[p2p-research] shots in the dark/p2p article

[Ryan Lanham]

Tomas,

I agree with the parallels and like your argument very much.  I find myself
of a similar mind.  From a US perspective, the anti-vaccine discourse has
the tinge of the loony right wing--like AIDS denialism, creationism, etc.  I
don't think anti-vaccine perspectives are right wing particularly, but the
similar manifestations and methods seem hard to deny.

There are risks with health interventions.  Sometimes those at relatively
low risk attempt to lower their risk still further and have a very bad
outcome.  That is tragic, but it is predictable.  I also think those who
have certain conditions (e.g. autism) look for someone or something to
blame.  The science just isn't there.  Others benefit from sowing fear and
doubt about standard but imperfect methods.  Sometimes the benefit is simply
being listened to and having an ego stoked.  Science is an easy target
because it makes no claim of perfection and infallibility.  It is always
tentative.  That tentative nature leads to some pushing too hard to
recognize "advances" that are not real, and some pushing to block
recognition of advances for whatever reasons.

If we question one group's motivations for financial gains, we must question
all groups and persons for any possible gains--including those to ego and
reputation.  If a person thinks they can control a significant
sub-population by spewing dis-information, you can bet that disinformation
will be spewed.

My own sense is that only through strenuous commitment to multi-party
dialogue and constant re-affirmation of the value of truth and fact can one
overcome these social phenomena.  From my perspective, the mainstream
discourse of science is the most prominent defender of the value of truth
and fact, but it is also prone to over-caution, financial influence,
and other forms of political pressure.

There is a difficult moral balance between seeking rhetorical ammunition and
seeking truth.  Schools don't do enough to make that distinction plain to
students.  Arguing in science is different than making a political
argument.  And people should be clear to all which sort of argument they are
making.

Ryan Lanham

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 4:54 AM, Tomas Rawlings <tom at fluffylogic.net> wrote:

> Hi - before I start I need to state I don't know a lot about the vaccine
> controversy.  However the article posted on the p2p looks a little like
> denialism - while I don't know enough about the vaccine controversy, I have
> been involved in long-running attempts to combat creationism and global
> warming denialism.  Here's a few examples of what I mean:
> - Claims of wikipedia bias - you also find this constantly with creationism
> and global warming denialism.  In my experience there is often a narrative
> that when an argument goes against one side there is a temptation to blame
> the moderators of the platform rather then re-examine the argument itself.
>  That is not to say it does not happen, just to say that such claims need to
> be backed with evidence.  For example the wikipedia page on the foundation
> linked in the p2p article is also in dispute - for the opposite reasons;
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:National_Vaccine_Information_Center
> - Links to 'institutes' with grand sounding names - National Vaccine
> Information Center - sounds like an official body but it is not - it is a
> campaign group - nothing wrong with that except if  they are a campaign,
> they should be honest about it.  Again you find this all the time in global
> warming and creationism, e.g. Biologic Institute - sounds official but is a
> front campaign group for Intelligent Design.
> - For example the article suggests that the mainstream view is incorrect,
> fine, then posts links to the debate, but the p2p article only posts links
> to one side and so looks less like an analysis of this issue and how it has
> gone viral and more like a propaganda article on this issue - which I am
> uncomfortable with.  My concenrn for things like this is they bleed into to
> well documented denialism, of which one of the most potent exposes I have
> read of late is Gen Goldacre on AIDS denialism...
> http://www.wired.co.uk/wired-magazine/archive/2009/06/start/the-man-who-sold-out-medicine.aspx
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Tomas
>
> -----------------------
> Tomas Rawlings
> Development Director, FluffyLogic Development Ltd.
> web: www.fluffylogic.net
> tel: 0117 9442233 -
> Also see:
> blog on film & interweb: www.plugincinema.com
> blog on p2p, media ecology & evolution: blog.catbot.org
> tweet: www.twitter.com/arclightfire
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2presearch mailing list
> p2presearch at listcultures.org
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>



-- 
Ryan Lanham
rlanham1963 at gmail.com
Facebook: Ryan_Lanham
P.O. Box 633
Grand Cayman, KY1-1303
Cayman Islands
(345) 916-1712
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20090928/037f4089/attachment-0001.html>