That's so fucked up. They'd rather have them catch AIDS becuase they can't realize sex isn't bad.

Since I'm not having sex with many 17 year old girls these days, I haven't done my homework on the vaccine.  I know it's really controversial in some circles, and a relatively thorough web search turned up lots of objections, but precious few of them were attached to a journal or other reputable science source.  Here are some things I know pretty conclusively that factor into my opinion:

1) The FDA and CDC are most definitely in league with the Pharm industry, and the Pharm industry is a for-profit industry.

2) There have been problems with vaccines in the past, but most of them have been relatively minor.

3) Compared to other vaccines, Gardacil is really cheap  (approximately $100-$150 per shot).

4) Considering all the relatively easy money to be made in the pharm industry (I mean, for fuck's sake!  Restless Leg Syndrome?)  I tend to think this isn't purely profit driven.  There are a lot easier ways to make a buck than fighting the Catholic Church.

Is a low occurrence of side effects acceptable to be rid of HPV, which is by far the most common STD?  I dunno.  I do know that getting the lining of your vagina incinerated by a laser beam is a lot more than $150, and substantially more painful than a shot.  I do know that as long as the church keeps teaching abstinence only, there will be LOTS of teens having unsafe sex.  After all, we've seen the research.  It's pretty much a 1:1 correlation.

I don't expect this decision to be a long lasting one.  Some numbnut priest is going to get his ladies underwear in a bunch and demand that all good little girls stop screwing his altar boys.

Define "lately."

Actually, no.  The last time I hooked up with a 17 year old, it was almost a legal exchange of fluids.  However, it's worth pointing out that I think every man ought to hook up with an 18 year old when he turns 36.  We must embrace the joys of being able to screw a girl half our age and get away with it.

(Disclaimer: No wives were harmed in the making of this post.)

Could do with a vaccine versus the vile disease of christianity while the girls are it. Maybe a vaccine with a free copy of the god delusion or something?

I mean... where's the "little pharm" or "Ma & Pa pharm"?

Kevin, shame on you.  I included this as one fact in a line of reasoning that ended with the conclusion that the vaccine is probably a good thing.  Facts are facts, and the Pharm industry IS for profit.  That must be taken into consideration, for good and for bad.  In this instance, I concluded that there's not sufficient reason to conclude that Gardasil is primarily a profit venture.

 ... and while I'm at it, DG, I think it's unfair to say that I was being unfairly biased.  The American Pharm industry is well known for pushing inadequately tested products through.  I included that fact in a line of reasoning that ended with the conclusion that the HPV vaccine is probably NOT purely profit driven, primarily because good critical thinking leads me away from a pure profit motive. 

Right.  It's not an argument, but it is a valid premise in an argument.  In this case, it was evidence against my conclusion, but I didn't find it strong enough to sway my conclusion.

Put another way, the history of the Pharm industry must be taken into account.  Again... Restless Leg Syndrome?  Really?  Or the recent pill for Psoriasis?  I can't think of the name of it because I've had a significant amount of tequila, but one of the side effects on the bottle is melanoma.  Cancer is not a side effect.  Reliability is part of the equation.  I factored that in, and still came to the conclusion that the vaccine is probably a good thing.  I'm sorry that I feel it's worth mentioning the unreliability of the American Pharm industry, but it is definitely part of the equation.  I am close friends with several CDC employees.  I know of what I speak.

In the course of day to day life for the average person, this is going to be a regular occurrence.  For instance, in the case of Gardasil, the only clinical information I have available to me is the evaluations from the FDA and CDC.  Supposing that I had a twelve year old daughter, and had to make the choice of whether or not to allow her to receive the vaccine, I would be forced to make a decision based on the information I have.  The credibility of the source becomes the primary piece of data which will sway my decision:

Available Data:

1) The CDC and FDA say the vaccine is safe.

2) Anti-Vaccine groups, Christians, and Conservatives say it's unsafe.

With no other data to go on, I must evaluate as best I can the motives, reliability, and credibility of the sources, and can easily create an inductive argument, the conclusion of which is directly relevant to a subsequent argument which reaches the conclusion, "It is likely that Garasil is relatively safe."

Of course, if we want to break this down further, I do have a lot more available data, but it is addressing the reliability of sources.  For instance, I can look up vaccination records, available studies showing long term health of children who received vaccinations, and other such data.  This would directly discredit the Anti-Vaccine lobby, and cause me to omit their objection in my argument.  Again, I don't have direct proof that they're wrong about this particular vaccine, but I have every reason to believe so, since there's no direct evidence available to me that supports their assertion.

Same with the conservatives.  Having no access to their "data," I can only go on their record, and must also dismiss their objection.  What I'm left with, then, is the CDC and FDA claims that the vaccine is safe, with no particular reason to suppose otherwise except for the reputation of the CDC and FDA themselves.  (Consider:  If I was isolated and forced to make a snap decision based only on one claim about science, supplied by and endorsed by Liberty University, my default assumption would have to be negative, given Liberty's stance on evolution.)

