# 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:** 7
**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, 10:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/121 "2011-09-13T10:26:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes – the current trend is not 5% per year. Not sure about that. IIUC one needs more time to establish a relation or significance. One state is not enough as the site showed. In any case, the ones claiming that there would be more crime were wrong so far. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/122 "2011-09-13T11:38:51Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, you did, and kudos to you for that. > > 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? Ask **Commissar**. Oh, wait, he’s gone… ---
**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 13, 2011, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/123 "2011-09-13T12:24:14Z")
While science denialists commonly cling to extreme minority opinion to push their agendas, what’s less often recognized is that their “experts” are generally not even qualified in the field in question. Various people with “Dr.” in front of their names promote antivax ideology and are held up as knowledgeable, until you notice that they are doctors of chiropractic or naturopathy, or PhDs in branches of science only peripherally related to medicine (i.e. chemistry), or if they’re actual MDs, they have no expertise or training in immunology and pediatric infectious disease. There’s also the problem of Nobel disease, where scientists win the prize for illustrious work in a particular branch of science, and later go off the deep end, espousing crank/denialist beliefs which may or may not be related to their prior work. Examples: Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Kary Mullis with [AIDS denialism](http://cwgk.blogspot.com/2011/01/aids-denialism-deadly-ignorance-part-i.html): _“Mullis is a man known to virtually everyone in biology. His claim to fame is winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for the development of PCR. However, as a perfect example that even eminent scientists can hold completely insane beliefs, Mullis also believes in astrology, denies anthropogenic global warming, and believes he has conversed with an alien in the form of a glowing raccoon. He is also completely convinced that he will die in the presence of redwood trees, and is thus completely reckless when redwoods are not around, going so far as to ski down the centre of a highway far from the sight of a redwood.”_ There’s arrogant, and then there’s crazy. But we’ve gotta believe Mullis’ AIDS denialist views! He’s a Nobel Prize winner! :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [September 13, 2011, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/124 "2011-09-13T12:38:00Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > But we’ve gotta believe Mullis’ AIDS denialist views! He’s a Nobel Prize winner! :dubious: You shouldn’t have to believe him because he’s a Nobel Laureate, but you should respect the fact that he’s talked to a glowing raccoon. Those guys are smart. ---
**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, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/125 "2011-09-13T12:38:14Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure about that. IIUC one needs more time to establish a relation or significance. One state is not enough as the site showed. In any case, the ones claiming that there would be more crime were wrong so far. Bingo. That’s the only concession I sought from them. They can still argue the policy question – just not claim psychic powers or a police conspiracy. ---
**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, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/126 "2011-09-13T12:56:42Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > While science denialists commonly cling to extreme minority opinion to push their agendas, what’s less often recognized is that their “experts” are generally not even qualified in the field in question. > > Various people with “Dr.” in front of their names promote antivax ideology and are held up as knowledgeable, until you notice that they are doctors of chiropractic or naturopathy, or PhDs in branches of science only peripherally related to medicine (i.e. chemistry), or if they’re actual MDs, they have no expertise or training in immunology and pediatric infectious disease. > > There’s also the problem of Nobel disease, where scientists win the prize for illustrious work in a particular branch of science, and later go off the deep end, espousing crank/denialist beliefs which may or may not be related to their prior work. Examples: Linus Pauling and vitamin C, and Kary Mullis with [AIDS denialism](http://cwgk.blogspot.com/2011/01/aids-denialism-deadly-ignorance-part-i.html): > > _“Mullis is a man known to virtually everyone in biology. His claim to fame is winning the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology for the development of PCR. However, as a perfect example that even eminent scientists can hold completely insane beliefs, Mullis also believes in astrology, denies anthropogenic global warming, and believes he has conversed with an alien in the form of a glowing raccoon. He is also completely convinced that he will die in the presence of redwood trees, and is thus completely reckless when redwoods are not around, going so far as to ski down the centre of a highway far from the sight of a redwood.”_ > > There’s arrogant, and then there’s crazy. > > But we’ve gotta believe Mullis’ AIDS denialist views! He’s a Nobel Prize winner! :dubious: A very good point, and part of why it’s a lot more important to look to the peer-reviewed literature and the general consensus: there’s always going to be a nutbag or two like Mullis or Behe who actually _is_ trained in a relevant field. They are a bitter minority who have given up any semblance of scientific credibility and intellectual honesty to pursue pet theories that are wrong beyond reasonable doubt. ---
**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, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/127 "2011-09-13T16:42:49Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > \< snippity snip\> > > 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. A lot of effort to prove that I am right - I must have struck a nerve here. You’ve made negative assumptions over and over, with “evidence” that you assumed was there, thrown strawmen around and lowered yourself to try to score a win thru insults. Way to prove my point. ---
**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 13, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/128 "2011-09-13T16:50:35Z")
Wait, wait. I must be missing something. If I’ve skipped a crucial explanatory post, I apologize. But, crime rates going up or down in Virginia after passing a law is fucking _science_ now? As a lawyer, **Bricker** , you must know the meaning of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. As a lawyer, apparently you have no fucking clue as to what science is. ---
