Here is our list of fallacies to review before we begin.
Okie dokie. Let's go.
I follow a lot of science news and am reading a lot about Jenny McCarthy's anti-vaccination movement that she's been touting over the last few years. Jenny often gets the science VERY VERY wrong, but is still popularized on TV talk shows where she is typically unopposed and allowed to list off any "scientific claims" that she likes.
As a result, I decided to write an e-mail to my family and friends, informing them to learn a little about vaccines before they make a decision about what to do with their children. I tried to emphasize that if they had any doubts that they should talk to their doctors, and even get a second opinion if need be.
I will be paraphrasing, but some of the responses I received were:
"What?? You mean that Jenny McCarthy doesn't know anything about medicine?"
"I don't understand why anyone would listen to a person who got famous by picking their nose and flaunting their tits on MTV."
So, Name That Logical Fallacy.
Time's Up.
Despite the fact that I happen to agree with the responses given, they have a slight problem in their logic.
The logical fallacy here is the ad hominem logical fallacy. This is an argument that attacks the person making the claim, rather than attacking the claim itself.
I actually find most celebrities to be some of the dumbest people on the planet, but they often promote causes that can be backed by science or personal beliefs. Just because I hear a celebrity saying something that I don't agree with, doesn't make them wrong.
Jenny McCarthy has an autistic son, and for whatever reason, decided that she would only listen to a very very small minority of doctors that oppose the scientific community. For whatever reason, these very few doctors decided not to listen to the scientific community or the mountains of studies that have come out in the past few years regarding the link between autism and vaccines (there is no link between these two things).
The evidence is simply not on their side.
Jenny McCarthy is not wrong due to a lack of intelligence. She is wrong because she has nothing to support her claim.
*Please get your kids vaccinated and talk to your doctors*
--------------------------------------------------------
This brings me to another Name That Logical Fallacy.
In one of my previous blogs I wrote about a fallacy called Argumentum ad populum. This is the fallacy where you might argue that just because a large amount of people believe something, doesn't make it true. So why would we listen to the scientific community?
We listen to them because they are smart and know what they are talking about, and we're not educated enough to understand what's going on...
NO.
This is a fallacy called Appeal To Authority.
If you've ever seen a commercial with a guy in a white coat telling you to buy some kind of medical product, you've witnessed an Appeal To Authority. Authority alone does not mean that we should listen to someone. When it comes to science, we should be REALLY careful about listening to the minority group. It's typically the minority group that has some kind of bias or special interest going on.
This can be a tricky fallacy because sometimes we really need to rely on an authority to get our information. That's WHY we go to doctors. BUT... That's why we should go to multiple doctors (if we can afford to).
One doctor may have a personal bias. Two doctors might disagree with each other and point out each other's flaws. Four doctors might really have different points of view -or they might all agree.
If you think you are sick, and four independent doctors tell you that you're not, you've done a pretty good job of eliminating your Appeal To Authority, and should probably go back to work.
This is how the scientific community works. This is why the scientific community is such an important resource and an important authority to listen to.
When a scientist in any field does a study, he or she has it peer reviewed. If the reviewers approve it, the paper gets published for the entire WORLD of scientists to review. The experiment must be scrutinized and redone over and over. Conservative biochemists in Germany will look at the procedure and redo the experiment. Liberal biochemists in Japan will look at it and redo it and find out what's wrong with it. And so on and so on, until it is torn to shreds.
If the study survives, the scientific community will accept it.
Scientists are constantly trying to outdo each other because that is how they win Nobel prizes and grant money.
Richard Dawkins often tells a story about when he was an undergrad. I think this story sets up the mentality of the scientific community (I will again paraphrase):
When he was an undergraduate, he had a professor who worked for most of his post-doctoral career on a theory that he had about evolution. During one lecture, an American biologist came to speak to the class and completely demolished his professor's theory that he'd spent half of his life researching. After the American got done speaking, the professor went up to him, shook his hand, and thanked him for proving him wrong.
To conclude, the scientific community will give you the least biased information available because it is tested by scientists of all ages, backgrounds, religions, and political parties. This does not mean that we shouldn't question this, or any other authority. At the same time, we shouldn't hold onto our bad science once it is disproved. We should be willing to distance ourselves from bad information.
::Thank You::
No comments:
Post a Comment