They react poorly when I patiently try to explain tha our conclusion that vaccines are safe and effective comes not from any one study, but from a confluence of hundreds, if not thousands, of studies all converging on the same conclusion. 2/
-
-
Show this thread
-
This fallacy, I think, comes from the often legalistic thinking, rather than scientific thinking, that cranks often engage in. For instance, in law, there is a principle known as falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means "false in one thing, false in everything." 3/
Show this thread -
In common law, it is the legal principle that a witness who testifies falsely about one matter is not credible to testify about any matter. 4/
Show this thread -
Antivaxers often misapply falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus to scientific studies, with a twist. To them, if one study doesn't support the scientific consensus that vaccines are safe and effective, it overthrows the scientific consensus that they are. 5/
Show this thread -
Of course, one study rarely is enough to overthrow a scientific consensus, and the stronger the scientific consensus the more is needed to throw it into doubt. Not all studies are created equal, and studies cited by cranks are often among the crappiest. 6/
Show this thread -
Understanding science means understanding how to weigh large quantities of scientific evidence, something antivaxers and other cranks often fail spectacularly at. 7/7
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's similar to the thought process of "My grandfather smoked until he died at 102, so smoking can't be harmful." Statistical analysis should be a mandatory part of high school math. (So should the scientific method, but that supposedly is already.)
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.