5 ms·

The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to believi

The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to believing AIDS isn't spread by HIV.

Mz 16y ago
I don't think it's quite that simple. Most scientific views boil down to "belief" -- by that I mean that most people are essentially taking the word of some expert or other without themselves genuinely understanding it and, also, the lovely drawings of the solar system, tectonic plates, etc that you find in scientific materials are basically made up fantasies. If you used any kind of meaningful scale for the solar system, it would not fit on the pages of any book. In 8th grade, the entire class was asked to do a model of the solar system. I was sick and missed a bunch of school and turned mine in late. The teacher was trying to ding me hard for not having a scale. Then I explained that I had run the calculations and if I used 1mm = approx 33 million miles, then Mercury would be about 1mm from the sun, Venus would be about 2mm from the sun, Earth would be about 3mm from the sun and Pluto would be about 100 meters plus 8 millimeters and the model wouldn't even fit in the classroom. Tectonic plate drawings are basically a mental model and while you can find geologic evidence of them, they don't look as nice and clean as the drawings suggest and it was a very controversial theory for like the first 50 years, IIRC. So I think most arguments like this boil down to "belief" on both sides and it is usually pointless to try to sway the other side. I didn't stop vaccinating based on "scientific" anything. I stopped because the people who had information that was getting me healthier all were anti-vax. So I stopped based on "social proof", so to speak -- which isn't really any different than most folks who believe their scientists and doctors are correct but they think it is vastly different, so my "social proof" only damns me as it is viewed as further evidence that I am a fruitcake. So I generally make no effort to argue the science involved. Peace.
- pharrington 16y ago
  Your "social proof" has a name, its called anecdotes. While occasionally reasonable in the small scale, it is absurd to believe local observations have any merit in the grand scale. "Most scientific views boil down to 'belief'" this almost sounds like your saying that nothing can truly be knowable. This is the path of nilism, not reason. Science has a rigorous process, peer review being part of it. One does not have to be an expert in the field to read numerous studies, evaluate their methodology, reason as to whether the conclusion actually matches the data+experiments, and see if the results across the studies were consistent. This isn't an act of faith.
  - Mz 16y ago
    Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for introducing a new concept. It took many years for Einstein's theory to get sufficient proof as to be accepted. Einstein himself said something like "You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it". I think it is reasonable to assume that our current medical assumptions are part of the problem when it comes to autism, which has reached "epidemic proportions" according to some articles. I am not suggesting a path of nihilism. I am only suggesting that I recognize that the reasons I do things and the thinking I use to make such decisions doesn't look very "logical" to quite a lot of people. This is highly likely to be true for people arguing from the "scientific" position. Yet, we are all human, even scientists, and thus even they have their biases, shortcomings, etc. I made the choice I made not due to anecdotal evidence but due to a track record of success: These people were helping me get concrete results in terms of a health problem for which "science" would like to write me off and consign me to a slow, torturous death as my only due in life. These same people had strong negative views of vaccines. I went with the folks who were getting me positive results. My other choice is to go along with conventional treatments for my condition. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Science claims it is not killing them, it is their genes that is killing them. To me, that position lacks logic -- but the overwhelming belief is that it is true, so that makes me a lone nutcase. And it is usually a hopelessly lost cause to attempt to point this out when everyone "just knows" they are right, science and doctors are on their side, and I am "objectively" wrong, nevermind the results I am getting. Those results can be easily dismissed as "anecdotal". I didn't get well to impress anyone or make any kind of point. I only did this to get my life back (and give my kids a life of their own). So it is mostly not worth arguing about. Those folks who do not believe me cannot be convinced. The fact that it is a done deal weighs nothing in their minds. Peace.
    - rimantas 16y ago
      Galileo did not introduce the new concept. And he was put under house arrest by scientists. Your point about Einstein just confirms that science is not about belief, but about proof. Your reference to science in quotes is really off-putting. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Sounds like you know everyone and their condition. Can it be? Your position is based on logical fallacies. Does not look like you are even trying to understand why people do not believe you. Orange.
- hartror 16y ago
  Sorry but "Most scientific views boil down to "belief"" is patently untrue. All scientific theories are not beliefs but rational explanations that fit the facts. If a new fact appears that contravenes the theory, the theory is thrown out. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories for example, some of which weren't thrown out till early last century). As a physics undergrad I was never asked to take an expert at his word. Everything we learnt we tested in the lab, sure I didn't built an electron scanning microscope, but I used one and it fitted with the science. The science I was presented with was given as a derivation of science I already knew, which was based on things we learn in high school etc etc. There is no taking the word of someone in science, hence the peer review process.
  - Mz 16y ago
    Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write at length this morning and by the time I get off work this discussion will basically be dead. So, in brief: Physics is very different from medicine. If you drop an apple to test gravity (per second per second measures, etc), the apple does not make a zillion and one choices that impact how it falls. But when you try to figure out what does and does not impact human health, people do make a zillion and one choices which impact the study outcome. There is also quite a lot of evidence that most studies concerning human health have serious flaws. Last, I would say that "peer review" is a form of social proof. Given how poorly that point is going over in this discussion, I will skip attempting to elaborate. Peace.
    - hartror 16y ago
      Physics and medicine both rely on rationalism and the scientific method. The difference between what you are talking about and what I am talking about it the difference between objective and subjective proof. Your social proof easily falls into the post hoc fallacy[1]. While I will happily admit medical science doesn't get it right all the time at least the onus is there to prove the safety and efficacy of the drug. A great example of this is those power balance bracelets[2], where anecdotal evidence (your "social proof") is provided in the form of celebrity endorsement. So a piece of rubber and a hologram like those you see on credit cards is sold for $30. They've been force to admit there is no evidence they work yet people will swear blue murder they do. Why? Because we are subjective beings, right now to our physical makeup (try plunging a hand into luke warm water then hot water then back again sometime). We are poor judges of things, especially when it comes to ourselves. [1] http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/23/3100270.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/23/3100270.htm
- fhars 16y ago
  At 33 million miles to the millimeter, the about 4000 million miles from the sun to Pluto would be around 120mm. Just beause you had an error in your calculation doesn't imply that either your teacher nor science as a whole are wrong.
  - Mz 16y ago
    It's possible I am misremembering the exact numbers from many years ago. But that doesn't change the fact that any accurate model of the scale of the solar system would not have fit in the classroom (and certainly does not fit on the pages of a book). There are scale models of the solar system in the world. They get laid out across several city blocks and things like that. One of them puts something (a star maybe? -- not something within the solar system, I don't think) in Australia when the model of the solar system itself is in some place like Great Britain.