I think what we're differing on here is a matter of words.  The kind of argument I'm talking about doesn't have the same weight as one backed up by direct evidence, but it is still an argument, or more precisely, a series of arguments:

P1: Anti-Vaccine groups have a poor record of accuracy.

P2: Anti-Vaccine groups have a record of strong bias.

P3: Groups that have poor records of accuracy and records of strong bias are highly unlikely to be reliable.*

C1: Anti-Vaccine groups are highly likely to be unreliable.

(Repeat for Christians and Republicans)

* This premise could be established through probability in a separate argument.

P1: IF an argument is to be strong, only reliable sources should be used.

P2: Anti-Vaccine groups, Christians and republicans are NOT reliable sources.

C1: AV, C, and R should NOT be used IF an argument is to be strong.

At this point, I can go through a similar set of arguments which will establish that it is unreasonable to doubt the word of the FDA in this instance, based on the pattern of unreliability in the past.  That is, the circumstances which make them more unreliable are not present, and so they can be regarded as generally reliable in this instance.

Finally, I can create this argument:

P1: Vaccines approved by the FDA are highly likely to be safe.

P2: Gardasil is approved by the FDA.

C1: Gardasil is highly likely to be safe.

As you can see, this argument rests on P1, which cannot be safely proposed until the reliability of all four groups -- The FDA, Christians, Republicans, and the Anti-Vaccine Lobby, has been evaluated.  Until then, I can create a valid argument in this form, but I cannot establish that it is also true.  As you can see, the language of these arguments is somewhat colloquial, but they will all reduce to symbolic logic with minor tweaking, and certainly fit the definition of arguments.

In short, I'm suggesting that the arguments used to evaluate reliability are, in fact, proper arguments, and that they are preliminary steps to creating the primary argument used to establish the core proposition.  It would be improper to disregard evidence without establishing the truth of the basis for doing so, and it takes arguments to do that.  Obviously, once the preliminary arguments have been justified, they can be taken as givens in the future, but if we're going to be pedantic about it, the process does need to be done once.

Here's the crux of the disagreement.  Primary sources are not often available to the average Joe Blow, and the only evaluation that can be made is the reliability of secondary sources.  Furthermore, there's a problem with asking Joe Blow to do primary evaluations -- without knowing the specific protocols for several branches of science, it's likely that he will make significant errors based on misinterpretation of statements that would be perfectly clear to a scientist in the field.  For this reason, it will actually prove more reliable for a non-scientist to use the trustworthiness of sources as part of what I would call a "secondary argument" -- So and so is a highly reliable source.  So and so says X.  X is probably highly reliable.

By the way, I see that you've sent me a draft, but I have not read it yet.  It's quite possible that we're just crossing paths that you've already covered, so disregard all of this if that's the case.  (It's still worth putting out in the thread, regardless.)  The main point that I'm making is that you seem to be talking about a best case scenario in which a person has access to sufficient primary data, and this is going to be a relatively rare occurrence.  Most of the data available to Joe Blow will be from secondary sources, and this not only necessitates evaluation of reliability, but also sometimes dictates that a decision be made only on the basis of source reliability.  It's not the best of all possible situations, but in a pinch, it's what has to be done, since (as Rush so eloquently put it) choosing not to decide is still making a choice.

How about taking seat belts and airgbags out of cars because it encourages people to drive recklessly?

I agree with everything you are saying. The paper in question deals primarily with argumentative analysis, not source analysis. One primary point that I think you'll agree with me on is that the two should not be mixed. Thus, in the context of critiquing somebody's argument, the biases, motives, etc. should not be considered insofar as they do not detract from the argument. If you are critiquing the source, of course they must. Often people will make the former error, employing the bias of the opposition in the form of rhetoric in the context of attacking the arguments made (for example, don't you get sick of the ridiculous phrase "liberal left-wing agenda" etc.) For me, it will be different since I spend most of time evaluating primary arguments. Thus, for example, I have analyzed statistical trials performed by drug comapnies that were methodologically flawless just I have analyzed those which are methodologically questionable. This has taught me to be wary of source criticism.

It's a fact that is meaningless in the context of the discussion; the only value it has has here is inflammatory. 'Well, for starters, the RRS asks people for paid subscriptions to their website...' 'Well, for starters, Rook Hawkins has no formal degree...' 'Well, for starters, NASA is married to defense contractors and the USAF...' 'Well, for starters, that restaurant is run by atheists...' 'Well, for starters, Christopher Hitchens has a drinking problem...'

These are all facts, too. But unless I'm talking directly about them, inserting them into an argument is fallacious; their sole purpose is to jab at credibility through emotional appeal. Whether or not vaccines are effective at preventing viral infection has nothing to do with the pharmacy industry making money - that the endeavor is for profit does certainly not somehow 'need' to be taken into consideration at all.

You brought-up an excellent example; one particular treatment has a demonstratable side-effect that is worse than the condition it treat. That's would be a real point of consideration, and you'll note it would be so whether or not the pharmacy industry made money from it.