Time allocated in Irish primary schools: 4% on science, 10% on religion.

pauldla

I think that the question has been asked, though. If the question is, is there a link between MMR and autism, then I think that the answer is probably something along the lines of "To the best of our knowledge, bearing in mind that we've really tested the sh*t out this stuff, especially after all the kerfluffle when yer one from Playboy got involved, and also keeping in mind that we give this stuff to kids so we'd already run it through the wringer quite a few times, then no, there is no link between MMR and autism".

Perhaps not 100% sure, but certainly close enough to look askance at those who risk their kids health on the percentages involved.

Gbear

doctoremma wrote: »

People can mistrust science, scientists and the safety of MMR all they want. I couldn't care less. I start to care when they make bad choices for their children.

And not only that but should we decide as a society that the direct health consequences of failing to immunise some people with regards to herd immunity are unacceptable?

It certainly doesn't seem completely unreasonable.
I presume if you have some horrible disease that is highly contagious you can be kept under quarantine forcibly?

If it's a case where an adult is choosing for themselves and they're the only ones suffering consequences then there's no real argument to force them into it and with time and education those numbers will probably dwindle anyway. Children and the well being of the rest of society are a separate case.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

GCU argued that if people are refusing to be vaccinated, then the case for vaccination has not been made clearly enough. I don't agree - the case for MMR is 'conclusive' and should be free of any controversy whatsoever.

If the case for MMR is 'conclusive', then it truly is unique as the only example of something that is perfectly certain.

I might start to listen if you said "the scope for error is so small that the chances of it being wrong is remote". But the emphatic nature of your statements demonstrate why objections should not simply be overriden by authority. You are claiming a certainty that cannot exist.

You also seem completely detached from the reality that the reason people don't accept 100% of what 100% of doctors tell them is because doctors are not correct 100% of the time. Why don't you say something like "people should accept what we say 90% of the time, because that's our hit rate"?

The one (nearly) certain thing in this discussion is, if there is a near certain case for the MMR, and if a large number of people either don't accept or don't understand the case, the failure is in the supporters of the vaccination to put their case.

Maybe you should ask why you are failing, rather than blame it on folk saying "these doctors tell you anything, but know nothing and stick up for each other when they are wrong".

Turtwig

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But the people contradicting science have also been wrong throughout history, so is this point not kind of moot (not wrong, just applicable to both sides)?

Probably is just applicable to both sides, but a lot of people on the science side seem to think peer review is the be all and end all. Tonnes of crap gets published everyday. I think the mistake the other side makes though that always makes them more wrong is that when they reject their gullible faith in one authority they tend to just replace it uncritically with another authority. Lots of people I know seem to think that by the very act of rejecting a idea you're already thinking in a more a proactive manner than others.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The one (nearly) certain thing in this discussion is, if there is a near certain case for the MMR, and if a large number of people either don't accept or don't understand the case, the failure is in the supporters of the vaccination to put their case.

Maybe you should ask why you are failing, rather than blame it on folk saying "these doctors tell you anything, but know nothing and stick up for each other when they are wrong".

In today's modern society telling a lie or something that is inaccurate takes only a few seconds. To correct such a statement properly might take a minute, an hour, a day; even longer! If your statement is scaremongering enough then people will always tend to er on, intuitively, what they regard as the side of caution. Which is fair, but alas, in today's modern world our intuition is also a nasty prejudice. The case for Vaccines is mostly statistically based and few people can read statistics. Statistical literacy in Ireland stinks!

There's also this idea about responsible citizens educating themselves and learning stuff but as the latest EU referendum will tell you (it was a document less than twenty pages for which people had several months to read and mull over. Yet they still cribbed when no one bothered explain it to them.) most people couldn't be bothered in investing in the time or resources in properly informing themselves. In fact you only need to look at the past referendum campaigns in this country from both sides to see the level of effort people generally put into informing themselves.

