# An interesting thought about science denialists **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 11, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940 "2011-09-11T14:30:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/181 "2011-09-14T01:24:44Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Despite this, I’m quite comfortable saying that true, hard core denial of science is unquestionably associated with a conservative point of view. I can’t think of anything that comes close to the denial of climate change or of evolution. Furthermore, I think this extends to issues that are not scientifically resolved, like ideas such as tax cuts leading to good economic indicators. I’d modify that slightly to say that those conservatives who hard-core deny science hold a great deal more political power than those liberals who hard-core deny science, but yeah, basically I agree. (I might agree with what you say, except that I’d want to see some numbers first 🙂 ). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/182 "2011-09-14T01:26:01Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Try this one instead: an evidence-based approach is fundamental to science. Using such an approach does not mean one is engaging in science, but rather that one is using a tool integral to scientific pursuits and to critical thinking in general (on preview, I see that **Hentor** is making a somewhat similar point). That’s almost exactly what I’m saying. Turn it around, rather, and say that if you’re using an evidence- **rejecting** approach, you’re using an approach fundamentally incompatible with science. I agree that using evidence isn’t sufficient to say you’re doing science, though. ---
**Author:** ![heatmiserfl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/df705f/32.png) [@heatmiserfl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heatmiserfl)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/183 "2011-09-14T01:27:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, I do. > > You seem to imagine that I’m making leaps of inference that I am not. > > Read carefully: I am saying that if someone predicts A, and A does not occur, then they are obligated to admit that they predicted A and A did not occur. > > That’s all. > > “A” in this case is “gun crime in bars will rise.” > > There’s no difference between that and saying that the Higgs boson will show up at 350 GeV. It didn’t. > > Now, what conclusions are to be drawn from that? I don’t demand anyone draw any conclusions from it. But to deny the numbers themselves? > > Yes, the numbers are science. Why would they not be? That’s the most basic thing there can be: counting things. > > If you think there’s a post hoc fallacy, lay it out, specifically: what do you imagine is the fallacious claim? See this is why I never get involved in these discussions even though I feel like I should. Reading this is just too depressing. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/184 "2011-09-14T01:40:47Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Actually your point is the one that is irrelevant to the discussion, glad we figured that out. > > As it is relevant to the discussion it is not an strawman, deal with it or step aside. > > The rest is just whining from you. We need a shrug icon. As in, I give up, you get to call this one a “win” since you are completely impenetrable. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/185 "2011-09-14T01:44:53Z")
The thing I never can understand, is why anyone would continue to bang their head against a stone wall. The internet is really really big. As to the topic at hand, I despise science deniers. Especially the ones that have a direct effect on my life. Religious fruitbats and ignorant fuckheads can deny all they want, just don’t reach your hand in my pocket based on your false beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/186 "2011-09-14T01:53:07Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > We need a shrug icon. As in, I give up, you get to call this one a “win” since you are completely impenetrable. Meh. 🙂 As the tread is indeed about science denialists, it is pertinent to check if they are using ideology to avoid dealing with evidence. > **[Global warming vs climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)** > > \There have long been claims that some unspecificed Or we can just say that they are being silly. [![](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/mqMunulJU7w/hqdefault.jpg?sqp=-oaymwEmCOADEOgC8quKqQMa8AEB-AHUBoAC1gOKAgwIABABGEQgXChyMA8=&rs=AOn4CLBxlJL73bJIrZYo1w4t0OgtByKKUw "Global Warming? or Climate Change?") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqMunulJU7w) ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/187 "2011-09-14T01:56:09Z")
It’s stupid shit like the following that makes me want to bitchslap some bloggers. **The skeptic argument…** > [@](#): > > They changed the name from global warming to climate change > **[Global warming vs climate change](https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-global-warming.htm)** > > \There have long been claims that some unspecificed wtf? Seriously? How is pointing out the shift in naming a fucking argument? I mean, if you can’t see that shit for the stupid it is, why should I listen to the more complex shit you blog about? See? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/188 "2011-09-14T01:56:36Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > The thing I never can understand, is why anyone would continue to bang their head against a stone wall. The internet is really really big. > > As to the topic at hand, I despise science deniers. Especially the ones that have a direct effect on my life. Religious fruitbats and ignorant fuckheads can deny all they want, just don’t reach your hand in my pocket based on your false beliefs. Except for anti vaccers, anti nukers or climate change deniers?.. ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/189 "2011-09-14T01:59:01Z")
