Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doren who wrote (1435845)	1/28/2024 4:00:27 AM
From: pocotrader	Respond to of 1574258

I agree with you 100%, everyone i know is vaccinated all are healthy

To: Doren who wrote (1435845)	1/28/2024 12:34:42 PM
From: jazzlover2	5 Recommendations Recommended By golfer72 longz maceng2 Maple MAGA miraje Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1574258

So what makes your observations more viable than mine? Excess deaths in basically every western country is the reality, like it or not. And quite logical to assume if there are excess deaths there is also excess disease. You and I will disagree over the cause of course. Besides, my point is that the most fervent and militant pro vaccine ers in my experience were the germophobes. They were/are the most vocal in their hatred for the unvaccinated. They were all for locking up or eliminating, through force or coercion. They are in the minority of course, but are the most vocal and radical, as we know the radicals always lead the herd. Most people took the shot because they didn't want to lose their jobs, or to lose their freedoms, so they followed. That is a fact, and it's embarrassing for most people to admit it. I get that. Not going further with this, I've made my point, that's all I care about.

To: Doren who wrote (1435845)	1/28/2024 1:40:36 PM
From: Maple MAGA	2 Recommendations Recommended By longz Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574258

"Anecdotal evidence is very much valid evidence. We’ve all seen it sweep across reddit within the last year or two: the trendy sentiment that any anecdotal evidence MUST be invalid… and the only valid evidence can come via study or research. Studies and research are great forms of valid evidence, but there’s a difference between invalid evidence, and evidence taken out of context. Case in point: if I were to walk outside in Tennessee and personally witness a swarm of millions and millions of cicadas, I might use that anecdotal evidence to deduce that it’s likely that the 13-17 year periodical cicadas have emerged. Of course, reddit would cry foul and say “that’s just anecdotal evidence! It doesn’t mean anything! Other people might not be experiencing the same thing that you are!” That may very well be, but it doesn’t mean that my anecdotal evidence is innately invalid, and it doesn’t explain my experience of having suddenly seen millions of cicadas that did not exist a few days ago. It’s a piece if evidence that seems to suggest that the cicadas are indeed emerging - in lieu of a better and more probable explanation. On the contrary, all evidence is at it’s root “anecdotal evidence” and theres nothing wrong with that. We should be accounting for anecdotal evidence and comparing and contrasting it with others’ anecdotal evidence. This invalidation of otherwise valid evidence is being used to support blanket sweep generalizations originating in the echo chambers of reddit. Case in point: we all know that all Trump supporters were treasonous lunatics who worshipped Trump as if he were Jesus, right? After all, thats what many front page posts said for a number of years. Well then how come I’ve never personally witnessed a Trump supporter who worships Trump as if he were Christ? Wouldn’t that seemingly suggest that the narrative is false? Reddit would say “no! The reason you haven’t seen any Trump supporters worship Trump as if he’s Christ is because you’re relying on your own anecdotal evidence, and anecdotal evidence is meaningless.” This is akin to being told that your own eyes and mind deceive you, and should be replaced with the chosen narrative. This is dangerous territory because it requires you to surrender your own thoughts and perceptions, and replace them with someone else’s narrative or opinion. On the contrary, many reports, opinions, and narratives can and should be contrasted with your own anecdotal evidence. Ask yourself: “does my own anecdotal evidence support or undermine this narrative, and what possible explanations exist for this?” Only then can you truly decide which explanation is most probably true. Maybe your anecdotal evidence doesn’t support the narrative due to extraneous factors. Or maybe your anecdotal evidence directly contrasts with the narrative, all things being equal. Its important to think critically, and value the input of your own senses and thoughts. So, CMV. What makes anecdotal evidence innately invalid, without having even considered what it might mean? What are some scenarios in which the anecdotal evidence should not even be considered in the first place? And for extra credit: what are some possible explanations as to why reddit finds anecdotal evidence so repulsive? Or am I the only one who has witnessed this, and is my anecdotal evidence simply localized to me only?"