Performance Project

Credible Sides

Alejandra Ros

ART 2930C / 04DF

April 21, 2015

Credible Sides

            Two heavily opposed sides create tension as each provides evidence to support their respective claims. When it is clear that one side should be disregarded due to refuted claims, unprofessionalism, uncertified authorities, and downright common sense. There exists a vision classifying hard to believe entities relating to their mannerism and background. The anti-vaccine movement is comprised of parents, and even medical practitioners, that fear the possibility of children developing life-hindering complications from vaccines. Their mistrust is supported by misled science, the unexpected voice from medical authorities, and claims to better alternative and natural resistance. Amid the recent measles outbreak this past December that originated in southern California’s Disneyland, there has been sharp criticism toward the anti-vaccine movement. It stands to reasonable grounds to vaccinate children, as there is no credible evidence to prove otherwise. To what extent is the anti-vaccine movement credible? In broader terms, to what extent should any two opposing sides present evidence when one very clearly outweighs the other?

            The process of finding evidence supporting the anti-vaccine movement proved to very difficult. Whenever I did find information, it was puzzling to imagine people actually trust the movement’s claims. The piece presents both sides equally in terms of expression and presentation. It assumes that there are no preconceived opinions to the two sides, especially with regard to anti-vaccination. The piece follows a format in which there are exchanges of evidence between the two sides. The anti-vaccine evidence is given equal importance despite there being flaws in the argument.  The pro-vaccine argument challenges the information from its opponent. However, both parties do not “personally” challenge what has been said. The two are disconnected from one another. The anti-vaccine argument does not acknowledge that it is being discrediting and reacts by laying out another claim, only for the other side to further discredit it. The defeated argument chooses to remain stubborn and ignorant until the last possible second  and perhaps not at all.