I lurk over at Scienceblogs, where some of the bloggers routinely express their outrage at particular leaders of the “autism community”, when those leaders speak out about vaccinations as a cause for the cases of autism observed in this country. That outrage stems from the unscientific nature of the anti-vaccination arguments, the public health risk created from certain infectious diseases if vaccination rates begin to fall, and the that fact that it appear to work – despite the wrongheadedness of it, the proponents of anti-vaccination are experiencing some success in getting their messages across in the mass media.
Ok, so maybe everyone knows this stuff already, and I’m just demonstrating a firm grasp of the obvious, but there may be a conceptual model which provides some understanding about why the anti-vaccination spokespeople are resonating, and the science bloggers. . . aren’t. Consider: if it’s selling, if you yell it loud and long enough, and if enough people start believing it, whatever “it” is becomes the truth regardless of what the facts are. Also, it helps if the spokespeople are appealing on camera and speak from their Gut (which if you allow it, passes for “common sense”).
I can’t take credit for that analysis, but have absorbed it from a recent reading of Charles Pierce’s new book. I’ll be optimistic that Pierce’s message is something the Sciencebloggers can absorb and use, because it sure seems that being rational, sensible and evidence-based just isn’t cutting it.