Tim - the "facts and evidence" suggest that "scientism" is a term popularised and used by many people who have a great deal of respect for said facts and evidence. They just suggest that there are areas where its paradigm is innapropriate.

Homeopathy advocate, and anti-vaccinationist!

Diana,
Because there are many unknowns it does not make consistent evidence supporting a theory invalid, inconsistent o wrong. But nor does it make competing conjectural theories with no evidence automatically valid.

Nor does it definitively prove the current hypothesis. Anyway I now realize that my mistake was forgetting Einstein's equation... that it is the mass and/or the energy of the particle that increases and therefore traps it in the black hole. QED.

Spot on, Laurie. Scientism at its best here, including the whining component. That is, using the science platform to make subjective arguments and blaming every other form of thought or being that somehow comes up against scientific 'truth'. And to Chernobyl we can add Nagasaki, where scientists made the decision to construct a weapon capable of killing millions of civilians in one go. Not to mention lovely ideological movements based on the 'reality' which science can show us where the stupidity of the masses could be dispelled by scientific reason and lead to the utopias of communism, nazism and/or eugenics. What was it that Marx said about religion? Something about it being the opium of the masses, yes? We are now asked for it to be replaced by scientism - lol. "Abandon ye all hope! The end of humanism is nigh! We have seen BigBang" (Did it really went "Bang!"? And how loud was it? Was it at that time that one went, "Oh, God! That was a bloody big bang! I saw it, therefore I now know that *I am*"?)
It isn't that many of us distrust science per se, science is merely a field of practice which focuses on objective reality, and makes subjective statements in respect to this reality, and about the (scientific) veracity of other non-scientific (and still subjective) interpretations of it. "You are likely to have a shorter life span if you're grossly overweight.**You should maintain 'normal' weight**. 'Normal' weight for you is ...". It is more that we don't trust some scientists, especially the uneducated ones (you know - the ones that know no philosophy, and equate prudence and ethics with religion). As for the older scientists being the problem, as argued in this article, what a lot of hogwash! Is the article actually arguing that scientists over 50 are not real scientists because they question scientism? Or is it that they represent a different generation of scientists, coming from a time where broader education was an expected part of their formative training?

Yes, but did it go "Bang!"? Or was it more like a high pitch screech? Would it freak you out if, upon finally interpreting the microwave background, it turns out to be Beethoven's Symphony No.9?

A little disingenuous there Alfred
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/images/ae43a.jpg

you're right, Sean Lamb, i wanted to keep it simple & address specifically the malicious claim that "scientists decided" to build the bomb & use it against japan, without burdening everyone with a mini essay in history.

as you know, and fairly call me out on, einstein & others urged president roosevelt to build the atomic bomb, because they knew the nazis would be working on one & the prospect of the nazis having the only atomic bomb during the war was too terrible to contemplate.

scientists lobbied for the atomic bomb to be built, as a deterrent against the nazis, and the president & commander in chief "decided" to build it.

again, i won't be telling you anything you don't know, but for the sake of completeness, i'll add, because its pertinent to rebutting the malicious claim "scientists decided", that, after the war in europe was won & the threat of a nazi bomb was over, many of the same scientists, who built the bomb as a deterrent against the nazis, now lobbied president truman to not use it against japan.

scientists, who built the atomic bombs as a deterrent against the nazis, lobbied for the bombs not to be used against japan and the president & commander in chief "decided" to use them against cities of no military value. -a.v.

Of course, we can all access the truth at 'truth2be.net', it's just so illuminating!

thanks for the plug, Mark, much appreciated

Actually I didn't know a small number of scientists compiled the Franck report - quite interesting. So thanks for pointing it out.
As for this
"the prospect of the nazis having the only atomic bomb during the war was too terrible to contemplate. "
You know I think it very unlikely that either the Allies or Germany would have used the nuclear bomb on each - except possibly in a tactical sense. After Dresden they rather backed away from wholesale tactic of destroying cities in terror bombings.
You might be aware of the play Copenhagen which people often hint as being a dramatic depiction of a true but concealed history - which talks about leading German physicists sabotaging the pursuit of nuclear weapons. There are also a lot of interesting secret recordings of conversations by German nuclear scientists held in captivity in Britain.
One interesting indication of a possible reluctance to use nuclear weapons can be found here
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/sunrise.pdf
“our situation is desperate, nobody dares tell truth to Fuehrer who surrounded by small group of advisers who still believe in a last specific secret weapon which they call ‘Verzweiflunge’ weapon. Emperor believed this weapon can prolong war but not decide it, but might cause terrible blood bath on both sides. Emperor said if Fuehrer gave him order to use weapon he would surrender his command.” I think Emperor is code name for Kesselring, but it might be Karl Wolff.
If there was such a weapon, this was long after the deployment of V-2, presumably it must of remained undeployed. What it was, or if was a fantasy, I don't know. But it shows that there was real reluctance on the part of the Wehrmacht to use weapons on a scale of the destruction of nuclear weapons even if the alternative was surrender - regardless if the weapon actually existed or not.

Of course if you are interested in chasing this counterfactual history still further you might try googling "Sereny Akte", the first hit will lead you to a site you might find rather dodgy. But it contains a facsimile of a document: either a genuine document or a genuine fake document that might provide the answer. I should add the document was procured by a gentleman whose name a decade later became synonymous with fakes, but at this stage it was not. And if it is a fake - as the general consensus says, it is an extremely clever fake.

you might like to look at gavriel d. rosenfeld, "the world hitler never made: alternate history & the memory of nazism", cambridge, 2005. a serious study by an american historian of some 200 or more alternative histories written by british, american, german, french, czech writers from 1939 to the present. len deighton, philip k. dick, and many more; novels, short stories, comics, plays, and t.v. dramas.

i think its highly likely the nazis would have used the atomic bomb if they'd developed it before the americans and before they were defeated & still had means to deploy it. by the time dresden was bombed, arguably unnecessarily, the germans were well & truly beaten. i believe the atomic bomb would not have been used by the americans in europe & it was used against japan because of the racial nature of the war in the pacific. see john dower, "war without mercy: race & power in the pacific war", new york, 1986.

i have not yet read "copenhagen" but it has been suspected for some time that heisenberg worked to undermine the nazi atomic bomb effort. his colleagues in the united states were not aware of this & acted accordingly.

the american historian gar alperovitz in his study "atomic diplomacy: hiroshima and potsdam", new york, 1965, using sources not available to earlier historians, concluded that president truman decided to use the atomic bombs on japan in order to intimidate the russians. you may not be aware but admiral halsey, advised president truman in 1945 that the u.s. army could be demobilized & that the navy could bring about the defeat of japan, with no loss of life, by means of naval blockade & vomvardment alone. some historians have suggested dresden was bombed not for its railway yards but to make a point to the russians about anglo-american power to resist any russian advance towards western europe. -a.v.

