> You don't think that the current crop of vaccine-skeptics are mostly well-intentioned
Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.
Humanity is messy. There are very many things that I think have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but are still, somehow, up for debate.
The answer can’t be absolutism in any direction. No one, no group, and no ideology has a monopoly on truth.
No system or ideology is perfectly correct — or even reliably correct in the long run, if you make the error of building an ideology around it that assumes it will be correct. You create the conditions of its own fallibility.
The next government will make stupid decisions, be wrong, and promote falsehoods. We probably won’t even know all of them at the time.
They’ll be both corrupt and good intentioned, depending on the subject, who is involved, and why.
This current government at least admits the possibility of debate. That’s a fair sight better than most of what I’ve seen over the last 10 years from those who think they have a monopoly on truth and science.
Well intentioned but wrong is only when you have incomplete information. Once your theory has been disproven multiple times and you still ignore it, that's not well intentioned anymore. That's just lying to yourself and others at that point.