Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:@luckytran@med-mastodon.com
New study on scientific understanding in the US:
Vaccines have mostly been a benefit to human health
69% Agree
20% Unsure
11% Disagree
Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:@luckytran@med-mastodon.com
bananas_pizza@alihan_banan@mastodon.world
@luckytran@med-mastodon.com 69%? Nice
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@luckytran@med-mastodon.com
AARRRGGGGGG!!!!
Dinosaurs did NOT die out. Some of them went extinct, but others survived and evolved to become birds. All birds are dinosaurs. On the other hand, Ichthyosaurs and Pterosaurs are not dinosaurs.
Also, whales are fish. Before you say, "No, whales are mammals." All mammals are fish. All tetrapods are fish. So dinosaurs are fish.
Also, tomatoes are vegetables. Vegetables are defined as any edible part of a plant, so all fruit are vegetables.
Simon Deane-Johns@sdjohns@mastodon.world
@luckytran@med-mastodon.com Yet so much uncertainty! 🤦🏻♂️
TomWilsonYEG@CTHW@mstdn.ca
@luckytran@med-mastodon.com
I wonder if some of the problem people have with vaccines, especially mRNA vaccines, is because of the language we use to explain them. Most people don't understand genetics let alone the process of going from DNA to tRNA to mRNA to the process of protein production. Hell, we have advertised products as non GMO for decades as a reason to buy and then we expect them to accept reassurances from people essentially using a foreign language.
Compare this to the language of those fomenting fear and anger. Their messages are short and catchy. They are crafted for their emotional content not for understanding. And it's working especially in the present US administration that operates on fear and greed.
Perhaps we need to focus messaging on benefits of these vaccines without trying to explain them.
Dr. Lucky Tran :verified:@luckytran@med-mastodon.com
While 69% of respondents understanding that vaccines have been beneficial for human health is still way too low, it is outrageous that someone who is in the 11% of conspiracy theorists runs the top US health agency, and can make uninformed policy decisions that kill people.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
Wikipedia: "A fish is an aquatic, anamniotic, gill-bearing vertebrate animal with swimming fins and a hard skull, but lacking limbs with digits."
Whales don't have gills.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
Not all fish are aquatic.
Not all fish lay eggs.
Not all fish have fins.
Coelacanths have the same finger-bones we do.
There are plenty of fish with lungs who are losing their gills through evolution.
There are many animals with gills that are not fish.
The definition humans use for fish doesn't stand up to how complex reality is.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
Not all fish are aquatic.
Not all fish lay eggs.
Not all fish have fins.
Coelacanths have the same finger-bones we do.
There are plenty of fish with lungs who are losing their gills through evolution.
There are many animals with gills that are not fish.
The definition humans use for fish doesn't stand up to how complex reality is.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social Whales don't have gills. Whales are not fish.
Life is complicated and complex.
Words have meanings.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social Whales don't have gills. Whales are not fish.
Life is complicated and complex.
Words have meanings.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
"Fish have gills" is not a definition that holds up to biology, because there are animals with gills that are not fish AND THERE ARE FISH WITHOUT GILLS.
Nearly every species of lungfish don't have gills and must breathe air to get oxygen.
"Words have meanings."
Yes, but not all words have meanings that match with reality.
This is like the saying, "I before E except after C." There are too many exceptions for that to be a useful rule.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social To claim that there are fish without gills is to ignore the rest of the stated definition.
It also claims that one use of the word somehow negates a different use.
I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish.
Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
"Fish have gills" is not a definition that holds up to biology, because there are animals with gills that are not fish AND THERE ARE FISH WITHOUT GILLS.
Nearly every species of lungfish don't have gills and must breathe air to get oxygen.
"Words have meanings."
Yes, but not all words have meanings that match with reality.
This is like the saying, "I before E except after C." There are too many exceptions for that to be a useful rule.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
"I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish."
Are eels fish?
What about mudskippers?
Guppies?
Coelacanth?
If you can declare lungfish not fish because they don't confirm to one part of your definition, then where do you draw the line?
"Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries."
Older dictionaries defined whales as fish. Words have meanings, but those meanings change with new discoveries.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social I've never before been set upon by a sea lion.
Thanks for the introduction.
Now you're going to be blocked before we get into "What is a woman" and "How many genders are there really".
Bye.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social To claim that there are fish without gills is to ignore the rest of the stated definition.
It also claims that one use of the word somehow negates a different use.
I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish.
Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries.
C.S.Strowbridge@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social
@Jestbill@mastodon.world
"I could just as well claim that lungfish are not really fish."
Are eels fish?
What about mudskippers?
Guppies?
Coelacanth?
If you can declare lungfish not fish because they don't confirm to one part of your definition, then where do you draw the line?
"Words have meanings AND your particular meaning does not rewrite any dictionaries."
Older dictionaries defined whales as fish. Words have meanings, but those meanings change with new discoveries.
Jestbill@Jestbill@mastodon.world
@csstrowbridge@mastodon.social I've never before been set upon by a sea lion.
Thanks for the introduction.
Now you're going to be blocked before we get into "What is a woman" and "How many genders are there really".
Bye.