There is been better work since Gar Alperovitz.
The best is Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, who concludes that the Soviet entry into the war was probably had greater impact on the thinking of the Japanese govt based on available documentation than Hiroshima. Of course America could have ended hostilities with Japan without either, but it was seeking unconditional surrender - a pretty tall order without actual invasion. What Hasegawa suggests is the Japanese agreed to American occupation and unconditional surrender because they were afraid they might otherwise get Soviet occupation. Its worth considering that had the Americans not been so keen to test the bomb and more interested in a little diplomacy, they could have avoided both besmirching their reputation and the Korean War (and we wouldn't have the Kim Jong dynasty today).

Obviously Dresden wasn't bombed for its railyards, there is plenty of evidence that it was conceived and executed as deliberate terror strategy. There are some quotes at the time about giving the Soviets some indications about Allied air power - but it would be absurd to see that as primary motivation.

fair enough, Sean Lamb, as you've surmised i have no specific gripe with you on this one, only with individuals who maliciously attribute to scientists decisions they didn't make & who claim holocaust denial is a form of knowledge, as a lie is not a form of knowledge, it is a misrepresentation of knowledge. anyway, you clearly know your stuff & i think we have digressed enough on a topic tangential to the thread. nice talking with you & thanks for the reference to hasegawa; i will keep an eye out & check dower's bibliography when i get home. i heartily recommend to you rosenfeld & dower, who, unike alperovitz, knows japanese. -a.v.

" i have no specific gripe with you on this one, only with individuals who maliciously attribute to scientists decisions they didn't make & who claim holocaust denial is a form of knowledge, as a lie is not a form of knowledge, it is a misrepresentation of knowledge"
Who is the malicious individual here, a.v.? Methinks is the one who simply lies and misrepresents what the other said. But if it makes you feel good, go for it. For myself, I rather try to respect divergent views, though I may not agree with, or even despise, them. For whatever sick reason, you seem to take pleasure in misrepresenting my argument (and that of others). But no matter. It doesn't change the point I am making. I am not criticising science or scientists, only those who have no ethical boundaries and use their knowledge, sometimes at the bidding of others, to knowingly create destruction and harm, or to push their ideological view onto others. I maintain these are despicable human beings. You go ahead and defend them, it indicates the patina of your character.
In the event, we should never forget that there are victories of the soul and spirit. Sometimes, even if you lose, you win.

yeah, whatever. -a.v.

I wouldn't rule it out....

Seriously how cool would that be

Beethoven's Symphony No.9? In the cosmic microwave patterns? I'm absolutely certain it's there. All we need do is use our imagination ... after all, that's what created this precious musical jewel in the first place Wasn't it Einstein who said, "Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere"? And where would the Reasonably High Pitch "Hummmm" theory be without Einstein? Indeed, where would Einstein's warm humanity be without Beethoven's imagination? Eh? :`)
But in essence I agree with you, it would be way beyond cool!

I'd be happy with any concerto, polka, waltz, symphony....but Beethoven would be wickedly poetic.

Still even if it's not (and it's a pretty sure bet it's not, though I'm not ruling it out just yet) some other gifted musician will probably turn the maths of it into a symphony. Or perhaps even death metal, complete with four minute solos and double kick drums....

Oh, the music of the spheres indeed.

I think it is a neccesary component of science that it is admissable for one to dis-believe.

The attitude of doubt is what drives science forward. Major advances can come from not believing that any given account is the final word.

The attitude of "certainity" is often a brake on inquiry, not a spur.

The criticism you state above ultimately relies on what your concept of "belief" is. While I would suggest that ignoring, or flatly denying, science is not advisable, science still requires us to "believe" things.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/belief/

"Water is just hydrogen and oxygen, in a fixed ratio" And you would simply die without it, eh? Tell me, before we knew that water is H2O, did we not know that we would die without it?
Knowledge is valuable, even when it isn't scientific knowledge.

Very good, Sue. You're getting somewhere. Thank you for playing along. Now please be patient and try the next step. Think about this statement: Scientists should not be arrogant and disrespectful of other knowledge and ways of knowing.
The examples you gave are nonsensical for a specific reason. Whatever you think of them, they represent forms of knowledge, no matter whether wrong or correct. I personally don't believe homeopathy works, or the thesis the Holocaust never happened. However, though I respectfully disagree, I understand these as different forms of knowledge, and I don't patronise and ridicule people for holding it. Do you spot the way in which you and I differ here? If you do employ this form of disrespectful communication, then don't complain if you get ridiculed and demeaned in return. Possession of knowledge does not give you license to ridicule others for their beliefs. You then become a practitioner of scientism - the use of of science as ideology. I disagree also that dehydration is a disease, but you're entitled to hold this opinion.

example of (according to the reality which Mark inhabits) unmitigated piffle: http://www.kullillaart.com.au/default.asp?PageID=47&n=The+Great+Watersnake+of+Nagamaru
let me also thank you again for mentioning my modest website before, Mark. I have just checked and there were 15 visits to it since your plug here.

I rest my case, Mark. You're incapable of staying on topic, but since obviously your aim is to be as obnoxious as you possibly can, changing your story comes easily to you. As a matter of fact, I am no more an 'anti-homosexual' than I am anti-anyone who makes nonsensical accusations. I simply pity them, they must have such limited perspectives on life, justice and dignity. Not that you would understand the difference, but I stand against homosexualism (the ideology that homosexuality is the same as heterosexuality, the institutions of the latter to be undermined and overthrown as the predominant sexuality). But I am certain the nuance escapes you, which is not surprising where hate and ignorance underpin personal views of the world. Such views, like pieces of junk metal, are easily magnetised by hateful movements. You shouldn’t act as a spokesperson for someone who’s trying to impose [their] will on you.
In the event, please continue to promote my little website (truth2be.net), I am thrilled that it gives you belly laughs, I expect no more from a person of your caliber.

Thanks for your pity, Mrs Ng, but, I don't need it!

As for not being anti 'homosexualist', if you have black feathers, fly backwards to keep the sun out of your eyes, and cry 'caw, caw' you're likely to be called a crow!

Thanks for this additional plug, Mark, even though you might think you're doing an expose of me. I must tell you that the website is doing really well since you have taken to plugging my modest website. Sincere thanks!
Since you went to such length to selectively quote from an entry on my blog, here, let me complete the quotation thread so that others can get a more complete picture of the exchange. I said in return:
"But you don't have to, Mark, you seem to do quite well here, promoting one particular view and complaining about and asking for other people's comments to be deleted. You got it made! ..."
I am perplexed by your apparent need to focus on my statement that I am a spiritual person and I value life, and so on? Is it wrong to be so? Would these values exclude me from working, say, as a nurse within an obstetrics department looking after mothers and their babies? But if you wish to have an exchange on my views on homosexualism, I am happy to do it. However, it is off topic here, and so perhaps we can take it to my website, truth2be.net. I will open the comments just for you. Or you can suggest another site where we can have an open discussion, even though it seems this is a foreign concept for you. But please don't misunderstand me, go on and cite my website as often as you like.

"But you don't have to, Mark, you seem to do quite well here, promoting one particular view and complaining about and asking for other people's comments to be deleted. You got it made! ..."

Your nasty, vindictive, personal attack on Dr Harrigan was flagged (by me, as I admitted, but others may also have flagged, as well). Your comment was removed, and you were notified by email, which you have graciously reproduced on your web-site.

You consistently fail to be able to comprehend scientific literature, yet defend you own position by citing essays and articles which are no more than opinion pieces. Whenever this is pointed out your fall back position is to question the intelligence of others. You believe that research scientists with a string of degrees and publications are stupid because they haven't studied philosophy.

You've made it pretty clear that you believe that I'm one of the more stupid who bother to comment. I only hope that truth2be gets plenty of hits, as this seems to be the only way you gauge the quality of this site.

I am nasty because I resisted the continuous targeting and hounding by Harrigan, and ridiculed him back for doing so? I may post a longer response to this question on my website over the next few days, but let me just mention a couple of things here. Anyone can go to Harrigan's profile here: https://theconversation.edu.au/profiles/mark-harrigan-1790 and read the kind of aggressive and demeaning comments he makes in response to other people's opinions and contributions, one can see clearly that I am certainly not the only one he targets. You can also see that some of his comments have been removed - I wonder why don't you mention this, Mark? One can also see some specific examples I linked to on my site, here http://www.truth2be.net/1/post/2012/12/harrigan-heres-our-exchange-on-the-conversation-today.html, which shows that Harrigan went on other sites to do the same thing.
I am not sure whether you have realise this, but you have also targeted me with unsolicited and snide remarks. Why don't you retrace your postings here and other threads and see who, in all honesty, provoked whom? Is there any reason for behaving so uncivilly? Even if you disagree forcefully with someone, even if you dislike them or whatever, you will be amazed how far you can conduct a conversation with them if you maintain civility. Anyway, give us an example where I failed to comprehend scientific articles. Making such a statement when you have absolutely no idea who I am or what my training/education is, don't you think it's a bit unwise to make such a statement?
And lastly, I have not uploaded the full correspondence I had with The Conversation's editors on my site, nor do I intend to at this stage. I can assure you though that more was said behind the scenes than you imagine. At this stage, I don't think I have any more to say to you, please feel free to snipe and ridicule me wherever I comment, from this point onwards I am largely going to ignore you. (But please feel free to promote my website, many thanks for continuing to do so).

Sean
I think you're talking about objective facts. You don't need 'science' to make sense of the objective facts around you. For hundreds of thousands of years humanity made sense of the physical world around them without science, but through the ability to develop culture and so a system of symbolic meanings to explain their objective reality, and to convey this culture as knowledge from generation to generation. It wasn't simply 'if you don't drink water, you die', but entire stories of how to reach the water supplies, how to defend them, traditional laws on sharing and use, and so on - i.e., it was sapience not science. So in terms of the survival of our species, this was the true knowledge which ensured our survival and progress towards becoming the dominant species on this planet, it was the bull*** and the superstition which actually got us here, it was sapience, not science, which made us into what we are. Without it you and I would not be here discussing how we are entirely homo scientificus, rather than homo sapiens. I have watched many, many toddlers explore the world. If it wasn't for adults caring for them, most of them would have probably met with very dire consequences if left on their own to 'experiment'. If you know anything about cognitive development, you'd know that children learn mostly through play - i.e., they practice knowledge passed on to them by adults, in a progressive way and as they develop. Only through formal education do we learn the scientific explanation for water. And only in the last three or four hundred years have we gained the ability to develop science.

Are you confusing 'modern science' with philosophy? Plato did science, did he? Aristotle, if I remember correctly, talked about three dimensions to human knowledge, episteme, techne and phronesis - something modern science ain't, that's for sure. Thales was a philosopher, early mathematics was one of his trades, geometry and such. Empirical observations, though obviously part of it, are not the same as experimental science, hypothesis construction and testing, manipulating the independent variable, using control groups, replication, and so on. Science means knowledge in Latin, so the Greek philosophers didn't even employ the word. The Romans referred to knowledge in a different way, it was reliable knowledge, hence other than scientific knowledge was included. For instance, when referring to the art of politics, and how to win votes on the floor of the Senate or the Republic. Or in Aristotle's philosophy, knowledge of prudence that leads to the good society. Slightly more complex than the reductionist and simplistic picture you've plonked down for us. Perhaps you ought to read your source (Wikipedia) more closely; I suggest starting with the actual meaning of 'knowledge' in early European philosophy, then progress to modern science. See how natural sciences (i.e., the source of modern science) derives from philosophy?

An addendum: I had a few words to say about this little discussion on my website, here: http://www.truth2be.net/1/post/2013/01/crocamey.html
Enjoy!

Oh, joy, the great, and highly intellectual Dania Ng has deigned to mention me in her blog ( I think I may have had more words written about me then Dr Harrigan).

Crocoamey, how clever!!

Mate if you're such a history buff, please advise on why people like Galileo were treated as they were considering, in your opinion at least, "it was the bull*** and the superstition which actually got us here"

I don't understand the question, sorry. If you mean the disrespect which some scientists have for other forms of knowledge, then I can only reiterate my view that the climb by humans to the top of all living matter on Earth is largely due to human endeavours that had nothing to do with science. It may hurt the feelings of some, but it was largely culture which made us into sapient beings, and which finally enabled us to do science. Without belief in Gods, magic, symbolic meanings, traditions, politics, arts and crafts, we would not have found a need to developed complex language (and so certain logic) and thus we wouldn't have developed the intellect and capacity to eventually do science - we wouldn't have the brain we now have, see? There may be immense amount of scientistic tooth gnashing and mountains of vitriol being generated as we speak, because of me daring to utter this simple objective fact, but there it is! If I didn't answer your question, please fell free to ask it again.

Oh good I wasn't sure how much was my imagination or not

Does Turoks model suggest that our universe is a black hole

I reckon the universe is a self generating black hole
The black holes inside our universe contain the matter that is outside our universe and feeds it
And vice versa

Tim and Michael,
The main question that is not answered in the debunking of Plasma cosmology is the weakness of gravity compared to electromagnetism. 10 to 39th power weaker. Please enlighten me as to how gravity can overcome electricity.
Also on another thing altogether, surely if as Stephen Hawking says time did not exist before the BB then how can it exist now? I guess it exists only in the egoic mind.

