RE: From Anti-Vaxers to Alfie's Army: Have we lost faith in medical science?
Having studied the issue of vaccine science (and politics) for a long time I have a lot to say on this. My first thought is to point out that judgements inherently contain denials since they are essentially guesses that attempt to fill in the gaps in our understandings. Judgements do not really need to be made at all, there is always the potential to remain open minded as long as we are not pressured/forced to act/think - perhaps by our own mental process or by others.
Do we need trust and faith in scientists? Do we really need belief, trust and faith at all? I don't see that we do at all. What we need is deeply felt understanding as to the nature of what we are dealing with.
As far as the vaccine issue goes - one of the most well known voices in the anti-vaccine movement - or perhaps it would be better to say 'vaccine transparency' movement is investigative reporter Del Bigtree, the creator of the 'Vaxxed' documentary. I notice a recurring theme with this topic that people often just assume they are right and try to play the 'appeal to authority' card that says 'the experts say xyz and so they are right'.. Which is neither scientific, nor rational. Del gave a talk a few months ago and raises many valid points that any sane person should consider when assessing vaccine science and logic - I highly advise all to listen to him on this topic with an open mind.
Hi @ura-soul, thank you for your comment.
You make an interesting point here in regards to ‘judgement’. I think we have some common grounds with this however I disagree with your conclusion. The scientific method involves doubt (denial is similar but its more the ignorance of consensus in my understanding), scientists develop theories and try to find all the ways in which they are wrong. Then they pass it to other scientists that also try to find all the ways that they are wrong (the process is surprisingly brutal, we’re certainly not all one happy family that agrees all the time). If the theory is still standing after a barrage of attackes (argues in the scientific liturature), then what you are left with is a strong foundation of knowledge that you can build on. Open mindedness is great for the development of new theory, however, it doesn’t mean that all ideas are equal. Each needs to be rigorously tested first.
My argument towards ‘trust in science’ is that we have now got to the stage in our society that no one person can understand all of science at any one time its essencial that we trust in the work of others. To more forward from this point (and prevent more suffering, thats all that I care about) I have to trust that other scientists, and the work that they create, have gone through the same rigorous process as I have (I’m ten years into my training and I still don’t think I’ve made it to an ‘expert’ in my tiny sub field of health psychology).
If this is what you’re seeing then I highly agree with you on this point. Any expert worth their salt should never make the argument that they’re an expert so they’re right! The mark of an expert is the ability to assess the quality and impact of the research in a particular field in an unbiased manner. An excellent expert is able to have constant arguments in their head about all the ways that any sentence they write could be wrong.
Thank you for the video link, I promise I will watch it at some point. Although I will say that I’m not an expert in vaccine science, I’m a psychologist that studies public perceptions so my ability to engage with the content itself may be limited.
Hey @nonzerosum
Here's a tip for your valuable feedback! @Utopian-io loves and incentivises informative comments.
Contributing on Utopian
Learn how to contribute on our website.
Want to chat? Join us on Discord https://discord.gg/h52nFrV.
Vote for Utopian Witness!