There's good news and bad news on the 9/11 denier front.
The good news is that Jonathan Kay has a new book, Among the Truthers, containing a perceptive analysis of the commonalities among 9/11 "Truthers", Obama "birthers", and other fringe conspiracists.
The bad news is that the 9/11 deniers are soon to host yet another laughable truther meeting, which they pompously call the Toronto Hearings, September 8-11, at Ryerson. Here's an article in the Canadian Press that mentions it.
Many of the usual Canadian 9/11 crowd will be there, including Michael Keefer, Graeme MacQueen, and Adnan Zuberi.
I hope some of our local skeptics can attend and report on it.
Showing posts with label deniers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label deniers. Show all posts
Monday, September 05, 2011
Saturday, March 20, 2010
When to Doubt the Science Bashers
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.
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:
Posts (Atom)
