A scientific research (1) showed that the propensity for vaccination is associated with “intellectual humility”, something that the authors themselves define as a virtue “characterized by the non-judgmental recognition of one's own intellectual fallibility”.
The study investigated whether intellectual humility is linked to anti-vaccination attitudes and intentions to get vaccinated against the flu.
For this purpose they interviewed online 246 subjects with an average age of about 40 years, 80% white , equally divided between males and females, and concluded that
“We found that intellectual humility was negatively correlated with anti-vaccination attitudes.” in other words , the more intellectually one is humble, the less you are against vaccinations.
This correlation was largely driven by the openness to review one's point of view and the lack of excessive intellectual confidence.
The authors conclude that “we found that intellectual humility is not related to the intentions of vaccinating against the flu.”.
In fact, being not against something does not mean being in favor of it.
The authors state that “Vaccinations are essential for public health, but acceptance levels remain sub-optimal.”
The stated aim of the research was that of “.. support the possible development of strategies to exploit intellectual humility in a health promotion strategy”.
in conclusion , according to the authors, intellectual humility can support the promotion of favorable vaccination attitudes as it is not against it.
Said this, we are faced with one example among many of how pseudo science is done aimed at propaganda.
First, the number of interviewees is ridiculously small, and having been interviewed online there is not even any verification of the truth of the data.
The sample is biased towards a specific ethnicity (white Caucasians), of them the qualifications and profession of the interviewees were not assessed, to find out if, for example, they are from the medical sector or not.
The very concept of “intellectual humility” it is set up in a preconceived way as a virtue, while it could also be the fruit of’ ignorance of the subjects on the subject.
In fact, there is at least one research that has shown that antivaccinal attitudes are related to higher educational qualifications.
What seems clear to me is that calling this pseudo-research science is clearly the opposite of intellectual humility that the authors themselves have defined a virtue.
However, it seems to me that it is a good example of how you want to stigmatize how “mistaken” who talks about vaccinations if not “authorized” from the system.
In reality , as it is known, we are continually overwhelmed by “opinion” of alleged experts who are not virologists, and they are often in conflict of interest, but nevertheless they never compare on the data, for example by totally denying the existence of adverse effects, therefore in a false and unscientific way.
About this, the author of this article, Loris Palmerini,Â as an industrial computer expert and graduating in pedagogy with a social psychological address, and having studied mathematics, statistics, system,Â for many years and having also practiced the faculty of statistics and economics for two years, declares to be qualified and entitled to talk about vaccination numbers, and the epidemiological results of vaccinations, such as the number of adverse events etc. etc..
Those who on TV deny the existence of adverse vaccination events and long-term consequences at the general level of the population have these qualifications or speak untitled of the numbers they cannot read?