Is it a false premise that, because authorities have told us so, covid jabs are safe and effective?
Historical archive only. New interaction is disabled.
Original Question
If you accept that it is a false premise you may still believe that the jabs are both safe and effective regardless in which case what is your response to the arguments that they are either unsafe or ineffective or both?
If you don't accept it as a false premise why not?
Comments on Question
I'm not sure what you are presenting as "the premise" ... and not sure what the argument of its conclusion might be.
1: Is the premise "because authorities say so, COVID vaccination is safe"?, or
2: Is the premise "COVID vaccinations are safe"?
If it's #1, we have an argument like:
P1: authorities tell us COVID vaccination is safe
C1: therefore, vaccination is safe.
In this case, the premise (authorities tell us it's safe) is true ... a number of authorities have told us many times over of the safety of the vaccine, so premise P1 is certainly true. I would suggest the conclusion is not the logically valid result of that single premise. We'd need to define "safe", but I suspect any definition we'd come up with would relate to much more than whether "experts" say it is so. At the least, we'd probably create our definition around whether individuals are better off after vaccination than they were before and whether across larger populations, vaccinated groups fare better than non-vaccinated groups according to some established standard ... and a bunch of other stuff, going well beyond whether "authorities" call it "safe" or not.
If it's #2, we have a very simple premise – vaccination is safe. That's a statement and, as such, it's either correct or incorrect. Depending on what we mean by "safe" and on what evidence shows, we may come to different understandings of its correctness. We'd need some sort of argument to support or reject this premise. Without that additional information, there's no argument and therefore no fallacy.
Of course, if the question simply means, "Do you think vaccination is safe?", that's not a question for logic or argumentation, it's simply asking for an opinion – what we think.
Answers
3Covid jabs are safe and effective because they are. The fact that someone communicated that doesn't change their level of safety or effectiveness. Therefore, it is a false premise to say "because authorities have told us so, covid jabs are safe and effective."
I'm not so interested in logical fallacies in the abstract, I'm much more interested in them as they apply to critical thinking about important matters. Whether the covid jabs are safe and effective as claimed by the authorities is a very important matter and what I see in comments on my question is a seeming avoidance of the simple question: "What is the case for the claim that the covid jabs are safe and effective being correct?"
As I see no opposition to that claim I can only infer that some of you at least have had the jabs. If you are not putting forward your case for them being safe and effective I wonder why not. Did you do any due diligence on the claim or did you just go ahead and have them?
I will ask my question again and if I get no response - I'm really only interested in a case for the claim being correct although, of course, it's up to you what you put in your comment - I will move onto a different question.
This is my question:
What is the case for covid jabs being safe and effective as claimed by the authorities?
Assumption: it is a false premise to accept that because the authorities claim they're safe and effective they are - examples: cigarettes, thalidomide, Vioxx, asbestos - so we need to do due diligence to accept the claim.
And when I say "case" I don't mean a case in general terms regarding how reliable authorities are in their claims I mean specifically the information available to us relevant to covid jabs whatever that source of information.
I should have made myself clearer. As it is a false premise to accept that covid jabs are safe and effective simply because the authorities have said they are what would be your defence of that claim assuming you believe the jabs to be both safe and effective? ROTE has said he'd ask those who say they're unsafe and ineffective what they mean by unsafe and ineffective but the first claim is that they are safe and effective and so the burden of proof in the first instance is on the claim of "safe and effective" whatever that means. Without any argument against the claim there are reasons you believe the jabs to be "safe and effective" (whatever that means to you) so if asked, what would you put forward to support the claim they are safe and effective?
Master Logical Fallacies Online
Take the Virversity course and sharpen your reasoning skills with structured lessons.
View Online Course
"Covid jabs are safe and effective because authorities told us so" - appeal to authority. Something isn't true just because someone says it is, even if they have relevant expertise.
"I believe Covid jabs are safe and effective, because authorities told us so" - non-fallacious appeal to authority, since we are talking about belief, not fact. If one lacks expertise or subject knowledge, it is not wrong to defer to someone with either or both of those things.
Admittedly the above is open to the charge of "NPC", since you're just repeating the mainstream narrative. In response, I'd say you have to use your judgment to know when to trust and when to not trust the relevant authorities - there may be times when you have reason to be sceptical.
The real reason Covid jabs are safe and effective is because they a) are generally not dangerous when used as directed, and b) lower the risk of serious illness and hospitalisation. This is based on empirical fact, not the sayings of any one person or group.
Why we choose to believe something is true is one thing, whether that thing is true is another thing altogether.