Haha, the scary part is that most of them are most likely grown adults.
Yeah, just as studies can be constructed in such a way as to produce a certain result, language and rhetoric can be used to convince people of completely unrelated ideas. On one hand, there are scientists and journalists spinning facts to oppose vaping, while vapers have their dogmatic rhetoric to convince others that they are beng lied to by the opposition. The automatic reaction to a study is "They're lying and here's how." Both sides live by their agendas and that dictates how their arguments and counter-arguments are formed.
I imagine that we look the much same from their side of the fence as they do from ours.
This makes it difficult to separate arguments from facts. The crux of most arguments relies upon deciding the truth. We don't know the truth... ...in reality, it has yet to be seen, so we instead extrapolate it with logic. This can be a dangerous thing.
People, in general, are to blame for the lack of the middle ground. Lots people out there are intellectually lazy and don't like doing the footwork to draw their own conclusions. They prefer to borrow from someone else's point of view. This inevitably leads to the "with us or against us" fallacy running rampant. Personally, I think people should look at the facts on their own and try to discern the truth for themselves, rather than letting an article tell them what truths have been decided... ...who's wrong and who's right isn't what the discussion should be about. That's why we go in circles. We need to instead examine what is real and what is not. Facts do not lie, but people sure do.
But then again, the assumption that there must be a middle ground is also a fallacy. The world doesn't necessarily operate that way. Facts are absolutely black and white. Only the interpretations are gray.
