Short of walking away and never looking back, I mean...

November 27, 2015 8:32 AM

How do you respond to someone who says that science is a matter of opinion and not fact-based? And who also believes that it's a matter of opinion whether science is fact or opinion?

He's not anti-vaccination per se but he believes that whether and how immunizations work is a matter of opinion. I told him the business about the development of the smallpox vaccine through an understanding that milkmaids exposed to cowpox developed immunity to smallpox.

I brought up the fact that if you have childhood diseases as a child you are immune to reinfection. He absolutely does not believe that the reason that the flu vaccine may not work is because it's developed in advance of the flu season and therefore the prediction may be wrong. Instead he thinks it's a good example showing that vaccinations are as effective as, say, homeopathy. For example, he pointed out, shingles are caused by the chicken pox virus so exposure to chicken pox does not create immunity.

During the conversation, I said "at any rate, the science of immunization is not a question of opinion. It is a question of fact." He said "I disagree." I said "sorry, did you just say that whether science is fact based or opinion is itself a matter of opinion?" He said yes.

He's not stupid but he is stubborn. He also seems to think that random internet articles are as informative as research based books by reputable writers. He also referred in our conversation to his "research" on the topic which is just so demoralizing to me. He once several years ago said that we only use 10% of our brains, I said that's a myth and he suggested that we compare our independent "research." I was just like whatever dude neither of us is a research scientist so let it go.

So you see that Immunity is not the only topic in which this sort of impasse has occurred. I'm trying to find my copy of On Immunity to give him but I'm kind of afraid he would counter with something by Jenny McCarthy.

I'm kind of at a loss here. How would you approach this? How to draw a distinction between fact and opinion? Also I am in the habit of saying "I think" when I am not 100% positive about something and he is in the habit of making shit up on the spot and presenting it as verified truth. Most of the time I can counter that with humor but not always.

Honestly this kind of thing is ridiculously frustrating to me and it kind of paralyzes me. Help?

posted by janey47 to Human Relations (30 answers total)

Yeah you're not ever going to make a dent. Best to just walk away.
posted by We put our faith in Blast Hardcheese at 8:35 AM on November 27, 2015 [36 favorites]

From now on, respond to literally every statement he makes with "That's just your opinion." Repeat until insanity.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:41 AM on November 27, 2015 [54 favorites]

He's technically right in the grander scheme that most things in "science" are opinion and not fact. Go to any science or natural history museum or crack open a few vintage science text books! Our knowledge of how things work is constantly changing, hopefully becoming more accurate...

You're both right and you are both wrong. Let it go. Politely, and without an attitude. I assume you want to keep this relationship, right?
posted by jbenben at 8:43 AM on November 27, 2015 [22 favorites]

Devoting time and energy to good-faith discussions about people's bs/opinion/dubious sources grants legitimacy to that bs/those opinions/pseudoscience.

You can't debate irrational views rationally. Just walk away. Add eye-rolls, "whatever dude," sardonic smiles, & cold stares if those are your style.
posted by headnsouth at 8:53 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

Oh yeah, I dated this guy. I ended up walking away because he had other boundary issues aside from insisting that he knew how to deal with my healthcare issues better than I or any doctor did, but in the time we were still together I just never ever discussed anything "controversial" with him, which was exhausting and demoralizing.
posted by poffin boffin at 8:55 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

He's not stupid but he is stubborn.

So are you if are still working away at changing his mind on this. Let it go.
posted by ThatCanadianGirl at 9:03 AM on November 27, 2015 [5 favorites]

Best answer: He's technically right in the grander scheme that most things in "science" are opinion and not fact.

Not exactly, and making this formulation is part of the problem. Science is interesting partly because it's always open to new information -- any given theory must always be open to testing by new situations, and it will be modified or discarded if it cannot resolve that testing successfully. This is not really the same thing as an opinion, since, while opinions and theories can (and do) change over time, the theory changes by a process of rigorous testing while the opinion can change with little evidence or persist in the face of overwhelming evidence.

