We need to be more skeptical, America.
As a result of failing to stop and examine the evidence behind a given conclusion -- or even requiring evidence in the first place -- we harm ourselves.
And too often those perpetuating false conclusions call themselves the skeptics, without ever proving their own points.
Consider that:
• Over a third (36 percent) of Americans suspects federal officials assisted or took no action to stop the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, according to a 2006 Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll. Any evidence of such an "inside job" has been thoroughly debunked, but true believers aren't swayed by the science.
• Former Texas Board of Education Chairman Don McLeroy, a religious conservative who voted consistently to weaken the teaching of science in Texas's public schools, recently opined, "Somebody's gotta stand up to experts." As if being an expert is equivalent to being in a political party, instead of simply meaning someone who knows what she's talking about.
• Oprah Winfrey frequently plugs alternative medicines on her show, with guests such as entertainers Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy describing their pet theories in detail, with little feedback from physicians. "We have the right to demand a better quality of life for ourselves," Winfrey said, implying that doctors who disagreed with her guests' claims (which would be most doctors) were deliberately withholding some wonder treatment.
In each of these examples, virtually no evidence supports the claims, and considerable evidence exists to the contrary. Varying degrees of harm also result. Mistrusting the government weakens its support. Teaching non-science in a science classroom puts students at a disadvantage. Passing off fads as effective treatments can be dangerous to the point of lethal.
In particular, McCarthy has benefited greatly from her connection with Oprah. McCarthy signed a multi-year contract with Winfrey's Harpo Productions to write a blog on
Oprah.com
and host a syndicated talk show. While the content will surely vary, McCarthy is sure to tout her view that vaccines cause autism -- despite no real evidence.
She may have some anecdotal evidence involving her son (the reason she became a crusader). But anecdotal evidence doesn't really count. If you don't believe me, well, I know a guy who does, so I must be right.
Worse for McCarthy's case, most of her claims have been refuted. Sure, occasional side effects are associated with taking vaccines (though not autism). Yet these are exceedingly rare and still don't outweigh the risk to society of not getting vaccinated.
McCarthy acknowledges her advocacy may bring back deadly and debilitating diseases, as unvaccinated children contract and spread diseases previously unable to propagate in a properly protected society. She apparently considers this a necessary evil.
Some of these diseases coming back include measles and pertussis. They have already resulted in the preventable deaths of infants.
It might once have been reasonable to question the safety of vaccines, because some contain potentially harmful chemicals such as mercury and aluminum. But many scientific and even legal studies now conclude vaccines don't cause autism, and not one peer-reviewed study has shown evidence of a link.
Of course, sometimes experts disagree. And even a consensus of scientists can be wrong. But the experts -- professional skeptics -- are willing to be proven wrong if presented with credible evidence.
It seems no amount of evidence could ever convince McCarthy to change her mind. That's not skepticism. It's dogma.
Andrews, a State Journal Opinion page intern, recently graduated from UW-Madison with a master's degree in journalism and landed a job with a Wisconsin-based science magazine; bandrews@madison.com.