Thank you for that answer Tim, it reminds me of my foolish younger days when I would try to argue with priests. They would always say they did not have to prove the existence of god and would quote reams of published authority in Bibles and commentaries etc. They never used a common sense line. Certainly they would have loved BB theory it fits very well for those who believe in a higher power and strings are the number of angels on the head of a pin.
I actually do not really subscribe to any cosmological theory. I do not see time existing and the only moment that can be known is the present. The past and future are just thought forms as are all theories.
There, now you can dismiss me as just a crank and can congratulate yourself on your belief system and not self investigate "who am I" to find out what you really are.

If you do not understand that "informed by science" is a belief system or thought form then I feel sorry for you as it is obviously very hard for you to see beyond your beliefs and the belief that you have no beliefs is a belief in itself.

The author of this article and people like Timmy here are typical of those who subsitute Scientism (really a form of fascist fetishism) for the real deal. They do not appear to grasp that their petulant views actually undermine the spirit of REAL science.
Cultural Anthropologists have already had a field day with their mind-set, which as we can clearly see, is too fixed to allow any form of balance.

Someone claims to have found one filament -- a lot more has to be put forward than that in order to substantiate the theory, not to mention Dark Energy, Tim. And in keeping with your die-hard Skeptic attitude, please show us where this finding has been duplicated in numerous other research facilities? Your claims are not proven by robust evidence, which means you are operating from confirmation bias. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Again, we're just talking theory.
It seems that anyone who disagrees with your philosophy or opinions of astrophysics, etc. gets labelled as being "against science and knowledge"... Cute. Next you can claim that anyone who uses firewood is "against" trees or that someone who squashes a bug is "anti-life".
I guess that's what Scientism is all about.

It is unclear why you draw on a system of belief to explain another, Zoe. It represents an agenda, I take it? Since, in essence, scientism is an ideology (i.e., a system of belief), what purpose is there not to use a secular (and therefore less subjective) definition instead? E.g.:
"Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientifc worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth" http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/gengloss/sciism-body.html
The article at this URL is worth a read: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism The author, Prof A.L.Hughes ends with this observation:
"Continued insistence on the universal competence of science will serve only to undermine the credibility of science as a whole. The ultimate outcome will be an increase of radical skepticism that questions the ability of science to address even the questions legitimately within its sphere of competence. One longs for a new Enlightenment to puncture the pretensions of this latest superstition"
The one thing that I have a problem with is the use of science as a means to demean all views of reality. When one states this, there are some who will take upon themselves to misrepresent you. They immediately state that you're against science, and anything you dare to utter is rubbished. The history is replete with examples of things going awry when we begin to use science only as a model for organising social life, rather than as a method for gaining understanding of our objective reality. Real scientists are those who understand the difference between science as a method and science as ideology. In this sense it has nothing to do with religion, but with how some scientists choose to employ knowledge derived from the use of the scientific method. It is also unethical to bag people for their views. I see that Prof Brown has responded in to questions here a most civil manner, and patiently attempted to explain his work and findings, which is something that I personally found admirable (even though I freely admit that I had a go at making fun of Ms BigBang). But what I find unethical is the use of his scientific findings and stature as a means to underpin an attack on groups of people holding to divergent views about matters that are under broader social debate. I actually agree with him on a number of things (like the veracity and appropriateness of vaccination), but I feel extremely uneasy by the mobbing his article unleashed from the less able to distinguish between facts and the necessity to use these facts to demean other people for their (sincerely held) views. In this sense, his perspective becomes scientism, and unless he distances himself from the effects of his writing, then I am afraid that by definition, he becomes a practitioner of scientism - which is a pity. Voltaire's well-known adage, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it", is always worth remembering. Here's another: "“Never take a person's dignity: it is worth everything to them, and nothing to you” (Frank Barron).
Trying to link a definition of what is, after all, an '-ism' (ideology) to religion is not nice, especially as the term has been developed by philosophers.

"I suspect the definition though is due to misapprehension of the facts, in turn due to ignorance about science."
Not my definition, Zoe, I suggest you argue with the likes of A.L.Hughes [http://www.biol.sc.edu/faculty/hughes]; funny that he doesn't know what science is, yet has written hundreds of scientific papers. I suggest reading his paper, linked to in my previous post. Also, truth is a human invention, it doesn't exist by itself. It is a power construct in most cases, an arrangement of objective facts. It helps to distinguish between truth and objective facts, if only to begin to understand the difference between scientism and science.

Bruce,

Chris Mooney, the author of your link, has a limited understanding of what science is or how it works. His stated expectation of how scientists pursue their calling is best described as contra-science.

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=10221

http://www.countingcats.com/?p=11732

Tim,

Ok, so you know nothing of Jo Nova, that’s fine by me. However, try having a look at the original DeSmog Blog article, and the analysis of it at the links I gave. Your comment about Jo Nova is about as irrelevant to the issue as one could get, given that she is merely mentioned in passing on one of the posts and otherwise not referred to.

I admit, I saw "via Jo Nova" and assumed the article was a reblog from her site. I stand by my comments about her, she is nothing but a stupid science denialist.

As to the "why we don't believe science" this has been discussed well in this article and in others, such as Stephen Lewendowsky's articles. There is also plenty of cognitive science on this, especially about how myths become ingrained in the mind. I can't speak to Chris Mooney's credentials, but his article isn't wrong in its statements and conclusions.

"his article isn't wrong in its statements and conclusions."

Other than for demonstrating that he doesn't know what science is or how it works.

this chris mooney?:-
"the republican war on science", basic books, 2005
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science

"the republican brain: the science of why they deny science & reality", wiley, 2012
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_Brain

I hope you have read the Geraint Lewis article in the Conversation today.

Yes, apparently the same bloke.

I’d heard of him, but having read the DeSmog item I looked around to see what else he had written. Apparently the anti science attitude of non progressives is a theme of his. However, after having read that article I have no expectation that any of his older stuff would be any better informed, regardless of how popular he may be.

First of all he acknowledges, as per the Yale Study, that sceptics tend to be more numerate and better informed than warmists, but can’t see the implications of this, and then he writes “ It’s funny how this high-level intellectual firepower is always used in service of debunking—rather than affirming or improving—mainstream science.” – clearly demonstrating that he has limited understanding of what science is, how it works or what constitutes scientific truth.

