Holding On

In reading this article at SFGate.com today, I was not astounded.

But it did get me thinking.  What is it that makes us reject something when evidence is directly presented to us?  There are plenty of examples in today world, such as the idea that autism is caused by vaccines.  Despite a decent amount of evidence to the contrary, some parents still will put their children more in harm's way by not getting vaccinated against devastating diseases.  It's a choice that gives all risk and no reward. What of the children with autism that were not vaccinated?

But this isn't the only example.  There are people out there that believe our current President wasn't born an American, or that the government staged the moon landing, or that the sun revolves around the Earth (See this Newsweek article for some more...).

I can understand arguments for viewpoints I do not agree with.  Sometimes, there is an absence of certain evidence, and we are left to fill it ourselves.  We can go many different directions, as we can only decide based on what we see and how we see it.

I don't know sometimes.  I see science and fact as absolute, but how many times have we revised science?  Maybe this is why there are those that reject findings, no matter how proven they are.  Even I am skeptical sometimes: there are constant stories of new planet findings around other stars, and I wonder how accurate they can be.  These are gigantic planets often, but what if they aren't?  What if the calculations are wrong?  And what if they are right. but only to a point?

I like to try to understand different points of view.  That can be harder than it sounds.  But how do I really know that I am right if I haven't understood the other points of view?  How do I really know that I am right if I have?