Commentary
Americans seem too eager to treat matters of opinion as articles of faith
by Hani HamdanWhenever I hear a question being asked about an issue of public debate, I can't help but notice the verb "believe."
"Do you believe in global warming?"
"Do you believe that President Obama is a secret Muslim?"
"Do you believe that silver amalgam dental fillings will make you sick?"
"Do you believe in vaccinations?"
Is it just me, or is the word "believe" being patently misused here?
We've all seen examples of people acting as staunch activists for something they "believe" in, despite ample evidence proving them wrong. In my little world of dentistry, I have had a patient call to ask if I could remove his root canal fillings because he believes they contribute to cancer. Even as I explained to him that there was no science to support his view, and that leaving his canals open could lead to jaw infections, I knew that there was only a very small chance that he would change his mind. These days, I explain things because it's my job to do so, not because I think I can convince anyone of anything. In the end, I politely refused to provide the treatment he requested.
But the reason I'm bringing up the word "believe" is that it may help explain why we seem unable to change our points of view about certain topics. When someone decides to believe in a logically disputable premise and resist changing his mind about that premise, he is essentially turning that premise from a matter of opinion into an article of faith. The perceived danger in vaccinating a teenager against HPV is not a point of view any more, if one decides to believe it without being able to provide sensible proof for it. It is more like religion.
The zeal exhibited by some activists in nonreligious matters reminds me a lot of religious zealotry. It seems as if we're confusing articles of faith with disputable points of fact.
But why do our minds behave this way? Is it possible that each of us is hard-wired to hold a set of beliefs that cannot be questioned? Do we have a "belief center" in our brain that must be filled with something or other, that otherwise will begin to gobble up conjecture and adopt it as faith?
On international tests, American students rank 25th in math but first in confidence. Does our overconfidence make us resist changing our minds? Have we been raised to think that blind faith is a virtue?
Maybe we should teach our children never to believe in anything, unless they can prove it.
----
Hani Hamdan, DDS, lives in Burnsville and practices dentistry in Lakeville, Minn. He is a contributor and editor of Engagemn.com and a source in MPR's Public Insight Network.
Comments (13)
Thank you for the very well written, important and timely article. I also am worried about the "hear both sides and they you decide.." argument about things that the public should rely on experts with data and experience. I worri about "deciding" on vaccinations for polio and measles, "deciding" on seat-belts, white flour, climate change, evolution, age of the earth, acai berries or whatever. There are lots of things i am not entitled to decide on from lack of expertise. What happened if I did not "believe" in brakes on my car or cooking my meat. PLEASE!!! science is not based on belief but proof!!!
I totally agree.
The same is true for vaccinations.
The only reason people "believe" is because the majority gets vaccinated. Once this tips, the majority will suffer because someone "believes" it causes health problems.
Great commentary! Discrimination is the basis for turning opinion into faith. Some people want to discriminate against liberals so they faithfully believe global warming is a crock. Some people want to discriminate against gays so they faithfully turn to the Bible for proof that we should do exactly that. And some of us discriminate against people of color, so they faithfully believe Hispanics are breaking the law, Blacks are living off welfare, and Muslims want to kill Americans. And if we really studied American History, our discriminatory attitudes have been strongly prevalent since colonists started coming to our shores. Laws have changed, but to a fairly large extent, for many Americans our attitudes have barely shifted. For instance, we didn't like Hispanics when they LEGALLY occupied Texas and Texas wasn't even American territory. We provoked and won a war, not for Texas's independence, but for our own greed, and then we rudely, quickly, removed Texas's hispanics back to Mexico. We don't realize any of this because all we want to read in America is how we were oppressed by the British and forged a new nation, a nation that talked a great game about democracy, but has had a difficult time embracing the true meaning and orientation of those words.
Indeed, one is entitled to one's own opinion, however, not to one's selective facts.
The question of silver/mercury fillings being safe is clearly based on opinion. For even the FDA states " There is limited clinical information about the potential effects of dental amalgam fillings on pregnant women and their developing fetuses, and on children under the age of 6..."
No, it is not a belief that FDA does not have adequate information on the safety of mercury fillings, it is a reality. There is little clinical information to prove safety, now that is something to believe.
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/productsandmedicalprocedures/dentalproducts/dentalamalgam/ucm171094.htm
Hani's article reminds me of the 1948 cart0on about being careful on what others try to sell you, on don't believe in the "ism" , don't fall for class warfare to push their goal. Link to view cartoon: http://godfatherpolitics.com/1006/63-year-old-cartoon-depicts-america-today/
Dorice,
You turned his statement on its head. Dr. Hamdan stated that "there was no science to support" the position that fillings cause cancer. Your quote from the FDA does not disprove that statement. As such, you essentially switch the burden of proof from the caller to the Doctor.