Even the title of his book demonstrates how one sided his thinking is. Consider, there is very little scientific argument against genetically modified foodstuffs, but the greens, and the progressive left in general, are close to hysterical in their opposition, rendering them, in the vernacular of this posting, ‘deniers’ on that particular topic. Then we have the progressive enthusiasm for wind power and their constant demand that we erect more bird chopping eco crucifixes across the country, in defiance of any rational examination of how economically and environmentally destructive they are. Then there is the green determination to pursue policies based on romanticism and sentimentality regardless of sound scientific advice – for instance, adopting policies which have the effect of maximising the number and intensity of uncontrolled fires. Consider their refusal in some areas to countenance controlled burning or to allow people to construct fire breaks on their property, thereby exacerbating the deaths, misery and property and environmental destruction when the fires, which have shaped the Australian ecosystems since forever, inevitably come along. I guess this makes Greens environmental science ‘deniers’ huh?

I suggest that many people here, including the author, don’t realise that the word ‘denier’ is itself pretty ant- scientific. Its use is a logical fallacy, an ad hom, and has no role in any discussion on science. The use of the word is, in itself, an act of denialism.

The idea that the progressive left is somehow pro science, while conservatives, libertarians and liberals are in some way anti science is clearly nothing but self-righteous twaddle which can’t survive thirty seconds rigorous examination.

the issue is not that "conservatives, libertarians and liberals "(?) are anti-science, the issue, specifically, is that english speaking conservatives are anti-science. german chancellor angela merkel, for example, is dyed-in-the-blue conservative, very numerate, and not at all skeptical about climate change science. there are two reasons for this: (1) angela merkel is a chemist by training, who speaks with her climate science adviser in equation, and (2) angela merkel is not an english speaking conservative & so does not, like stephen harper, or george w. bush, or tony abbott, debauch politics by rejecting climate science for purely party partisan advantage. -a.v.

"One thing I didn’t mention in my article is science deniers often falsely claim they are defending science. Deniers often state science is engaged in groupthink and suppresses alternative ideas/theories. However, many key issues and facts are missing from the deniers’ narrative"
Right there you have lost a large amount of goodwill on my part. Since you're so harping on about how terrible all these science 'deniers' are (and I think you're referring to those who rightly call ideological tripe hiding behind science as 'deniers'), and you're also pretty upset by the fact that some of the old codger scientists are still around to give you grief with their old-timer thinking, how about giving us an example (an informed one, not just your opinion) of how an argument on scientism falls down. Sit down and read carefully something like this (from a past-50s scientist): http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-folly-of-scientism Please take the argument and break it down for us so that we can clearly see how we should all abandon humanism and take up scientific truth as the ultimate dogma. In this way you'll be dealing with someone of your size for a change. You never know, he may even respond :) Unless you're able to do this, then my view is to stick to telling us about the Impressive Pop, and the wonders of the Universe as you see it from your vantage point as an astrophysicist, and leave the politics to someone else?

But Michael, you are focusing on the extremes. And this is translated by some into statements that EVERYTHING other than scientific facts or arguments ought to be discarded, or at least ridiculed. That's a gianormous difference. And as a scientist, you ought to know that generalising from one set of data to explain a whole range of non-observable phenomena ain't a good idea. I am not going to abandon my curiosity as to why some people feel so strongly as to go to the lengths they have to argue and oppose something or other. I certainly think it is a very bad idea not to vaccinate children. However, just as I am interested in your discoveries and theories, I am also interested in other forms of knowledge - whether they hold any validity for scientists like you or not. Science has argued successfully that we ought to vaccinate, I am certainly convinced that we ought to. But science needs to argue things case by case, because those practicing science are often wrong in their advice to the community. Yes, refusal to vaccinate can harm people, but so can scientific mistakes like saying that thalidomide is safe for pregnant women. People's capacity to observe are useful to them, and sometimes they actually make the correct decisions despite the advice to do the contrary they receive from 'experts'. For example, I have yet to have a seasonal flu injection. Why? Because every year I see friends and relatives get quite ill after the injection. Whereas I have managed to avoid bad cases of flu by taking care how I interact with people during the flu season. Likewise, I am going to give credence to people's experiences which, couched in non-scientific terms, inform me about reality just as well, and sometimes better, than scientific explanations. I will stick to the matter of vaccinations since we're on this subject and give you an example of the kind I mean here.
"According to Mary Alexander, author of a timely book, Calling the Shots: Childhood Vaccinations, it is not just MMR but all vaccinations that parents should be wary of. She didn't think twice about taking her two children for the new meningitis C injection in 2000. Her four-year-old son was fine, but two-year-old Florence reacted with three major febrile convulsions 36 hours later. All the doctors they saw denied any link between the fits and the injection. Mary then saw a marked deterioration in her previously healthy child. Florence's hair thinned and began to fall out. She became listless, tired and vulnerable to infections. She had eight fits over the next eight months, each longer and stronger than the last. "Both of my children had had fits before, but these were different, deeper and longer - the longest lasted 20 minutes. She went blue and needed resuscitating. I thought she was going to die." Tests for epilepsy proved negative. Florence contracted pneumonia and traces of meningitis were found in her blood, but still the medics denied that the vaccination could have been the cause.
Mary suddenly had a very sick child on her hands. "I watched her all the time for signs of a temperature, trying to ward off another convulsion. There were bottles of Calpol everywhere, in the car, the pram, my handbag. It was my only line ofdefence and a pathetic one at that." Her anxieties were compounded by guilt. Sickness is part of life, but there is a huge difference between accepting the risk of infection and consciously doing something to damage the health of one's child. "I felt so angry with myself because I hadn't researched this new vaccine properly - I just accepted it naively."" (Extract from a story here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/13/familyandrelationships.medicineandhealth).
It's worth reading the rest of the story only to see how homeopathy apparently helped this young person recover, whereas modern medicine just kept fudging and misleading the mother.
Now, obviously the medicos and other followers together with other acolytes of science will jump in here to say that this is probably an isolated case and then offer all sorts of examples of research which 'shows' how negligible the risk is. I would certainly go along with this advice because I happen to take science seriously despite all the mistakes made by those practicing it. But there will be others who will come in here and accuse the woman of being a nut job, a liar, a manipulator, and all sorts of other things simply because she has dared to contradict 'the science'. You see what I am saying here? And your article fanning this sort of mindless tripe is, to my mind, not right.
Lastly, your statement about abandoning pseudo-scientific ideas is very dangerous, and quite silly, really. I can tell you that I am old enough (alas, over 50, but sorry to say still kicking and annoying, as you can plainly see) to remember the Western medicine's ferocious attacks on acupuncture, or more recently on Chinese herbalism. And what did we learn afterwards? Medicine has certainly had its nose rubbed in it, so to speak. Or how about the old wives' tale that the herb St John's wort is an anti-depressant, which scientific research confirmed? Etc., etc.. You see why advising that we should abandon pseudo-science (i.e., other forms of knowledge) can be dangerous? I would also say it is unethical, but that's another argument. Anyway, I see you have sidestepped the challenge to respond to an articulate argument on scientism. I don't blame you.

