Entry 854, on 2008-09-18 at 21:42:44 (Rating 4, Skepticism)
I often think that the reaction I get from many of the people I debate with might be just because of my critical style and that maybe I'm being too tough on my opposition. This is more likely with debates against people I see as being narrow minded and ignorant - creationists would be the prime example. But how would I know that its not just me who is being narrow minded and inflexible?
Today I listened to a podcast where a scientist was being interviewed regarding people's resistance to having their children vaccinated and a person who obviously opposes vaccination asked him questions which revealed she was thinking (or not thinking) in exactly the same was as the people I debate with. The scientist was reasonable and calm but the caller just acted like an idiot: just like many of the people I debate with do. So it seems that the problem must be with the "believers" although I'm sure the person debating the "rational" side can potentially also be responsible for reducing the discussion to a farce.
Anyway, what were the actions of this person which I disliked so much? First, some background. In the US there has recently been some resistance to giving the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine to children. Originally the thought was that the vaccine itself was dangerous, then the perceived danger was shifted to a preservative in the vaccine containing mercury, then to aluminium additives. One theory was that the increased rate of diagnosed autism was caused by the preservative. Note that these theories were not part of science, they were put forward by some pseudoscientific groups and (what I would uncharitably refer to as) quacks.
Research indicates that mercury preservatives present no real danger and when they were removed (unnecessarily, but because of pressure from some groups) the rate of autism didn't change. Other studies showed that a group of children being vaccinated showed no significantly greater danger of side effects than those who weren't. So if we follow the science there is really no reason to believe vaccination presents any danger.
So the caller to this program was asked directly if there was anything the scientist could do to show that she was wrong. At least she was honest and said "no". So it didn't matter what facts were presented she was still determined to continue to believe something which all the evidence indicates isn't true. I guess she's entitled to be stupid but unfortunately this affects her child who she was going to delay vaccinating.
But its even worse than that. The effectiveness of vaccination relies on a certain percentage of people being treated. Once a certain number are treated it provides protection for others, who might not be vaccinated due to genuine medical reasons. Already the rate of measles is rising in the US due to this stupidity. And its not the people who are following this ignorant belief who suffer, its others who are totally innocent.
So why believe this stuff? Well the woman said she didn't trust the government and didn't trust studies done by big business. She also accused the scientist of being paid millions by pharmaceutical companies even though he gets no payment from them at all. Then she said the government should do the testing - but didn't she just say she didn't trust them?
She challenged the scientists to state how many studies had allowed for the concurrent administration of several vaccines. She obviously expected the answer none and when the real answer was given: hundreds or thousands of studies, she refused to believe it.
So this person obviously is stupid and ignorant and prepared to put other people in danger just to support a belief which has been more or less totally discredited. But she isn't even really an extrema example of this. I have seen almost identical behaviour in people I debate with on topics such as creationism and global warming.
Why do people get involved with these silly ideas and why can't they escape them when its obvious they aren't true? And why do people believe conspiracy theories which are not only obviously false but are extremely insulting to groups such as biologists and climate scientists who generally have no political agenda. I don't know, but its frustrating having to debate against such ignorance. The ironic thing is that its easier to convince an intelligent, well informed person that they are wrong than it is to convince someone who is so stupid and ignorant that they have no real clues about the subject at all!
Comment 1 by SBFL on 2008-09-19 at 21:01:17:
Oh good, I see I was spared in the first paragraph!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2008-09-20 at 13:57:31:
Everyone, including you and me, have some pre-conceived ideas which are hard to get past. Its really a matter of how unreasonable they are when clinging to those beliefs. I hope that neither of us are as bad as those people who take it to the extremes.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE