Too much critical thought?

[Eos of the Eons]

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/560-can-you-apply-too-much-critical-thought.html

Perhaps lambasting folks like Jenny McCarthy isn’t the best approach. Perhaps it would be more effective to understand the emotions of a young parent with a poor science education, whose only desire is to do what’s best for her child’s health.

This just makes me wonder about a few things. I'm not sure of anyone who is lambasting McCarthy publicly, too much, without some fair refutation of her form of "information" and without attempts to educate parents. Sure, the Bad Astronomer and Orac are doing their part, and stopjenny.com was developed. However, there are sections that attempt to address the concerns of parents, and I hope that is done more than any lambasting.

So, my question is if anyone does anyone find that any of these sources do too much "lambasting"? McCarthy does deserve some of that, but yes, that doesn't help parents who are trying to make an important decision. Any feedback will be much appreciated since it would go towards making any public presentation on this topic better

I must say, some of the lambasting is in response to her own lambasting of medical professionals and vaccine makers, backed by her buddy who does his fair share of lambasting (Handley). But, I digress...

 

[dann]

Perhaps it would be more effective to understand the emotions of a young parent with a poor science education, whose only desire is to do what’s best for her child’s health.

I don't think that the poor science education is decisive in cases like this.
I would rather compare it with a psychological phenomenon, a variation on the theme of narcissism: Münchausen by proxy, a (controversial) psychological disorder.

It is easy to understand and sympathize with the confusion of a parent with no science education upon hearing about a possible adverse effect of vaccines. It also isn't difficult to understand or sympathize with the distrust of authorities, who are not always as objective and unbiased as they would need to be in order to deserve our full trust. (In any case, knowledge, in this case the ability to assess scientific evidence, is always better than trust.)
However, simply insisting on spreading false rumours about a field where you don't have any actual expertise, thus contributing to confuse other young parents with no science educations, who therefore look up to you as an authority, is a little different.

If Jenny M. actually cared about the well-being of her own and other people's children, she would do her own research and acquire the knowledge and skills that she doesn't already have. Choosing instead to pose as a concerned parent and wallowing in the media attention, of which she always got more than her fair share, cannot be justified. By now she has had all the time needed to familiarize herself with the field. The poor science education can no longer be used as an excuse for her ignorance.

And I don't see what this has got to do with choosing between white and black cars - at all.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

I must say, I do sometimes think that skeptics forget there is a difference between being correct and communicating that to the public. A clinical analysis of false claims is a good way of demonstrating your correctness to people who already think like you do, but a lot of people don't think in the same way and I often think one needs to modify one's approach depending on the audience and what you are trying to achieve. I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular (I haven't read much of the Stop Jenny McCarthy site) - its just some general thoughts. I take a very different approach when arguing with a homeopath on this site, for example, than I would with an acquaintance who is worried about MMR.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If Jenny M. actually cared about the well-being of her own and other people's children, she would do her own research and acquire the knowledge and skills that she doesn't already have.

Yeah, but she figures she did all the google research she needs to, AND she has creepy unethical doctors like Jay Gordon to back her up. It doesn't help when MDs like that are just as happy to wallow in the media attention and sell books to hapless parents, no matter how many lives it costs. He even wrote a book claiming to cure ADD. But, he IS an MD, even though he uses bad "evidence" (anecdotes and poor thought processes), but he IS an MD.

These people are using some critical thinking skills, but relying on misinformation to base decisions on. If you were told black cars had better resale value, but didn't check that out, then you are making a decision based on what you think is factual. Most parents don't know how fact check people like McCarthy, Handley, and Gordon.


I feel we've tried to do a good job in pointing out why these people are wrong, and am not sure if there is any major lambasting on the stopjenny.com site at least (please correct me if I'm wrong though). There is some lambasting via Novella and Orac, but there is more debunking (and Jay Gordon really deserves any lambasting, in return for his own), and I rather enjoy Bad Astronomy's take on the topic. I don't think as many people see his McCarthy take downs though. It is rare for non-skeptics to see any of these sources, so most people have no idea any lambasting is going on, I'm sure.

 

[dann]

but he IS an MD.

Like I said:

(In any case, knowledge, in this case the ability to assess scientific evidence, is always better than trust.)

If you were told black cars had better resale value, but didn't check that out, then you are making a decision based on what you think is factual.

I don't think so. If you are actually told about the resale value but refuse to listen, it's no longer a question of thinking that your delusion is factual. It's a question of wanting (or needing) to believe that your delusion is factual.
Jenny M. has already been told about the resale value by a number of experts. She did not even have to look it up herself. But she insists on listening only to the lunatic fringe telling her that black cars hurt babies!

I don't know, but in the case of her delusion something else may be in play.
Some people who are incredibly successful at a very early age may find it hard to understand when the universe appears to put a spoke in their wheels:
'How could this possibly happen? I am supposed to be a successful person. I deserve only the best of what life has to offer, I'm not the kind of person whose children aren't perfect in every way. This is not something that is supposed to happen to me, so somebody must be out to get me, somebody must have done something wrong to cause this.'
And the media attention appears to validate this attitude.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Ah. They need something to blame, and being ignorant of the scientific method, about the science that goes into vaccines, about the chemistry of vaccines, about diseases, about autism, etc, they can blame vaccines.

Then those people need to be lambasted, since they don't listen to anything else?

I remember when Travolta's wife declared their son was cured (read it in a magazine) after getting rid of all the "harsh" chemicals in their home. Well, he died still diagnosed of Kawasaki disease he had-in fact died because of having an epilepitic attack in the shower. Thing is, once it did become clear that he was not cured, that he had various handicaps because of it, those facts didn't make any kind of news. In fact, most children don't get severe secondary complications if they are treated early, but being scientologists they let it go a long time, and still blamed "chemicals" upon his death.

Signs of Kawasaki disease, such as a high fever and peeling skin, can be frightening, but the good news is that Kawasaki disease is usually treatable, and most children recover from Kawasaki disease without serious problems.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/kawasaki-disease/DS00576
It was all very quiet until he died. If they had treated him early enough, then I'm sure she would have continued her crusade against "chemicals" much longer.

McCarthy home schools her kid now, but wait until he's a teenager and not being some sort normal kid, or still living with her when he's 40. How is she going to prove she cured him then?

 

[dann]

I often think one needs to modify one's approach depending on the audience and what you are trying to achieve.

Definitely! Power to the moderators! ... sorry, modifiers!
Congratulations with the recent appointment!

 

[dann]

It sounds like a similar case, yes. At least it’s something that may contribute to this kind of behaviour, but I don’t see what you can do about it.

To some extent I base my understanding of the case on the Critique of Bourgeois Consciousness, which contains a chapter about Weltanschauung as an honorable substitute for knowledge: Superstition, daydreams and role models.
And when you are dealing with people like this, it is always a good idea to try to avoid Envy and Schadenfreude.