Good on you for continuing to challenge his assumptions. (I'm amazed that he didn't just turn glassy eyed and end the conversation, mumbling about antivaxxers.) I do wonder whether Phillip will have a chance to do the same with Dr Dan. I have two doctor (ex)friends who just wouldn't even look at the data about ivermectin. One of my old FB friends insisted that her friend's animals had died after being given this dangerous drug. They sure did a thorough "inoculation" of people's minds in this PsyOp - preparing them in advance for what the "antiV's" would say, so that they would refuse to even listen.
My current learning project is how to frame such conversations in epistemology: getting off the content arguments and moving to "how do you know what you know?" and "who do you trust? and why?". My own journey is instructive, since I was fooled for more than a year, and I probably trusted the same sources that this pharmacist still trusts.
Good on you for continuing to challenge his assumptions. (I'm amazed that he didn't just turn glassy eyed and end the conversation, mumbling about antivaxxers.) I do wonder whether Phillip will have a chance to do the same with Dr Dan. I have two doctor (ex)friends who just wouldn't even look at the data about ivermectin. One of my old FB friends insisted that her friend's animals had died after being given this dangerous drug. They sure did a thorough "inoculation" of people's minds in this PsyOp - preparing them in advance for what the "antiV's" would say, so that they would refuse to even listen.
My current learning project is how to frame such conversations in epistemology: getting off the content arguments and moving to "how do you know what you know?" and "who do you trust? and why?". My own journey is instructive, since I was fooled for more than a year, and I probably trusted the same sources that this pharmacist still trusts.