• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Throwing science at anti-vaxxers makes them more hardline

Musing Man said:
Underseer said:
So, uh, what should we do?
Click to expand...

Nothing.
That's the beauty of it.
”Darwin Awards” for dummies.
But then there's a whole lot of kids at risk, so I don't really know if something can be done.
Click to expand...

Bad solution since their stupidity will kill other people. Some of those other people will be children.
 
When all else fails, there's always classical conditioning.
 
You can't argue with stupid. All you can do is put as much information as you can out there so that as few other people as possible will be taken in by the stupid.
 
A Clockwork Orange comes to mind.
Unbeatable said:
Underseer said:
http://www.iflscience.com/health-an...ce-anti-vaxxers-just-makes-them-more-hardline

So, uh, what should we do?
Click to expand...

Learn persuasion skills. Emotions can be understood and influenced using various techniques, and if you're dealing with people whose feelings dictate how they'll interpret the facts(as if there were any other kind), you desperately need to know them. The article identifies trust as a key variable. So brainstorm ways to create trust.
Click to expand...
The only way these people may start believing is if it happens to them.

The key is not to lose herd immunity. If that is threatened, start forcing immunizations. The loss in their liberty is nothing compared to that kid who couldn't be immunized (legitimately) that just died needlessly of a disease that was eradicated until these asshats started their own cult of anti-vaccination.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
You can't argue with stupid.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, you can influence its beliefs and decisions, as proven by the ad/marketing/PR/religion/pseudoscience industries.
 
Unbeatable said:
Tom Sawyer said:
You can't argue with stupid.
Click to expand...

Fortunately, you can influence its beliefs and decisions, as proven by the ad/marketing/PR/religion/pseudoscience industries.
Click to expand...

Ya, cashing in on stupid is easy. It's when you try and go against the stupidity rather than going with it that you're arguing with a table.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Unbeatable said:
Fortunately, you can influence its beliefs and decisions, as proven by the ad/marketing/PR/religion/pseudoscience industries.
Click to expand...

Ya, cashing in on stupid is easy. It's when you try and go against the stupidity rather than going with it that you're arguing with a table.
Click to expand...

Giving up isn't an option. They're hurting children.

- - - Updated - - -

Cycad said:
Underseer said:
So, uh, what should we do?
Click to expand...


Polio is endemic in Pakistan and it seems they ran out of patience.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/...pakistan-refusing-children-polio-vaccinations

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31703835
Click to expand...

Yeah, certain imams have been going around the Muslim world telling uneducated people that vaccines are part of an elaborate Jewish conspiracy against Islam.
 
The "polarization" effect the OP refers is based almost entirely on measuring attitudes both immediately before and after persuasive messages. People don't like to admit that they were wrong and want to view themselves as consistent. Asking them, right afterwards might lead to reactionary responses. But after a while, they forget about the particular message and partly forget what their former attitudes were, and thus be more willing to report a new, more informed attitude as though it was theirs all along (the "hindsight bias" phenomena).

Also, the science can have more impact if its gets to a person prior to them forming a strong opinion on it.

One thing that would help is if it was taught in school, and to ensure that we should put it on standardized tests, both knowledge of vaccines and knowledge that autism claims are unscientific bullshit.

Part of the anti-vaccine movement is just part of the general religion that centers on the naturalistic fallacy and leads people to distrust science, technology, and modern medicine. Like all religion, it is emotion based. The part of the article about "distrust" of medicine speaks like the distrust comes first. I think this is wrong headed. I think the "distrust" is a post-hoc excuse they use to concoct the conspiracy theories needed to dismiss scientific consensus. They start with emotion based "holistic" "nature is pure" worldview that makes them want to reject aspects of science, then concoct excuses to distrust science, so they can reject its ideas when convenient.
 
ronburgundy said:
The "polarization" effect the OP refers is based almost entirely on measuring attitudes both immediately before and after persuasive messages. People don't like to admit that they were wrong and want to view themselves as consistent. Asking them, right afterwards might lead to reactionary responses. But after a while, they forget about the particular message and partly forget what their former attitudes were, and thus be more willing to report a new, more informed attitude as though it was theirs all along (the "hindsight bias" phenomena).

Also, the science can have more impact if its gets to a person prior to them forming a strong opinion on it.

One thing that would help is if it was taught in school, and to ensure that we should put it on standardized tests, both knowledge of vaccines and knowledge that autism claims are unscientific bullshit.

Part of the anti-vaccine movement is just part of the general religion that centers on the naturalistic fallacy and leads people to distrust science, technology, and modern medicine. Like all religion, it is emotion based. The part of the article about "distrust" of medicine speaks like the distrust comes first. I think this is wrong headed. I think the "distrust" is a post-hoc excuse they use to concoct the conspiracy theories needed to dismiss scientific consensus. They start with emotion based "holistic" "nature is pure" worldview that makes them want to reject aspects of science, then concoct excuses to distrust science, so they can reject its ideas when convenient.
Click to expand...
Interesting thoughts. I don't have anything intelligent to offer here, but I will offer this:
When you are dead, you don't know that you are dead. It's difficult only for others.

It's the same when you are stupid.
Click to expand...
Peez
 
ronburgundy said:
Part of the anti-vaccine movement is just part of the general religion that centers on the naturalistic fallacy and leads people to distrust science, technology, and modern medicine. Like all religion, it is emotion based. The part of the article about "distrust" of medicine speaks like the distrust comes first. I think this is wrong headed. I think the "distrust" is a post-hoc excuse they use to concoct the conspiracy theories needed to dismiss scientific consensus. They start with emotion based "holistic" "nature is pure" worldview that makes them want to reject aspects of science, then concoct excuses to distrust science, so they can reject its ideas when convenient.
Click to expand...
There is a healthy distrust in medicine, especially these days. The stuff is plastered all over the place in ads. We have seen pharmaceutical companies purposefully put out dangerous drugs into the market. I'm really nervous about acid reducers which people are taking long-term, but haven't actually been approved for such use yet. Personally, I hate taking any medicine, but realize when one must be taken.

The problem is, reasonable suspicion gets extrapolated to unreasonable lengths with drugs/vaccines that are not dangerous... and have a very long track record of being safe.

Vaccinations have fallen under a Reverse Pascal Wager, where there is no perceived threat due to herd immunity and not taking the vaccine is perfectly safe... assuming you never get the disease. Enough people do this and then diseases come back. But like a criminal who is pretty certain they won't get caught, anti-vaxxers are pretty certain their kids won't get sick.
 
Jimmy Higgins said:
ronburgundy said:
Part of the anti-vaccine movement is just part of the general religion that centers on the naturalistic fallacy and leads people to distrust science, technology, and modern medicine. Like all religion, it is emotion based. The part of the article about "distrust" of medicine speaks like the distrust comes first. I think this is wrong headed. I think the "distrust" is a post-hoc excuse they use to concoct the conspiracy theories needed to dismiss scientific consensus. They start with emotion based "holistic" "nature is pure" worldview that makes them want to reject aspects of science, then concoct excuses to distrust science, so they can reject its ideas when convenient.
Click to expand...
There is a healthy distrust in medicine, especially these days. The stuff is plastered all over the place in ads. We have seen pharmaceutical companies purposefully put out dangerous drugs into the market. I'm really nervous about acid reducers which people are taking long-term, but haven't actually been approved for such use yet. Personally, I hate taking any medicine, but realize when one must be taken.

The problem is, reasonable suspicion gets extrapolated to unreasonable lengths with drugs/vaccines that are not dangerous... and have a very long track record of being safe.

Vaccinations have fallen under a Reverse Pascal Wager, where there is no perceived threat due to herd immunity and not taking the vaccine is perfectly safe... assuming you never get the disease. Enough people do this and then diseases come back. But like a criminal who is pretty certain they won't get caught, anti-vaxxers are pretty certain their kids won't get sick.
Click to expand...

I think we should at least acknowledge that a lot of this anti-science sentiment is in part driven by the things pharmaceutical companies do to corrupt science, and the things they do to manipulate regulatory agencies.

The pharmaceutical companies are incredibly dependent on science for their profits, and yet they have put enormous effort into undermining science and undermining the public's trust in science, all in the name of profit. But that's what one expects from the "magic of the free market."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom