8 ms·

So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evide

by 13years 12y ago

So, you mean you have never seen an argument with data? or you didn't believe the data was real? I mean, most people just don't take time to post all the evidence they have acquired in short posts. You post all of these are false, yet you post no data either. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you are reading blogs and message posts they don't often come with evidence. One of the key criteria for effective debating is to first attempt to convince yourself of the opponents argument by researching it from their perspective. Actually seek out the evidence to prove their point. What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie. Bottom line, if you can appear more knowledgeable of their perspective, they are more likely to listen to what you have to say.

mikeash 12y ago
I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children. The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease." Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.
- 13years 12y ago
  "But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information. It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves. When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses. Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
  - Ygg2 12y ago
    > For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes. It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.
    - 13years 12y ago
      Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change. An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you want someone to listen to you and your goal is to educate, then you will not get very far with your approach.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antivaccination-cults-idea-constitutes-peer-reviewed/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.
        13years 12y ago
        Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.
- moheeb 12y ago
  I think you haven't looked closely. I know for a fact that the MMR vaccine itself comes with a warning (from the manufacturer!) that it may cause a reaction in some patients. I doubt the manufacturer would place such a warning unless they had data to back it up.
  - mikeash 12y ago
    You assume that any of the anti-vax arguments are based on the manufacturer's warning, which is not the case for anything I've seen.
Ygg2 12y ago
Here is argument with data. Based on my research the vaccine contains exactly 0.01% of Hydroplemanzole, which is known to cause allergic reaction in children. In their brains! Data? Yes. Usable? No. ---------------- > What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie. People tried that, and there was no evidence. I mean autism caused by a vaccine... Suuuure. Only way if that happened if someone REALLY botched up the vaccine, as in forgot to make a vaccine and just put measles inside it. If that happened you'd be reading it on news channel by now. I mean it causing autism is a perfect way for parents to remove guilt from themselves. It's not my genes - it's the vaccine. If I was a parent I'd be jumping on that particular train as well. Nothing so far corroborates any claims made by anti-vaccination groups.

by 13years 12y ago

mikeash 12y ago

I've never seen any data presented at all except for the autism thing, and in that case the data is not real. You're right that most people won't post data regardless. The difference is that you won't find it even if you go looking for it. For example, the "chemicals" argument is rooted in magical thinking, not data. It goes something like, vaccines contain chemical X, X is used for nasty purpose Y, therefore X is bad in all circumstances and you'd be mad to put it in your children. The fundamental problem is that people don't know how to think. They don't know how to differentiate between "this vaccine contains small amounts of aluminum which is harmless for the following reasons" and "this vaccine contains aluminum, which is known to cause dementia and Alzheimer's disease." Maybe I do need to appear more knowledgeable of their views to be convincing. But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not.

13years 12y ago
"But I can't "realize it is supported by real data" when it clearly is not" But this is somewhat my point. When you say "clearly is not", have you really tried to find it? or assume it is not there. You acknowledge you have seen some data such as the toxic ingredients. So in this case you could have a discussion around the interpretation of the data etc. My point is that we shouldn't assume the other side are always ignorant, uneducated or just following Jenny McCarthy etc. You will find plenty of doctors, neurosurgeons etc that also have issues with vaccines. Dr. Wakefield became famous for the autism issue; however, you should be aware that since then there are many educated doctors that find some issue with vaccines. Of course being a doctor doesn’t make you automatically correct, it is just once again being aware that the person you are debating may have what appears to be credible information. It would be best to ask where the person is coming from in a non hostile way. Just ask, so what have you discovered and what led you to your decisions for example. That is friendly and opens up conversation. From then you can discern if this person made decisions based on credible sources ( but maybe not accurate ) or they have not actually educated themselves. When I say credible sources, I mean to say at least they are referencing other doctors, scientists, studies vs some blog. Credible in this instance doesn't necessarily mean correct or wrong, but acknowledging they did their research will allow conversation to continue. Then you can share counter research etc as conversation progresses. Just be aware, within the scientific community, these topic still are being researched and it is not as if they are completely closed. For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. Being aware of such is always a plus when having such discussions as you will appear to at least know something about where they are coming from. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24995277
- Ygg2 12y ago
  > For example investigations still continue into mercury and autism. So? There are further investigations into whether climate change is real and man made, when the overwhelming evidence point to - yes and yes. It's same with this thing. One douchebag claims Vaccines caused autism, twenty three works then disprove his claims.
  - 13years 12y ago
    Actually if you had followed the link, there are over 165 other studies asserting issues with mercury in vaccines. If you go to sciencedaily you can find plenty of studies that raise many questions about the nature of climate change. An intellectual debate requires one to not simply dismiss the other side outright. If your goal is to piss people off and to have your base cheer on, then by all means go ahead. If you want someone to listen to you and your goal is to educate, then you will not get very far with your approach.
    - maxerickson 12y ago
      You linked a crap paper published in some open access journal. It was written by anti-vaxers with little or no research credentials. http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antivaccination-cults-idea-constitutes-peer-reviewed/ http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/antiv... In addition to impugning the credibility of the authors (which maybe we can wave our hands in the air and say isn't fair), that blag says silly things like this: For example, for the Verstraeten study, the Geiers reference an article that is more of a summary, and complain that it shows no data. In fact, the real Verstraeten study, published in Pediatrics, included all of the data. The Geiers absolutely cherry-picked a short summary of the Verstraeten study rather than examining the fully published article.
      - 13years 12y ago
        Then great, this is the proper next step, I wasn't positioning it as a document of truth, but an example of what 'appears' to be credible. Invite discussion. I wouldn't reply that "you cited a crap paper". How about "that's interesting; however, I see there may be concerns with its validity as pointed out by..." It takes time to investigate everything, and one shouldn't just stop when they find the answer they like. You need to always dig deeper for the rebuttals of both sides of an argument.
moheeb 12y ago
I think you haven't looked closely. I know for a fact that the MMR vaccine itself comes with a warning (from the manufacturer!) that it may cause a reaction in some patients. I doubt the manufacturer would place such a warning unless they had data to back it up.
- mikeash 12y ago
  You assume that any of the anti-vax arguments are based on the manufacturer's warning, which is not the case for anything I've seen.

Ygg2 12y ago

Here is argument with data. Based on my research the vaccine contains exactly 0.01% of Hydroplemanzole, which is known to cause allergic reaction in children. In their brains! Data? Yes. Usable? No. ---------------- > What you will often discover if you have never done this is that reality often lies somewhere in between where you started and where they are. But by being able to have dialog from a mutual understanding of concerns you as well as your debater can likely reach a greater understanding of truth wherever it may lie. People tried that, and there was no evidence. I mean autism caused by a vaccine... Suuuure. Only way if that happened if someone REALLY botched up the vaccine, as in forgot to make a vaccine and just put measles inside it. If that happened you'd be reading it on news channel by now. I mean it causing autism is a perfect way for parents to remove guilt from themselves. It's not my genes - it's the vaccine. If I was a parent I'd be jumping on that particular train as well. Nothing so far corroborates any claims made by anti-vaccination groups.