by Dan Schultz, DC
Vaccination, since it’s formal inception in 1796, has been a subject of violent controversy. Controversy, by it’s very nature, maintains some degree of rigidity in it's opposing views. Debate follows: Are the risks worth the benefits? Is the disease worthy of mass or forced vaccination policies? How do we measure efficacy or long-term adverse effects?
For many people, just following the crowd is good enough for them. Others simply abdicate their responsibilities to a “professional.” They “trust” another to know and decide for them. The underlying question lingers, “Is the crowd mentality or popular medical opinion worthy of our trust without further individual analysis?”
The baby boomers broke loose from blindly following authority as their distinct generational signature and succeeding generations have continued this trend. Increasingly, as a result of this new, independent thinking paradigm – and regardless of generation or demographic -- parents are questioning the value of vaccination. But, who and which information does the individual trust to make decisions?
To avoid feelings of doubt, guilt or remorse, two methods can be used to arrive at solid conclusions; induction and deduction. Recruiting the perspectives of both are necessary to arrive at certainty -- and certainty is what people are looking for.
Inductive thought
Inductive reason gathers data from multiple sources, then tabulates and evaluates their interrelated meanings. This means doing your homework. This site (www.novaccine.com) is designed to redress the balance of information and provide you with a comprehensive palette of resources available for your study. Even after one has made their decision, educating ones’ self allows them the ability to competently educate others and explain or justify their position.
We induce from both empirical (experiential) and the scientific sources understanding that there is significant bias involved in forming nearly everyone’s conclusions. The ever-changing popular opinions and flip-flopping conclusions of poorly designed "studies" can be frustrating. For example, 20 years ago the newspapers and magazines touted with certainty that butter was bad for you. They highly recommended margarine, instead. This position was abruptly followed by the authoritative belief that just the opposite was true. But people who educated themselves in a broader sense – from other than headlines and hearsay – gained the perspective and foresight to choose responsibly.
Personally, I have never met anyone who objectively and thoroughly studied vaccination from both sides and nonetheless chose to inject their children with vaccinations. In fact, many studies show that the more highly educated a parent is, the less likely they are to vaccinate.(1) My experience also has shown me that ignorance, it seems, is the breeding ground for the irresponsible to point, blame and to become victims.
Deductive thought
The deductive process is entirely different.. As opposed to looking outside yourself for the answers, it means looking inside. What lasting principles or truths have you come to rely on? Deep philosophical tenets of natural principle, tradition, religion, or metaphysics can guide you. Possibly you have come to trust axioms like "Natural is always better" or "God doesn't make mistakes." Some choices need no structured knowledge and come in the form of intuition. Indeed, relying on inner wisdom can be a freeing experience. Deducing means utilizing timeless or trusted truths -- and it's every bit as valid as inductive reason -- sometimes more so.
May your journey with both processes bring you a degree of wisdom, peace and health into your life.
1. Children’s Immunization Status Worsens as Mothers’ Income, Education Rise. NewsWise January 5, 2007.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/526333/
Isn't induction a form of logical fallacy? Yu know, Hume's "is/ought" problem.
Posted by: AnarchoEpistemology | November 07, 2010 at 11:08 AM