Arguing against Chapman is generally pretty pointless. Everyone who is inclined to know the truth knows he is full of shot. Well, ok, arguing can have fun value. Sadly it is not as fun with him as with others. Even for someone like Trump, his delusions leave room for him to feel humiliated (fun!). But Chapman is pretty clearly so deep into narcissistic delusion that he is immune to any recognition he should feel humiliated.
I think that’s the problem. Arguing with Simon sometimes feels like playing tennis against a brick wall. You can serve the evidence beautifully, hit every line and win every point, but the wall still thinks it won Wimbledon.
Still, there’s value in doing it. The argument isn’t really for Simon. It’s for everyone watching from the stands.
Fair enough. We know that most arguments are really directed to the audience, not the counterparty.
I think with the worst liars (like Chapman or most of the US government) you have to go meta and focus on getting people to realize that they should always be assumed to be lying about everything (hmm - “lying” means deliberate deception, and it is not clear Chapman is even capable of realizing when he is deceiving, so let’s say “…assumed to be wildly misleading”). This is a fatal flaw with academics (and those who ape them), where the business model is to just argue about details rather than to pursue truth. To say nothing of legacy journalists, where the business model is just to report the lies. Good thing we have those who are willing to make big-picture challenges.
I think that is exactly where the value lies. The objective isn’t necessarily to convince Simon. It is to encourage everyone watching to examine the pattern rather than getting trapped in an endless argument over individual details.
I’d probably avoid calling him a liar because, as you say, that requires knowing intent. “Wildly misleading” is both safer and, in many ways, more powerful. Put his claims beside the evidence, put his 2006 statements beside his current ones, point out the contradictions, and let readers decide what they think.
The problem is not how pointless it is to argue with Simon, Becky and co. The problem is that Butler, the ABC, The Guardian, the tobacco tzar and all the others are listening to him and taking his word as Gods truth. And as it looks, none of them is going to change their view on this issue anytime soon.
The critics of Simon and the other are on the fringe, unheard in the wider public.
Yes, valid point and frustration. I don't know how to change that. I have tried before (not them or Australia, but same idea). I wonder if it would be possible to assemble a portfolio of takedowns (I have bother to do a few of those over the years too) and feed it to a journalist of some sort, who might appreciate the opportunity to run with a "look at how stupid our government has been about who to trust" series of stories.
God knows how the world would look like if Edison has won?
In regards of vaping and safer nicotine alternatives, no amount of studies, articles, research will change the current attitudes of the authorities.
At this stage it looks like the situation with guy ( forgot his name) who invented frontal lobotomy. To his last days he would not admit that created more harm than good.
Practice and procedures that were accepted globally and he praised everywhere as a revolutionary in medicine.
It took years to finally admit that it created more harm than good until it was quietly abandoned.
Australia needs a change if government that will see nicotine as another source of tax revenue m, nothing else.
Simon and his clique can also quietly be forgotten
Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman AO and his colleagues have for decades been the major advocates for the tobacco control policies Australia has been implementing in recent decades. But Siminy continues to deny that Australia’s sky high cigarette excise and quasi prohibition of vaping have resulted in a booming black market controlled by organised crime and also remains vigorously opposed to any reduction in cigarette excise. People with different views are often ridiculed or accused of being agents of tobacco companies. This should not be how public health operates in Australia or anywhere else. Public health should always welcome polite and respectful public and private discussion and debate about important issues. The crux of Australia’s failed tobacco control policies is the inexplicable savagely restricted availability of the safer nicotine option, vaping, while deadly cigarettes are readily available. Alan Gor’s comments here and elsewhere are polite and respectful of Simon. As they should be. Alan recognises that when Hon Lik produced the world’s first commercially successful vape in 2003, which was then patented and went on sale, the world irrevocably changed. Actually it should have changed much earlier but the importance of Swedish snus was overlooked for far too long. In fact, snus had existed for over 200 years, popular among Swedish men but no one else (but this popularity varyied considerably). Snus provides proof of concept of tobacco harm reduction. Simon claims he was involved in the decision to ban snus in Australia but in a rare display of self-doubt later admitted he may have been mistaken. Tobacco control and public health policy generally should not be about personalities. It should be about evidence. Australia’s sky high cigarette excise and quasi prohibition of vaping has had catastrophic unintended consequences. These policies should be reformed and advisers who recommended and supported these policies have made themselves redundant. Australia’s health establishment should review how it accepted these flawed policies and continued to support them long after it was clear that they are counterproductive. Groupthink is unhealthy.
