Three things that are not debates, but battles between ignorance and knowledge

Vaccines

Is this still a debate?

I recently saw a friend post about vaccines and autism... again; I thought we shut this down in 2012 or so. Someone sited a statistic that 1 in 50 vaccinations results in autism, and that by 2030, 1 in 2 children will have autism due to vaccines. Besides being absurd (why would the number increase with time? Are we developing vaccines that are better at causing autism?) it's also unsupported by any respectable science. Because of the popularity of the issue, scientists have repeatedly done studies to identify a causative connection between vaccines and autism. It has been proven repeatedly that there is no connection.

People like to say, "But you can't prove that there's no connection, you only prove that you didn't find one." Fair enough. There's also no way to absolutely prove gravity exists - maybe things falling to earth is a coincidence that appears to be gravity. But we're so sure of the importance of vaccination that it's baffling that this terrifying correlation is still being propagated. Terrifying, in that it's scaring people into making dangerous decisions about their children.

Then there's the question of whether parents should be able to choose to vaccinate their kids. I'm not going to get into the religious debate, where people belong to an established religion that doesn't allow vaccination... I just think that's a more tough debate. But in most cases, it should be considered child neglect to neglect vaccination. You don't just decide, "I don't want to feed my kids this week." You can't just do that. "I don't want them to wear clothes. What's wrong with nakedness at school?" You can't do that. As a parent, yes, you make decisions about your child. But when those decisions result in demonstrably dangerous outcomes, we call it neglect or abuse.

If your response is, "But vaccines haven't been PROVEN to help." or "But if some people don't vaccinate it's okay." or "I know what's best for my child." Then, apologies, but you're ignorant - I know you want to list all these anecdotes, all these "studies" and articles that support your side. But you're ignorant for choosing and believing those sources. Search for a single article that supports your case on www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov (National Center for Biotechnology Information, associated with Pubmed) or the New England Journal of Medicine. You won't find one. In contrast there are thousands (if not tens of thousands) of studies that support the science behind vaccination. The rare studies that seem to support anti-vaccination have all been either debunked or explained by other means, such as concerns over thiomerosal, which, if I'm not mistaken, isn't in vaccines anymore anyhow. And if you think this is some sort of government conspiracy that is manipulating scientists, then I just can't help you. Cars drive forward, electricity powers lights, medicine cures more diseases every decade. Thanks, science.

But, assuming you accept modern scientific discoveries...Vaccines have been proven to help significantly, eliminating extremely dangerous diseases, reducing the burden of many other diseases, and improving the lives of millions. In contrast, the dangers of SOME people choosing not to vaccinate is evident in the fact that dangerous diseases that were almost eliminated returned when vaccination rates fell off. While "herd immunity" is a real and supported scientific concept, the conclusion from herd immunity is that we should all get vaccinated to protect those who can't. The conclusion is not "it doesn't matter if we get vaccinated."

We give children vaccines for dangerous diseases that can be easily prevented with little to no consequences - diseases that, without vaccines, would be somewhat common and quite horrifying.

If you think that I am just ignorantly following the masses, you are absolutely wrong. I do not passively choose to have my children vaccinated. I don't consider the decision difficult, but I made the decision based on the unarguably solid stance that modern science has taken on this issue. I am not looking to one doctor who, for whatever reason, decides that they want to fight against vaccines. I do not look to anecdotal evidence. I look to the gold standards of medical care in 2017. Gold standards that have been proven over and over during the course of more than a hundred years of concentrated scientific efforts... based on over a thousand years of scientific discoveries. In contrast, those so-called anti-vaxxers are making terrifying choices based on a fad, a few stories, and even a few would-be scientists who believe they can get rich off of fear and ignorance.

If you're a friend who is considering your stance, recognize that children have suffered from diseases since time immemorial, which we have cured by vaccines. To fight against vaccination is to fight against healthy children. I sincerely plead that you get off the popular anti-vaccine bandwagon (which should have broken down years ago).