So you have two problems with vaccines the first is statistical literacy in this country is generally poor and even when you do finally overcome that hurdle most people are still too lazy to actually inform themselves in depth on any issue and expect to be spoon fed.To my mind, it's really simple the reason vaccination groups fail is because they're too damn honest and confusing about what is a complicated topic. If they kept it black and white and more passionate,they'd persuade a lot more people. However, then you've got the whole ethics debates to decide whether dishonest information campaigns that actually do convince people to take a stance is the correct way to go about it. Oh fun!

pauldla

"Stick this needle in your kids arm or they'll DIE!" probably isn't a great campaign slogan, no.

Turtwig

pauldla wrote: »

"Stick this needle in your kids arm or they'll DIE!" probably isn't a great campaign slogan, no.

Nah you'd have to exaggerate the mortality rates of the illness and fudge the statistics in general, then you'd have to post the most shocking gruesome images you could find of infants who had these terrible ailments (but likely had other ailments as well.). . .Basically, just enlist the advice of Youth Defence for scaremongering and then try to find the balance between acceptable representation of reality and public persuasion.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Maybe you should ask why you are failing, rather than blame it on folk saying "these doctors tell you anything, but know nothing and stick up for each other when they are wrong".

This is the salient point in this thread and while you have a point; there should be relentless campaigns on tv and other media by the government explaining the situation and why it's important to get vaccinated, when politicians are as scientifically illiterate as they are and even some GP's don't have the requisite scientific background you're always going to be fighting an uphill battle.

If more people weren't scientifically illiterate they'd be able to rationally appraise the information themselves. Another non-science part of it is an inability to understand probability and risk assessment.
People are used to hearing to politicians talk in absolutes (and lie in the process) so that any time a scientist mentions a risk or that they're not certain but the overwhelming body of evidence supports their view, some people who don't understand risk or how science works jump on that statement as "hesitancy" or being generally unsure rather than it being common parlance in scientific discussion.

If people aren't trained to think in logic and rationality they're more likely to side with fallacious arguments - anecdotes and arguments from emotion probably being the most common. That makes it difficult to sway them. I think it's perfectly reasonable that you don't expect scientists to stoop to the level of exaggeration, misrepresentation and outright lies to convince people.
I think that's a **** solution to the problem.

As a society we should be trying to weed out bull**** from public discourse - not encouraging it.

pauldla wrote: »

"Stick this needle in your kids arm or they'll DIE!" probably isn't a great campaign slogan, no.

The bizarre thing is that if the public caught a scientist lying they'd probably never listen to him again but if it's a politician or some other bull**** artist it's like water off a ducks back.

pauldla

Gbear wrote: »

The bizarre thing is that if the public caught a scientist lying they'd probably never listen to him again but if it's a politician or some other bull**** artist it's like water off a ducks back.

Maybe people realise that scientists are actually useful sometimes, and so hold them to a different yardstick.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

This is the salient point in this thread and while you have a point; there should be relentless campaigns on tv and other media by the government explaining the situation and why it's important to get vaccinated ....

Why, out of all the possible hazards in life, would we pick vaccination as the one that required us to push it up to the top of the agenda? What's actually done more damage to Irish people collectively over the last ten years - financial illiteracy or low take-up of vaccinations?

You'll understand, I'm not particularly contesting even the level of interest that the average punter will have in informing themselves about such matters, or even the extent to which they will be able to make an informed judgment if they do. What I am saying is empowering some group, allegedly on the basis of expertise, isn't an improvement.

People have to be let find their own way, even on stuff that contains complexities that they may not appreciate. Complexity will be used as an excuse for excluding and imposing views, and EU treaties are probably a good example of that. What's a punter to do, faced with an impenetrable text, and assurances from our Minister for Defence (when it was wee Willie) that participation in European Battle Groups would never involve Irish soldiers finding themselves as part of a group of Europeans in a battle. They know they're being ridden, that's why they're not co-operating.

Anyway, the solution to a situation where you find the general population needs better eduction is to improve education. And that will be a long-term project - during which, people without much of a clue about finances will still need to decide how much they should borrow for a house.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

The bizarre thing is that if the public caught a scientist lying they'd probably never listen to him again but if it's a politician or some other bull**** artist it's like water off a ducks back.

