Something just hit me about those who deny scientific advancements that they disagree with, find unintuitive, or just don’t like. Creationists. Climate denialists. HIV/AIDS denialists. Germ Theory denialists. The whole bunch.
They are incredibly arrogant.
Think about what it means to deny the science behind such things. It means telling the smartest minds in the field that they are wrong. It means, for all intents and purposes, that you are willing to make the claim, “I am smarter than 99% of the people whose job it is to do research on this subject”. I wonder if most denialists realize this, and how they come to grips with it. The very idea shocks me; that one could be so arrogant after doing “research”, probably mostly non-peer-reviewed articles online, to think that 99.98% of biologists are wrong, or that 97% of all climatologists are missing “obvious” problems with the whole idea of global warming, or that 100% (realistically) of all doctors and medical scientists are in a conspiracy backed by big pharma to bring down Homeopathy, Acupuncture, and other “alternative” medicines.
I really suppose this applies first and foremost to climate change denialists and creationists, but really? The amount of sheerly mind-blowing arrogance that comes from ignoring the scientific community and the peer-reviewed literature is simply mind-boggling.
Oh, I know of it. But even in regards to not being able to see who really knows what they’re talking about, the reinforcement from the rest of the world, the fact that these are the people actually doing the research… You’d think it’s enough, but it isn’t. Kinda sad.
People who are doing the research actually do acrobatics to sound ok to deniers, more often than not (Pat Michaels, Richard Lidsen) when they talk to a denier audience they throw bones to them and they are invited again and again to denialist fests like the ones organized by the Heartland Institute.
But even when the expert is barely lukewarm to denialist ideas the deniers are so desperate that they use experts like Lomborg (expert on economics of the climate change issue) when he is not really supporting them.
So one has to separate the deniers from the researchers that are skeptics, while it is true that a good number of skeptical scientists (that are few and losing ground constantly) are going off the deep end like Spencer, not all of the skeptical researchers are.
It’s like GIGObuster said, there are people who are too stupid to realize what being stupid means.
I give myself credit that I’m smart enough to know my limitations. I know there are people (some of them on this board) who are more intelligent than me. So if I find myself in a disagreement with somebody who I know knows more than me, I’m hopefully going to realize that this probably means he’s right and I’m wrong.
But a dumber person wouldn’t be able to make that connection. They might understand that somebody else is smarter than they are. But they don’t see the implications of that. In their limited understanding, being right or wrong are just random occurrences and they figure they’re just as likely to be right as the smarter guy is.
When it comes to scientific issue, the thinking goes something like this, “I don’t understand this stuff. So this stuff isn’t understandable. And everybody must just be guessing what the answers are. And my guess is as good as anybody else’s.”
Luckily, I’m too smart to be fooled by ANYONE EVER! I do feel sorry for the deniers – the poor saps who deny the moon landing hoax, the climate change charlatans, and Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate. Some people never learn.
Frankly, climate change deniers and creationists get shredded here, because their error also runs counter to the board’s political leaning.
When the science runs counter to the left’s preconceptions, though, I feel that the very accurate summary “And my guess is as good as anybody else’s,” doesn’t get levelled at dissenting posters so easily.
And I even replied to you there that reporters that did take a look at the issue told you that, regarding genetic engineering, the issue does not follow political leanings so well as it happens with climate change and creationism.
I also pointed out that even though I follow many leftist causes, I do look at the science first and the few leftists that appear there are really bananas.
And that is why there are things like peer review and other checks, (it can fail but the record also helps get things right eventually) what I do see from the subject of climate science is that many of the few skeptical scientists that are left are in the process of falling for tactics that creationists are proud of using. Publishing misleading papers on journals that have very little oversight or going to press their case to the public avoiding peer review.
Like Wegman, Soon, Spencer, Bob Carter.
Deniers like “Lord” not from the house of lords Monkton, Republican Senator Inhofe and the vast majority of the Republicans already do use creationist tactics on this subject and are proud of it.
But let’s face it: those leftists you’re willing to call bananas. But overall, on this board, do you agree they get a much comfier reception than their brethern on the right?
No, as there are people like you to tell them also that they are bananas.
But really, it is not hard to get a lot of support for a scientific subject nowadays, It is in some ways a form to see where a consensus is, if scientific support is coming out of your ears on a subject and just by coincidence* your political opponents support the contrarian view, then it would be silly to hold back, never give a sucker an even break, specially if he/she sucks on science.
I do believe that it is just a historical coincidence that most liberals have many scientific issues on their side now, I do think that if climate change had been an issue during the Teddy Roosevelt years Teddy would had punched Exxon and others polluting the environment like the Koch brothers on the nose.
I’m torn, I actually think there’s nothing wrong with questioning even fairly basic principles. I see a lot of science treated as if it’s gospel, which is wrong all parts of science can be legitmately questioned. If something doesn’t sound right question it.
On the other hand the questioning should be honest (i.e. not driven by a latent agenda) and you should take the time to learn things to make sure your objections are not a result of misunderstanding.
There is a certain amount of arrogance when people try to apply principles they don’t properly understand (e.g. entropy and evolution) or make trivial objections as if they have simply been ignored (e.g. natural temperature varaition and global warming).
That’s not what I’, saying. I’m saying that a lot of people, people when it comes to science tend to be failry uncrtical in their thinking. And also when presenting to science to the public there can be, occasionally, a bit of gilding of the lily going on (yes it does happen).
If you have an objection, the best thing is to say “well what about this…” rather than just to think “well this person knows better than me so I’ll just keep quiet”. Of course the vast, vast majoirty of the time this will simply lead to an explanation, but by getting an explanation your already gaining more.
What I am saying is that people treat science sometimes with too much reverence, when instead they should be adopting a tone of honest inquiry, which is after all th ewhole spirit of the scientific method.
)