|
|
Post by nicole on May 17, 2009 6:33:00 GMT -5
The Anti-vaccination Movement (AVM)The anti-vaccination movement (AVM) is at least two-pronged: one prong denies a causal connection between vaccines and the eradication or significant reduction of diseases like smallpox, polio, measles, and rubella; the other prong perceives vaccines as causing diseases, e.g., it claims that the MMR (mumps-measles-rubella) vaccine causes autism. Either way, the AVM proponents oppose vaccination against disease.
One might consider a third prong of the AVM to be those who advocate homeopathic "vaccines" or isopathic preparations for such things as meningococcal disease, the "flu", childhood illnesses, malaria, and HIV. Such people offer magic water in place of an actual vaccine developed and properly tested by scientists. They believe the water has been energized and has a selective "memory" of molecules long gone in the homeopathic dilution process. Most homeopathic vaccines are nothing but water or inert substances and cannot protect anyone from anything. They endanger people's lives when they are offered as protection against diseases like malaria. They are sought out by people who do not trust real vaccines and who live according to the principles of vitalism and magical thinking. Thus, we might well say that those who recommend homeopathic vaccines are part of the AVM since, in effect, they oppose real vaccination against disease.
One thing that unites these three prongs of the AVM is that each is selective in its picking of evidence to support its viewpoint and to denigrate one of scientific medicine's major contributions to public health.
are vaccines effective?
Robert Mendelsohn, M.D. is one of the leading opponents of vaccination. He claims that there is "no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease." He thinks nobody knows why diseases such as polio have almost been eliminated, though improved living conditions might have something to do with it. Quackwatch calls this misconception #1 about immunization. Mendelsohn reasons that inoculations are ineffective because the diseases diminished not only in the U.S. when vaccinations were widespread but also in Europe even though no mass immunizations took place there. I don't know if this is true, but it should be. In isolated populations with little immunity to a disease, one would expect an infectious disease to..........
Continue reading..........
|
|
|
|
Post by nicole on May 17, 2009 6:38:53 GMT -5
From: SkepticWiki.orgConspiracy Theory A conspiracy theory refers to a claim that a condition, effect, or series of events is the result of secret planning by two or more individuals or by an organization, rather than a less dramatic cause, such as people acting openly, people acting independently but in concert, or natural causes. The term "conspiracy theory" is generally understood to be derisive or dismissive of such claims.
A conspiracy theorist (or pejoratively, a conspiracy nut) is someone whose worldview tends to interpret events as relating to conspiracy theories.
Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories
As a legal term, conspiracy refers to two or more people acting in the commission of a crime. The elements are generally 1) agreement to commit a crime, and 2) taking some overt action toward that goal. While secrecy is often necessary from a practical standpoint, it is not an element of the crime. The conspiracies postulated by conspiracy theories generally differ in several ways. First, the activity may be nominally legal, such as suppression of evidence of alien visitations. Second, the activity is motivated by political or sociological concerns, rather than ordinary criminal motives. Finally, conspiracy theories usually suppose conspiracies that continue indefinitely, making continued secrecy of nearly paramount importance.
Aspects of Conspiracy Theories
One necessary quality of a conspiracy theory is the cover-up, which is an act by the conspirators to hide the evidence of their actions. This is usually proffered by conspiracy theorists to explain why the evidence for their theory is lacking. For example, UFO theorists claim that the evidence for crashed spaceships, alien bodies, and their technology is being covered up by the governments and the witnesses silenced on pain of death.
Conspiracy theories generally defy Occam's Razor. The conspiracy itself, along with the cover-up, are generally very complex and involved, and there are usually much simpler explanations for the phenomenon. For example, Chemtrails are more likely the result of natural atmospheric phenomena regarding the formation of cirrus clouds than a secret government conspiracy to gas people or change the weather.
Conspiracy theories are usually the result of logical fallacies combined with a lack of understanding of the science involved. For example, Moon Hoax theorists claim that the lack of stars in photos from the moon is evidence that the moon landings were faked; this is based on a misunderstanding of photography and the nature of photographing the stars along with bright objects.
Conspiracy theorists will often employ a sort of "shotgun" approach, making dozens if not hundreds of claims supposedly supporting the theory. A theorist can make a claim in five seconds which can take a scientist much longer to refute (as the real world is much more complex than the world the conspiracy theorists inhabit in their minds). As a result, many of these claims can go unanswered, particularly in a single discussion. A conspiracy theorist might make 100 different claims, and if just one remains unanswered, he will cling to that as proof of his theory and that the skeptics have no answer. Of course, he will completely ignore the fact that 99 of his claims have just been shown to be wrong.
While incredibly varied in character, conspiracy theories generally have some common elements.
* the conspiracy has access and control of legions of hundreds or thousands of operatives, both for direct goals and for maintenance of secrecy.
* the commission of the illegal activity is accomplished through through existing social or governmental networks.
