Are you saying it does or are you saying it should?
I think it just plain does.
It is not entirely clear where you want to go with this.
True, there is a perceived risk from vaccination that flies in the face of rational thinking and evidence acquired by rigorous study and analysis of data in the U.S. and abroad. This includes the “experience” of a lot of good, dedicated people who work with children.
Your OP and followup statements indicate you place a lot of value on individual experience as opposed to “book learnin’” and hoity-toity experts.
So in this concrete instance (vaccination) what exactly do you want?
Do you recommend that we go watch Oprah and make decisions on our children’s health on the basis of what Jenny McCarthy says? Do we base public health policy (including mandatory vaccination programs) on good science or certain mothers’ instincts?
So - is your solution 1) better education for the moms, or 2) let 'em do what they want, because their “experience” trumps knowledge?
Kids have continued to die from polio in Africa, because their Muslim parents believe the polio vaccine is a Western plot to spread AIDS or infertility. Should the “experience” of those parents trump rationality, or should health authorities continue to educate and press for vaccination to protect their children?
Do you understand the cost of enabling uneducated and superstitious behavior?
And a direct answer to jsgoddess’s question would be appreciated.
This is exactly why experience is of low value, though not entirely useless, when dealing with scientific matters. People’s views are skewed by emotion and they are in general terrible at identifying the root cause of problems and performing risk analysis.
Look at all the people who are, or were, terrified of flying because of the risk of terrorism, particularly right after 9/11. Any reasonable look at the facts would have told you that the risk is negligible compared with other things in your life, and was likely even lower than normal soon after the attacks due to increased security, yet people made major changes to their lifestyles to avoid flying.
So, I guess the problem is not necessarily the lack of usefulness of experiential knowledge, but people not able to interpret that knowledge and assign it the proper value relative to more scientific knowledge.
If doctors have a solid consensus that Vitamin C doesn’t do crap for colds after a great deal of study and research, yet my cold went away relatively soon after drinking a big glass of orange juice, I’m still not going to use Vitamin C as a cure for a cold.
Jackmanii, if you want to convince more women that fully vaccinating their children on schedule is the best choice, you need to reach them. “We’re the experts, do as we say” isn’t getting it done. Neither is calling them irrational. That’s the point I’m trying to make. The medical community would be wise to work with mothers’ instincts.
Fear of flying is a good point - plenty of intelligent, educated people have that fear.
How?
I guess I don’t understand your point. “2+2=4” (or, perhaps, “Two plus two equals four.”) is, as I understnad the term, a conceptual sentence: It expresses a relationship between items of the intellect, one that is asserted to be true.
Do you have any cites indicating that the CDC, pediatric organizations or anyone else in the medical community is basing their educational efforts on “We’re the experts, do as we say”? A great deal of information is available online and from other sources and is presented daily in doctors’ offices reflecting the need for vaccination and the lack of evidence that it causes autism. Demands are not being placed on parents on the basis of obedience to authority.
It sounds like you’re creating a strawman based on your resentment of “experts”.
Why don’t you clarify what you mean by this? And, once again, please provide a direct answer to jsgoddess’s question.
Then you would recommend this vaccine when it is not proven safe. Seems like you have the strange concept of morality.
Institute of Medicine:
The reason I asked the questions was to determine what you were bringing to the table. You are asking parents to risk putting their kids in harms way, while you bring nothing to risk.
You are giving your opinion here in a generalized statement that can’t be proven.
As for finding patterns, it is a normal logical process that leads to more knowledge and wisdom. But you are right about our memories, we don’t even know where they are, let alone what they contain.
OK, I will try to explain, if there are bits of unemotional knowledge, and you pointed out one, then how do we classify/conceptualize this group of knowledge. I think a good starting point would be “unemotional knowledge is information we humans have agreed upon as true.” Math, stop lights, etc. We universally recognized this information as being true for all people, there is a strong consenses of opinion. Something like that.
By far most of our knowledge is emotional, especially on this board.
OK, I will try to explain, if there are bits of unemotional knowledge, and you pointed out one, then how do we classify/conceptualize this group of knowledge. I think a good starting point would be “unemotional knowledge is information we humans have agreed upon as true.” Math, stop lights, etc. We universally recognized this information as being true for all people, there is a strong consenses of opinion. Something like that.
