Why Facts Don't Change Our Minds

even worse than facts are 'statistics'.

I am, however, not very impressed with the statement from the medical science that the authors use as "a fact". Facts from the medical science that are debated have changed into lies: did you hear about the fact that cholesterol is bad for your health and one should eat eggs with moderation ? That fact is now a lie: (see http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/19/health/dietary-guidelines/) and the Dietary Guidelines now contain "Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption". Another example where yesterday's truth is today's lie: there are many scientific reports that say that the herbicide Roundup is safe, but the court in California recently decided that a warning must be put on the Roundup package: "THIS MAY CAUSE CANCER". For decades the truth was "Roundup is safe". In 2016 the new truth is "Roundup causes cancer". The new research is so overwhelming that the old research funded by the producer of Roundup is no longer considered truthful and that research from the producer did not convince the court.

I think that the authors walk on a slippery road when they state that vaccinations are good and not hazardous since they ignore the fact that there is considerable debate about the subject and do not look at the arguments of those who are opposed. Yes there is scientific research that says that a vaccine given at birth is safe because the researchers observed babies for four days and there were no adverse reactions. Other scientific studies follow children just for a maximum of 90 days. One who argues that four days is not enough and labels the report 'unscientific' has a good point. One who shows that autism is linked to vaccinations does not present hard evidence but raises a valid point of attention. What is the truth? safe or unsafe? Currently it is debated. Most likely there will not be hard evidence soon about unsafety because nobody funds research for this.

There is also an other argument to make: if we find autism a terrible disease that must be avoided at all costs, and there are mathematical indications that vaccines are not safe, and there is scientific research that says that they are safe but do not investigate the relationship between vaccines and autism, and there is no scientific research that shows that vaccines do not cause autism, then why do many persons accept "vaccines are safe" as a truth ?

I suggest that the authors write a new book with a title like "What happens to people when that facts and truths that they believe in are no longer true ?" and do not make the mistake to believe everything that others say but to critically verify it.

So my question: Why use words like "selfish" and "cheating" when many/most of them do not believe they are gaining anything without contributing?

>and it warrants opprobrium and moralising disapproval, to minimise it. That's the purpose.

Forgive my skepticism, but if you are trying to tell me you are using such words in the hope of minimizing the behavior, I have trouble believing you. Two points:

1. Such behavior is more likely to cause dug heels and less likely to change people.

2. When you study the field of morality (scientifically, not just mere philosophy), you find that almost all such acts are for selfish purposes, with post-hoc rationalizations. I mean your selfish acts. As in you feel a need to criticize and ridicule, and your justification above is an attempt not to make it appear so.

There are ways to persuade people. The method you cite (opprobrium and moralising) is amongst the least effective. If your goal was very strongly driven by trying to persuade people to use vaccines, you would focus more on other techniques.

>Not entirely sure what you mean - do you mean to say that the anti-vaccine stance is not selfish (which is in a sense a scientific issue), or that (while it is) there are people that are (in other ways) not selfish?

My point is that the label is broad, and you applied it to the person, and not just the act. Any neutral person who hears this will simply find it false. Put another way, if someone wants to dispute your claim, it is trivial to do so - I just did it in my original comment. I know at least one anti-vacciner who is less selfish than pretty much any pro-vacciner I know. And in general, I find the anti-vacciners that I personally know to be less selfish.

You do not come off as one who is trying to cause change, but one who wants to sit and criticize. As I said:

>You could have said that the anti-vaccine folks are reducing the herd immunization, and are benefiting from said herd immunizing without calling them selfish.

Why didn't you? The point is as valid when phrased my way.