ChatterBank1 min ago
Why Are Many People Afraid Of Evidence And Reason?
58 Answers
Out of many examples I could site I will choose only four for now:
1. The recent outbreak of measles in South Wales (and the growing fears of the effects of rubella in unvaccinated teenage girls when they soon become pregnant) reminds us that thousands of parents preferred to believe the rumour spread by an untrustworthy doctor (he offered no evidence) than the masses of evidence from all over the world that there was no connection between the MMR jab and autism).
2. GM crops are distrusted by the overwhelming majority despite the fact that genetic modification has been going on for centuries. Every time animals are cross-bred or plants cross-fertilised to transfer ‘good’ genes from one to the other, that is GM. Science now does it faster and more reliably with not a single case from anywhere in the world of any harm to animal or the environment from the GM crops that exist.
3. In December 31 1999 millions of people celebrated the new century and millennium a year early, equivalent to the crowd at Lord’s giving a standing ovation to a batsman’s 99th run while ignoring his century one run later.
4. Schools are subjecting children to nonsense called Brain Gym despite the fact that many claims made for it are demonstrably absurd.
Why does this happen? Is it that people eschew science at school and have therefore never learnt to make decisions based on evidence rather than superstition, prejudice or sloppy thinking?
1. The recent outbreak of measles in South Wales (and the growing fears of the effects of rubella in unvaccinated teenage girls when they soon become pregnant) reminds us that thousands of parents preferred to believe the rumour spread by an untrustworthy doctor (he offered no evidence) than the masses of evidence from all over the world that there was no connection between the MMR jab and autism).
2. GM crops are distrusted by the overwhelming majority despite the fact that genetic modification has been going on for centuries. Every time animals are cross-bred or plants cross-fertilised to transfer ‘good’ genes from one to the other, that is GM. Science now does it faster and more reliably with not a single case from anywhere in the world of any harm to animal or the environment from the GM crops that exist.
3. In December 31 1999 millions of people celebrated the new century and millennium a year early, equivalent to the crowd at Lord’s giving a standing ovation to a batsman’s 99th run while ignoring his century one run later.
4. Schools are subjecting children to nonsense called Brain Gym despite the fact that many claims made for it are demonstrably absurd.
Why does this happen? Is it that people eschew science at school and have therefore never learnt to make decisions based on evidence rather than superstition, prejudice or sloppy thinking?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
1. As so many parents did appear to believe that, and if the evidence is so overwhelming, then the authorities clearly did a very poor job of communicating to the relatively small and targetable audience that is new parents
2. It is dishonest to pretend that GM has been going on for centuries. Scientists are now restructuring the genetic foundations often using viruses as an aid. There is a big difference between crossing two varieties of strawberry and chucking a pile of mackerel on your strawberry patch hoping some of the genetic characteristics will transfer
3. 2000 was naturally chosen to mark the new millennium just as 1900 was chosen as the key date instead of 1901. That is how most people organise numbers in their minds - the alternative is a mathematical irrelevance
4. Brain Gym? Don't know. Wouldn't it be more 'scientific' to wait and see if there are improvements in the classroom results?
2. It is dishonest to pretend that GM has been going on for centuries. Scientists are now restructuring the genetic foundations often using viruses as an aid. There is a big difference between crossing two varieties of strawberry and chucking a pile of mackerel on your strawberry patch hoping some of the genetic characteristics will transfer
3. 2000 was naturally chosen to mark the new millennium just as 1900 was chosen as the key date instead of 1901. That is how most people organise numbers in their minds - the alternative is a mathematical irrelevance
4. Brain Gym? Don't know. Wouldn't it be more 'scientific' to wait and see if there are improvements in the classroom results?
1 is valid; people were swayed by dishonesty presented as respectability and the damage was done without the forces of honesty being able to persuade them later.
The real problem is that logic is not part of the school curriculum. No child is taught the basic fallacies, yet the fallacies exist because they are attractive.
The real problem is that logic is not part of the school curriculum. No child is taught the basic fallacies, yet the fallacies exist because they are attractive.
1. whereas dr wakefield's work wsas discredited, there have still been documented instances of issues with the mmr vaccine - http://
- if you knew there was a possibility - howsoever remote - of autism being caused by mmr, but you let your kid have the jab and it went on to develop autism, how would you feel? particularly since the view peddled by parent's groups is that measles is a childhood disease that only means they're off-colour for a few days....
- if you knew there was a possibility - howsoever remote - of autism being caused by mmr, but you let your kid have the jab and it went on to develop autism, how would you feel? particularly since the view peddled by parent's groups is that measles is a childhood disease that only means they're off-colour for a few days....
2 GM crops. - I think the problem that people have is that the main mover for GM crops is Monsanto and the fact that it has a very bad reputation for it's ruthless business practices. There are many websites and youtube videos regarding this and some of them report on it's cosy relationship with the US government.
People being what they are tend to believe the worst and think that the company does not do enough research into the long term effects of GM crops "in the wild" and roll them out in a never ending quest for profit and domination of the market. All, possibly, to the detriment of consumer health.
People being what they are tend to believe the worst and think that the company does not do enough research into the long term effects of GM crops "in the wild" and roll them out in a never ending quest for profit and domination of the market. All, possibly, to the detriment of consumer health.
I'm not afraid of evidence and reason. I love evidence ( especially balanced evaluation of evidence) and reason and logic and clear thinking, and I'd love them to be taught in schools. But try telling a religionist that you prefer reason to blind faith. Try persuading a religionist he is wrong to maintain that he should believe just Because there is no proof. And it's no good if he waves man-written scriptures at me. I can wave books of fairy tales right back at him.
Given that sometimes even those who espouse "evidence and reason" get it wrong, I think people just distrust anyone who claims they are superior in some way to others. Similarly people distrust large organisations such as Multinationals at the centre of GM research. Some of this distrust may well be sensible. Others, perhaps, isn't, but it can be hard for people to separate the two even when they know what they are talking about.
My responses so far:
ZEUHL- What could the authorities do other than to point out that there was no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism? And why do people need governments to think for them when the facts are there for them to see for themselves?
“..chucking a pile of mackerel at your strawberry patch” is the sort of rhetoric that anti-GM people use instead of argument. If you want to discuss the subject further I’d be happy to do so, but you’d have to abndon your obvious prejudice and argue sensibly.
Of course 2000 marked the new millennium. 20 Centuries, two millennia add up to 2000 not 1999, yet it was that year that was revered. I was amused at the idea that the mathematics was irrelevant. If I ever owe you £100 you’d presumably be happy with only £99 in repayment.
Read about Brain Gym before commenting.
FREDPULI43 and PIXIE373- Thank you.
LUDVIG- My point is that they should think for themselves.
CHRISGEL- I agree about Monsanto and their greedy ways. But that has nothing todo with the science of GM.
MUSHROOM25- That ruling offers no evidence, merely the old post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc argument – that because the autism occurred after the MMR jab it therefore occurred because of it. In the case you specify I would certainly be doubtful. But there was no possibility, even remote. Which is why my family and thousands of others gave their children the protection denied to others and are now regretting it.
ZEUHL- What could the authorities do other than to point out that there was no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism? And why do people need governments to think for them when the facts are there for them to see for themselves?
“..chucking a pile of mackerel at your strawberry patch” is the sort of rhetoric that anti-GM people use instead of argument. If you want to discuss the subject further I’d be happy to do so, but you’d have to abndon your obvious prejudice and argue sensibly.
Of course 2000 marked the new millennium. 20 Centuries, two millennia add up to 2000 not 1999, yet it was that year that was revered. I was amused at the idea that the mathematics was irrelevant. If I ever owe you £100 you’d presumably be happy with only £99 in repayment.
Read about Brain Gym before commenting.
FREDPULI43 and PIXIE373- Thank you.
LUDVIG- My point is that they should think for themselves.
CHRISGEL- I agree about Monsanto and their greedy ways. But that has nothing todo with the science of GM.
MUSHROOM25- That ruling offers no evidence, merely the old post-hoc-ergo-propter-hoc argument – that because the autism occurred after the MMR jab it therefore occurred because of it. In the case you specify I would certainly be doubtful. But there was no possibility, even remote. Which is why my family and thousands of others gave their children the protection denied to others and are now regretting it.
The italian case does not offer causative proof that the MMR vaccine was associated with autism. Indeed, the overwhelming weight of evidence, of robust clinical trials, shows no such link.
More generally - I think science can be poorly communicated by the media, who prefer to look for some kind of sensationalist angle in any story, or seek to divide the world into those things that cause cancer and those things that do not. Scientists themselves and academic institutions do not escape blame either - too often they spin a mediocre paper in order to create interest or generate more funds.
I also think though that our science education is pretty poor, although i can only speak for the UK.Many individuals seem, to me at least, quite shockingly ignorant about basic scientific and medical principles and facts.
