# 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:** 6
**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 13, 2011, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/101 "2011-09-13T01:15:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Again: no. > > Let me restate my claim. Please argue against it, not what you’re painting it to be. > > If you predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact. Yes? > > That’s all. > > Perhaps my use of “you” is confusing you. In the sentence above, I use the pronoun in its indefinite sense. That is, I don’t mean to say, “If you, Jackmanii, predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact.” I mean instead to say, “If you, any person, predicted A, and Not A happens, that’s a matter of fact.” > > Refusal to admit that error is certainly a matter that hinges directly on this discussion: it’s the intellectual honesty Feynman discusses in his Cargo Cult speech. I agree with that, it was not correct to say crime would rise, OTOH, the ones claiming crime would lower also got it wrong. > **[Wayne LaPierre said that violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/)** > > Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association delivered a stirring defense of gun ownership at the Conservative Polit ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/102 "2011-09-13T02:23:05Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > In many cases (especially in climate discussions), it’s because googling that question will turn up a host of evidence that it’s a question only asked with any frequency by denialists. Again, how is someone new to the subject under discussion supposed to know this? Are you saying that anyone that wishes to ask a question of someone in here should go to Google and see if it is a “bad” question?? > [@Kobal2](#): > > When you hear a question asked 99 times and each time it turns out the question was asked not in good faith but as a springboard for a given screed, what are you supposed to think the 100th time this question is asked ? I dunno, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt. You know, not jump down their throats for things they didn’t say? > [@GIGObuster](#): > > The evidence is overwhelming that there is an ulterior motive behind a simple question when the person making the question pads it with reheated baloney points, and then the person even refuses to check the evidence that those points were made by people with an agenda. Again, has nothing to do with what I said. Neither does the rest of your post - why all the stuff about climate change? As I said, this is very enlightening - I guess if I ever decide to ask a question here, I’ll preface it with “if this is a hot button question that makes you think I have an ulterior motive, I don’t”. :smack: ---
**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 13, 2011, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/103 "2011-09-13T02:40:33Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, has nothing to do with what I said. Neither does the rest of your post - why all the stuff about climate change? > > As I said, this is very enlightening - I guess if I ever decide to ask a question here, I’ll preface it with “if this is a hot button question that makes you think I have an ulterior motive, I don’t”. :smack: Way to miss the point, that was to show that you are wrong on your estimation that we only do that: assign an ulterior motive for no reason, **I also look for evidence of that ulterior motive** and I showed to you how it came out on the recent climate change discussions. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/104 "2011-09-13T02:47:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Way to miss the point, that was to show that you are wrong on your estimation that we only do that: assign an ulterior motive for no reason, **I also look for evidence of that ulterior motive** and I showed to you how it came out on the recent climate change discussions. Hon, if you go looking for ulterior motives, you are going to find evidence. However, it still doesn’t address the way some people here jump on those who merely ask a question, except I suppose you are providing more evidence as to the reasons why it happens. Provided of course the people here are doing it for the same reasons as those in your link… Yeah, sure, all groups are the same, all message boards react the same way for the same reasons. :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/105 "2011-09-13T03:00:17Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, how is someone new to the subject under discussion supposed to know this? Are you saying that anyone that wishes to ask a question of someone in here should go to Google and see if it is a “bad” question?? I’d argue that’s basic politeness, to be honest–it’d be a much poorer board if it were mostly questions with google-able answers. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/106 "2011-09-13T03:12:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Surely: > > [Guns in bars - Great Debates - Straight Dope Message Board](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=554923) Appreciated. My count is two people who predicted dire things and returned to double down rather than recant– **Captain Amazing** (with whom I have no experience) and **Der Trihs** (who’s a slapdick cretin of the highest order when he ventures outside the Game Room or Cafe Society). So really, one person–I don’t think \*\*Trihs \*\*is mentally competent to count as having opinions. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/107 "2011-09-13T03:21:52Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I’d argue that’s basic politeness, to be honest–it’d be a much poorer board if it were mostly questions with google-able answers. And most of them aren’t - well, at least not the ones that I’ve been jumped on about, such as comparing the reduction in pet vaccinations to the bazillion ones that kids get these days. