I believe trust and faith are almost entirely interchangeable. Not entirely, but they are very close neighbors. One could say that we have "faith" in God, and that there is no expert opinion based upon fact. But that is not true. We are trusting the experts like those who wrote the Torah that they are telling us the truth of what they saw, like the burning bush or the parting of the sea. We trust the experts like Mathew, Mark, Luke, and John (along with others) who are telling us what they experienced. So "faith" in Jehovah or Jesus or the Prophet Mohammad is not based upon nothing, it is "trust" in the people who wrote the texts that they are telling us the truth.
You are right about the tribalism. We all have it. Many people in big cities know of no other narrative than guns are evil and should be banned. They only see the evil perpetrated by criminals using firearms. Their tribe sees no use for firearms ownership. Our tribe disagrees. Our tribes reads an entirely different narrative.
I also agree that skepticism is an extremely useful tool in science and truth seeking. We should always question the premises and the study the logic of any argument. The logic part is somewhat easy. The premise(s) can be much harder. That is why one of the most important steps in science is that someone else (and many someones) can duplicate the experiment and come up with exactly the same results.
But this is where skepticism can take a wrong turn. For example, say a research team comes up with a cure for cancer that is in a pill. They publish a report with their findings. One hundred other laboratories around the world copy the manufacturing of the pill and experiment. Lo and behold, they come up with the same results. So now 500 labs do the same thing with the same results, and no side effects. Skepticism after the first report is completely reasonable. Skepticism after the first 100 is much less reasonable, but still in the "somewhat reasonable" category. However, after the next 500, now it is going into the unreasonable (presuming all findings were exactly the same). After the next 10,000 the skepticism is basically irrational and without any merit, again presuming no observed side effects.
The only place I can tolerate forced vaccination would be based upon two (2) criteria: 1) the worst case scenario for contracting the disease, and 2) the actual effectiveness of the vaccine itself. Say there is a deadly disease like Ebola that mutates and goes airborne. It is 90% lethal and 90% contagious. Say we live in a small, somewhat isolated community of 10,000 people. A vaccine against this strain of Ebola is made that is 85% effective. If ten (10) people leave the community to go to the big city where the disease is known to be rampant to buy necessary supplies and are all exposed to the disease. If none of them are vaccinated because of whatever reason, then nine (9) of them will come back infected and we'll have to worry about containing all of them. If, on the other hand, all are vaccinated then more than likely only one (1) will be infected and there is a 50/50 shot that another person is. The vast majority of the people in the community of 10,000 will be unharmed and whatever outbreak occurs will be manageable due to the smaller numbers of infected combined with ease of quarantining those who become infected. But if only half the town are inoculated then at least 4,500 will be infected and whatever system there is will be overrun, not considering the increased risk of exposure for those who did get the vaccine. In a situation like this then I would understand that the needs of the many outweigh the desires of the few.
However, if the vaccine were truly 100% effective against the new airborne Ebola I wouldn't give as much of a hoot about who gets it and who doesn't, because I and my loved ones would be protected by getting the vaccine.
So I can see a good argument for forced inoculation based upon the above criteria. But not against most diseases, as most wouldn't be as devastating as an airborne Ebola.
Regards,
Doug