Putting, say, evolution in the same category as "is Kevin Smith a good filmmaker" confuses rather than clarifies the issue.

However, arguing this with your friend is unlikely to change his mind or make you feel less aggravated. More productive solutions are spending less time with him or learning to avoid these arguments when they come up, either by going "eh, whatever" or even saying "I don't want to be mad at you, so let's not discuss this."
posted by GenjiandProust at 9:04 AM on November 27, 2015 [56 favorites]

If you are friends with this guy and want to stay friends, stop having these discussions. You can't make someone have critical thinking skills. And, as jbenben says, he sort of has a point. The scientists who discovered the link between bacteria and ulcers couldn't get funding at first because other scientists held the opinion that the idea was too absurd. Science is imperfect and influenced by what can get funding, and some people use these imperfections as a reason to dismiss science altogether. It can be complicated to understand, and this guy clearly doesn't want to understand. So either drop the discussions and keep the friendship or walk away from both.
posted by FencingGal at 9:05 AM on November 27, 2015 [3 favorites]

Unless you are discussing this in the context of immunising your own children I would just let this one go. On a day to day basis his opinion on this (ahem) should not really affect you or your relationship.

If it helps, maybe in your head change the word "opinion" to "theory"? I can see how people conflate the two.
posted by like_neon at 9:06 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

You cannot reason someone out of a position they did not reason themselves into.

That having been said, you may be able to find other ways to (slowly, excruciatingly so) shift their `opinion' on the nature of science. Show, don't tell.

Of course on the other side, it might be good to soften your own viewpoint a bit- science does have limitations, because it is done by scientists. Everything from what research gets done in the first place (do we study penises, or clitorises? Do we study climate change and gun deaths? Are we allowed to do research on drugs in pregnant women?) to which results get published (only positive results? Only ones the funder likes?) can influence the body of knowledge we call science.
And plenty of people have used the name of Science in places it doesn't really belong-- strong self interest can corrupt (see the thread on the blue about forensics for some examples, the beauty industry is another frequent perpetrator here).

So just because we put the name "science" in front of something, does not make that science perfect. What can science do that religion and pseudoscience cannot? Over time, it self-corrects. (Convergence here may be slow, but it is inexorable).

So I'd vote you show him some fun home experiments. Or talk about neat examples of how science has self-corrected and produced societal benefits. He's likely to listen more if you aren't directly attacking his (yes, incorrect and misinformed) views.
posted by nat at 9:08 AM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

I am a research scientist and can explain in detail how those internet articles are wrong. But with this type of person the facts are not important. I have lost these arguments because I am all facts!!!! When I argue. Walk away. Thank you for defending vaccines.
posted by Kalmya at 9:13 AM on November 27, 2015 [17 favorites]

"If science is all just a matter of opinion, are you sure you're presenting your views as merely opinions as well? Why are you bothering with research if it's just a matter of opinion? On what ground are you disputing other people's views if they are just based on scientific opinion? What does that word opinion even mean to you?"

Don't think this will work though. I'd disengage and stick to banal pleasantries.
posted by skewed at 9:36 AM on November 27, 2015

You know that gif of Homer backing up into the bushes? That's what I do instead of turning my back as I get away from people like this. Gotta keep them in my sights, it's safer that way.

Seriously though this guy is a lost cause. Refuse to engage with him and if social expectations are forcing you to converse, dedicate some time peppering him with questions to learn his easy small talk topics and stick to those.
posted by Mizu at 10:22 AM on November 27, 2015

who also believes that it's a matter of opinion whether science is fact or opinion?

You're having the wrong argument. Science is neither fact nor opinion; it is a method of observing the world.
posted by kanewai at 10:45 AM on November 27, 2015 [15 favorites]

How would you approach this?