If you're a random stranger who considers yourself an anti-vaxxer... just move along. You're as likely to convince me you're right as you are to convince me that I have no skin. It would be much easier to convince me that the moon landing of 1969 was faked.
As long as we keep going with these silly arguments about the basic importance of vaccination, it becomes harder to hear serious arguments about how to improve vaccination procedures and production, and ensure relevant safety measures as technology advances. There are real issues at hand. Let's move forward.

A reliable, scientific source for information on vaccines is the CDC. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm

What about the evidence of children who have very serious adverse events?

Another friend posted a very sad video of a child having a seizure, recently. I believe I've seen it before (2 years ago?) by a friend who might be considered an anti-vaxxer. I'll be responding to this sad video under the assumption that people watching this video are moved by empathy to avoid causing children and their parents pain.

There's a difference between a mistake and an error. An error is when we do something wrong, and we should have known it was wrong - it is a miscalculation on our part, and the correct course of action was calculable. A mistake is incorrect primarily in the context of the outcome. It can also be an error, or it can be merely a mistake. That is, we can do something wrong because we calculated it wrong (error), and then we feel badly about the outcome (mistake). However, sometimes we calculate everything correctly and do exactly what is right (no error), but the outcome is still bad due to our choices (mistake).

Vaccinations can have extremely rare serious negative side effects, but they are treating diseases that would not be extremely rare if it weren't for vaccines. When we vaccinate, we have what can be seen as a rare mistake, when we ought not have vaccinated a particular child. But unless we knew in advance that the child would have such a reaction, it would not be an error to vaccinate them. Of course, everything changes once we know how they'll react. And the importance of vaccinating everyone becomes doubly important once we find those who MUST be protected by herd immunity rather than personal vaccination.

The video is sad. However, the equivalent video would be a bloodbath of unmeasurable proportions if we were to see the world with nobody vaccinating. Even a world with 50% vaccinating... it would be a terror unlike our generation generally witnesses. The world before vaccines was rampant with death from diseases that are now rare.

If we saw a video with five unvaccinated children infected with smallpox, and watched it through to the end, we would eventually see the cold, limp, lifeless body of four of those children, and it might haunt our dreams to know that we could have prevented those deaths. Indeed, it is a true miracle that smallpox has been conquered by vaccines. What other diseases can we eliminate?

Unless you KNOW otherwise, to vaccinate is never an error, and so giving parents the option to make an error out of fear of the rare mistake is not wise. This is inhumane for two reasons: 1) the child should be given the wisest choice, regardless of the parents ability to reason medically and 2) if the parent makes the wrong choice, whether it’s an error or a mistake, they will bear the psychological burden of causing the outcome.

Although it occasionally turns out to be a serious mistake to vaccinate (remember, that just means the outcomes were undesirable), to make the alternative choice (the error) would result in millions upon millions of mistakes of equal or greater severity.

Climate change

Because of "An Inconvenient Truth" this became a political issue instead of a scientific one. However, the only thing that matters in deciding if this is true is what science has to say about it. The scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the fact that mankind has caused an unprecedented change in greenhouse gasses. The ensuing change in climate may seem small at this point, but even if mankind's contributions were suddenly eliminated from the earth, it will take far, far longer than our lives or the lives of our children to reverse these changes.

A reliable, scientific source on climate change is the EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/climate-change-basic-information

And here's NASA.gov on the issue.
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Feminism (but not all feminism)

Now, to be fair, there are extreme forms of feminism, and knowing if you're talking to someone who has an academic understanding or an angry ignorance is not always easy. Both are able to spout out facts, and both have strong interest in improving the lives of women (and, frankly, both can be enfuriated by the state of things). Given that my understanding of feminism is primarily self-taught (textbooks, internet searches for quality sources, lots of introspection and contemplation), I do not have sufficient background knowledge to perfectly recognize who are the experts and who are the excessives. However, I have come up with a metric that I believe works most of the time: people whose feminism is primarily about how terrible men are don't get feminism, whereas feminists who have compassion for men get it. The reason why this works is not because the former make me feel bad and the latter do not (though this is true). The reason this works is because feminism (academic, educated feminism) is not about men vs. women, it's about humanity. The fact is that women have been (and in an uncomfortably large number of cases continue to be) treated poorly and there are structures that continue to be in place that do not have their best interest in mind. But the principles of feminism would also protect men if the tables were reversed on a grand level. Men and women everywhere should become educated in egalitarian feminism and seek to promote healthy feminist causes, which in most cases (given where our modern systems derived from) is a very pro woman agenda.