Bear in mind that the product the scientist is meant to be providing is reliable information. Hence, if a scientist fails in that, he's of no use to us.

The politician is peddling consensus - or however you want to describe the process of actually making things happen. Hence, lying isn't automatically a disqualification - depending on what it achieved.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

People have to be let find their own way, even on stuff that contains complexities that they may not appreciate.

An analogy would be that if a parent didn't know they had to feed their child (bear with me) or perhaps if they believed that humans only needed water to survive, the state would step in before the child starved to death.
We've already established that it's possible for the state to step in if a parents actions or inaction is harming or potentially harming a child.
Why do you not think it's reasonable for them to step in in case of vaccines?

Is there a particular amount of risk you're happy to expose children (and others if herd immunity is compromised) to? Why extend that to vaccines but not seat-belts?

Galvasean

Jernal wrote: »

I think his/her point is that throughout history medicine and science in general has been wrong on things it claimed were absolutely correct e.g Semmelweis. So it would be a fools gambit to ever thing anything was 100% complete.

A fair point in my opinion.

While this is undoubtedly true, what is the alternative but to go with the best available knowledge? I mean conventional wisdom and science would tell me not to drink a beaker of sulfuric acid. saying, "Conventional wisdom and science have been wrong before" won' stop me from hurting myself. Sometimes (well most times to be honest) it is good practice to trust the experts.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

An analogy would be that if a parent didn't know they had to feed their child (bear with me) or perhaps if they believed that humans only needed water to survive, the state would step in before the child starved to death.

We've already established that it's possible for the state to step in if a parents actions or inaction is harming or potentially harming a child.
Why do you not think it's reasonable for them to step in in case of vaccines?

Is there a particular amount of risk you're happy to expose children (and others if herd immunity is compromised) to? Why extend that to vaccines but not seat-belts?

The issue is one of the extend to which someone is in immediate peril. If you parents are abusing you, that test is met. If they decide not to vaccinate you, it isn't.

Can we recall that half of the reason that consent is required is to reduce the liability of the medical profession when things go wrong?

And do bear in mind the full range of issues on which we might intervene. You've mentioned seatbelts, where there are rules. Should the State intervene on diet, and close down McDonalds? There's legislation in process (or maybe it's passed by now) prohibiting female circumcision, but not male circumcision, despite the fact that we've documented cases of infant boys dying as a result of circumcision, but not a single documented case of any infant girl being subjected to the practice within the State. What's that all about? Should we stop parents from getting their toddler girls' ears pierced?

There's all kinds of issues out there, and what's common to them is the need to establish just why someone else can turn up in your life and tell you what to do. And just because the fecker knows more than you doesn't mean they'll make the best decision for you.

Anyway, all that's to say that I'll take medical advice, but that's what it is - advice.

Gbear

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And do bear in mind the full range of issues on which we might intervene. You've mentioned seatbelts, where there are rules. Should the State intervene on diet, and close down McDonalds? There's legislation in process (or maybe it's passed by now) prohibiting female circumcision, but not male circumcision, despite the fact that we've documented cases of infant boys dying as a result of circumcision, but not a single documented case of any infant girl being subjected to the practice within the State. What's that all about? Should we stop parents from getting their toddler girls' ears pierced?

There's no reason to shut down McDonalds. There's certainly scope to at least to have a discussion on how much obesity we should be allowing parents to inflict upon their children. They're compromising their health just the same as if they punched them in the face.

As for circumcision, I think you'll find a majority on this forum that think that elective circumcision should be banned for those incapable of giving consent.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

There's all kinds of issues out there, and what's common to them is the need to establish just why someone else can turn up in your life and tell you what to do. And just because the fecker knows more than you doesn't mean they'll make the best decision for you.

It's not about telling you what to do. It's an acknowledgement by the state that people who don't have the capacity to self-determine - children - should get special protection.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Gbear wrote: »

It's an acknowledgement by the state that people who don't have the capacity to self-determine - children - should get special protection.

Well, it's more a question of who gives them the protection. Again, it's not that we can automatically depend on either the State or professionals to do a better job - even if, formally, expertise resides there.