Fuck it, lets just ship the whole stupid list ``` Climate's changed before It's the sun It's not bad There is no consensus It's cooling Models are unreliable Temp record is unreliable Animals and plants can adapt It hasn't warmed since 1998 Antarctica is gaining ice ``` Those aren’t arguments, they are pointing to things, events, measurements, shit that is just there. Except for the “It’s cooling” and possibly “It’s the sun”, they are all just facts. The sun and the cooling measured in some places is just an example of how complicated the matter is. It’s hugely complicated. Some blog trying to make it simple, all settled, it’s not science. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/190 "2011-09-14T02:11:08Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Your original points 1 and 2 ( 1) The concealed-carry permits went into effect; 2) Crime rates didn’t rise) appear to be accurate. and that statement is what I was asking for. Period. Nothing else. You don’t agree that the stats were falsified by the police with the newspaper’s assistance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/191 "2011-09-14T02:13:40Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Most of my reaction to this is my inability to consider Der Trihs as a serious poster. He literally doesn’t count for any arguments concerning the composition of the SDMB or the hypocrisy of any faction, since he isn’t IN any faction other than “insane”. FXMastermind and margin and a few others are also on that list. Yes, except that he doesn’t get shouted down or dog piled the same way right wing insane posters do. I grant he’s not generally respected, but he is mostly tolerated, with a wry resignation. “There goes Der Trihs again…” ---
**Author:** ![FXMastermind](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fxmastermind/32/7289_2.png) [@FXMastermind](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FXMastermind)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/192 "2011-09-14T02:16:41Z")
I don’t want to ever be considered a serious poster. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/193 "2011-09-14T02:17:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > and that statement is what I was asking for. Period. Nothing else. You don’t agree that the stats were falsified by the police with the newspaper’s assistance. Then I really, really, really don’t understand the exchange in the posts between 128 and 136. Why didn’t you just say, “No, you misunderstand. I’m not, in fact, suggesting that this is an example of science.” I mean, I’m hesitant to reopen the wound, but you’re not, in fact, contending that this was science, are you, or that measuring something is science? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/194 "2011-09-14T02:26:02Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, except that he doesn’t get shouted down or dog piled the same way right wing insane posters do. I grant he’s not generally respected, but he is mostly tolerated, with a wry resignation. “There goes Der Trihs again…” Warning in advance: **Shodan** , I’m dragging your name into things unnecessarily. I find posters like **Shodan** to be annoying, and I sometimes have trouble believing he’s posting sincerely, but when he’s not drive-bying or taking stupid cheap shots at liberals or at his nemesis Secret Society (I think they’re called the Usury Suppositories or something), he can post things that are interesting and useful. **Der Trihs** is fucking insane. He’s like **Rand Rover** insane. I try to avoid the temptation to argue with either of them. RR is a little more difficult to resist, because he follows me around making kissy noises and calling me his bitch, and also because I’m already positioned to argue against conservative points of view. But I always regret getting into a discussion with him: it’s never ever useful. **Der Trihs** also isn’t useful to argue with, but he doesn’t show up to argue against me at every opportunity, and also I’m not pre-positioned to argue against leftists. Occasionally I’ll say something like I’m saying now, but more often I just resist the temptation to engage with him. How often do you find yourself arguing against the Rand Rovers of the board? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/195 "2011-09-14T02:33:02Z")
> [@FXMastermind](#): > > Fuck it, lets just ship the whole stupid list > > ``` > Climate's changed before > It's the sun > It's not bad > There is no consensus > It's cooling > Models are unreliable > Temp record is unreliable > Animals and plants can adapt > It hasn't warmed since 1998 > Antarctica is gaining ice > > ``` > > Those aren’t arguments, they are pointing to things, events, measurements, shit that is just there. Check the links, the links to the scientific papers are in there. And those are the arguments from the deniers, you are correct that many do not amount to good ones, and yet they are repeated forever and ever (Amen) by deniers. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > Except for the “It’s cooling” and possibly “It’s the sun”, they are all just facts. The sun and the cooling measured in some places is just an example of how complicated the matter is. And if you had bothered to check the links you would had seen that it is complicated, but that complexity is not favoring deniers. > [@FXMastermind](#): > > It’s hugely complicated. Some blog trying to make it simple, all settled, it’s not science. As pointed out before, it does defer to the science. > **[How climate change deniers led me to set up Skeptical Science website | John...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2011/apr/28/climate-change-denial-skeptical-science)** > > John Cook: What began as a family discussion ended up as a wider frustration that deniers are given an equal footing as the overwhelming evidence they refuse to accept > [@](#): > > At this point, my inner-computer geek asserted itself and I began constructing a database of climate ‘sceptic’ arguments. To cut to the truth of each argument, I made peer-reviewed science the ultimate authority. There’s no higher standard than evidence-based research conducted by experts, which is then rigorously scrutinised by other experts. As I began to piece together the various pieces, a clear picture began to emerge. > > The case for human-caused global warming is robust. It’s based on many lines of independent evidence, all pointing to a single, consistent answer. This preponderance of evidence is why we have a consensus among scientists. It’s not about tree-hugging or secret plans to control the world – it’s rooted in empirical measurements and the laws of physics. > > Patterns in the sceptic arguments began to emerge. Instead of considering all the evidence in their search for the truth, climate ‘sceptics’ refuse to accept evidence that humans are causing global warming. This is not scepticism but denial. To deny a scientific consensus based on so much evidence, you have to deny the scientific evidence. > > There are a number of methods to deny evidence and believe me, I’ve seen them all. The simplest method is to avoid the evidence altogether by smearing climate scientists or indulging in conspiracy theories. This is what “climategate”, the theft or leaking of scientists’ emails, was all about. A smattering of quotes taken out of context from a handful of emails does nothing to change the vast weight of evidence showing global warming. > > The most common denial technique is cherry picking. If the full body of evidence doesn’t give you the answer you want, carefully select the bits and pieces that give the desired impression and sweep the rest of the evidence off the table. Deniers post pictures of weather stations positioned near car parks and tarmacs, convinced global warming is an artefact of poor measurements. This line of thinking denies the thousands of natural thermometers that also indicate warming – rising sea levels, shifting seasons, retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, even tree lines are moving. > > Greenland is not losing hundreds of billion of tonnes of ice every year because someone placed a thermometer near an air conditioner. > > So I started the Skeptical Science website, with the sceptics’ arguments collected together as the website’s backbone. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 12:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/196 "2011-09-14T12:49:14Z")
