A Quick Case for Debate

   I would like to make a quick case for debate.  Specifically I would like to make the case for debating ideas that are considered Conventional Wisdom, also known as Common Knowledge.  The Danger of this idea of Conventional Wisdom is that once and idea becomes Conventional Wisdom, it isn't really open for debate.  It's settled, so don't question it.  Get over it.  The opposite danger is my very proposition of debating Conventional Wisdom, which often manifests itself as paranoia and conspiracy theory.  But in general I believe that the latter danger is insignificant when compared to the former, so debate we must.
   In order to make this case, let's use an example of Conventional Wisdom.  I will choose one of my favorites: vaccination.  It is Conventional Wisdom that vaccinations are good.  They are touted as safe, effective, and important.  They are regimented into our lives through doctors, schools, and especially large-scale public health agencies: the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and many others.  Perhaps most effectively and importantly, they are described in terms that are meant to frighten those who would question their use.
  Now why would someone debate vaccinations, given the widespread support for their use?  Conventional Wisdom says we shouldn't, that we should trust the experts, their studies, their proof.  And Conventional Wisdom also dismisses many of our points of debate or argument, essentially claiming that this issue is settled and should not be open for debate.  But there are questions worth asking, even about something so widely accepted.  For example: what are the ingredients in vaccines, and what do they do?  What happens to viruses as large populations are immunized against them: do they mutate into something more insidious?  What are the secondary and tertiary effects on immunized populations, i.e. what are the unintended consequences?
   In my mind, this last question is the only reason we really need to continue to debate Conventional Wisdom: what are the unintended consequences?  Because there are always unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are innocuous.  Oftentimes they seem innocuous, only to prove significant, if not downright dangerous.  And because there are always unintended consequences, it is irresponsible to stymie debate of Conventional Wisdom.  Neither is it ever acceptable, in my mind, to stymie debate by way of fear.  In the example offered here, the experts usually do just that, especially by raising the specter of an outbreak of pandemic disease.  People assuredly respond to fear, but rarely if ever in constructive ways.
   For me, it comes down to liberty: the freedom to make a choice.  Conventional Wisdom discounts Personal Choice by establishing the Right Choice - or the Only Choice.  Debate provides the opportunity to tease out the pros and cons and discover what other choices there may be.  In the example of vaccinations, the problem is a social or corporate one, but the choice is a private or personal one.  The proofs and arguements for the Conventional Wisdom in this case are cold, impersonal, statistical.  The debates against the Conventional Wisdom are heated, sincere, and personal.  Conventional Wisdom, when it dismisses Personal Choice, runs the risk of sacrificing its legitimacy for the sake of establishing its proof.  And Personal Choice runs the risk of sacrificing legitimacey for the sake of argument.  The danger is greater for Conventional Wisdom, by virtue of the very fact that it is Conventional; legitimacy is everything.
   I did not intend to argue a specific point here, but rather make the case I stated initially, in favor of debate.  I will add one important point: debate requires us to be informed.  We don't have to be experts to debate; in many cases being an Expert is a liability.  The Experts have limited vision by virtue of their knowledge of the debate.  Again, Conventional Wisdom.  So let's keep the debates alive.