Thanks Bruce, this is really interesting and useful information which I was not aware of. I am going to take it into account when the next flu season comes around, the flu needle is free at work so I may give it a try and see how I go. I'll keep a close eye on the time frames this time. It's not that I deny the usefulness of vaccines, I managed to get along without it all my life without much illness. I also take zinc and vitamin c supplements during the flu season (on a dr friend's advice) and these seem to help.

Fair enough, Michael. It would have been useful to specify that the article focuses on extremes, and provide a definition of what an extreme is in your view. I am not sure that you focused on 'behaviour', either.
Florence's story is more than anecdotal evidence, it is a human story. Her knowledge is valuable and to be respected, whether science rebuts her interpretations of what created the harm to her child, or supports it. I note that no one here expressed the slightest empathy for her, instead coldly labeling what she has to say 'anecdotal evidence'.
Thalidomide was invented by two German scientists, Wilhelm Kunz and Herbert Keller, working for the pharma company, Grunenthal. So the point I made remains, science produced thalidomide though of course science (well, medicine to be more precise) also eventually showed that it has disastrous effects when used for morning sickness in pregnant women. Science is also finding all sorts of other therapeutic uses for it. All this is not to condemn science, of course, but to make the point that it is sometimes employed in a way that it produces bad outcomes for society. It thus means that non-scientists have every right to be skeptical of preaching scientists, especially when they insist that we dismiss or devalue everything other than scientific knowledge, simply because everything else is not scientific knowledge! Not knowing science to the same extent that scientists do does not make one stupid or incapable of reason. I don't have to know much science to know when science is misapplied and misused. It's like when I take my car to the mechanic's. If they don't fix my steering properly and I keep veering off the road, I know that they didn't fix it properly, even if I don't have a clue how a steering box and wheel alignment work.
Lastly, how can scientists participate in science denial, it makes no sense. And, if we are going to criticise the climate change skeptics, as one example, why are we not more precise? They don't say that the climate is not warming, they are skeptical of whether it is caused by human activity. For the record, I think that climate warming is the result of our doing, though if someone with his/her name on 200 scientific books and articles in a relevant discipline comes up with a different argument, I will certainly listen. Sorry, but labels such as 'science denier' won't stop me from doing this.

Well, I am not defending the climate change skeptics, I think that if you look at everything I have contributed here, you'd agree that I said no such thing. I have done sufficient reading on the subject to make me turn my PC off at the wall when I finish with it, but thanks for the link - I'll have a look at it. What I am writing about is a tad more complex, it refers to how science can be used to underpin certain ideological views of the world, and to legitimise the marginalisation of individuals, whilst arrogantly maintaining that it is the only way of 'knowing'. I can't remember who said this: "Science can teach us how to feed everyone on the planet, but only politics can make millions starve to death". You can see it on these thread how science is being used to create politics of exclusion. You need only look at the nearest of Mark's comments here, they speak for themselves.

Michael,

You said: “as many sceptics did claim the Earth was cooling and now they largely have switched to the Earth isn't warming”

I am afraid the reality is a little more sophisticated than that. It is the case that sceptics were pointing out that the warming observed in the latter third of the 20th Century had ceased, while warmists continued talking as it it was still happening. During a period where the temperatures, although basically flatlined, were fluctuating slightly some people were pointing out that there was a slight downward trend, and, at the time, there was. All they were doing was pointing to the real world data in an effort to drag the discussion back to reality.

Dania is right, pretty much no one denies the reality of last centuries warming, on either side of the discussion. The debate is what caused it. This last sixteen years of no statistically significant increase in temperature is contrary to the forecasts, and unexplained by the ‘settled’ science. Not only is the warming not 'worse than we thought', as is so often claimed, but is is below the 95% confidence level. The measured warming is way below the bottom of the forecasts.

That the warming happened is not in dispute, there is so much evidence that one would have to be some sort of fantacist to deny this. However, this evidence of warming is often presented as if it is proof that CO2 caused it, when the reality is that evidence that CO2 increases had any significant role is pretty thin. Computer models are the codification of hypothesis, they are not observational evidence, and computer models are pretty much all we have to justify the policy decisions.

We need better than that.

"the positive use of science to formulate policy, and the misuse of science to formulate policy - that could be the subject of a very long essay"
There have been quite a few written already, Michael. The essence of modernity revolves around using science as the new religion. We now have "evidence-based" policy, politics which is based on 'the science says", and social programs that are just social engineering blindly shaped by complex statistical models. It isn't that the evidence or models are wrong in themselves, it's just that the science is often used selectively for political ends within very complex and fluid societal contexts - often leading to recipes for disaster.
Here's one perspective, http://www.nusap.org/kqa/Strand_Chapter%2016.pdf I am pleased to see that others note, "Knowledge is not only produced by science, and governance is more than deducing action from facts and preferences" (p.264) (Funtowicz S. and R. Strand, 2007, “Models of Science and Policy”, in Traavik, T. and Lim, L.C. (eds.) Biosafety First: Holistic Approaches to Risk and Uncertainty in Genetic Engineering and Genetically Modified Organisms, Trondheim, Norway: Tapir, pp 263-278)
Here's another one, which I like because it is a fairly reflective paper which employs a phronetic view of how science may be misused: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1142&context=usepapapers Here's a quote from this paper which I think encapsulates much of the stuff I have been saying in a round-about fashion:
"Normative science often is not perceptibly normative to policy makers or even to many scientists. The use of such science by scientists, however, is stealth policy advocacy even if its use is not intentional. As is argued by postmodernists, because all science is socially constructed, science is value driven and is, therefore, normative" (Lackey, T.R., 2007, "Science, Scientists, and Policy Advocacy", Conservation Biology, 21(1))

Michael, please do go and read some philosophy of science.

You mentioned this woman's children had convulsions prior to the vaccination and that Florence was tested for epilepsy and this was found negative

1. People can have seizures without having epilepsy
2. Convulsions are a sign of illness and in this case convlusions pre dated the vaccination (a pre existing condition)

We don't live in a world where effect precedes cause. Ergo, the vaccination did not cause the seizures.

Nonetheless, it sounds like Florence's condition got worse after vaccination. Perhaps this woman's children, having a pre existing condition, represent a sub set of the general population where that pre existing condition makes risks of neurological side effects to various agents more likely, in this case Meningitis C vaccine.

