Coffee With Scott Adams — Knowledge Archive August 24, 2026
Scott Adams Philosophy Archive
Search ideas
Episodes Episode #1531 Segments
NewsReaction Politics as Persuasion

Back to episode — Episode 1531 Scott Adams - Now!

Context —

g this? I'm not measuring it with any science. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any claims that have been confirmed yet. So predicting that 95% of them or more would not be confirmed seems to be pretty close to the mark. No. All right, so let's keep an eye on that. That's kind of fun. There's something happening here that's really interesting. Now I might, I think some of you are going to ima…

← Previous segment →

observe is people telling me they observed something pretty sketchy, right? But if I had observed it myself I would likewise be subject to confirmation bias. So the fact that other people are telling me and maybe they have confirmation bias probably doesn't change much because if I had directly seen it myself I'd probably have the same confirmation bias.

So let me say this as clearly as possible and tell me if you think this is a change of my opinion. There is clearly a disconnect between observation and science. Are you happy? Everybody happy? How many of you have been beating me up saying, Scott, Scott, Scott, there's so many people, you know, I can hear all these reports, it's in the VAERS database which is not confirmed stuff. Are you happy? I too, I too see what you see, meaning that it is clear to me there is a disconnect between the science and the observation. That does not mean the science is wrong. You all get that, right? Doesn't mean the science is wrong. But it is a big honking red flag. So all of you who keep telling me, Scott, Scott, Scott, why are you missing the big red flag? I'm not. I'm not. It's a big red flag exactly like you say. But just be aware that confirmation bias is still the most likely explanation. I don't know that that's the explanation. Again I can't be sure of that, just like I can't be sure that the reports are real. I can't be sure of anything at this point. But yes, I am completely on the side that says there's something going on here and I don't feel like we're fully informed. That's different from saying you shouldn't take a vaccination, right? I'm not saying you shouldn't get vaccinated and I'm not saying you should. I'm saying that this is one of those perfectly crafted situations, accidentally crafted, in which your science and your observation, they've got some disconnect. I would say that's true. I still think it's probably confirmation bias plus probably these vaccinations have more side effects than others. Probably. That's as far as I can go.

All right. Chris Vickers, blue checkmark fellow on Twitter, you've probably never heard of him but he's a blue check. He tweeted this today. He goes, set a date. Now after that date, no hospital services for the willingly unvaccinated. So it's a blue check Twitter person calling for unvaccinated people do not have medical care after a certain date because, you know, they've been warned. You've been warned. To which I tweeted back, if we didn't need to treat citizens who injured themselves by t

Context —

heir own choices one way or another, we would, we could close 90% of our hospitals and still have extra capacity. So Chris, have you not noticed that most of the reasons people are in the hospital are bad choices? Now you think this one's a bad choice. Other people don't. So I'll recognize that people disagree whether vaccination is a good or bad choice. But that's mostly what the medical communit…

Next segment → →