It depends. Who is this person to you? I don't see how this can be answered without knowing, i.e., you ca't "walk away" from your father-in-law or your next-door neighbor, but I wouldn't just assume this is your SO, either.
posted by Room 641-A at 11:03 AM on November 27, 2015

I've mostly found that science is a history of 'mankind's' mistakes. What was true , of many things, when I was in school is not true now. What is 'true' now may not be true 50 yrs from now.
That said, it's not worth the argument . Walk away.
posted by donaken at 11:39 AM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: For clarity, the factual nature of the science of immunization was under discussion. I think that is based on fact and tested through observation. For those suggesting that science Is opinion, help me understand how you can determine the difference between a rabies vaccination and a rubella vaccination If this Is all opinion based conjecture. He also is of the opinion that it is a matter of opinion (a) whether smallpox has been eradicated and (b) if so, whether vaccinations had anything to do with it.

Strangely this conversation began with him suggesting that a friend get vaccinated for random infections (such as the kind of infection that occurs in a wound that is exposed to bacteria and untreated).
posted by janey47 at 12:16 PM on November 27, 2015

Best answer: Scientific knowledge has multiple components. There are facts in science. These are our observations or data. We also have the interpretation of those facts which are our theories or conclusions. But scientific interpretation must be supported by the evidence—to be accepted, the interpretation must fit the facts better than alternative interpretations. Some scientific conclusions have stronger evidence behind them than others.

For example, here are some facts:

1. Schwarz and co-workers gave the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine to 1,481 children in Ohio, the Dominican Republic, and Panama in a randomized, double-blind study.
   1. Blood drawn before vaccination from 36.2% of these children showed no immune reaction to measles, mumps, or rubella.
   2. After the vaccination, they tested for immune reactions to measles, mumps, or rubella and found 95%–100% of the previously triple-susceptible children now had immune reactions.
   3. For children below age 1, 91%–97% of them showed a significant immune reaction.
2. Bloom and co-workers performed a similar study on 182 patients and found 95%–100% of them had an immune reaction.
3. Ong and co-workers found that during one measles outbreak, 2/171 (1.2%) of vaccinated students and 7/13 (53.8%) of unvaccinated students were infected with measles.
4. There are many other studies that show similar results to the above.
5. After years of widespread vaccination programs, in 1998 there were only 100 measles cases in the U.S. reported to the CDC
   
6. After years of decreasing vaccination rates in the 21st century, in 2014 there were 644 measles cases in the U.S. reported to the CDC.
   

From these facts and many others we can develop a theory that if you give someone the MMR vaccine, they are >90% likely to stay measles free. This is a prediction, not a fact. But it's a huge mistake to say it's just an opinion. There are a lot of people who have examined MMR or measles vaccines using different methods in different places and they have all resulted in facts that are consistent with this prediction. An opposing hypothesis that the vaccine has no effect on measles immunity does not fit the facts we have.

Science progresses as new observations and facts become available. Sometimes we turn over previously reported theories. But again, not all theories are created equal. The weight of the evidence behind whatever nutrition study is reported in the popular press this month is much, much less than the weight of the evidence behind the effectiveness of vaccines. Newton's theory of universal gravitation fit the facts available at the time, but Einstein's theory of general relativity is now accepted when they conflict. But Einstein's theory only gives different results in some exceptional cases you aren't going to see in your day-to-day-life. It's not that Newton's theory has been proven wrong; it's more that we've established boundaries on the applicability of the theory that Newton didn't know about.
posted by grouse at 12:28 PM on November 27, 2015 [31 favorites]

Recently in the news, Anti-Vaxxers: Images of Sick Children may Change Minds.
posted by halogen at 12:43 PM on November 27, 2015

He also is of the opinion that it is a matter of opinion (a) whether smallpox has been eradicated

The last case of smallpox in the United States was in 1949. The last naturally occurring case in the world was in Somalia in 1977. (Smallpox Disease Overview, CDC)

These are facts. I don't understand how your friend can think that is a matter of opinion. There are preserved smallpox samples at two laboratories. And occasionally we discover other samples. Perhaps he thinks this means it has not been eradicated? But this is a matter of semantics—agreeing on the meaning of terminology for mutual communication—not opinion. And in the terminology generally used by epidemiologists, smallpox has been eradicated.
posted by grouse at 1:16 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

Google the Dunning-Kruger effect.
posted by SemiSalt at 1:34 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

Wince and say, "It makes you sound really ignorant when you say things like that." Then refuse to pursue the argument, saying, "I don't want to argue with you [and ruin a nice day], let's just drop it."