* secrecy is an overarching concern. Secrecy may be maintained through destruction and assassination, but more commonly, through absolute control of information channels or through intimidation of insiders. Strangely, it is sometimes claimed that secrecy is maintained by airing information openly to conspiracy nuts who will attract ridicule and refutation to the theory, thus discouraging any serious inquiry.
* the operation of the conspiracy is managed by a hierarchical organization. This allows management of the secret insider knowledge. This in turn helps to maintain secrecy, while at the same time permitting the operatives to act without knowing the true nature of their actions.
* the conspiracy has virtually unlimited resources, both monetary and personnel.
Conspiracies and Occam's Razor
One criticism of conspiracy theories is that they are invoked to explain bizarrely what can be explained simply and directly.
For example, consider two possible explanations for the Roswell Incident. One is that a top-secret experimental device for detecting nuclear tests crashed in the New Mexico desert. Another explanation is that an alien spacecraft crashed.
Supposing the first explanation to be correct, what evidence would we find?
* Securing of the area by the military,
* Collection of the debris and transfer to a secure facility
* Promulgation of a plausible cover story about “weather balloons” that doesn’t quite ring true.
Now, supposing the “alien spaceraft” theory to be correct, what would we find?
* Securing of the area by the military,
* Collection of the debris and transfer to a secure facility
* Promulgation of a plausible cover story about “weather balloons” that doesn’t quite ring true.
Characteristic of conspiracy theories, the evidence does not distinguish the official version from the conspiracy theory. In this case, most rational people would opt to apply Occam's Razor, and accept the version that does not postulate the existence of alien spacecraft.
Refuting Conspiracy Theories
Genuine conspiracies and cover-ups are very difficult to pull off. For example, the Watergate scandal was a conspiracy with a cover-up which was only known to a handful of people, and still there was a whistle-blower who ended up exposing the whole thing.
Conspiracy theories are generally not falsifiable, as any evidence refuting the theory is regarded as being part of the conspiracy.
It is common for conspiracy theorists to paint skeptics as being closed-minded. If anything, it is usually the conspiracy theorists who are closed-minded; the skeptics simply require sufficient evidence to be convinced, whereas the conspiracy theorists generally avoid considering that they might be wrong, mostly due to the falsifiability issue mentioned above.
Conspiracy theories generally end up being false dichotomies, and many times conspiracy theorists will treat problems with the "official" story as being proof of their conspiracy. But the conspiracy theory must rise or fall on its own merits.
Many times, individuals with similar motivations can act independently towards a certain end without conspiring to do so. This can give the appearance of a conspiracy, even though no such conspiracy is actually taking place. This problem can also work the other way: sometimes, skeptics will wrongly label a claim a "conspiracy theory" even if the claimant is just saying that people are motivated to work towards a particular goal.
Probably most importantly, conspiracy theories don't really achieve anything. They don't reform the system, or cause or even call for any social change for the better. What does it matter if, for example, the Federal Reserve was really formed by a conspiracy of bankers on Jekyll Island? Regardless of how it formed, the Fed is in place. Whether or not the Fed should be abolished is a separate issue which has nothing to do with how it came about.
Reasons for Conspiracy Theories
Conspiracy theorists probably have many motivations, which are unique to the individual. However, some general aspects of their motivations can be observed.
One such motivation is distrust of government. Usually, government is the entity engaging in the conspiracy and the ensuing cover-up, and the individuals who proffer these theories tend to be anti-government, at least to some degree. Since it is generally regarded that government tends to lie or at least spin the truth on many issues (evidenced by the popular joke, "How do you tell if a politician is lying? His lips move!"), conspiracy theories can find easy audiences.
Another motivation is an odd sort of comfort. It's more comforting, for example, to believe that JFK was assassinated by government conspirators, because if it really was the work of one lone man, then that means that the government could not even protect the President from one man determined to do harm. What hope, then, is there that the government can protect the rest of us?
Conspiracy theories can be brought up as a means of avoiding a refutation of a claim, even if that claim is not itself a conspiracy theory. For example, the claim that cell phones cause brain cancer can be refuted with studies showing no such effect; the claimant can then say that those studies are part of a conspiracy by the cell phone manufacturers, and thus disregard the studies.
Conspiracy theories may be seen as attempts to explain simply the confusing world we live in. The societal mechanics that lead to wars and depressions are barely understood by experts, and completely impenetrable to the layman. But it may all become simpler if one postulates a secret group of Illuminati with total control of everything.
In extreme cases, those who obsessively cling to a conspiracy theory may be suffering from a psychological problem such as paranoia, denial, or schizophrenia.
A conspiracy theory, if believed, naturally moves most believers to outrage. Since the weak point in a conspiracy is its need for secrecy, the believer most often attempts to fight the conspiracy by exposing it. Thus, the belief itself motivates the believer to propound the entire theory to others. From the point of view that a conspiracy theory is a meme, conspiracy theories implicitly contain a reproductive mechanism.
