Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The Facts In The Case Of Dr. Andrew Wakefield
diversion sign
A fifteen page story about the MMR vaccination controversy. As ever, I'm sure a few spelling errors have slipped past me. Feel free to point any out so I can correct them.

The reference links for the strip are in the next blog entry.

Now! Let's have a heated debate!

2013 update. Since I wrote this blog entry, this cartoon strip as well as many others on such subjects as homeopathy, chiropratic, evolution, and the supposed NASA Moon hoax landings, have been published in a book: Science Tales in the UK (Myriad Edtions) and How To Fake A Moon Landing in the US and Canada (Abrams). Here's the link to my main blog.

1 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

2 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

3 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

4 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

5 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

6 MMR Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 7 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 8 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 9 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 10 Vaccination Scandal Story

mmr 11 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 12 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 13 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 14 Vaccination Scandal Story

MMR 15 Vaccination Scandal Story

I am Darryl Cunningham and this is my main blog.

  • 1
You have it backwards. He criticized those who don't trust Science. Science is the process by what we discover the truth about things, by means of formulating hypothesis, testing them, publishing them, and reviewing the process to draw conclusions, submitting them to peer review.

The 'scientist' began formulating a conclusion, drawing the hypothesis for it to be true and faking the tests to agree with his conclusion. This being Science, he was caught in the act thanks for the peer review step of the scientific method. If anything, this shows that Science works, even if some 'scientists' are bad apples.

It's interesting that you argue "Science is the process by which we discover the truth about things"

Karl R. Popper said:
"I think that we shall have to get accustomed to the idea that we must not look upon science as a "body of knowledge", but rather as a system of hypotheses, or as a system of guesses or anticiptations that in principle cannot be justified, but with which we work as long as they stand up to tests, and of which we are never justified in saying that we know they are "true" . . ."

and Dr. Steven M. Holland said:
"We [scientists] wouldn't know truth if it jumped up and bit us in the ass. We're probably fairly good at recognizing what's false, and that's what science does on a day-to-day basis, but we can't claim to identify truth."

can't we argue that knowing what is not true is a truth in itself?

For example, "lightning is not caused by a giant man in the clouds throwing thunderbolts" is a true statement. "Maggots do not arise spontaneously from meat" is a true statement.

Proving and disproving are two sides of the same coin. I don't think any (good) scientist would not say certain aspects are true. If they are a good scientist they will add the caveat "as far as we know" but completely denying truths is part of the reason why science is so mistrusted - scientists never appear to give any straight answers. The public is left to piece things together for themselves.

Not saying that's the scientists' faults - the general public certainly needs some experience in realizing life is more complicated than "wholly true" and "wholly untrue".

  • 1