Presenting both sides of an issue as being reasonable isn't an example of critical thinking
Agreed.
I was trying to say that the post reflected -or was a good example of- the results of one person's critical thinking. Why? Because to me critical thinking is not "read statistics, apply the numbers" (e.g., "If a vaccine kills only 1/1000 people, and some people said it's best, then do it.") To me, critical thinking would be the process of honestly, objectively, and openly exploring as many factors as possible. In this thread's example, perhaps questions like:
- What is the range of numbers presented by all parties presenting numbers?
- How accurate and reliable has each party been in other presentations?
- What interests does each party have?
- What testing was involved? How rigorous was it? What parties was it substantiated by?
- Is there common ground between parties? Is that common ground being honoured or circumvented? If the latter, why?
- Over what duration have records been kept, and what records?
- What is the effect of that 1/1000 death?
- What injuries, to the vaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries, to the unvaccinated person and to those around him, are possible?
- What injuries in either are the norm?
- What are the personal, community, and financial costs of injuries?
- Are vaccines more relevant in some environments than others?
- Are there factors even more useful and safe than vaccines?
- Does the use of vaccines interfere with other approaches?
- What factors impact the safety of vaccines? Which of these have been implemented? Where? When?
- What other factors have been studied/dismissed/ignored to date?
- Where does my belief that the 999 are more important than the one, or that the one is more important than the 999 come from? Is my belief sound?
Where critical thinking is applied, it's very difficult to anticipate what each person's ultimate determination will be. i.e., It's unlikely that all person thinking critically will arrive at the same conclusion.
And oh, man, I know...Good luck to any parent or doctor in such an exploration!! (Which might lead one to a critical thinking process around: Who does one trust? On what basis? And so on.)
Your list is incomplete but illustrates perfectly what is wrong with the anti-vaccers: the diseases the vaccines are supposed to prevent don't really figure much in their deficient thought process.
Your list doesn't include the need for detailed knowledge about the diseases either, and that is typical.
I suggest to start your list with:
What is known about the disease in question, in particular regarding the history of the disease?
Is there evidence that the historical narrative regarding a disease has changed from one of widespread suffering and tragedy to a discussion of vaccines?
If yes, get the shot - it's a winner.
Repeat for every disease for which a vaccine is available.
One does not have to be an expert to do this because it's mainly history of Medicine.
I also got problems with a thread titled "Not Vaccinating Your Children is Crazy" because it's trolling, pure and simple.
But a thread titled "let's reintroduce measles in our community" wouldn't get the anti-vaccers out of the woodwork, would it?