Arguing against Chapman is generally pretty pointless. Everyone who is inclined to know the truth knows he is full of shot. Well, ok, arguing can have fun value. Sadly it is not as fun with him as with others. Even for someone like Trump, his delusions leave room for him to feel humiliated (fun!). But Chapman is pretty clearly so deep into narcissistic delusion that he is immune to any recognition he should feel humiliated.
I think that’s the problem. Arguing with Simon sometimes feels like playing tennis against a brick wall. You can serve the evidence beautifully, hit every line and win every point, but the wall still thinks it won Wimbledon.
Still, there’s value in doing it. The argument isn’t really for Simon. It’s for everyone watching from the stands.
Fair enough. We know that most arguments are really directed to the audience, not the counterparty.
I think with the worst liars (like Chapman or most of the US government) you have to go meta and focus on getting people to realize that they should always be assumed to be lying about everything (hmm - “lying” means deliberate deception, and it is not clear Chapman is even capable of realizing when he is deceiving, so let’s say “…assumed to be wildly misleading”). This is a fatal flaw with academics (and those who ape them), where the business model is to just argue about details rather than to pursue truth. To say nothing of legacy journalists, where the business model is just to report the lies. Good thing we have those who are willing to make big-picture challenges.
I think that is exactly where the value lies. The objective isn’t necessarily to convince Simon. It is to encourage everyone watching to examine the pattern rather than getting trapped in an endless argument over individual details.
I’d probably avoid calling him a liar because, as you say, that requires knowing intent. “Wildly misleading” is both safer and, in many ways, more powerful. Put his claims beside the evidence, put his 2006 statements beside his current ones, point out the contradictions, and let readers decide what they think.
The problem is not how pointless it is to argue with Simon, Becky and co. The problem is that Butler, the ABC, The Guardian, the tobacco tzar and all the others are listening to him and taking his word as Gods truth. And as it looks, none of them is going to change their view on this issue anytime soon.
The critics of Simon and the other are on the fringe, unheard in the wider public.
How can someone change that?
Yes, valid point and frustration. I don't know how to change that. I have tried before (not them or Australia, but same idea). I wonder if it would be possible to assemble a portfolio of takedowns (I have bother to do a few of those over the years too) and feed it to a journalist of some sort, who might appreciate the opportunity to run with a "look at how stupid our government has been about who to trust" series of stories.
Kind of like Edison vs. Nikola Tesla currents.
God knows how the world would look like if Edison has won?
In regards of vaping and safer nicotine alternatives, no amount of studies, articles, research will change the current attitudes of the authorities.
At this stage it looks like the situation with guy ( forgot his name) who invented frontal lobotomy. To his last days he would not admit that created more harm than good.
Practice and procedures that were accepted globally and he praised everywhere as a revolutionary in medicine.
It took years to finally admit that it created more harm than good until it was quietly abandoned.
Australia needs a change if government that will see nicotine as another source of tax revenue m, nothing else.
Simon and his clique can also quietly be forgotten
Emeritus Professor Simon Chapman AO and his colleagues have for decades been the major advocates for the tobacco control policies Australia has been implementing in recent decades. But Siminy continues to deny that Australia’s sky high cigarette excise and quasi prohibition of vaping have resulted in a booming black market controlled by organised crime and also remains vigorously opposed to any reduction in cigarette excise. People with different views are often ridiculed or accused of being agents of tobacco companies. This should not be how public health operates in Australia or anywhere else. Public health should always welcome polite and respectful public and private discussion and debate about important issues. The crux of Australia’s failed tobacco control policies is the inexplicable savagely restricted availability of the safer nicotine option, vaping, while deadly cigarettes are readily available. Alan Gor’s comments here and elsewhere are polite and respectful of Simon. As they should be. Alan recognises that when Hon Lik produced the world’s first commercially successful vape in 2003, which was then patented and went on sale, the world irrevocably changed. Actually it should have changed much earlier but the importance of Swedish snus was overlooked for far too long. In fact, snus had existed for over 200 years, popular among Swedish men but no one else (but this popularity varyied considerably). Snus provides proof of concept of tobacco harm reduction. Simon claims he was involved in the decision to ban snus in Australia but in a rare display of self-doubt later admitted he may have been mistaken. Tobacco control and public health policy generally should not be about personalities. It should be about evidence. Australia’s sky high cigarette excise and quasi prohibition of vaping has had catastrophic unintended consequences. These policies should be reformed and advisers who recommended and supported these policies have made themselves redundant. Australia’s health establishment should review how it accepted these flawed policies and continued to support them long after it was clear that they are counterproductive. Groupthink is unhealthy.
Oh dear!! Simple Simon the pie man! Wat an ignorant jerk.