Second, the portion you qoute is limited to pregnant women, unborn children, and children under 6. The caller was a male, and presumably an adult. As such, your quote from the FDA does not prove that "there is little clinical information to prove safety" with respect to the patient at hand, contrary to your final conclusion.
As such, I believe that you have, at best, provided an ill-reasoned collateral attack on the Doctor's statement.
Furthermore, upon looking at your own link, I find the following paragraph:
"FDA has reviewed the best available scientific evidence to determine whether the low levels of mercury vapor associated with dental amalgam fillings are a cause for concern. Based on this evidence, FDA considers dental amalgam fillings safe for adults and children ages 6 and above. The amount of mercury measured in the bodies of people with dental amalgam fillings is well below levels associated with adverse health effects. Even in adults and children ages 6 and above who have fifteen or more amalgam surfaces, mercury exposure due to dental amalgam fillings has been found to be far below the lowest levels associated with harm. Clinical studies in adults and children ages 6 and above have also found no link between dental amalgam fillings and health problems."
Please try not to selectively use evidence that only supports your point of view. I believe that was the entire point of the article.
Regards
Brock, you are correct I was not addressing the caller rather the larger issue. Though your point raises a question, was the male caller ever a child? Perhaps a fetus? it is well documented that mercury crosses the placental barrier.
It is not a belief that FDA lacks supportive data to
prove safety.
FDA's guidance supports that there are those more sensitive to Hg. At least on this bases one must ask Hani whether he tests his patients for Hg sensitivity or asks whether the patient is sensitive to Hg or assesses Hg levels.
The cited statement is not selective evidence when broad statements are made that Hg installed in people's teeth is safe. To the extent a paucity of evidence exists to prove safety is not reason enough to suggest proof exists.
For the record my prior post is in response to the comment Do you believe that silver amalgam dental fillings will make you sick. Ironically, the term of art "silver fillings" is confusing in that 50% of the filling is mercury. Assuredly, I believe Dr. Hamdan's intentions are to provide the best care possible for his patients.
Yes, believing everything you read can be problematic even in school.
Apparently Hani hasn't read the material safety data sheet MSDS that ships with his amalgam capsules. the amalgam MSDSs include disturbing evidence about the known dangers of using mercury in dental fillings and in the court case Barnes V Kerr the amalgam manufacturer stated that those warnings also applied to the mixed amalgam placed in the teeth. So what kinds of warnings and health effects do the amalgam MSDS say ?
From Bethlehem Apparatus Company (PA, USA)…
“Mercury is highly toxic, irritating and causes sensitization and neurological symptoms.”“Mercury causes severe, adverse health effects after chronic exposure to low vapor levels.
Emergency response efforts must be directed to removal of all traces of this product.”“The principal target organ associated with chronic Mercury exposure via inhalation is the central nervous system.
Such exposures lead to the development of “Erethism.” This syndrome consists of subtle or dramatic changes in behavior or personality: depression, fearfulness, restlessness, irritability, timidity, and indecision. These psychic and behavioral characteristics are often accompanied by insomnia, drowsiness, headache, fatigue. In advanced cases, memory loss, hallucinations, and mental deterioration may occur.”“This product is reported to cause reproductive effects in humans. Impotence has been reported in over-exposed males. Women occupationally exposed have reported menstrual disturbances, reduced ovulation, and spontaneous abortions.
The patient I was referring to in the article was asking to have his root canal fillings removed. Root canal fillings are non metallic materials made usually from a natural resin called Gutta Percha. They are not related to dental amalgam and there is no controversy over them as far as I know.
My objection to the question " Do you believe that silver amalgam fillings will make you sick?" is not because I can unequivocally prove that silver amalgam has absolutely no health effects. My objection is because the question seems to ask not about evidence but about belief.
To find out if your opinion is based on logic or blind faith, ask yourself whether or not you are truly open to changing your mind about the issue. Then ask yourself what evidence are you looking for that the other person can provide that will make you change your mind.
Great new book out that addresses this very topic: Fooled Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America. By Shawn Otto.
Thanks for your sage commentary Dr. Hamdan.
Your response to the questioning of the amalgam issue lead me to "believe" you are a reasonable man open to the facts, so then why do you blindly believe in the efficacy of vaccinations? The CDCs own data on HPV vaccinations are not conclusive on benefits over the risks associated with this recent addition to the pharmacological lore. A much longer discussion of the evidential points could be had but I'll leave that to your own research. However, I do suggest you question your own "belief" in vaccinations.
Post a comment
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Latest News & Features
News Cut
with Bob CollinsIn The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock
