The danger of science denial - Michael Specter

Vaccine-autism claims, "Frankenfood" bans, the herbal cure craze: All point to the public's growing fear (and, often, outright denial) of science and reason, says Michael Specter. He warns the trend spells disaster for human progress.

Talk by Michael Specter.

[SIMKINETICS]

Michael makes an excellent point.  It's time to speak up about science denial & pseudoscience that plague our cultures.  It's time to take the gloves off, and start public shaming of people who promote magic thinking & superstition in congress, the media, school and personal interaction.  That might sound rude, but it's really a counter to the rudeness of dissing science.  We should also lobby for teaching critical thinking & science in early grades of school.  Call it The Enlightenment 2.0!

[Itzcozamahlotl]

I agree so much with him and Ive always had the same issue where I feel like I am the only one who would ever time machine forward.

[DEEjayTOE]

How many graduate students are likely to turn in their Principal Investigator (PI) knowing that this would dash their hopes of earning a Ph.D.? How many post-docs would do the same, throwing away their chance for a faculty appointment? How many assistant professors would risk receiving tenure by outing a colleague? And how many PIs would be willing to wade into a controversy by bringing charges against the very same peers who review their publications and grant proposals?

[owenkeller]

Sure. I disagree with the concept of calling critics “deniers”. It’s petty and anti-intellectual.

Anybody can give an example where scientists were right and critics were wrong but there are also plenty of examples where scientists were wrong and they needed the criticism.

Science needs critics. Those critics are crucial to the method both in the hypothesis forming step and in the repeatable results step. The movement to label science critics as “deniers” smells of politics. Get the politics out of science. Stop calling people who doubt or question or challenge scientific claims any putrid names. Instead call them wonderful sources for your next hypothesis.

[hooblahman]

What an amazing TED Talk. Thank you Michael for taking a very important and much needed stance on this issue. This is something our entire country needs to hear.

[breadstick]

Man, ten years on, and he was right. Of course he was right then but now it’s eerily prophetic

[HughJack-stzc]

It's intriguing to consider how some people reject scientific advancements and discoveries. I do comprehend where mistrust regarding things like immunizations comes from. Many scientific concepts are very challenging to comprehend, especially without knowledge in such subjects. People then consult sources that offer clearer, but occasionally inaccurate, explanations. Even so, it doesn't excuse the spread of these false beliefs since, as Michael Specter in the film pointed out, science denial has detrimental effects on the general well-being of society. We owe it to ourselves and everyone around us to uphold the truthfulness and integrity of the principles we choose to support.
I would like to just give an example how Ethics and Vaccine denials are connected. Because vaccine refusal can have significant ethical repercussions, ethics and refusal to get vaccinations are intimately intertwined. People who reject the scientific consensus on the safety and efficacy of vaccines do so because they are misinformed or hold unsupported ideas, which is known as vaccine denial. Numerous concerns, such as risks to the public's health, personal harm, and societal inequities, might result from this.
First and foremost, refusing vaccinations might result in outbreaks of diseases that can be avoided, which can be especially dangerous for vulnerably disposed people including children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems. In addition to endangering individuals, this has wider repercussions for public health, including rising healthcare expenses and stress on healthcare institutions.
Second, people who are refused access to vaccines that could save their lives because of false beliefs or inaccurate information may suffer harm. This may result in needless agony and even death. Third, vaccination denial can exacerbate social inequities by disproportionately impacting groups who are marginalized and underserved and may not have easy access to reliable information or resources for healthcare.
On the other hand, advocating vaccination and respecting the scientific consensus on vaccinations can encourage moral judgment and behavior. This entails understanding the potential dangers and advantages of vaccines, making decisions based on data, and ensuring that everyone has fair access to vaccines.
Therefore, it is crucial to encourage scientific literacy and critical thinking abilities in order to support people in making informed vaccine decisions and to combat the risks of vaccine denial. By doing this, we can encourage moral behavior that is advantageous to both individuals and society at large.

[mkwarlock]

The truth delivered in an entertaining and comprehensible manner. Congratulations.

[harpake]

He is saying that dietary supplements have been shown to have no real effect, not that vitamins don't work.

[sutematsu]

I agree that TED would do well to cite the sources mentioned in the videos. I have seen these studies and know that what he says is true, but having the list of them at our fingertips would be great.

[tutentDotCom]

(cont 1) happening while individual scientists said it was. I've been educated as a physicist, yet I've listened to testimonials from a large number of parents specifically pinpointing changes in their children's behavior right after the child was vaccinated and this leaves me with questions I can't answer. Most parents I've talked to blame the mercury components in the vaccine. While I'm aware that while certain chemicals are harmful when separate (chlorine gas and sodium metal) (cont 2)

[CraigFine]

Wow, this video has never been more relevant than today with regards to the Corona Virus.

[Justpooinabush]

The EU still hasn't banned GM food though, and that is the prime argument. If there were such 'convincing' dangers, there would be no doubt more of a controversy amongst bioengineers, but there isn't.

[tutentDotCom]

Assuming you're not a toxicologist yourself, then you have no objection to drinking some yourself, right? I'm not making fun of you, I'm suggesting you have enough sense to know mercury is dangerous. These parents are no different. You don't need to be a toxicologist to know better, or even to ask if the material is questionable. And you're absolutely right. What I've said is anecdotal (biased if you prefer). I'm just suggesting that "maybe" Spector's answer might not help the issue.

[musicmathieu]

healthy skepticism - we need more of it

[CaseyFriday]

Specter isn't looking at the problems of GM food that actually matter. Case in point: Google the NPR story "Cornstalks Everywhere But Nothing Else, Not Even A Bee". That's how "harmless" GM food is.

[andrewzuo]

"All vitamins do is make your urine darker"
"Putting vitamin A into rice"

[lequebecois]

what we dislike is the lack of transparency from the system.

[EternaLing]

The same logic applies to COVID-19 vaccines. Can people share this video to those anti-vaccine people out there? 🤓

[thatfox]

Because the level in the supplements is far lower and also, for what you buy, the price is extortionate. Putting vitamins in things like rice and potatoes is actually relatively cheap.