Post Before You Reply

>Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

−1