So, I've run into a kind of rough patch with the whole "vaccines and autism" debate. I'm unable to properly explain to someone what sources are credible and what aren't. Also, I'm unable to clarify how one actual scientific source can be more credible than another.
A few of my friends are 100% Conspiracy bogosity drones. They read on the internet that "Vaccines cause autism" in an actual scientific source, and use it to say, "Here, it does."
If I point them to another source that debunks this, their claim is "What makes that dismiss the scientific claim that says it does?"
I need some help in constructing a critical thinking set and guidance on how to explain why I believe the common scientific and accepted documents and papers in science, out-weight the links they hand to me after performing some Google-Fu.
At this point, it's getting confusing to me myself. I stopped by to see if Shane or anyone could explain it better.
A few of my friends are 100% Conspiracy bogosity drones. They read on the internet that "Vaccines cause autism" in an actual scientific source, and use it to say, "Here, it does."
If I point them to another source that debunks this, their claim is "What makes that dismiss the scientific claim that says it does?"
I need some help in constructing a critical thinking set and guidance on how to explain why I believe the common scientific and accepted documents and papers in science, out-weight the links they hand to me after performing some Google-Fu.
At this point, it's getting confusing to me myself. I stopped by to see if Shane or anyone could explain it better.