The reason people are so hostile about this is because the anti-vaccination belief is objectively wrong and literally fatal. It is directly analogous to believing AIDS isn't spread by HIV.

Mz 16y ago

I don't think it's quite that simple. Most scientific views boil down to "belief" -- by that I mean that most people are essentially taking the word of some expert or other without themselves genuinely understanding it and, also, the lovely drawings of the solar system, tectonic plates, etc that you find in scientific materials are basically made up fantasies. If you used any kind of meaningful scale for the solar system, it would not fit on the pages of any book. In 8th grade, the entire class was asked to do a model of the solar system. I was sick and missed a bunch of school and turned mine in late. The teacher was trying to ding me hard for not having a scale. Then I explained that I had run the calculations and if I used 1mm = approx 33 million miles, then Mercury would be about 1mm from the sun, Venus would be about 2mm from the sun, Earth would be about 3mm from the sun and Pluto would be about 100 meters plus 8 millimeters and the model wouldn't even fit in the classroom. Tectonic plate drawings are basically a mental model and while you can find geologic evidence of them, they don't look as nice and clean as the drawings suggest and it was a very controversial theory for like the first 50 years, IIRC. So I think most arguments like this boil down to "belief" on both sides and it is usually pointless to try to sway the other side. I didn't stop vaccinating based on "scientific" anything. I stopped because the people who had information that was getting me healthier all were anti-vax. So I stopped based on "social proof", so to speak -- which isn't really any different than most folks who believe their scientists and doctors are correct but they think it is vastly different, so my "social proof" only damns me as it is viewed as further evidence that I am a fruitcake. So I generally make no effort to argue the science involved. Peace.

