News9 mins 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.
I do not accept for a moment that the 4 "examples" given are examples of people afraid of evidence and reason.
1. There was no reason to risk your child's health in the absence of any real proof there was no problem. To take unnecessary risks would be bad parenting. Therefore there was no freely available and trusted evidence to be afraid of.
2. GM is an issue. It is clearly unnecessary since the real issue in the world is too many folk to feed not one of not squeezing out another quart from the pint pot. GM is a sledgehammer to crack a nut anyway since genes that would not easily find their way into the target lifeform are forced there. And since most of the time it is merely to line the pockets of some multinational all the more reason to avoid risks that could have a dramatic affect on the world. And I have read many accounts of GM consumption showing an increased health risk in various areas, I'm sure you'd not have too many problems seeking them out on the Net. Not to mention the risk to the environment as genes transfer to that which is considered weeds. You state that which is clearly incorrect and support an insane unnecessary risk.
3. Yes of course the millennium was celebrated a year early, and it is most embarrassing, but folk are thick. But how is this an example of fear of evidence ? It is not.
4. I'm unfamiliar with brain gym but I feel sure that it never hurts to adopt a use it or lose it attitude to one's talents & skills. Again where is the fear ?
1. There was no reason to risk your child's health in the absence of any real proof there was no problem. To take unnecessary risks would be bad parenting. Therefore there was no freely available and trusted evidence to be afraid of.
2. GM is an issue. It is clearly unnecessary since the real issue in the world is too many folk to feed not one of not squeezing out another quart from the pint pot. GM is a sledgehammer to crack a nut anyway since genes that would not easily find their way into the target lifeform are forced there. And since most of the time it is merely to line the pockets of some multinational all the more reason to avoid risks that could have a dramatic affect on the world. And I have read many accounts of GM consumption showing an increased health risk in various areas, I'm sure you'd not have too many problems seeking them out on the Net. Not to mention the risk to the environment as genes transfer to that which is considered weeds. You state that which is clearly incorrect and support an insane unnecessary risk.
3. Yes of course the millennium was celebrated a year early, and it is most embarrassing, but folk are thick. But how is this an example of fear of evidence ? It is not.
4. I'm unfamiliar with brain gym but I feel sure that it never hurts to adopt a use it or lose it attitude to one's talents & skills. Again where is the fear ?
//I agree about Monsanto and their greedy ways. But that has nothing todo with the science of GM. //
I thought it was quite clear in my post that with regards to GM there is a distinct lack of evidence. If that wasn't clear then I apologise.
There is nowhere near enough available evidence for the average member of the public to make an informed judgement. Therefore this is not a fear of evidence but a fear of the lack of evidence.
I thought it was quite clear in my post that with regards to GM there is a distinct lack of evidence. If that wasn't clear then I apologise.
There is nowhere near enough available evidence for the average member of the public to make an informed judgement. Therefore this is not a fear of evidence but a fear of the lack of evidence.
Chakka, there are good reasons for being wary of GM as it is carried out by companies like monsanto. Left to their own devices genes are grouped in loose units that remain associated for many generations. The modern method of 'shotgun' gene transfer puts genes in groups and in places on the chromosomes where they would not normally end up. No-one actually knows what the outcome will be until the organism is allowed to grow and no-one knows what latent the effects are and how they will be transmitted through the generations. It is a bit like mixing chemicals in a bucket in the hope that something useful will be produced whilst ignoring the possibility that the opposite or worse might happen.
Wary of evidence and reason? What is the evidence, and what are the reasons? Every day we come across conflicting statements offered as facts, but how are we mere mortals expected to separate the wheat from the chaff? Examples are too many to number. House prices are rising, (Nationwide). House prices are falling, (Halifax). Red wine is good for you. No, red wine is bad for you. Always use sunscreens. No, let the sun get to your skin. We are bombarded daily with these contradictions. As a philosopher once wryly remarked, "Truth is what we believe from whomsoever we regard as an authority!". These days, is it any wonder that the word "skepticism" so often carries with it the adjective "healthy"?
Sorry about the hiatus; I've been away fro a couple of days. But here we go:
JIM360 - what facts have I given that are mistaken? Remind me. You're right about Brain Gym.
LAZYGUN- Well summarised. And a good ref to 'Bad Science'.
SHERRARDK - Look it up. You'll find that, among other absurdities, Brain Gym teaches children that processed food contains no water, that children should hold water on their tongues near their top palates so that it enters the brain more quickly taking vital oxygen with it, and that rubbing your breast-bone for 30 seconds with your other hand on your navel stimulates the carotid arteries into taking more oxygen to the brain.
ZEUHL - The facts were that no-one, including Wakefield, produced any evidence of an MMR/autism connection despite numerous trials (not conducted by the government) and the hundreds of millions of MMR jabs given in the rest of a world bemused by the inexplicable panic in UK.
