Former DI flack Jay Richards has a piece over at the American Enterprise's "journal", giving 12 reasons why you should stick your fingers in your ears and say "Na, na, I can't hear you!" when there is strong scientific consensus. So, in the spirit of that piece, let me offer a few reasons why you should doubt the doubters:
1. When the deniers have little or no scientific training. Richards has "a B.A. with majors in Political Science and Religion, an M.Div. (Master of Divinity) and a Th.M. (Master of Theology), and a Ph.D. (with honors) in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary."
2. When the deniers worked for groups, such as the Discovery Institute, who have a history of prevaricating, dissembling, and just flat out lying.
3. When the deniers publish their supposedly scientific books with publishers devoted to far-right political screeds.
4. When the deniers have held appointments at so-called universities that advertise "biblically centered education" and offer courses in scientific apologetics designed to "demonstrate the harmony between science and a biblical worldview".
5. When the deniers claim that the very existence of a scientific consensus is a reason to doubt the consensus.
6. When the deniers are well-funded by groups that stand to lose a lot of money when action is finally taken.
7. When the deniers post their claims on web pages that don't allow comments.
8. And finally, when the evidence is strongly against the deniers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Number 8 is the strongest reason to accept science, of course.
But it is also the one that is rarely considered in the press, because it requires one to think about difficult subjects, often to a degree that one's brain just can't achieve. The first 7 are weaker reasons to accept science over pseudo-science, but they are easier to argue (but also to misuse). But although they are weaker they are validated (as your links show).
"5. When the deniers claim that the very existence of a scientific consensus is a reason to doubt the consensus."
Close.
Number 12 says (using admittedly poor grammar): "When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus.
"...why you should doubt the doubters:"
Why do you switch from "doubters" to "deniers"?
Wow, this time I must agree wtih Miranda: some people are more doubters than deniers about some hot topics on Science today, being Global Warming one of them.
I, being an atheist myself, and having no please in "denying" Science, am very conufsed about it, after some things I've seen.
I just think we shouldn't link the groups contrary to the Global Warming theory to the groups contrary to the Darwinian theory, for the results could be disastrous.
"and taking no pleasure in denying"*.
Filipe Calvario wrote:
I just think we shouldn't link the groups contrary to the Global Warming theory to the groups contrary to the Darwinian theory, for the results could be disastrous.
If I recall correctly, the Discovery Institute and their allies were the first to make that link. As a PR movement themselves, they're trying to exploit a movement that has been highly successful from a PR standpoint. Look at the editorial cartoons calling global warming a hoax; I can't remember ever seeing an editorial cartoon claiming evolution is a hoax.
And don't forget:
When the deniers promulgate a list of "dissenters" from the scientific consensus.
Furthermore,
3A. The deniers publish lists of peer-reviewed scientific papers that they claim supports their cause, but which actually don't contain evidence supporting their cause.
Surely, James F! What I mean is that we must make clear that the Theory of Evolution and Global Warming claims are distinct things.
Of course the creationists want to link those things! Imagine if Global Warming is proved to be not happening as depicted, and it is linked to TofE in people's minds! Our credibility will be strongly stirred.
Numbers 2, and 6 could use some work. After all, the vast majority of doubters (or, if you prefer, deniers) do not work for these groups, and are not well-funded by groups that stand to lose money when action is finally taken.
3. "When the deniers publish their supposedly scientific books with publishers devoted to far-right political screeds."
Oh, it is so tempting to see whether any scientific books are published by publishers devoted to far-left political screeds. I'll have to take a look...
Post a Comment