The sensible choice
I’ve determined that I let people get to me when I really shouldn’t, my patients wears thin, my frustration adds up to stress, I’m not interested in this continuing. So in an effort to make things more stream lined for the upcoming year, here is a brief list of discussions I will no longer participate in. I want to make this clear, my position is based on the rules of science, academia, and natural debate. The reason I’m doing this is not because I don’t know your fears, I understand them but they are irrational and speaking rationally to you serves neither of us.
People who deny global warming:
Honestly this is not debatable anymore it hasn’t been for decades, polar bears are dying because they drown, polar bears are natural swimmers so the only way this happens is if the land they were living on vanishes. It is at an ever increasing pace. Yet this easily verifiable fact isn’t why global warming is of non-debate, research into multiple fields of science have concluded that man has had a demonstrable effect on life on this planet. These are scientist looking at migration patterns, ice core samples, plant growth, farming, irrigation, air quality, weather analysis, power generation, name a field that is somehow hinged on the temperature of the planet and there has be numerous studies that have been forced to conclude that man has had a devastating effect on the climate. What is more depressing is that blocking the solutions blocks societal improvement, cleaner better tasting water to drink and swim in, better air quality, more regular weather less landfills, more parks teeming with animal life.
People emphatic about not vaccinating kids:
I know this is sensitive, I know you’re afraid, but you are victims of anecdotal evidence at best, and out and out misrepresentation of facts. Look I’m not saying that we should vaccinate our kids from chicken pox, that’s stupid the percentage of people who die from chicken pox is small, and the amount of kids who do is astronomically small compared to even that number. Nor do I think it makes sense to get a flu vaccination every year “just in case” if you’re in a high risk group and your doctor urges you to get one, perhaps you should. It’s the extremist that I’m talking about, the ones who believe there is a link between vaccination and autism. The one study that sparked this sensational idea that causes outbreaks of measles (which is really dangerous and ridiculously contagious especially in this world of 24 hour international travel) was found to be based on a horrible study that broke multiple scientific protocols and itself did not conclude a link but was picked up and reported as proving a link. Yet if you talk to people who know anything about Autism you’ll see that there is hardly a competent understanding of what autism is because it has so many varieties. Add to this the increasing number of older adults having children, and changes in diet, water supplies, and an the ability to test closer to the time vaccination period, there isn’t anything remotely close to scientific evidence on this subject. Considering the verifiable real threat of pandemic, and the possible threat of autism societal concerns seem more prescient.
I’m always up for debate especially when it is a matter of philosophy and therefore the answer is inscrutable. The purpose however of science is to approach challenging, and often emotional or economical issues, with a method that is neutral even if the instigator isn’t. See science understands that data can be manipulated, so in order to prove yourself right, other people even your critics must be able to get the same results by using the same scientific method. In both of these cases the science does not bore out the results that the extremist rally around. I’m not defending the conclusion I’m defending the method. If you don’t believe the results find the errors in methodology and prove your conclusions with the correct ones. Until then it is a debasement of science and the advancement of education to rally behind these notions without reason. I therefore cannot debate you because you’re operating with a rulebook that is malleable and therefore void.