>> ...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!

>I am not getting your point here, could you rephrase?

You have to consider this reply in the context of what I am replying to:

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

So what did you mean by the 'just' there? It would be quite normal to read this as agreement with me up to this point, but no further, and I am pointing out some of the implications and consequences of adopting that position.

>> If you think they do apply, please be more specific.

>If my counterparty doesn’t consider the evidence sound, I wouldn’t consider them “confused”. What’s here to be more specific about?

You really must try to pay attention to the context in which the words you quote were originally made. In this case, the context is this:

>>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.

So "they" refers to the generalities of the passage I was replying to. Foremost among them is "The strength of evidence hinges on many things, including the methodology for its collection, etc." - but here, we are dealing with that specific empirical fact that is problematic for your argument: the fact that there is good empirical evidence for the effectiveness and safety of vaccines for most people. If you want to contest that point on the grounds of the methodology of collection, for example, you need to raise specific issues with that methodology, not simply say that, in general, there might be a problem with the methodology. Doing so without having something specific is at best pointless, but there is also a whiff of attempting to insinuate something for which there is no plausible evidence, which won't fly here (this is not even a point about science, it is an epistemological one.)

>> Ah, an appeal to authority - yours, specifically.

>You seem to keep using “appeal to authority” in some other sense. What you replied to was a statement of subjective opinion.

If you simply want it to be regarded as your personal subjective opinion, rather than as part of a counter-argument to what I wrote, then that is fine - I will just ignore it, from the point of view of replying to you.

> Is it feasible for a civilian to get to the bottom of things in case of a vaccine? How well-off must they be to have the necessary resources and time to get there from first principles?

This was actually with reference to an example using the flat-earth hypothesis, but we can translate your question to that domain. Suppose you were to argue that the view from various spacecraft show that the earth is not flat, they could say that they did not have the resources to check - but if they were to claim that despite or because of their lack of ability, their opinion on the matter is just as good as that of anyone who has been able to check, then they would ipso facto be arguing that the ability to gain knowledge about a proposition is irrelevant to how much credence one should give to that proposition, and that what one can know is independent of the ability to acquire knowledge (if an opinion without supporting evidence is just as much knowledge as is an opinion supported by evidence, then evidence would be irrelevant.) This would, of course, be nonsense, and again, this is not just a scientific issue but an epistemological one. it would also amount to a self-absorbed rejection of the positive effects of review and reproducibility on knowledge.

>In that case clarify what you mean by “staples for comedy”.

To better explain it, I would first have to get some idea of what you are struggling with here. Do you disagree with this statement (and if so, why): much of the humor in sitcoms and stand-up comic routines is based on issues - quite often conflicts to some degree - between members of a family.

>> 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."

>So you claim that I try to ignore the existence of said evidence and relevant scientific predictions. Not really. I’m merely pointing out that, even though I personally consider it acceptable in my circumstances to act as if they were true, they can be erroneous and wrong.

Your paraphrase is imprecise. My comment is a reference to something that was apparently the keystone of your position when you first stated it: 'Because that is exactly the attitude I meant to bring in question. “I’m not going to engage with them, they are wrong and I am right because science is right.”'

Nothing you have said either before or since justifies this as being a valid representation of the scientific position on vaccination. Furthermore, if all you are saying now is just that which you claim in the last paragraph of your latest post, then it fails to make the case you started with, which is that science is becoming too similar to a religious belief, and more specifically that we can see this in the vax/anti-vax argument.