The solution, which isn't something that can be effective overnight, is to increase the general competence of the population.

Behind all of this seems to be an excessive degree of faith in "science", as if the human institutions involved operated in some different way to human institutions like the Vatican.

Galvasean

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Behind all of this seems to be an excessive degree of faith in "science", as if the human institutions involved operated in some different way to human institutions like the Vatican.

While I get where you are coming from in this debate, that is a terrible comparison. Please, do not insult the debate by comparing science to the Vatican. All that does is undermine your own interesting points/opinions.

robindch

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Behind all of this seems to be an excessive degree of faith in "science", as if the human institutions involved operated in some different way to human institutions like the Vatican.

Not something one is likely to hear from somebody who understands either the Vatican or the scientific process

Gumbi

Faith? Science works.

Turtwig

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Behind all of this seems to be an excessive degree of faith in "science", as if the human institutions involved operated in some different way to human institutions like the Vatican.

Religious types tend to love to conflate the word faith and trust. So let's be absolutely clear before continuing :Religious faith requires active devotion, through prayer, sacraments and reflection. Faith in the guise of trust on the other hand just requires people to trust in the honesty and integrity of an organisation. Kind of like what a lover does with their partner.

Assuming both organisations are 100% integral. The difference in philosophies of the organisations sticks out a like a sore thumb. The Vatican is a religious organisation it would rather you accept things without doubting them. You can doubt them but you're encouraged not to. Science on the other hand is built on the principle and virtue of doubting stuff. As long as you don't attack the strawman then good rigorous skepticism contrary to the consensus will always be welcomed.

But then again I did say assuming 100% integrity didn't I?

Gumbi wrote: »

Faith? Science works.

How do you know science works though? Is your measure of it "working" purely based on pragmatic principles? Just because you have computers, you have cars, you have modern medicine doesn't actually mean science is working. It might be leading us further away from the actual truth which for all intents and purposes could be something metaphysical or some other concept that we've yet to even imagine. Assuming that something is true because it appears to work is actually a big assumption to make. You could use Ptolemy's model of the solar system to predict the location of stars, or to navigate the globe with a great degree of accuracy. Yet, even though the model works perfectly for these and many other types of observations, uses and measurements it still had every object in the solar system placed in orbit around the Earth. In other words, it was wrong but it worked so darn well we couldn't tell the difference for years. The same may be true of modern science today.

Gbear

Jernal wrote: »

It might be leading us further away from the actual truth which for all intents and purposes could be something metaphysical or some other concept that we've yet to even imagine. Assuming that something is true because it appears to work is actually a big assumption to make. You could use Ptolemy's model of the solar system to predict the location of stars, or to navigate the globe with a great degree of accuracy. Yet, even though the model works perfectly for these and many other types of observations, uses and measurements it still had every object in the solar system placed in orbit around the Earth. In other words, it was wrong but it worked so darn well we couldn't tell the difference for years. The same may be true of modern science today.

The power of science is that it doesn't actually matter if something is absolutely and objectively true (if such a thing truly exists).
If a scientific model is accurate enough to make testable predictions and have practical applications that consistently work then it doesn't actually matter if it'll be rendered redundant or obsolete later down the line. It provides a reliable mechanism to achieve something and that's all that matters.

One such thing are vaccines. They've worked in the past and will probably continue to be an integral part of medicine in the future, even if germ theory was to undergo some radical redesign.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

While this is undoubtedly true, what is the alternative but to go with the best available knowledge? I mean conventional wisdom and science would tell me not to drink a beaker of sulfuric acid. saying, "Conventional wisdom and science have been wrong before" won' stop me from hurting myself. Sometimes (well most times to be honest) it is good practice to trust the experts.

Trusting the experts is fine that's why they're the experts after all but it's best not to blindly trust them. Suppose it was the other way around, conventional wisdom thinks drinking household bleach is good for you. (Nightmarish scenario of Miracle Mineral Solution becoming mainstream, for instance. :eek:). Do some research yourself and make an informed opinion on it. That's the best you can ever do.

coffee_cake

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And do bear in mind the full range of issues on which we might intervene. You've mentioned seatbelts, where there are rules. Should the State intervene on diet, and close down McDonalds?

