> I think it’s OK to just point out that empirical evidence exists...

...but if the evidence stands in contradiction to someone else's opinion, one is not to mention this inconvenient circumstance? That's no way to develop an informed policy on anything, or to become informed in the first place, for that matter!

>... although it’s better to reference an exact source. The strength of evidence hinges on many things, including the methodology for its collection, etc. If my counterparty doesn’t share my confidence in that evidence, I wouldn’t consider them “confused”.

You are talking in generalities here, but there is a specific issue that presents a problem for the argument you are trying to make. That issue is the proposition that there is good empirical evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines for most people. Unless the generalities in the quoted passage apply to that specific question, they are irrelevant here, and a way to avoid the specific issue. If you think they do apply, please be more specific.

>...I wouldn’t consider them “confused”.

Ah, an appeal to authority - yours, specifically. They are so hard to avoid, when every statement of a position on anything is one!

> I personally consider the relevant scientific knowledge base trustworthy, but if I were to present an argument in favour of a statement derived from that knowledge base to a person who does not share my confidence then yes, to them my argument will essentially be a fallacious appeal to authority that they don’t inherently trust.

OK, let's run with this. Suppose you present, to a society of flat-earthers, the empirical evidence that the Earth is, in fact, approximately spherical, yet they are not convinced.

The first point to be made here is that they need not leave the matter as one of whether to trust your authority or theirs (a situation that you apparently regard as highly unsatisfactory, at least when the authority is a scientist.) They can, if they are sufficiently motivated to get to the truth of the matter, attempt to repeat the observations you have described, and, if they find a discrepancy, report it. This is a central tenet of science, with a broad basis in philosophy.

Secondly, if this amounts to nothing more than an appeal to authority, and, as you claimed previously, appeals to authority (at least in matters of the natural world) amount to saying "they are wrong and I am right because science is right.", then there is no way science can meet your exacting standard over any matter whatsoever. Your position here raises the question of what you think you mean when you say that you favor science.

>> You were complaining about "jokes about having to deal with anti-vax relatives over the holidays and so on", but this is just one example of the many familial tensions that have always been staples for comedy - why should this one be any different?

>I’m not very familiar with the culture of such tensions...

Interesting - then the plot of just about every sitcom and farce, and just about every stand-up routine for that matter, must seem bizarre (or at least pointless and humorless) to you. It would explain your equally bizarre speculation that I am making some sort of underhanded racist comment here. FWIW, familial tensions are also a staple of literature, though not always for comedy (see Romeo and Juliet, for example.)

> Which fact am I trying to ignore?

See above. To recapitulate, it is the existence of strong empirical evidence for the efficacy and safety of vaccines, which means that when scientists point this out, they are not merely saying the equivalent of "I am right because science is right."