Ironically, political elites use the popular belief in conspiracies (rather than conspiracies themselves) to tremendous political effect. Belief in Zionist conspiracies was wielded dangerously in America in the 1930s, and later in Nazi Germany, with the Jewish Holocaust being a direct consequence. Belief in communist infiltration was used in America in the 1950s to direct public opinion against political enemies.
|
|
|
|
Post by nicole on May 17, 2009 8:19:11 GMT -5
From: SkepticWiki.orgOccam's Razor Definition
A central maxim of skepticism, that given two explanations that equally describe a given situation, the simplest one is most likely to be the correct one.
Occam's razor concerns the choice of which alternative theory to tentatively accept; it by no means constitutes proof that the simpler theory is, in fact, correct.
"Simpler Theory"
There are several misconceptions to the meaning of the word "simpler", for example:
Creationist: Since Occam's Razor says the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct, then my explanation is "Goddidit!". What could be simpler than that?
It's very tempting to believe that "simpler" means "fewer words", but meaning of a "simpler" explanation has a very precise definition in the context of Occam's Razor.
Formalized, Occam's Razor states [1]:
1) Unfalsifiable theories should be rejected as useless. This is an epistemological position, and is based on the simple observation that an unfalsifiable theory can not be used to learn anything that you do not already know.
2) Any claims within a theory which are not logically necessary to account for the testable claims of the theory, must be rejected. This is just an extension of (1), since such a theory could always be split into one theory which possesses no such claims, and one theory which is unfalsifiable.
3) Given two theories which make exactly the same testable claims, if those two theories differ in any way which is not simply semantic, then at least one of them must possess claims which are not logically necessary to account for its testable claims.
That third one is more difficult to justify, although Logical Positivism may provide the answer. It was shown that it is possible to construct a formal scientific logical language in which everything is defined in reference to observations. Points (1) and (2) above indicate that if such a formal language exists, then any theory which is not rejected by point (1) or (2) must be expressible in that formal language. Having done that, it is clear (well, maybe not so clear) that the expression of such a theory in that formal language must be unique. That is, two theories which make exactly the same testable predictions, and which make no claims which are not logically necessary to produce those predictions, must have exactly the same representation within that formal scientific language, which means that they only differ semantically.
Versions of the Razor
As originally stated by William of Ockham, a franciscan friar: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate" (Plurality should not be supposed without necessity)
Isaac Newton expressed this as: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances."
Colloquially, the KISS Principle (Keep it simple, stupid!) and the analogy "When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras" express the same idea.
[edit] Rationale
There are infinitely many possible "theories" that can explain a given set of facts. Consider the following two possible laws of nature:
1. The force of gravity diminishes with the square of the separation of two bodies.
2. The force of gravity diminishes with the square of the separation of two bodies, until December 21, 2012, at which time it will become a linear proportion.
Both of these laws predict equally well the observed effects of gravity in the universe. We cannot say for certain that the second one is wrong. However we may tentatively accept the first one as correct in the absence of any contradictory data, since it is simpler. Without Occam's razor, there would be any number of different rival theories, and the pursuit of general knowledge would become impossible.
Examples of Application
A classic example is the choice of the Copernican model of the Solar System over the Ptolemaic model. While these equally well described the observed motion of heavenly bodies (at least to 15th century standards), the Copernican model was accepted as being the simpler, not requiring equants and crystal spheres. (Later, the Keplerian model of the Solar system was accepted over the Copernican model, mostly because of its improved accuracy but also because Kepler's ellipses finally eliminated the need for epicycles.)
More recently, the results of the Michaelson-Morely experiment could be explained by supposing that objects contract and their time slows down when they move relative to the luminiferous ether. Alternatively, objects contract and time slows down when they move relative to anything at all. The ether idea was discarded from physics as an unnecessary arbitrary construct.
Fallacious Application
Here are some examples of fallacies associated with incorrect use of the razor.
Fallacious Argument #1:
The existence of the universe may be attributed to the complex interactions of numerous elementary particles, which are described by equations so complex that they are inaccessible to anyone who has not spent years studying them. Alternatively, the existence of the universe may be attributed to God. Since the second is a simpler explanation, it is more likely to be true.
This argument is fallacious since it assumes that the concept of "God" is simpler, since it can be referenced with fewer words. The attributes that God would need to have to create the universe are at least as complex as those used in fundamental physics.
Fallacious Argument #2:
Chemical interactions can be described in terms of 91 naturally occurring elements, or in terms of the four elements known to the ancient alchemists. Since the second theory postulates fewer entities, it is more likely to be correct.
This argument is fallacious since the two theories do not equally well describe the observed facts. Occam's Razor can only be applied when the theories have (so far) been equally accurate.
|
|