A thread about the arrogant ignorance of science denialists should take note of Michelle Bachmann. During this week’s GOP Presidential candidates’ debate she played to antivaxers’ support, slamming Rick Perry for trying to make “innocent 12-year-old girls” get a “forced government injection”. Ooo, jack-booted government thugs holding down innocent children to _inject_ them with _needles_ containing God knows what? Where will it end? It’s not just Bachmann getting in a dig at Perry’s relationship with Merck, the Gardasil manufacturer. She’s pushing [unfounded fears about the vaccine itself](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037100/Michele-Bachmann-claims-HPV-vaccine-cause-mental-retardation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml). _“After the debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the (Gardasil) issue with the title ‘I’m Offended.’ In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage. She told Fox News: 'There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. ‘She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.’”_ Bachmann believes what a parent allegedly told her after the debate. The science and the studies? Not so much. There’s your prime example of the arrogance of ignorance. [More](http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/michelle_bachmanns_anti-vaccine_statement.php) on Michelle’s ploy and playing to antiscience sentiments among voters. We now return to the pressing issue of how Doper leftists aren’t mean enough to **Der Trihs**. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/197 "2011-09-14T12:55:36Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > A thread about the arrogant ignorance of science denialists should take note of Michelle Bachmann. During this week’s GOP Presidential candidates’ debate she played to antivaxers’ support, slamming Rick Perry for trying to make “innocent 12-year-old girls” get a “forced government injection”. Ooo, jack-booted government thugs holding down innocent children to _inject_ them with _needles_ containing God knows what? Where will it end? > > It’s not just Bachmann getting in a dig at Perry’s relationship with Merck, the Gardasil manufacturer. She’s pushing [unfounded fears about the vaccine itself](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2037100/Michele-Bachmann-claims-HPV-vaccine-cause-mental-retardation.html?ito=feeds-newsxml). > > _“After the debate, the Minnesota congresswoman sent out a fundraising appeal on the (Gardasil) issue with the title ‘I’m Offended.’ > In interviews after the debate, she suggested that the vaccine could do permanent damage. > She told Fox News: 'There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. > ‘She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences.’”_ > > Bachmann believes what a parent allegedly told her after the debate. The science and the studies? Not so much. > There’s your prime example of the arrogance of ignorance. Agreed. You might m not ake a public policy argument against the government usurping parental roles, although even then you’d be on somewhat thin ice. But in my view, if you simply held the line at, “These mandatory vaccinations are not the proper role of government,” you at least have a defensible, non-scientific claim. Bachmann’s claim is lunacy, foolish arrogant lunacy. I’m not sure anti-vaxers as a whole dominate one side or other other of the political spectrum, but graphed by weight of influence, this one clearly lands heavily on the Right. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/198 "2011-09-14T12:58:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > How often do you find yourself arguing against the Rand Rovers of the board? When I’m in a thread and I notice a cringe-worthy comment from what’s ostensibly “my side,” I try to make a point of speaking out against it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/199 "2011-09-14T13:00:59Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Then I really, really, really don’t understand the exchange in the posts between 128 and 136. Why didn’t you just say, “No, you misunderstand. I’m not, in fact, suggesting that this is an example of science.” > > I mean, I’m hesitant to reopen the wound, but you’re not, in fact, contending that this was science, are you, or that measuring something is science? I should have, but was drawn on by the interest in defining the scientific method so I could show that a key component thereof was the acceptance of measurements and results even if they did not show what you wish them to show. But it was a distraction, and I should have just said that science was not my claim. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 14, 2011, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/200 "2011-09-14T13:14:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Bachmann’s claim is lunacy, foolish arrogant lunacy. I’m not sure anti-vaxers as a whole dominate one side or other other of the political spectrum, but graphed by weight of influence, this one clearly lands heavily on the Right. I mentioned earlier that woo, including antivax nonsense, knows no political boundaries. If you check out the Respectful Insolence link in my last post, the author (whose own politics are mildly right of center) makes the point that while anti/pseudo-science views are routinely espoused and/or coddled by mainstream Republican politicians these days (especially when it comes to evolution and climate change), Bachmann may have crossed the line by promoting antivax idiocy, which in some people’s minds is more commonly associated with crunchy granola leftist views. Apparently it’s alright to be arrogantly ignorant about science, but not if your ignorance is tainted by an association with liberalism. :eek: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=11)