Absolutely not, it should mind its own business

Turtwig

Gbear wrote: »

The power of science is that it doesn't actually matter if something is absolutely and objectively true (if such a thing truly exists).
If a scientific model is accurate enough to make testable predictions and have practical applications that consistently work then it doesn't actually matter if it'll be rendered redundant or obsolete later down the line. It provides a reliable mechanism to achieve something and that's all that matters.

One such thing are vaccines. They've worked in the past and will probably continue to be an integral part of medicine in the future, even if germ theory was to undergo some radical redesign.

What if there's an unforeseen but obvious side effect to vaccines that screws up something else that we're just not aware of? You could also get pedantic then and start pointing out that vaccines might only have worked by a fluke. Anyway this is kind of irrelevant. My point was that the Gumbi was claiming science works, we won't ever know if it does and that's actually the very principle of science at the moment : assume it's wrong and strive to be less wrong in the next iteration. We can't ever say science works. Even though we like to believe it does.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Galvasean wrote: »

While I get where you are coming from in this debate, that is a terrible comparison. Please, do not insult the debate by comparing science to the Vatican. All that does is undermine your own interesting points/opinions.

In fairness, by using a term like "insult", you're highlighting why I make the comparison.

Jernal wrote: »

But then again I did say assuming 100% integrity didn't I?

You've absolutely put your finger on it.

If you were here, I'd hug you. Which would be rather embarrassing for both of us. But, seriously, the point is illustrated by the unease you can see on the thread over the gap between lofty statements of scientific aspirations and the grubby realties of what humans find they must do to get by.

As an aside, I think it's in "Rendevous with Rama" that Arthur C Clake has a sly dig at academic politics, where a mission is diverted to the new purpose of discovering what this mysterious alien craft is. It's not diverted out of a high-minded desire to expand human knowledge. The decision is taken by a group of steady-state physicists, likely to have their careers brought to an untimely end if the mission fulfilled it's original mission of confirming the Big Bang Theory.

Lantus

Most education as it is practised today in western society is concerned with funnelling people into specific jobs and roles so they can service society and ensure the monetary machine keeps going.

Education needs to become much more relevant. We must start teaching our children key issues like agriculture, how food grows, how we can do it better, what we eat, nutrition, human behaviour, understanding why people do things and of course science and technology.

doctoremma

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If the case for MMR is 'conclusive', then it truly is unique as the only example of something that is perfectly certain.

My use of quotation marks around "conclusive" was to indicate that I am asserting it as a "conclusion" in so far as anything determined experimentally in science can be assumed to be a "conclusion". This renders the middle section of your post moot.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The one (nearly) certain thing in this discussion is, if there is a near certain case for the MMR, and if a large number of people either don't accept or don't understand the case, the failure is in the supporters of the vaccination to put their case.

I disagree.

People don't accept the case for MMR because of a single flawed study, widely publicised in the popular media and planting the seeds of doubt for a whole generation of parents. If someone asks me about MMR, I have a "set of facts" that I am happy to chat through with them. These detail the failings of the original study, the retraction of the original study (which renders it not just an unfortunate mistake in scientific history but removes it from the public record as valid data as if it had never been published), the subsequent removal of fitness to practice by the lead researcher, the numerous studies which have entirely discredited the original, the lack of any study to back up the original.

Please, I'm genuinely all ears, what more can be done? I cannot undo the multiple tabloid headlines that declared science to have failed our children, I cannot break down the very human mindset that will always suspect that there is "no smoke without fire".

I know what might help. Popular media, which is largely where the general public get their science news, could have done their bit. Could still do their bit, to be honest.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

My use of quotation marks around "conclusive" was to indicate that I am asserting it as a "conclusion" in so far as anything determined experimentally in science can be assumed to be a "conclusion". This renders the middle section of your post moot.



I disagree.

