12 Dangerous Things Anti-Vaxxers Believe That Are Actually Child Abuse
3. It’s Only Science If It Agrees With Me: Part II
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, Storm
As with all species of science deniers, it would be an understatement to say that anti-vaxxers don’t understand the scientific method. The scientific method starts with an observation, a hypothesis is created based on that observation. An experiment is designed in such a way that reduces bias and confounding variables, this is done to ensure the data collected throughout the experiment is as impartial as possible and that data is then gathered and examined and conclusions are drawn. The important thing to remember is this: if the end result is completely different from the original hypothesis – the hypothesis is rejected as the evidence collected does not support it. The hypothesis changes based on new evidence.
The method anti-vaxxers use is a more faith-based method. A faith-based method is one that works by a person holding a viewpoint of the world, where they dismiss all evidence against that view. If the evidence is contrary to their beliefs – they ignore it. It’s important to remember that while anti-vaxxers may use the language of science to market their ideas, they often refuse to accept the principles that underline the scientific method.
Faith-based methods of understanding the world works in a number of steps. Either the believer will already have a belief system in place or they will observe an event and draw a conclusion without critically thinking, this often happens when they confuse correlation and causation (the so-called vaccine-autism link for example). The believer will then search for information that further reinforces their original idea, a circle-jerk echo chamber of their own confirmation bias.
If you start from a conclusion and cherry pick or misinterpret data to suit your conclusion – you aren’t engaging in the scientific method, you’re not even engaging in logic - you’re engaging in belief protection. Especially when the only scientists you deem valuable are the ones who agree with you, while dismissing the rest as part of a conspiracy against you. Especially if your version of evidence is a fear-based blend of scientific illiteracy, logical fallacies and ego.