Several possibilities come to mind

1. The person giving the vaccine was not aware that the children had a pre-existing condition and did not ask. The mother (or other caregiver) did not tell them. Both are responsible, although it could be argued that the mother is less likely to know this would be important.
2. The person giving the vaccine was not aware that the children's pre-existing condition was relevant to situation and did not check. This person is responsible.
3. The person giving the vaccine had reviewed the information available, was aware of the pre-existing condition, and did not have any information suggesting there was a risk. The mother was therefore not aware either. Neither are responsible, and more research is required, or more accurate information given to doctors if this is a known variable but isn't being disseminated properly.

In any event, the pre existing condition played a role in what appears to be an adverse reaction, and people without that pre existing condition would be less likely to have that adverse reaction.

To then go around and (I'm not saying she did or you are, but it has happened) say that vaccines are bad and other people shouldn't vaccinate their kids is inaccurate. A lack of information - from where is undefined - is involved here, and it applies to a specific, pre existing condition that is probably uncommon in the general population and therefore does not apply to them.

Unfortunately, the anti-vaxx camp seems prone to not point out the role of pre existing conditions if and when it applies. This does two things 1) it leads other parents who aren't familiar with that possibility to not vaccinate when it is perfectly safe for their kids and those kids get sick 2) it leads people who are familiar with that possibility to think the anti-vaxxers are hysterical and irresponsible.

The consequences of both are that more people get sick than ought to, and the underlying problems, whatever they may actually be, remain unaddressed.

I see what you're arguing, but I am afraid I am not able to agree with the crux of the logic you present. If I may, let me paraphrase just one part of your comment, to indicate what I mean. You present the following argument:
"1. People can have seizures without having epilepsy 2. Convulsions are a sign of illness and in this case convlusions pre dated the vaccination (a pre existing condition) We don't live in a world where effect precedes cause. Ergo, the vaccination did not cause the seizures"
Here's another possible interpretation, which from my reading of the story is self-evidently more possible than yours. "1. People can have seizures because they have epilepsy 2. Convulsions are certainly a sign of an existing illness and in this case they have been aggravated by the vaccine. 3. We don't live in a world where effect precedes cause. Ergo, the vaccination quite likely caused an aggravation and increased frequency of seizures, and brought on other complications which have not previously existed".
However, I am glad that you later see at least some possibility that there can be other causes and factors at play in the real life dramas which shape people's views of their world. Don't get me wrong. I am certainly in favour of vaccination, but the nastiness and rancor directed at people who think otherwise exceeds calm scientific argument, it becomes scientism. This is what comes out for me - the hate and clear distaste, and I seldom see the scientists and medicos actually owning at least some of the issue. Instead they demonise a small group of people because they question their Almighty God of Science. The decent thing to do is to defend the former, not because I should necessarily agree with what they hold as truth, but because I respect their humanity and right to hold a different opinion. Science is demeaned by the scientism which is clearly at work here, so if you wish to defend science, then the first thing to do is to distance yourself from those who think they can tell everyone what to do and think, just because they are scientists.
I highly recommend this documentary: http://www.youtube.com/user/cslewisweb?feature=watch

"1. People can have seizures because they have epilepsy "

Not in this case. You specifically stated that Florence was tested for epilepsy and this test was negative. Her seizures were therefore non-epileptic.

http://www.epilepsyaustralia.net/FAQs/Frequently_Asked_Questions.aspx
Please read these FAQ, one question answered is "What is the difference between seizures, epilepsy & seizure disorders?"

As for the possibility of the vaccination aggravating an existing non-epipletic seizure disorder, I already stated that I think this was possible in Florence's case.

However, you've ignored the main thrust of my argument where it is possible - albeit not satisfactorily demonstrated - that the pre-existing disorder made her susceptible to a reaction that would simply NOT occur in the general population. And that it is the absence of clear information - between doctor and parent, and perhaps doctor and vaccine researchers - that would allow for such risk to go unchecked - should the increase in seizure activity be related to the vaccine at all.

Therefore, it is irresponsible to conclude that the vaccine caused seizures. We don't have clear evidence of that. We do, however, have enough information to say that - in susceptible populations with pre-existing conditions - it would be worth testing and reconsidering the possibilty of adverse reactions. It is NOT okay to generalise this to the broader population. It is NOT responsible to twist and distort this issue as though "vaccine = bad" and stop kids without pre-existing conditions from being protected from deadly diseases like meningitis.

You talk about hate and scientism coming from people who oppose the anti-vaxx people. I talk about communication and scientific methodology, and responsibility as well. If people have concerns about adverse reactions, those people need to make those concerns clear, and not frame it in such a way that it makes it sounds like a death trap for everyone, when really, it's a sub set of the population with a specific set of circumstances.

Because by over-generalising and demonising vaccines, the anti-vaxx people are spreading misinformation which is costing lives. Many, many more lives than are lost in the sub-set. Don't get me wrong, the lives in the sub-set are important. But this movement is IRRESPONSIBLE and negligent to the well being of children everywhere, and to the memory of their own children, because it is very very difficult to listen to hysterical ignorami who are preaching bullshit that is leading to the preventable deaths of children.

That is something to be angry about. Something to disrespect. Something to be genuinely opposed to.

However, I do agree, in the heat of the battle, the message is getting lost to the detriment of everyone.

Yes, you are right about the epilepsy condition existing for Florence, as reported. I was concentrating on the logic of the argument you presented initially, and took that to task. Even in light of this inaccuracy, I still disagree with your argument, which you reiterate:
"However, you've ignored the main thrust of my argument where it is possible - albeit not satisfactorily demonstrated - that the pre-existing disorder made her susceptible to a reaction that would simply NOT occur in the general population. And that it is the absence of clear information - between doctor and parent, and perhaps doctor and vaccine researchers - that would allow for such risk to go unchecked - should the increase in seizure activity be related to the vaccine at all"
Here I only need quote from the article to address the crux of your argument ("the absence of clear information - between doctor and parent, and perhaps doctor and vaccine researchers"):
"The vaccine pressure group Jabs has registered 2,000 vaccine-damaged children since January 1994. Of these, 1,800 are the result of MMR, 170 from the DTP triple and Hib and a handful from Hib alone or the flu jab. Some of the side effects - such as encephalitis, convulsions that can lead to epilepsy, and arthritis, primarily from the rubella vaccine - are even listed by the manufacturers of the drugs in their product sheets. Jabs also believes that vaccines can contribute to longer-term health problems such as eczema, asthma and allergies."
Now, it seems to me that you ought to argue instead that, rather than boo and deride these people as 'anti-vaxxers', the so-called scientists and medicos who engage in such despicable behaviour ought to do something about it. Starting with themselves. The thrust of your comment seem to be speculative, for instance, you state:
"I talk about communication and scientific methodology, and responsibility as well. If people have concerns about adverse reactions, those people need to make those concerns clear, and not frame it in such a way that it makes it sounds like a death trap for everyone, when really, it's a sub set of the population with a specific set of circumstances"
If you would like to continue a discussion about the issues raised by Florence's mother, Mary Alexander, then I suggest first reading the article I referred to initially, if you haven't already done so, here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/aug/13/familyandrelationships.medicineandhealth You may also want to have a quick look at the introductory passages from her book which Amazon allows access to, here: http://www.amazon.com/Calling-Shots-Childhood-Vaccination-Familys/dp/1843101335#reader_1843101335

Ok

From the article on the guardian

"Alexander and Jabs would like to see screening systems so that more vulnerable children can be identified, and the withdrawal of performance-related targets for GPs administering vaccines."