For a man who once thought feminism was quite odd, I've had a surprising number of online arguments with men who I've decided have some fear of being impotent. They swear at me and call me a social justice warrior and a white knight, neither of which should be insults, but neither of which really categorize me correctly. My opinions do not fit into the box of social justice, and they are not formed in order to feel good about myself in relationship to women. My opinions are formed through critical thinking and observation of facts. I can be swayed by facts, though I don't merely trust everything every stranger throws out as factual. Indeed, my opinion on feminism is the opposite of what it once was, and the event that changed my mind: I read a textbook chapter that described feminism dispassionately.

In my opinion, feminism is NOT the radical notion that women are people. It is the radical notion that people are people, and it benefits women (and is called feminism) because women have been treated like they aren't people for so surprisingly long. Feminism is only about women because history has forced it to be so. The principles of feminism are universal truths, which seem drastically slanted because our history has been drastically slanted, but if history had been different, the core values of egalitarian feminism would still be true. Note that there are many sub-types of feminism, and for many of them, this is not the case. Some forms of feminism are not worth pursuing, and frankly give feminism a bad name.

Furthermore, a true knowledge of feminism does not necessarily lead one to action any more than a knowledge of gravity does. However, if one is to build a rocket, a knowledge of gravity is essential. And if one is to build a truly moral society, a knowledge of egalitarian feminism is critical.

Some men and women have latched on to anti-feminist movements. While, in some cases (not all), their intent seems reasonable, the fact is that the movements are missing the point of feminism. As just a brief example, this image suggests that this woman doesn't need feminism because men care about her and respect her and aren't pigs. However, that doesn't have any bearing on whether the principles of egalitarian feminism are true or not. The fact is that this woman, and the wonderful men in her life, probably believe those truths, which is why she so comfortably "doesn't need feminism." It seems to me that such movements are not responding to the academic principles of egalitarian feminism, but to the man-haters who pose as feminists to strengthen their position.

Sure, the minutia of what exactly is wrong and how to fix it can be debated. Also, many things that try to benefit from the label of feminism are not true (and in my opinion not even truly feminist). But the "debate" about whether feminism is right - that's a battle being waged between ignorance and education. And in this battle, the ignorance of the correct side harms it almost as much as the ignorance of the opposing view. Feminism is not a club or a political party - it is an ideology, a collection of truths that have no owner, but which could benefit society if we stop claiming or fighting them and start finding ways to live them.

If these things aren't debates, then why are people still debating them?

To be blunt, people are ignorant. This is not merely an insult. Some people are not in possession of the facts necessary for discussing these topics. They're stuck on popular views that are fully debunked by an accurate knowledge of the world. Could there possibly be something true within those views worth holding on to? Sure, but the views overall are so destructive that it is akin to allowing your house to burn down because you can roast hot-dogs and marshmallows in the fire. Vaccines save lives. Climate change is putting our entire world in danger. Feminism is poised to create a humanity that is deeply moral in their interactions toward each other - it is the best scientific solution to all forms of hate. We need to stop wasting time debating these non-opinions, and start spending time furthering our understanding of how these truths matter.

Why gamers need to stop arguing that video games don't affect them

"Article on internet interprets science so that experts don't need to."

I'm neither for nor against anything in this argument, but I feel like arguments where people are significantly biased are hardly worth investigating or discussing with the general public. See, people will believe whatever they want - I'm sure I'm not the only person who has witnessed this phenomenon online.

