Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
Many of our ideas about the world are based more on feelings than facts, sensibilities than science, and rage than reality. We gravitate toward ideas that make us feel comfortable in areas such as religion, politics, philosophy, social justice, love and sex, humanity, and morality. We avoid ideas that make us feel uncomfortable. This avoidance is a largely unconscious process that affects our judgment and gets in the way of our ability to reach rational and reasonable conclusions. By understanding how our mind works in this area, we can start embracing uncomfortable ideas and be better informed, be more understanding of others, and make better decisions in all areas of life.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
No your reasoning does not contain a fallacy, it contains a gamble. A much fuller answer would derive from game theory. For example I found this background article: Vaccination and the theory of games<>, but there are many others. Also in the absence of more information we are entitled to believe you are talking about standard childhood vaccinations and a standard child :-), and then your gamble has moral implications as others have pointed out. However if your school is insisting on non-standard vaccinations owing to a local outbreak of an unusual disease, or if your child has certain medical conditions, then those moral implications reduce, disappear, or even turn around the other way. Yes there is a moral dimension but no there is not a fallacy.
|
answered on Tuesday, Nov 06, 2018 04:14:39 PM by Colin P |
Comments |
|