By far most of our knowledge is emotional, especially on this board.
My purpose was to eventually point out that our belief systems need to be scrutinized against reality on a regular basis. Most of us hold beliefs that keep us from the full enjoyment of life.
I am unsure of the discussion value on this board.
fessie, you are doing great, hang in there.
You start by listening to their concerns and answering their questions in an open, honest way. They will know if you are trying to blow them off, or stonewalling, or just plain not telling the truth. Yes, people do know those things. But the main thing is to keep in mind we are talking about children’s lives here, not corporate profits.
Yes, and to do that, the best thing scientists can do is to remain objective. Scientists need to ensure the emotions do not influence their judgment.
You’ve talked about the question of drug safety and effectiveness. It would be a disaster if the research was done with focus on compassion. The researcher may get emotional about the 5 people out of 20 who survived and conclude the drug is worth the dangers, when statistical analysis would have shown that 5 survivors is what you’d expect even without the drug. Or he/she may get hung up on the 1 person who died during the trials and move to ban the drug, even though statistically you could expect a couple of people to die of natural causes in that duration. It could be more subtle - like feeling sorry for the control group who got placebos, which subconsciously influences their evaluation of symptoms.
I don’t really have a resentment of “experts” myself.
I’ll definitely provide a direct answer to jsgoddess’s question. I need to do some extensive C&Ping from anti-vaccination posts. It may be tomorrow before I’m finished.
Some women perceive that doctors do not provide direct, thoughtful, thorough answers to their questions. The AAP’s educational efforts are not reaching them.
I’ll tell you something, though, that thread I mentioned yesterday, the responses to Oprah’s show? That thread is up to 200 pages. Around 3,000 replies in 24 hours.
None of my questions require you cutting and pasting from any anti-vaccination posts, so please don’t spend your time doing that to answer me.
You keep throwing things like this into the discussion, but I’m really baffled by what they are supposed to show.
Just because a lot of people believe something, or a lot of people talk about something, or a lot of people are interested in something doesn’t mean that the something is true. Things don’t become facts by being popular.
There are, IMO, two methods humans use for determining the validity of knowledge.
The first is whether or not new data is coherent with present knowledge. The most basic example of this is logic, a system of rules that have been developed to deal with concepts completely regardless of what those concepts are. But coherence is broader than simple logic; over their lifetime people (hopefully, and in most cases) build up a coherent mental model of the universe. How they do this is (for the moment) immaterial, but the effect of this is that new data is easily accepted only if it fits this model. When the data doesn’t cohere with the model, the dissonance between the two must be resolved, or the data itself must be ignored/challenged.
This leads us to the second test for determining the validity of knowledge: correspondence with reality. I agree that mental dissonance can lead to an emotional response, and so the knowledge presented by a person whose model is suffering this dissonance may appear to be “emotional knowledge”, but I believe this is a misnomer. Ultimately, when people are calling for a scientific approach, they are asking that the mental dissonance be resolved by appealing to the court of reality, an appeal which, ultimately, will force reasonable persons to adapt their mental model.
According to the theory I’ve just outlined, this may be because things like Internet message boards are far better at determining the coherence of facts than they are at testing their correspondence to reality.
I’ve often seen the SDMB members referred to as a “hive mind”; this is a rather apt description–not because it means everyone is agreeing with each other, but because it models the kind of coherence testing that occurs in anyone’s mental evaluation of their own knowledge.
But such a description includes limitations; I don’t think, for example, this or any other message board as a group is useful for conducting scientific research, since so much of that relies on individuals conducting correspondence-with-reality experiments. The ubiquitous resurrection of threads regarding a semi-scientific question that I dare not name (two key words rhyme with “train” and “breadhill”) is proof of that.
I agree regarding belief systems, if by “reality” you include “the opinions/beliefs of others”. Thus, the discussion value of this board is having your opinion bump up against others–not in a futile attempt to “solve the problem”, but in determining the strengths and weaknesses of your own mental model of reality. You discover your hidden assumptions, personal biases, and shaky conclusions.
If, however, you’re hoping a message board–or the Internet generally–is going to determine whether or not autism is caused by vaccinations, then I can see where you’d think there is little value in these discussions. That question can only be answered after a lot of hard word on the correspondence side, and that means sharp minds dealing with all the evidence.