Truth Wanted 03.09 2020-04-03 with ObjectivelyDan & Unholy Sara

Summary: Greetings Truth Wanted fans! In our home edition of Truth Wanted, we are joined by Unholy Sara. It’s going to be a great show! <br>Let’s get to calls. The first caller is David from New Jersey. He wants to talk about COVID-19 from the UK government’s website. He claims to have found some shady statements that have changed their declassification and status of the virus from a High consequence infectious disease (HCID) to a lower classification, he attempts to make this fit into his hoax narrative. From the gov.uk website he so much wanted to talk about: “the designation cleared the way for broader treatment options, as COVID-19 cases could now be treated at ordinary hospitals and not just at the few specialty infectious disease centers.” The website goes on to say that the UK government still regards it as highly transmissible and recommends social distancing and other precautions. He additionally talks about our first amendment right of the freedom of assembly. Does the order to not gather more than ten people a violation of our first amendment right? Does it make sense to close down the economy for a virus that supposedly is safer than the flu?<br>Next up, Julie, in opposition of our first caller, has evidence for COVID-19! Wanting to protect our public, especially the vulnerable, she’s willing to advocate for our medical experts. When lives are at risk, we have to be safe. <br>The following caller Matt Dillahunty from Austin! A question for our hosts, related to Netflix’s “Tiger King.” Based on a documentary, how do we rationally draw conclusions from what the documentary implies? <br>The next caller in the queue is Lynne from Michigan who has a neighbor sick with Covid-19. Unfortunately, her call dropped due to technical issues.<br>Next up, Nick in Massachusetts believes that deism is rational. They discuss the simulation hypothesis, and how much of that hypothesis that informs Nick’s belief? Are there other things that lead Nick to a creator? We can create simulation (ie videogames), is there reason to think we are also in a simulation? <br>Afterwards we have Gary in Colorado. How do we evaluate claims? Can you portray the same story accurately in more that one way? Gary wishes to discuss how different perspectives and narratives will lead people different directions. Rather than just looking at one side or another, Gary suggests looking for some middle ground. <br>Our final call! We have Dean in North Carolina, wanting to talk about the many varying degrees of confidence held in beliefs. Is the method of street epistemology completely arbitrary? If it is arbitrary, could you say that the scale really has more to do with a psychological commitment? Final question from Dean, what is the point of identifying that scale?