pharrington 16y ago
Your "social proof" has a name, its called anecdotes. While occasionally reasonable in the small scale, it is absurd to believe local observations have any merit in the grand scale. "Most scientific views boil down to 'belief'" this almost sounds like your saying that nothing can truly be knowable. This is the path of nilism, not reason. Science has a rigorous process, peer review being part of it. One does not have to be an expert in the field to read numerous studies, evaluate their methodology, reason as to whether the conclusion actually matches the data+experiments, and see if the results across the studies were consistent. This isn't an act of faith.
- Mz 16y ago
  Galileo was put under house arrest for the rest of his life for introducing a new concept. It took many years for Einstein's theory to get sufficient proof as to be accepted. Einstein himself said something like "You cannot solve a problem from the same level of consciousness that created it". I think it is reasonable to assume that our current medical assumptions are part of the problem when it comes to autism, which has reached "epidemic proportions" according to some articles. I am not suggesting a path of nihilism. I am only suggesting that I recognize that the reasons I do things and the thinking I use to make such decisions doesn't look very "logical" to quite a lot of people. This is highly likely to be true for people arguing from the "scientific" position. Yet, we are all human, even scientists, and thus even they have their biases, shortcomings, etc. I made the choice I made not due to anecdotal evidence but due to a track record of success: These people were helping me get concrete results in terms of a health problem for which "science" would like to write me off and consign me to a slow, torturous death as my only due in life. These same people had strong negative views of vaccines. I went with the folks who were getting me positive results. My other choice is to go along with conventional treatments for my condition. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Science claims it is not killing them, it is their genes that is killing them. To me, that position lacks logic -- but the overwhelming belief is that it is true, so that makes me a lone nutcase. And it is usually a hopelessly lost cause to attempt to point this out when everyone "just knows" they are right, science and doctors are on their side, and I am "objectively" wrong, nevermind the results I am getting. Those results can be easily dismissed as "anecdotal". I didn't get well to impress anyone or make any kind of point. I only did this to get my life back (and give my kids a life of their own). So it is mostly not worth arguing about. Those folks who do not believe me cannot be convinced. The fact that it is a done deal weighs nothing in their minds. Peace.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    Galileo did not introduce the new concept. And he was put under house arrest by scientists. Your point about Einstein just confirms that science is not about belief, but about proof. Your reference to science in quotes is really off-putting. Everyone who does that gets gradually sicker and sicker until they die, usually at a young age. Sounds like you know everyone and their condition. Can it be? Your position is based on logical fallacies. Does not look like you are even trying to understand why people do not believe you. Orange.
hartror 16y ago
Sorry but "Most scientific views boil down to "belief"" is patently untrue. All scientific theories are not beliefs but rational explanations that fit the facts. If a new fact appears that contravenes the theory, the theory is thrown out. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories for example, some of which weren't thrown out till early last century). As a physics undergrad I was never asked to take an expert at his word. Everything we learnt we tested in the lab, sure I didn't built an electron scanning microscope, but I used one and it fitted with the science. The science I was presented with was given as a derivation of science I already knew, which was based on things we learn in high school etc etc. There is no taking the word of someone in science, hence the peer review process.
- Mz 16y ago
  Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write at length this morning and by the time I get off work this discussion will basically be dead. So, in brief: Physics is very different from medicine. If you drop an apple to test gravity (per second per second measures, etc), the apple does not make a zillion and one choices that impact how it falls. But when you try to figure out what does and does not impact human health, people do make a zillion and one choices which impact the study outcome. There is also quite a lot of evidence that most studies concerning human health have serious flaws. Last, I would say that "peer review" is a form of social proof. Given how poorly that point is going over in this discussion, I will skip attempting to elaborate. Peace.
  - hartror 16y ago
    Physics and medicine both rely on rationalism and the scientific method. The difference between what you are talking about and what I am talking about it the difference between objective and subjective proof. Your social proof easily falls into the post hoc fallacy[1]. While I will happily admit medical science doesn't get it right all the time at least the onus is there to prove the safety and efficacy of the drug. A great example of this is those power balance bracelets[2], where anecdotal evidence (your "social proof") is provided in the form of celebrity endorsement. So a piece of rubber and a hologram like those you see on credit cards is sold for $30. They've been force to admit there is no evidence they work yet people will swear blue murder they do. Why? Because we are subjective beings, right now to our physical makeup (try plunging a hand into luke warm water then hot water then back again sometime). We are poor judges of things, especially when it comes to ourselves. [1] http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html http://www.skepdic.com/posthoc.html [2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/23/3100270.htm http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/23/3100270.htm
fhars 16y ago
At 33 million miles to the millimeter, the about 4000 million miles from the sun to Pluto would be around 120mm. Just beause you had an error in your calculation doesn't imply that either your teacher nor science as a whole are wrong.
- Mz 16y ago
  It's possible I am misremembering the exact numbers from many years ago. But that doesn't change the fact that any accurate model of the scale of the solar system would not have fit in the classroom (and certainly does not fit on the pages of a book). There are scale models of the solar system in the world. They get laid out across several city blocks and things like that. One of them puts something (a star maybe? -- not something within the solar system, I don't think) in Australia when the model of the solar system itself is in some place like Great Britain.