Allen tries to explain too much in his interesting article on autism and mercury. There is no reason to argue that "irrationality" is really "rationality" (except for the lawyers, who are surely rationally looking for a big payout). People routinely hold irrational beliefs--by which I mean beliefs that have no evidentiary backing and, indeed, are often squarely contradicted by available evidence.

So, all sorts of people believe in UFOs, or a vast 911 conspiracy; that certain compouds will yeild health and (for men) sexual potency; that nobody ever landed on the moon; that high-voltage wires or cellphones cause cancer or brain damage (much money has been spent trying to prove these myths, with no favorable evidence being discovered). In many cases, the believers of such things are in the majority.

The most widespread such belief in our society is, of course, the belief in God. In the face of no evidence whatsoever, most people believe in some sort of mysterious, transcendent, and omnipotent being, a majority goes to special places to worship this being and believes that their prayers "reach" the being, and a significant minority believes things like the literal truth of the Bible and transubstantiation.

(When challenged, they point out--correctly, to be sure--that the existence of God cannot be disproved. They fail to mention, however, that it is equally true that the existence of Santa Clause cannot be disproved, but only small children believe in Santa Clause.)

Compared to this sort of thing, belief in the possiblity that exposure to mercury, a known neurological poison, might raise the risk or autism from extremely low to very low seems quite reasonable, even if it is wholly without foundation.

We are simply an irrational animal.

Lloyd667 wrote: "People routinely hold irrational beliefs--by which I mean beliefs that have no evidentiary backing..."

And people frequently confuse the role science plays in Life. Sometimes, they ask more of science than it is prepared to give. Science is not belief, for example; science "happens" whether a person believes in it or not. Science cannot prove or disprove that which lies outside of itself, like the existence of God, for example, or the relative truth of a philosophy. It can, however, through observation, prove or disprove whether or not the MMR vaccination causes autism in children.

Arguing, "we are simply an irrational animal" relieves all of us from responsible investigation into all serious issues - including autism. We have only recently been able to diagnose the illness, therefore it is essential to keep an open mind and continue to look for additional causes and treatments.

Best regards,

OurWarrenInNJ

I certainly agree with you, OurWarrenInNJ.

I don't wish my comment that we are all essentially irrational to be construed as anti-science.

We can, and should, strive to overcome our irrationality, because only then can we hope to make decisions that are right (in the sense of yielding the results we want), as opposed to decisions that feel good.

It is commonplace to say, also, that we are a violent species. The last century and the US murder rate certainly bear this judgement out. But, again, we can overcome our violent instincts (isn't that a line from a Star Trek episode?) and be better off, individually and as a group, because of it.

My point was more modest. Given widespread irrationality, it is not surprising to see robust irrational beliefs arising, and quite often. A more interesting line of attack might be to ask: why these particular beliefs? Why do we seem to "need" to believe in God? Why have parents fastened onto vaccines, as opposed to the numerous other possibilities that have at least as much support?

In these pages, for example, Gregg Easterbrooke wrote (twice!!) that TV might be the cause, based on the ususal--for both Gregg and autism--lack of almost any evidence. (Specifically, he noted that TV watching also rose substantially, more or less about the same time as autism diagnoses rose, plus a couple of other vague correlations.) This hypothesis may be worth further investigation, although in a world where the money available for autism research is painfully short, I doubt it. But my point is, why has this idea not gained traction, but vaccines have?

He's not arguing that irrationality is rationality. He's distinguishing between what social scientists sometimes refer to as "thin" and "thick" rationality. Take for example a high-powered corporate attorney, who can bill $400 an hour for time spent working for blue chip clients. Instead, she takes an hour off at work to haggle with her cell phone company's customer service department because she believes they have overcharged her by $50. Why does she do this? The "rational" thing to do (in the thick sense) would be to forget about the $50 and work for that hour, making $400 and more than covering the loss. But she doesn't want to do that. She's pissed at the cell phone company, and letting it go would make her feel as though she'd allowed an injustice to go unpunished. Yelling at the customer service department makes her feel better. In a sense, her actions are rational to her because it's worth $350/hour to her to feel as though she's vindicated her rights?

The same can be said of people you demean as irrational for wasting time with religion. For a significant number of people, religion makes them feel better. A sense of order to the universe is comforting, and gives purpose to the activities of life. Believe what you want; look down on them as children if you please, but let me tell you, I've seen ecstatic pentacostal services, and joyous Jewish weddings, and the people there don't look like they're suffering. I've never heard anyone say "Wow, I wish God didn't exist, so I wouldn't have to spend all this time PRAYING. What a freakin' DRAG."

In short, I think you have missed the point of this article.