And then - We have the increasingly jaded and suspicious view of government, as either being incompetent or complicit in conspiracy, so government is now mistrusted on, well, virtually anything you care to mention :)
Vaccines are a particular issue though I think. Parents generally wish to protect and shield their children from harm and pain and hurt, and can feel guilty about taking their children for a procedure which causes pain, albeit usually fleeting - so when governments are mistrusted, and doctors and some pressure groups claim that vaccines can do long-term harm - well it becomes easier to do nothing.
More generally - I think science can be poorly communicated by the media, who prefer to look for some kind of sensationalist angle in any story, or seek to divide the world into those things that cause cancer and those things that do not. Scientists themselves and academic institutions do not escape blame either - too often they spin a mediocre paper in order to create interest or generate more funds.
I also think though that our science education is pretty poor, although i can only speak for the UK.Many individuals seem, to me at least, quite shockingly ignorant about basic scientific and medical principles and facts.
And then - We have the increasingly jaded and suspicious view of government, as either being incompetent or complicit in conspiracy, so government is now mistrusted on, well, virtually anything you care to mention :)
Vaccines are a particular issue though I think. Parents generally wish to protect and shield their children from harm and pain and hurt, and can feel guilty about taking their children for a procedure which causes pain, albeit usually fleeting - so when governments are mistrusted, and doctors and some pressure groups claim that vaccines can do long-term harm - well it becomes easier to do nothing.
chaka
/What could the authorities do other than to point out that there was no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism? And why do people need governments to think for them when the facts are there for them to see for themselves?/
Were are theses facts? In govt communications presumably - so one thing they could have done is communicate more persuasively and convincingly than they obviously did based on the result they achieved which was thousands abdicating from their immunisation programme
/chucking a pile of mackerel at your strawberry patch” is the sort of rhetoric that anti-GM people use instead of argument./
Is it?
Perhaps then you can explain what the equivalent was 200 years ago of grafting genetic material into soft fruit from deep sea fish that have evolved to cope with cold water, thus enabling freezing of the fruit?
/but you’d have to abndon your obvious prejudice and argue sensibly/
I could do but then we'd both be wrong
/the mathematics was irrelevant. If I ever owe you £100 you’d presumably be happy with only £99 in repayment./
Yes. In fact you can repay me £101. But due to cultural norms we'll call it £99.
OK?
/Read about Brain Gym before commenting/
You failed to mention in your OP that there was compulsory reading.
First of all, perhaps you should link to some negative results for 'Brain Gym' that support your 'obvious prejudice'
/What could the authorities do other than to point out that there was no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism? And why do people need governments to think for them when the facts are there for them to see for themselves?/
Were are theses facts? In govt communications presumably - so one thing they could have done is communicate more persuasively and convincingly than they obviously did based on the result they achieved which was thousands abdicating from their immunisation programme
/chucking a pile of mackerel at your strawberry patch” is the sort of rhetoric that anti-GM people use instead of argument./
Is it?
Perhaps then you can explain what the equivalent was 200 years ago of grafting genetic material into soft fruit from deep sea fish that have evolved to cope with cold water, thus enabling freezing of the fruit?
/but you’d have to abndon your obvious prejudice and argue sensibly/
I could do but then we'd both be wrong
/the mathematics was irrelevant. If I ever owe you £100 you’d presumably be happy with only £99 in repayment./
Yes. In fact you can repay me £101. But due to cultural norms we'll call it £99.
OK?
/Read about Brain Gym before commenting/
You failed to mention in your OP that there was compulsory reading.
First of all, perhaps you should link to some negative results for 'Brain Gym' that support your 'obvious prejudice'
Ben Goldacre - Epidemiologist, sometime stand-up comic, media pundit, Doctor and author of Bad Science and Bad Pnarma - Has written much about the pseudo- science of the Brain Gym.
He has written various articles since around 2006. Included is a link to one, below, for those interested.
http://
He has written various articles since around 2006. Included is a link to one, below, for those interested.
http://
according to the link, the Italian case suggests his sleep and behaviour improved after stopping milk/ dairy products. I'm not sure how this relates to autism?
My son has mild autism, but that was clear to me (although not diagnosed) months before he had the MMR. There were people refusing to have the vaccination at that time, but it was quite easy to look into. My health visitor told me about a baby she'd had to resuscitate four times due to measles.
We all try to do what we think is best, but you do need to think for yourself.
My son has mild autism, but that was clear to me (although not diagnosed) months before he had the MMR. There were people refusing to have the vaccination at that time, but it was quite easy to look into. My health visitor told me about a baby she'd had to resuscitate four times due to measles.
We all try to do what we think is best, but you do need to think for yourself.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.