02-24-2016, 11:00 AM
VI: Except it turns out that article is poorly researched, lacks verifiable sources and is wrong: <link to skepticalraptor.com>
Since the vaccine is relatively new in widespread use, both claims of a 5 year limit in efficacy and longer year claims are no verifiable yet. Not sure what difference that makes. Even if it is only good for 5 years, I assume more shots could be taken. But claims on either side appear premature.
Curiously absent from the skeptical raptor link is any mention of the actual death rate (gives HPV-"related" cancer infection rates). Thus no comparisons to death rate vs vaccine mishaps.
Those were the two main arguments in the CBS link as I saw it.
You know, just because the anti-vax side commits 100 logical fallacies per hour, doesn't mean the pro-vac side should get a free pass. I think its called the "logical fallacy fallacy"--where something isn't NOT true because a logical fallacy was used to argue for it.
From Tom' Sagan link:
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
If this were true in a wholesale way, Thomas Kuhn wouldn't have gotten the milage he did out of his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" article/book.
All I see, again, is each side so sure of themselves that there isn't any actual discussion going on....
The empiricist...thinks he believes only what he sees, but he is much better at believing than at seeing. [G. Santayana]
Cheers,
Kirt
Since the vaccine is relatively new in widespread use, both claims of a 5 year limit in efficacy and longer year claims are no verifiable yet. Not sure what difference that makes. Even if it is only good for 5 years, I assume more shots could be taken. But claims on either side appear premature.
Curiously absent from the skeptical raptor link is any mention of the actual death rate (gives HPV-"related" cancer infection rates). Thus no comparisons to death rate vs vaccine mishaps.
Those were the two main arguments in the CBS link as I saw it.
You know, just because the anti-vax side commits 100 logical fallacies per hour, doesn't mean the pro-vac side should get a free pass. I think its called the "logical fallacy fallacy"--where something isn't NOT true because a logical fallacy was used to argue for it.
From Tom' Sagan link:
Arguments from authority carry little weight (in science there are no "authorities").
If this were true in a wholesale way, Thomas Kuhn wouldn't have gotten the milage he did out of his "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" article/book.
All I see, again, is each side so sure of themselves that there isn't any actual discussion going on....
The empiricist...thinks he believes only what he sees, but he is much better at believing than at seeing. [G. Santayana]
Cheers,
Kirt