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/108 "2011-09-13T03:30:21Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I agree with that, it was not correct to say crime would rise, OTOH, the ones claiming crime would lower also got it wrong. > > [PolitiFact | Wayne LaPierre said that violent crime in jurisdictions that recognize the 'right to carry' is lower than in areas that prevent it.](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/16/national-rifle-association/wayne-lapierre-said-violent-crime-jurisdictions-re/) As a general proposition for laws in the country - yes. As to the specific situation in [Virginia: no](http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/). Anyone who discussed this Virginia law and predicted crime would drop got it right, at least in the first year: > [@](#): > > Virginia’s bars and restaurants did not turn into shooting galleries as some had feared during the first year of a new state law that allows patrons with permits to carry concealed guns into alcohol-serving businesses, a Richmond Times-Dispatch analysis found. > > The number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2 percent from July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2011, compared with the fiscal year before the law went into effect, according to crime data compiled by Virginia State Police at the newspaper’s request. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/109 "2011-09-13T03:52:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s another example of a leftist belief refusing to yield to actual evidence. > > The “Guns in bars” thread was originally started to discuss a proposal in Virginia tothe law to allow concealed-carry permit holders to continue to wear their concealed weapons in a restaurant or bar that serves liquor. The then-extant law required that CCW holders switch to open carry before entering any establishment that served liquor. > > Opponents of the law in that thread asserted that the law would lead to increased crime and violence in bars. > > Ultimately the law passed. Eighteen months later, I resurrected the thread to point out that a Virginia newspaper had analyzed every single crime report associated with guns and bars, and found no increase – in fact, a slight decrease – in gun-related crime. > > One poster’s reaction was to assert that that paper and the police were engaged in a conspiracy to hide crime statistics that would disprove their claims. And on the opther end of the spectrum, only one poster was able to admit that his predictions had been wrong. > > Note that I wasn’t demanding a complete capitulation on the subject – someone could reasonably take the position, for example, that the single year was an anomaly, or that other external factors were in play. But of the science-loving, intellectual-honesty crowd that posts here, I found exactly one poster willing to say that his prediction about what would happen following Virginia’s law change was wrong. > [@Jackmannii](#): > > Allowing concealed carry in bars and restaurants is not a matter that can be resolved by “science”. It’s in the realm of public policy debate. > > And while it’s terrific that you got to resurrect the thread to say “Nyah nyah nyah!”, it’s not germane to the issue of science denialism. Surprisingly enough on this… I’m with Bricker. This is one of those cases where we need to step back and realize that the evidence is not only against us, but _really_ against us, and if we want to hold our standpoint, we should try to find more evidence (although that isn’t really intellectually honest either). ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/110 "2011-09-13T04:22:25Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > I dunno, but I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt. You know, not jump down their throats for things they didn’t say? Nigerian scammers must love you. “Maybe \*this \*one really does want to give me a million dollars ?” 😃 ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/111 "2011-09-13T04:57:48Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Hon, if you go looking for ulterior motives, you are going to find evidence. Not this clear and unequivocal. > [@curlcoat](#): > > However, it still doesn’t address the way some people here jump on those who merely ask a question, except I suppose you are providing more evidence as to the reasons why it happens. Provided of course the people here are doing it for the same reasons as those in your link… Yeah, sure, all groups are the same, all message boards react the same way for the same reasons. :dubious: Most of our science based posters **[are different](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurTropesAreDifferent)**. Most deniers are the same. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/112 "2011-09-13T05:04:56Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a general proposition for laws in the country - yes. > > As to the specific situation in [Virginia: no](http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/news/2011/aug/14/tdmain01-gun-crime-drops-at-virginia-bars-and-rest-ar-1237278/). Anyone who discussed this Virginia law and predicted crime would drop got it right, at least in the first year: The reason why Politifact and others are assigning items like that as false is that other factors like the current trend on crime reduction that was in place before the law was passed, to hold water, in this case scientific 🙂 the report has to include an analysis to remove that trend, was it done in this case? ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/113 "2011-09-13T05:09:31Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Nigerian scammers must love you. “Maybe \*this \*one really does want to give me a million dollars ?” 😃 Yeah, being capable of allowing someone to explain themselves must mean stupidity. Asking questions certainly doesn’t mean that anyone could learn from others’ mistakes. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not this clear and unequivocal. > Most of our science based posters **[are different](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/OurTropesAreDifferent)**. Most deniers are the same. Whatever. You are obviously one of those posters here that refuses to believe anything that doesn’t fit into your preconceived ideas. As I’ve said, explains quite a bit. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/114 "2011-09-13T05:16:18Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Whatever. You are obviously one of those posters here that refuses to believe anything that doesn’t fit into your preconceived ideas. As I’ve said, explains quite a bit. As I demonstrated, I looked for evidence first, so you are just lying here. That explains a lot about you **now**. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/115 "2011-09-13T05:27:38Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > As I demonstrated, I looked for evidence first, Uh huh, and I responded to that. You probably don’t know it tho, since you ignored it. > [@](#): > > so you are just lying here. That explains a lot about you **now**. Right on schedule with the gratuitous insults and falsehoods. Your lack of confidence in your opinions is astounding. But unfortunately, not all that unusual. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/116 "2011-09-13T05:37:19Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Uh huh, and I responded to that. You probably don’t know it tho, since you ignored it. Did not as I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Right on schedule with the gratuitous insults and falsehoods. Your lack of confidence in your opinions is astounding. But unfortunately, not all that unusual. How it is false? I only look at the evidence and when deniers come with well known already debunked tales, then I assume first that they are just wrong, then after evidence is shown to them and then ignore it then I know where they come from. When you say that I go for preconceived ideas after I showed that that was not the case, then pointing out that you are lying is only regarding this item, but then again I had to remember how you do in other previous discussions and then I just have to say that it is unlikely that you would understand how stupid what you did here is. ---
**Author:** ![curlcoat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ea5d25/32.png) [@curlcoat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/curlcoat)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/117 "2011-09-13T05:46:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Did not as I was still giving you the benefit of the doubt. > How it is false? I only look at the evidence and when deniers come with well known already debunked tales, then I assume first that they are just wrong, then after evidence is shown to them and then ignore it then I know where they come from. > > When you say that I go for preconceived ideas after I showed that that was not the case, then pointing out that you are lying is only regarding this item, but then again I had to remember how you do in other previous discussions and then I just have to say that it is unlikely that you would understand how stupid what you did here is. Go back and read the bolded part in your post #103, where you said you look for evidence of _ulterior motives_. That is completely different than looking at the evidence of whatever scientific issue is under consideration. All the rest of what you post here is pushing at being a strawman, because that is beyond anything that I have been discussing. Again, people who disagree with your preconceived ideas are not necessarily lying. Again, those who have to fall back on insults have little faith in their own opinions/knowledge. Going to bed - enjoy talking to yourself, since you aren’t bothering to actually respond to me. ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/118 "2011-09-13T06:14:51Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > Go back and read the bolded part in your post #103, where you said you look for evidence of _ulterior motives_. That is completely different than looking at the evidence of whatever scientific issue is under consideration. The quote was: “you are wrong on your estimation that we only do that: assign an ulterior motive for no reason, I also look for evidence of that ulterior motive and I showed to you how it came out on the recent climate change discussions.” As I said, I first assume ignorance after they do resort to reheated baloney, your misunderstanding here is to assume that I would continue to assume an ulterior reason for no reason :), \*\* I would not look for evidence if I obviously had my preconception already made\*\*. Unfortunately for your preconceptions I do look for evidence before I reach for the gauntlet. But usually what happens is that deniers then confirm what they are by refusing to even see the evidence, so one has to go for what the evidence to say that now, they do have an axe to grind. > [@curlcoat](#): > > All the rest of what you post here is pushing at being a strawman, because that is beyond anything that I have been discussing. I’m just saying, I was discussing that early before you came, this discussion is not just for you. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, people who disagree with your preconceived ideas are not necessarily lying. The point and the evidence shows that I do not do that, so if not lying then you are just incompetent on looking at what others are saying. > [@curlcoat](#): > > Again, those who have to fall back on insults have little faith in their own opinions/knowledge. It is an insult to point out that you are not telling the truth when that is the case? > [@curlcoat](#): > > Going to bed - enjoy talking to yourself, since you aren’t bothering to actually respond to me. Like if you will not see this later, what everyone can see is that not once you bothered to see how underhanded climate change deniers are, nor the mendacity of the conservative politicians like Frank Luntz when creating one of the baloney points. After all that, you coming with the idea that I “obviously” have preconceptions was silly, I would look for better evidence than an out of context quote. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/119 "2011-09-13T07:15:12Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The reason why Politifact and others are assigning items like that as false is that other factors like the current trend on crime reduction that was in place before the law was passed, to hold water, in this case scientific 🙂 the report has to include an analysis to remove that trend, was it done in this case? Yes – the current trend is not 5% per year. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 7:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/120 "2011-09-13T07:20:47Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Surprisingly enough on this… I’m with Bricker. This is one of those cases where we need to step back and realize that the evidence is not only against us, but _really_ against us, and if we want to hold our standpoint, we should try to find more evidence (although that isn’t really intellectually honest either). Thank you very much. Although in one sense, what you’ve just said should be such a minimal threshold for how we all work here that your doing it would be unremarkable and my thanks would seem effusive and unnecessary. But it isn’t. It’s rare, here, rare enough that I truly appreciate it when I see it. Thank you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=7)