This is a reasonable proposition, although I'd like to see if these structural problems occur in Australia and not just the UK.

Those vulnerable children are also subset of the general population. Meaning that, for children who are not vulnerable, the vaccine should be safe. Unless of course, clinical trials for safety don't occur on vaccines. That would be surprising as well as concerning.

Back to the reasonable proposition. On this website, and others, I've read people from the anti-vaxx movement more generally not make this "subset" clear. That the subset involves the presence of other conditions associated with a vulnerability and the lack of accomodating for this (in further research and doctor-patient information and actions).

I've also understood that because that is not made clear, parents are being misinformed by the anti-vaxx movement. The medicos not accomodating for vulnerabilities is dangerous. So is not making this aspect of the issue clear in the anti-vaxx literature. It's a terrible scary thought that giving your kid an injection could lead to what happened to Florence. So some parents, who may already be distrusting, soak up those fears and don't have the correct information to determine if their child is from the subset that those children are; and in doing so....we're seeing less kids get vaccinated and outbreaks of measles.

Not just in the UK, where these structural issues may apply. But in countries like Australia, where it is possible the structural issues are different.

I have some of quarrels with this article as well

1. It begins with the concerns over vaccines starting with Wakefield and the autism proposition. That proposition, and Wakefield, have been discredited and disproven. The article fails to mention this.

2. It later on suggests that overloading kids immune systems with vaccines might have a role in scary diseases like MS and cancer.

The cause of MS is unknown - almost to the point of having no idea - and this is sensationalist speculation. However, although I'm yet to review the literature in it's entirety, numerous pathogens (like viruses) have been ruled out and I'm pretty sure these include at least some of the ones currently vaccinated for. Indeed, the current main suspect in MS is Epstein-Barr which causes glandular fever, and no vaccine for that exists, so if it turns out to be true that EB Virus is what sets the immune system off in MS, it may also be the case that being vaccinated against EB will prevent MS.

Yet the article fails to mention that too.

Rather, the article is anecdotal. Author sympathises with Alexander due to personal history. I sympathise with Alexander due to that's scary shit and who wants a kid to go through that, I sure as hell don't.

However, author hasn't bothered basic fact checking and has contributed more misinformation to the debate. Sells newspaper and the book. May well lead to needless fear in parents as well.

That is just as irresponsible as asking doctors to do vaccination quotas and not telling them about at risk populations. Perhaps more so because it is in the public sphere where there is no differentiation between at risk and not at risk populations or even the option for commentary. At least, when you see your GP, you can have a conversation about it.

I think the article is quite old, Emma. I have no issue with the processes and methods you have suggested to control for those who may be at risk for whatever medical reason they have to put them in the 'sub-sets' you mention. That's not what the issue is. The most appropriate approach to minimise risks has to be developed by experts, and this is obviously something we expect from these experts and we normally pay them really well to do this. No problem with all of this either. But there are two distinct issues here. I think you focus on the first, which is to identify what's going on when things go awry, like what's happened with the woman and her children in the exemplar we used here. That's okay, no problems there; that's what we would all expect to happen, I think. The other issue, which is what I am concerned with is the way these individuals and the organisations that are behind them or helping them are represented. For starters, if they wouldn't speak up, then the issues which they have experienced would not become visible in the public domain, forcing the pharmas and the apologists for scientism to provide answers. Then they are also individuals who obviously suffer quite a lot because of the effects that vaccines, medications, medical procedures - whatever has injured and affected them or their loved ones. There are many of these individuals, I gather from the various stories I am reading in the press or hear about. I have personally experienced the effects of stupid, ignorant and arrogant doctors and nurses (though of course I met some wonderful, warm human beings in these professions as well), as have all of my friends and relatives. On top of this, to see them almost always not assume responsibility, but instead blame their victims for the effects that these medications, vaccines and procedures have on them is disgusting. Our role, as I see it, is to hold them accountable. When I see someone demean and ridicule someone for their views and experiences, I wonder what the motivation for it is. It has most always transpired that an element of scientism is behind it.

'. On top of this, to see them almost always not assume responsibility, but instead blame their victims for the effects that these medications, vaccines and procedures have on them is disgusting. Our role, as I see it, is to hold them accountable.'

Do you really think that us health care workers, who prescribe and administer these vaccines do so out of some callous, misguided philosophy which you call 'scientism'. How dare you!

Get out from behind your computer, and go and care for someone with any one of the diseases for which vaccines are given before you point fingers at people.

Mark, why do you, once again, see fit to put words in my mouth? Is there some sort of illness that you suffer from that makes you do this out of blind hate for someone? Where did I say or indicated that I think "health care workers, who prescribe and administer these vaccines do so out of some callous, misguided philosophy which you call 'scientism'"?
I don't know you, so I have no idea what sort of a health worker you are. Having had the displeasure of dealing with your snarly persona here, I don't think I want to find out either, thanks. But it seems you are defending all health workers, doing exactly what I said some medicos do - which kinda proves my point?
As for your aggressive and insulting suggestion that I don't know what it is like to care for someone with "one of the diseases for which vaccines are given" - again, you don't know me so you have no idea whether I have done so. So yes, I DARE to tell you what I think about these matters, it's not your ego I am worried about, in case you haven't noticed. What are you going to do about it? You really must enjoy putting your foot in your mouth, you're doing it with comical regularity.

You keep threatening to leave TC, and blog at truth2be...when is this going to happen? All you seem to be doing here, is undermining a public health programme which is very effective, and administered with the best of intentions. As for the likes of me making demeaning remarks about 'anti-vaxers', I will continue. Groups such as the, oxymoronically named Australian Vaccine Network having been striving to undo health care in this country for a long time. they are short on facts and long on recommendations, to the detriment of children's health. As far as I can see, they deserve all of the opprobrium they receive.

p. j. myers also reviews this claim by chandra wickramashighe at pharyngula from a biologists point of view:- http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/01/18/chandra-wickramasinghe-repliesand-fails-hard/ -a.v.