Did you know we only use 10% of our brains? How about the fact that the average person swallows eight spiders a year? Are you aware that you can determine the temperature outside by counting the chirps made by crickets? These are just a few of the claims you may have seen online. You'll be relieved to know that the first two statements are actually false. The vast amount of inaccurate information on the internet has distorted our perspectives of truth. In this new digital age, we need to be skeptical and alert so that we can train ourselves to determine fact from fiction.
In the past, libraries were the
primary source of accurate information. Today we're more likely to go straight
to our favorite search engine, and we usually won't venture beyond the first
page of results. The internet is packed full of opinions, personal blogs, as
well as reputable government sites, educational sites, etc. Anyone with an
internet connection is capable of posting their own perspectives and ideas
online. This is far different than the process of publishing a book. Often, the
content posted on the internet will only be reviewed by one set of eyes, as
opposed to the publishing process where the manuscript is reviewed by an editor
as well as several other witnesses carefully to avoid making costly mistakes.
Personal posts on the internet can contain bias perspectives, and can sometimes
generate unhealthy gossip about people and controversy amongst some important
topics. It's always a good idea to check the sources of these claims to
determine if they are true. One great website for investigating these claims is
www.snopes.com. This website is dedicated to putting the rumors to rest
by revealing these claims for what they are.
One good example of a controversy is
the claim that vaccines cause autism. First, it's important to understand how
vital vaccines are to our society. Probably 1 person in 5 would not be
alive if it were not for vaccinations. The cases of some deadly diseases
have dropped considerably since the introduction of the Pertussis vaccine in
1946. Since then, related deaths have decreased to 1 per 100,000 persons. To
put the importance of vaccines in perspective, children who are not vaccinated
are 23 times more likely to develop a disease. The autism controversy started
in 1975 when a vaccine named the DPT vaccine (containing Diphtheria, Pertussis,
and Tetanus) was believed to have caused permanent brain injury in some
children who developed an immune response to the Pertussis. Later, a British
study revealed that this neurological deficiency occurred in only 1 in 140,000
doses (or 0.0007%). In 1994, the Institute of Medicine estimated the risk of
serious brain damage as a result of DPT to be in the range 0 to 10.5 per
million immunizations (or 0.00000001%). This very rare occurrence was not
enough to support a strong correlation, let alone causation. Basically, this
means that even if there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism,
the risks would be far greater by not vaccinating our children due to the lack
of resistance they would have to other deadly diseases.
This issue arises in the current
global warming controversy as well. The consensus among
climate scientists is that the earth is getting warmer, however,
the controversy lies in weather it is warming by natural
causes or if it's caused by human actions to the environment. At this point,
we've gathered lots of correlated data, but have not found the exact cause of
the earth's warming.
After reading the previous two
paragraphs, you may be saying, "How can I trust you? You're just another
writer explaining something from your own bias perspectives." There's one
major difference. The information provided is based on peer reviewed sources,
which gives validity to the statistics and information provided. When
information is peer reviewed, it's backed up by evidence from experimentation
and observation. That information then goes through a rigorous proofing process
where several professionals in the field related to the information pick it
apart and determine whether it is accurate or not. Then that information is
published and put into practice. One of the best sources I know of for peer
reviewed publications (at least in the field of Biology) is www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
The information here is abundant and can be a bit dry, but I highly recommend
using it whenever you have questions about medication, stem cells, or any other
biology-related topic. In the paragraphs above, you'll also find that I did not
make a truth-claim that vaccines do not cause autism or that global warming is
caused by human actions. Those kinds of claims are dangerous to make when the
truth is not clear. Several hundred years ago, the evidence seemed to show that
the earth was flat, but as observations and evidence grew this perspective
changed. The danger in making a truth-claim on partial evidence is that you may
someday be proven wrong. By sticking to only what is known, you will have a
more solid perspective of things and you may be more accepting of new
discoveries.
So be careful what information you
find online, or any source for that matter. As voting citizens, it's important
that we train ourselves to be skeptical of claims, viewing them in the light of
factual evidence. I think the astronomer Carl Sagan put it best when he said,
"What counts is not what sounds plausible, not what we'd like to believe,
not what one or two witnesses claim, but only what is supported by hard
evidence - rigorously and skeptically examined. Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence."
Sources:
www.snopes.com