Yes, 'chucking mackerel' etc is equivalent to the redtops' stupid 'Frankenstein foods'.
I never said they used modern methods 200 years ago, merely that they employed the principle of GM. The gene transferred from arctic fish to tomatoes is merely a chemical code, like a computer code, which does an antifreeze job whatever organism it inhabits. Ignorance, again fostered by the redtops, would have the tomatoes tasting fishy!
I don't understand your money answer.
I don't have any prejudice about Brain Gym; I merely report the nonsense it claims (see above).
JNO - Of course they can. My point is that they didn't. They celebrated the passing of 99 and 1999 years. The end of the year 2000 marks the completion of the 20th Century and the 2nd Millennium. The end of 1999 has no significance.
JIM360 - what facts have I given that are mistaken? Remind me. You're right about Brain Gym.
LAZYGUN- Well summarised. And a good ref to 'Bad Science'.
SHERRARDK - Look it up. You'll find that, among other absurdities, Brain Gym teaches children that processed food contains no water, that children should hold water on their tongues near their top palates so that it enters the brain more quickly taking vital oxygen with it, and that rubbing your breast-bone for 30 seconds with your other hand on your navel stimulates the carotid arteries into taking more oxygen to the brain.
ZEUHL - The facts were that no-one, including Wakefield, produced any evidence of an MMR/autism connection despite numerous trials (not conducted by the government) and the hundreds of millions of MMR jabs given in the rest of a world bemused by the inexplicable panic in UK.
Yes, 'chucking mackerel' etc is equivalent to the redtops' stupid 'Frankenstein foods'.
I never said they used modern methods 200 years ago, merely that they employed the principle of GM. The gene transferred from arctic fish to tomatoes is merely a chemical code, like a computer code, which does an antifreeze job whatever organism it inhabits. Ignorance, again fostered by the redtops, would have the tomatoes tasting fishy!
I don't understand your money answer.
I don't have any prejudice about Brain Gym; I merely report the nonsense it claims (see above).
JNO - Of course they can. My point is that they didn't. They celebrated the passing of 99 and 1999 years. The end of the year 2000 marks the completion of the 20th Century and the 2nd Millennium. The end of 1999 has no significance.
Continuing...
SHERRARDK - The answer seems to be numerous state schools. I'll try to find some specific names.
OLD-GEEZER- 1. But there was no risk. There was and is no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism. The risk that foolish parents took with the health of their children was to leave them unprotected from the very real dangers of measles, mumps and rubella for fear of the totally phantom fear of autism. We are seeing some of the consequences.
2. As I have I said, the misbehaviour of Monsanto has nothing to do with the science of GM. The advantages of GM including making crops easier to grow in 3rd World countries and of making plants immune to those blights which would otherwise need pesticides to counter. There are others: look them up.
Tell me of one animal, human or otherwise, or one section of the environment, which has suffered from GM among the thousand of acres of GM crops grown worldwide while we dither. That is a question, not a challenge. If you object to genes being 'forced' on them you must object to many respectable and life-saving medical interventions.
3.Judging by the many letters I received as a result of two letters about the millennium I had in The Times, there were many people who were so immune to the sense and the simple arithmetic of the matter that I just had to assume that the truth frightened them.
4. The teachings of Brain Gym are so ineffably preposterous that I can only assume that teachers who employ it are being intimidated in some way. Otherwise I must assume that the many teachers concerned must be as potty as the Brain Gym inventors.
SHERRARDK - The answer seems to be numerous state schools. I'll try to find some specific names.
OLD-GEEZER- 1. But there was no risk. There was and is no connection whatsoever between MMR and autism. The risk that foolish parents took with the health of their children was to leave them unprotected from the very real dangers of measles, mumps and rubella for fear of the totally phantom fear of autism. We are seeing some of the consequences.
2. As I have I said, the misbehaviour of Monsanto has nothing to do with the science of GM. The advantages of GM including making crops easier to grow in 3rd World countries and of making plants immune to those blights which would otherwise need pesticides to counter. There are others: look them up.
Tell me of one animal, human or otherwise, or one section of the environment, which has suffered from GM among the thousand of acres of GM crops grown worldwide while we dither. That is a question, not a challenge. If you object to genes being 'forced' on them you must object to many respectable and life-saving medical interventions.
3.Judging by the many letters I received as a result of two letters about the millennium I had in The Times, there were many people who were so immune to the sense and the simple arithmetic of the matter that I just had to assume that the truth frightened them.
4. The teachings of Brain Gym are so ineffably preposterous that I can only assume that teachers who employ it are being intimidated in some way. Otherwise I must assume that the many teachers concerned must be as potty as the Brain Gym inventors.
Chakka - The advertised benefits to GM were indeed 3rd world food production.
BUT - that's not where the profit was - was it?
The profit was in making strawberry's that last longer on Tesco shelves
The Profit was in higher yielding corn for animal feed to boost profits in the US meat market.
GM will always represent a degree of risk
The point is whether the risk justify's the benefit.
We are being asked to take the risk whilst industrial agriculture reaps the benefit
- That is my problem with GM
BUT - that's not where the profit was - was it?
The profit was in making strawberry's that last longer on Tesco shelves
The Profit was in higher yielding corn for animal feed to boost profits in the US meat market.
GM will always represent a degree of risk
The point is whether the risk justify's the benefit.
We are being asked to take the risk whilst industrial agriculture reaps the benefit
- That is my problem with GM
JAKE- Tht profirs are mde unethically is not the point. There are many useful discoveries that are exploited by the unscrupulous who are interested only in money.
A few that i missed:
FREDP- Yes, A lot of intellectual damage is done by thelack of teaching in schools on how to assess evidence. But often the pupil is at fault for rejecting science for the humanities.
MUSHROOM25- But there wasn't a possibility, remote or otherwise. Personally I am more worried about how those parents felt/will feel when/if their child died/dies or suffers blindness, deafness or brain damage from measles. impotence from mumps and (still to come) deformed babies from rubella. These are the real dangers that those parents should have been thinking about, not the phantom danger of autism.
A few that i missed:
FREDP- Yes, A lot of intellectual damage is done by thelack of teaching in schools on how to assess evidence. But often the pupil is at fault for rejecting science for the humanities.
MUSHROOM25- But there wasn't a possibility, remote or otherwise. Personally I am more worried about how those parents felt/will feel when/if their child died/dies or suffers blindness, deafness or brain damage from measles. impotence from mumps and (still to come) deformed babies from rubella. These are the real dangers that those parents should have been thinking about, not the phantom danger of autism.
In the course of my work, with the NHS here in South Wales, I visit families in their own homes, to get their views on health care provision. One of the questions we ask is about immunisation of children. This last few months we have asked specifically about the MMR jab, and a large proportion of parents with children in their early to mid-teens have said that they didn't get the kids done when they should have.
When I have gently enquired why they choose to take the advice of someone that they had never met, Mr Wakefield, or their family GP, they say start mumbling about Wakefield "being on the Telly"
Amazing that people should have made such an important and potentially life threatening choice without due care and attention. Some people are just stupid I guess !
When I have gently enquired why they choose to take the advice of someone that they had never met, Mr Wakefield, or their family GP, they say start mumbling about Wakefield "being on the Telly"
Amazing that people should have made such an important and potentially life threatening choice without due care and attention. Some people are just stupid I guess !
Mikey, I agree 100% re. wakefield, I found it impossible to have a rational discussion about MMR as there was always someone who had a friend who's child 'developed autism after MMR' so that proved it was dangerous. If I tried to develop the argument along scientific lines, then I was 'cold clinical and arrogant' ..what a waste of time and a failure of the educational system.
I was looking for said point where you were mistaken, Chakka, and can't find it -- been lost to the annals of time. I had in mind that it was something to do with infinite sequences having a 100% probability of every possible combination occurring, though that may not have been you. Even assuming it was, it's a minor point -- but we have to be wary of citing "evidence and reason" with 100% confidence regardless, as sometimes even the experts get it wrong.
As regards GM, I don't know enough about it but I think the real problem people have is with who is doing the Science (as well as the Science itself, to some extent). People don't trust big copmpanies becuase they have a tendency to put profit first. We see this anyway with Pharmaceuticals often skewing their published results, and should watch out for it equally in GM companies just in case.
And, with regards to MMR, the public was bombarded with scaremongering from all parts of the media, and the Government seemed to be caught off guard. We know now who was right, and could have done then, but the media just flooded the papers with "MMR is dangerous". I'm inclined to blame them rather than "stupid parents". We rely on the media to report our Science news (Which in itself is a big mistake, but...), and if they are reporting the "such-and-such is dangerous" story some people are going to believe it. There was also the idea of portraying Wakefield as a champion whistleblower, fighting bravely against the iron fist of the state and vested interests, that is the sort of Story we love, adding fuel to the fire... To be sure, some parents did make a horrible choice of back-street vaccinations, but I don't know if it was really fear of evidence and reason. It was just that the "wrong evidence" saw far more light than the "right" evidence.
I hope that in future, in some way, I'll be spending time passing on what I know about Science to the next generations, be that via teaching, or tutoring, or even, dare I say it, through journalism. One way or another, I'd see it as my responsibility to pass on the message to others, and if they don't accept that then I can't have presented the argument convincingly enough. This may not always be true -- sometimes people won't recognise the truth if it's dangled in front of their faces -- but it's a good philosophy to live by, rather than labelling people as stupid or afraid of reason.