People who pride themselves on being the smartest self-taught guy in the room are highly alert to signals other people think they're socially embarrassing themselves by being dumb. They won't back down from an argument, but if you seem embarrassed on their behalf for their ignorance, they tend to re-educate ... Sometimes.

But also this is kind-of mean and manipulative, so ... well, think hard whether it's the sort or strategy you're comfortable with.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 1:47 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

"Is that a fact?"
posted by rhizome at 1:59 PM on November 27, 2015

Ong and co-workers found that during one measles outbreak, 2/171 (1.2%) of unvaccinated students and 7/13 (53.8%) of vaccinated students were infected with measles.

I am afraid you have mixed those two around: 1.2% of vaccinated students and 53.8% of unvaccinated is what is listed in the abstract.
posted by Hypatia at 3:24 PM on November 27, 2015

Thanks for pointing this out. cortex has fixed my error now.
posted by grouse at 5:01 PM on November 27, 2015 [1 favorite]

One of my favorite quotes: "If it can't be expressed mathematically, it's an opinion."

But seriously, just walk away. There's is literally nothing you could do or say to make this other person do a spit take and say "Holy shit, you're right!"

They have a cartoon view of reality. But thinking you can bring them back from it, or that you need to defend yourself to maintain your peace of mind, is equally cartoonish. Once you go full cartoon, it's over.

Never go full cartoon.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:26 PM on November 27, 2015

There's a good article in the New Yorker about science and how certain 'facts' depend on how we frame our thinking. I agree with one of the above posters - some scientific facts certainly carry more weight than others. Scientific practice is incredibly dependent on current social structures. Not just broader trends in how we tend to view things, but also things like current economic structures. Currently, the trend of 'publish or perish' and a desire for sensationalist headlines makes scientific practice rather frustrating sometimes - people fudge numbers and statistics to get big results, these get published in popular science magazines, and people who 'love science' but aren't scientifically literate take these results as fact. Ideally, other scientists would do follow-up studies but that's not always possible due to funding limitations and the above desire for producing original work. As an archaeologist, I have certainly seen some questionable finds get proliferated as fact and once that's done it takes a long time to undo (especially among the general public). Thus, science as a practice and methodology is excellent, ideally, but is unfortunately subject to the fallibility of humans (and our particularly fallible academic institutions). Recognizing this is only meant to make science better, though.

That said, vaccinations stand outside of what I described above. You're right, they've been tested thoroughly over many, many years, generally outside of Big Pharma, and their effectiveness is well documented and well understood. So -if you really want to discuss this with him- perhaps it would be good to discuss how vaccinations stand in contrast to other issues in science. Like others have said though, it might be best to just leave it.
posted by thebots at 5:37 PM on November 27, 2015 [2 favorites]

It may be too late as you've already discussed this at some length, but believe it or not, "You seem to be experiencing a serious misapprehension of reality," really has gotten through to a couple I've talked to with this kind of, er, misapprehension of reality going on.
posted by cmoj at 9:08 PM on November 27, 2015

Setting aside the question of who is right, this fellow's attitude is driving you crazy, enough to make you ask here how to deal with it. It is best to not engage when someone is pushing your buttons. There may be a dynamic in which he is aware he provokes you and in fact wants to do that for whatever reason. Practice detachment.
posted by conrad53 at 12:06 PM on November 29, 2015 [1 favorite]

How do you respond

Hold something heavy over a part of their body.

Discuss whether what happens when you release the object is a fact or an opinion.
posted by HiroProtagonist at 7:40 PM on November 30, 2015 [1 favorite]