Blog prompt 5

There is no doubt that vaccine-autism advocates are scientifically incorrect.  Not a single scientific study shows a correlation between vaccines and autism, and numerous studies demonstrate that the risk of injury from vaccination is far lower than the risk of disease from being unvaccinated.  But is it accurate to call vaccine-autism advocates scientifically illiterate, or ignorant?  After all, these individuals probably have done much more “research” on a scientific topic than most other individuals have.  What do the tendencies of vaccine-autism advocates to ignore scientific evidence, yet believe Jenny McCarthy, teach you as a science writer?  

First off, remember that the "vaccine -autism advocates" are in many cases not scientists themselves. They may be doctors, lawyers, politicians, celebrities, pirates, or pundits, but they are not themselves the ones doing the research on these subjects. So far as I know, no current studies are out there supporting a link from childhood vaccinations to developmental disorders and autistic progression. And all of the well known advocates such as Jenny McCarthy did not do "research" on the topic, seeing as they are not themselves diagnosticians or researching medical professionals. Even the advocates who are medical practitioners are practicing doctors, not researching. So they may see links, and they may even have found data to back up their position. But they themselves have done little to no experimentation on the data that they use as their supporting evidence. And that would be fine... were they english majors in college writing a paper on possible links between autism and vaccinations for, say, a class in science writing. But given that they attempt to change policy and definition of a number of things with their positions, it matters. Websters dictionary defines research as " studious inquiry or examination; especially : investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws." Thus research requires actually testing the data that you are using to support your position. Anything else falls more under the heading of "finding sources." 

In Totality, the fact that they are unwilling to follow what science says doesn't make the vaccine - autism advocates ignorant, or quite scientifically illiterate.  They obviously have come to a conclusion based upon some of the available data - cutting out other factors and data to suit their own position, however. They use scientific results, or at least semi scientific results and data to support themselves, so they cannot be completely functionally scientifically illiterate. Really what it means in the end is that they are unwilling to believe in other positions than their own. They are on the side of what is good and right, and therefore cannot be wrong. Sadly, an attitude that all too many people hold today, and there's really nothing that we can do about it. Proving them wrong doesn't work because they disregard data that does not work in their favor. They aren't illiterate scientifically, regularly illiterate, or even ignorant. The best way to term them, really is as "fanatics".