As regards GM, I don't know enough about it but I think the real problem people have is with who is doing the Science (as well as the Science itself, to some extent). People don't trust big copmpanies becuase they have a tendency to put profit first. We see this anyway with Pharmaceuticals often skewing their published results, and should watch out for it equally in GM companies just in case.
And, with regards to MMR, the public was bombarded with scaremongering from all parts of the media, and the Government seemed to be caught off guard. We know now who was right, and could have done then, but the media just flooded the papers with "MMR is dangerous". I'm inclined to blame them rather than "stupid parents". We rely on the media to report our Science news (Which in itself is a big mistake, but...), and if they are reporting the "such-and-such is dangerous" story some people are going to believe it. There was also the idea of portraying Wakefield as a champion whistleblower, fighting bravely against the iron fist of the state and vested interests, that is the sort of Story we love, adding fuel to the fire... To be sure, some parents did make a horrible choice of back-street vaccinations, but I don't know if it was really fear of evidence and reason. It was just that the "wrong evidence" saw far more light than the "right" evidence.
I hope that in future, in some way, I'll be spending time passing on what I know about Science to the next generations, be that via teaching, or tutoring, or even, dare I say it, through journalism. One way or another, I'd see it as my responsibility to pass on the message to others, and if they don't accept that then I can't have presented the argument convincingly enough. This may not always be true -- sometimes people won't recognise the truth if it's dangled in front of their faces -- but it's a good philosophy to live by, rather than labelling people as stupid or afraid of reason.
MCCFLUFF - Yes, of course. Just as there is a possibility that eating lemon meringue pie causes leprosy. But if there is not the slightest sliver of evidence for it, we needn't take it seriously.
MIKEY4444 - Thank you. one of those reasons I was originally looking for. I find it beggars belief.
JOMIFL - That is the only 'argument' - post hoc ergo propter hoc - that has ever been put forward, from Wakefield onwards - to justify the scare. In a very long debate I had with her some years ago our own reverred and admired, usually so rational, naomi24 fell victim to it.
JIM360 - You are so right about the media. I still find it hard to accept how utterly irresponsible so many of them were.
I think that's it, folks. Thank you all for your interest and time. I've got another query I want to raise in R&S.
MIKEY4444 - Thank you. one of those reasons I was originally looking for. I find it beggars belief.
JOMIFL - That is the only 'argument' - post hoc ergo propter hoc - that has ever been put forward, from Wakefield onwards - to justify the scare. In a very long debate I had with her some years ago our own reverred and admired, usually so rational, naomi24 fell victim to it.
JIM360 - You are so right about the media. I still find it hard to accept how utterly irresponsible so many of them were.
I think that's it, folks. Thank you all for your interest and time. I've got another query I want to raise in R&S.
Chakka, I see I’ve been mentioned in despatches. We have discussed this ad infinitum, so I’ve deliberately avoided this thread, but since you’ve said I ‘fell victim to it’, I think I should respond. I didn’t ‘fall victim' to anything. I reached my conclusions by a process of logical observation. Science cannot guarantee the complete safety of the triple vaccine; for no known reason, cases of autism are on the rise – and I am personally aware of several people – and several ABers - whose perfectly bright, fit , and capable children were stricken by autism very shortly after receiving the MMR jab. Therefore, as I said before, you do what you like for your family, but please don’t tell me I’m stupid for preferring to err on the side of caution and plump for separate vaccines, because if the triple vaccine does have an adverse effect on some children - and you cannot provide evidence that it doesn’t - if it’s only one in ten thousand – then to my mind, that is one child too many – and it isn’t going to be mine. That is rational.
"Post hoc, propter hoc" eh,naomi ? That's one of the fallacies which, in an early post in this thread, I said that our children should be taught to recognise. Unlike France, we do not have the teaching of logic as part of the curriculum. That's a pity, because falllacies persist because they are attractive: "After it, therefore because of it" is one such
Could case of autism be on the rise simply because we recognise it more often?
There is not a single credible study that links MMR jab to autism. See, for example, the Cochrane review:
http://
That said, I'm not aware of any particular reason why single jabs are significantly less effective than the triple jab. Apart from the fact that you have three of them at once.
By the way, Japan has discontinued MMR jabs for all children, but this study has shown that autism cases have continued to rise:
http://
Conclusion: MMR cannot be linked to autism. So the evidence is there.
There is not a single credible study that links MMR jab to autism. See, for example, the Cochrane review:
http://
That said, I'm not aware of any particular reason why single jabs are significantly less effective than the triple jab. Apart from the fact that you have three of them at once.
By the way, Japan has discontinued MMR jabs for all children, but this study has shown that autism cases have continued to rise:
http://
Conclusion: MMR cannot be linked to autism. So the evidence is there.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles22 mins ago
Culturally Distinct Iron Age Tribe Of...
History36 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles182 mins ago
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.