People don't accept the case for MMR because of a single flawed study, widely publicised in the popular media and planting the seeds of doubt for a whole generation of parents. If someone asks me about MMR, I have a "set of facts" that I am happy to chat through with them. These detail the failings of the original study, the retraction of the original study (which renders it not just an unfortunate mistake in scientific history but removes it from the public record as valid data as if it had never been published), the subsequent removal of fitness to practice by the lead researcher, the numerous studies which have entirely discredited the original, the lack of any study to back up the original.

Please, I'm genuinely all ears, what more can be done? I cannot undo the multiple tabloid headlines that declared science to have failed our children, I cannot break down the very human mindset that will always suspect that there is "no smoke without fire".

I know what might help. Popular media, which is largely where the general public get their science news, could have done their bit. Could still do their bit, to be honest.

I expect there is no killer argument - some point that can be made in some way to convince people. However, what you need to do is take a step back and see the broader picture that you are standing in. Folk are used to all kinds of experts telling them all kinds of things, and to it being found that these experts know less than they claim.

The point is that when a doctor is found to be unsound, and a scientific publication is found to be pure fiction, it undermines the authority of all doctors and publications. You may have experienced this loss of confidence - but I'm not sure that you've joined all the dots. You seem to be expecting people to have the same faith in medical advice about MMR that they would have if there had never been a clear case of wrong advice.

And I don't think there's a simple or immediate solution. The path back from loss of trust is many years of displaying that future trust is not misplaced. I think that's the question.

doctoremma

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And I don't think there's a simple or immediate solution. The path back from loss of trust is many years of displaying that future trust is not misplaced. I think that's the question.

To clarify - I'm not a medic (just in case you thought differently).

I (sadly) agree with your points that regaining trust in public health policy (and in the supporting science) will take years to recover from such a blow.

However, something that maybe doesn't need to be said but worth try to tease out (and I'm not sure I'm going to do it well). Our conclusions about the MMR and it's total effects may never be definitive - such is science. However, the MMR is not a standalone supplement to a normally healthy lifestyle, where such a label might be applied to taking a holiday or necking some vitamin C. The MMR isn't "added value", it's (statistically) the better of two evils. The risks to morbidity and mortality associated with your child catching measles and suffering long term health effects are far higher than the risks associated with them having the MMR vaccination. Both "conclusions" - that MMR is safe and that measles can be very bad - were reached by similar processes of scientific study and analysis.

It's not "MMR .v. nothing bad", it's "risk of MMR .v. risk of measles". Lots of people, however, are fairly bad at processing particular risks (I still think planes fall out of the sky willy-nilly, for example). The risk ratios in this case are so hugely distorted, by both dreadful science and personal perception (well, I had the measles and I'm alright) that people are making bad choices. It's very frustrating, especially when people defend their right to make bad choices on behalf of their children. In many medical scenarios, we don't allow parents the option of bad choices for their child - why here?

ETA: I'm also aware that we are ignoring the option of single vaccinations, which obviously I think are unnecessary but I'd never try to push a parent to have MMR instead of singles (as long as they pay for it).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

doctoremma wrote: »

It's very frustrating, especially when people defend their right to make bad choices on behalf of their children. In many medical scenarios, we don't allow parents the option of bad choices for their child - why here?

I think the point is we only take decisions out of the hands of parents when the need is absolutely critical and the threat of harm is large and immediate – like those cases where a person may refuse a blood transfusion for a child on religious grounds.

And I think that’s right; it should only be in extreme circumstances, as the processes aren’t so good that the State (or professionals) will actually make a better job of it – however much it might seem so in theory. Bear in mind, we can google up a lengthy list of cases of where the State hasn’t exacted come up trumps in looking after the children in its care, without any annoying old parents getting in the way.

However, on a positive, I think you are on to a good point when you remind us that the point of these vaccinations is to protect use from ailments that can be very serious. A possible way of advancing things would be to remind people of what the success is – for the sake of argument, setting out how serious measles can be and maybe setting out how frequently serious cases arose in pre-vaccination days.

I’m not suggesting that this will change people’s minds immediately – some will simply see it as more spin. But I think there is a need to remind people that, despite all the human errors in execution, progress is being made.