Pointing out anti-vaccine ignorance is nearly my full-time hobby on this website. Sometimes I read stuff that makes me laugh or shrug, sometimes I have to take it on. And today, I’m going to take on anti-vaccine ignorance by someone who really should apologize for her flu vaccine refusal.
In an article, “I Refuse to Get a Flu Shot, and I Won’t Apologize For It,”Jen Glantz author, who is a self-proclaimed “professional bridesmaid,” wants to believe that she’s smarter than immunologists, public health specialists at the CDC, physicians who have spent 8 years in school and another bunch of years training to practice medicine, and real scientists. With typical arrogance and ignorance of the anti-vaccine religion, she pontificates on issues that betray her lack of serious education in any biomedical science.
Look, I don’t think credentials matter. I don’t care if Glantz is a high school dropout or has a Ph.D. in immunology. The only thing that matters is evidence, and Glantz conveniently ignores the vast wealth of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of the flu vaccine to inform her readers of her irresponsible decision.
Why should I care about Glantz’s flu vaccine refusal? Because I’m the cantankerous feathered dinosaur, and I do not appreciate anti-vaccine cluelessness. And besides, Glantz should go back to doing what she does best – being a bridesmaid. Because she is utterly oblivious to any scientific facts about the flu vaccine. I guess her white privilege, that somehow she is superior to the rest of us who understand public health and the real science behind vaccines, allows her the arrogance of her flu vaccine refusal. Continue reading “Jen Glantz, you really should apologize for your flu vaccine refusal”
I frequently employ the term Logical Fallacy to demonstrate a logical or rational failure of a particular argument, especially those who adhere to anti-science or even pseudoscience points of view, like antivaccinationists. Logical fallacies are used to win arguments, despite the merits of said argument. It’s also used to divert the reader (or listener) to a totally irrelevant point, but has the illusion of being logical.
There are several definitions of what constitutes a logical fallacy:
A logical fallacy is, roughly speaking, an error of reasoning. When someone adopts a position, or tries to persuade someone else to adopt a position, based on a bad piece of reasoning, they commit a fallacy.–Logical Fallacies
An argument that sometimes fools human reasoning, but is not logically valid.–Fallacious Argument
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is usually an improper argumentation in reasoning resulting in a misconception or presumption. By accident or design, fallacies may exploit emotional triggers in the listener or interlocutor (appeal to emotion), or take advantage of social relationships between people (e.g. argument from authority). Fallacious arguments are often structured using rhetorical patterns that obscure any logical argument.–Wikipedia
Generally, in discussions or debates, those who lack scientific evidence (which is based on the logical scientific method), have only one choice–resort to one of many logical fallacies. Over time, distinct types of logical fallacies that help define a failure of a pseudoscientific argument. Let’s look at one that is popular with the antivaccination crowd. Continue reading “Vaccine deniers use logical fallacies to prove superiority”