Although it doesn't completely discredit any individual study entirely, the article that prompted this blog entry was published in a questionable journal, and was cherry-picked by the author of an internet article because its conclusion inspires a particular feeling within the intended reader. It massages the ego of the readership, and makes them want to return for more confirmation of their world view.

I play video games - odds are I play more than you do, dear reader. In some ways, I'd like to think that my empathy was "unaffected" by video games, but that seems pretty unrealistic - in some ways nonsensical. How do you even measure empathy at a given moment? You can't assign it a value! Consider what it means to be "unaffected" - not only that you lose no "empathy-units" while playing, but that your alternative activity would have provided no increase in empathy.

What if you would have spent some time caring for the elderly, or deepening relationships with family members, or doing community service, or developing a social hobby? Not that these are entirely mutually exclusive from playing video games, mind you. Or, consider how one video game might actively teach people to take actions that are non-empathetic, while another specifically focuses on teaching empathy. I have seen interesting games designed with this in mind as part of health-related video game design competitions.

One tries to instill the idea that everyone is important, and our differences make us strong.

One teaches that sometimes our internal dialogue about other people is not accurate.

One encourages you to consider the plight of schizophrenics. The main character is not merely schizophrenic, but the game attempts to develop empathy within the player for the character.

Personally, I feel like video games are merely a medium for communicating, like any other medium. But video games are very powerful in ways that other mediums aren't. As a medium, it incorporates every potential of writing, of movies, of music, and more.

So, why the heck are gamers so interested in proving that we remain unaffected by them? "My games are boring and don't touch me on anything but a superficial level." What kind of terrible game... What kind of terrible art... Why even play? Go rake some leaves or shovel some snow if it's really all the same to you.

Which leads me to believe that most gamers trying to prove that they're not affected by video games haven't really thought it through. Perhaps they feel a hint of guilt, because there's some kind of stigma associated with gaming.

"Reading - that's for smart people. Gaming - that's for jerks and know-nothing time wasters."

"Playing video games? Go outside! Reading? Oh, now you're good, stay inside and do nothing in this case."

Maybe gamers have defensiveness ingrained because of how they feel their hobby is perceived by others.

Inasmuch as video games are not the deepest, most educating, most moving experiences available, it is due to the fact that the game creators have not made them so. Hey, that's quotable.

Do you think that players of team games (Counter-Strike: GO, or DoTA 2, or LoL) have not actually learned something about teamwork (or at least that they should have) after hundreds of hours of working in small teams to accomplish challenging goals? Do you think that players of management games (Civilization, Total War, Mount & Blade, Cities: Skylines) haven't developed some organizational habits that might matter in the real world?

If you're interested, check out the links to those games to see some examples representing teamwork and organization in those games. Just briefly scan through the linked guide to Cities: Skylines, and it'll baffle you how much organization it takes to follow. Consider how the author of that guide, who describes himself as a student of planning, states, "For me, this is not just a game. This is city building." Anyhow, back to the topic at hand.

If we accept all the positive learning that occurs, then how does it make any sense to say that games that glorify violence and crime, like Doom, Grand Theft Auto, and Payday don't educate people as well. They don't make you suddenly a violent criminal any more than Sim City makes you suddenly a glorious guru of city planning. But there is something that is learned, possibly something transferable. There was a time when gamers were really excited to tout the glorious improvement in hand-eye coordination provided by action games. When people began to respond, "Yeah, but... why do you need that specifically?" the extolling stopped and the gamers went back underground until research started proving other things that were beneficial... but OBVIOUSLY nothing detrimental.

The whole argument appears to simply be a defense of gamers' feelings. Although their feelings do matter, and non-gamers might be utterly careless and unconcerned with the future of gaming, the truth isn't found by being merely defensive and self-affirming.

Just the feeling that "I'm the same person" before and after playing a game doesn't really address the issue... or frankly mean anything, because we're all limited to our own perspective in the reality we live in (n = 1).