**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, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/129 "2011-09-13T17:03:01Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wait, wait. I must be missing something. If I’ve skipped a crucial explanatory post, I apologize. But, crime rates going up or down in Virginia after passing a law is fucking _science_ now? > > As a lawyer, **Bricker** , you must know the meaning of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. As a lawyer, apparently you have no fucking clue as to what science is. 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? ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/130 "2011-09-13T17:07:56Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] specifically: what do you imagine is the fallacious claim? [/Quote] That you have offered an example of science. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/131 "2011-09-13T17:12:34Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Wait, wait. I must be missing something. If I’ve skipped a crucial explanatory post, I apologize. But, crime rates going up or down in Virginia after passing a law is fucking _science_ now? > > As a lawyer, **Bricker** , you must know the meaning of _post hoc ergo propter hoc_. As a lawyer, apparently you have no fucking clue as to what science is. In **Bricker** -world, science is exactly what he says it is, and if you don’t agree you’re [intellectually dishonest](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247567&postcount=98). All facts and all numbers are [_science_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o). Hijacking the thread to try and score political points is science too. You’ve heard of _political science_, I assume? :dubious: ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/132 "2011-09-13T17:16:43Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Hijacking the thread to try and score political points is science too. You’ve heard of _political science_, I assume? :dubious: Well-turned! Hey, I just told this guy on the street corner that he should not cross against the light or he could be cited by a police officer. He refused to pay me for my consultation time, despite the fact that I was clearly lawyering. ---
**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, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/133 "2011-09-13T17:45:08Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > A lot of effort to prove that I am right - I must have struck a nerve here. You’ve made negative assumptions over and over, with “evidence” that you assumed was there, thrown strawmen around and lowered yourself to try to score a win thru insults. > > Way to prove my point. Nowere do you show where I was wrong. There is only your say so, if you can not find evidence that the deniers are accepting the cites shows that they swallowed propaganda you have nothing. ---
**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 13, 2011, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/134 "2011-09-13T17:59:43Z")
> [@curlcoat](#): > > … You’ve made negative assumptions over and over, with “evidence” that you assumed was there, thrown strawmen around and lowered yourself to try to score a win thru insults. > > Way to prove my point. I’ve noticed a lot of true believers do that when they have nothing to counter facts with. That they label themselves “science believers” and toot their own horns makes the lulz all the better. ---
**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, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/135 "2011-09-13T18:16:19Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That you have offered an example of science. What is the scientific method? Can you briefly describe it? ---
**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, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/136 "2011-09-13T18:21:23Z")
OK, folks. Here’s a thread bemoaning the lack of intellectual honesty and the existence of science denialists. And here are two participants: > [@Jackmannii](#): > > In **Bricker** -world, science is exactly what he says it is, and if you don’t agree you’re [intellectually dishonest](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14247567&postcount=98). All facts and all numbers are [_science_](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2IlHgbOWj4o). Hijacking the thread to try and score political points is science too. You’ve heard of _political science_, I assume? :dubious: > [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > That you have offered an example of science. And willing to say what the truth is we have **Budget Player Cadet** , and in the original thread **Measure for Measure**. And me. Why isn’t there a parade of people stepping up to say to Jackmannii and Hentor, “No, on this factual issue, you’re wrong?” ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/137 "2011-09-13T18:42:10Z")
Because nobody really gives a shit. It’s the internet. The playground of fools and the terminally bored. Self made experts with either no job, or the ability to slag off work and flame people all day and night. Mores the pity ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/138 "2011-09-13T18:56:37Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What is the scientific method? Can you briefly describe it? For common reference as to what is science, let’s just go to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com): > [@](#): > > science > [sahy-uh ns]   Origin Like this word? > sci•ence >    [sahy-uh ns] Show IPA > noun > > 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences. > 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. > 3. any of the branches of natural or physical science. > 4. systematized knowledge in general. > 5. knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study. What word shows up in every one of those definitions but #3? Okay, so in what way is your example in any way “systematized”, gained by “systematic study”, or reflecting a “body of facts systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”? Science is not simply the prediction that given circumstance A, event B will occur. That’s just a prediction. Your example is no more “science” than the prediction by Peter King that Pittsburgh and Green Bay would play one another in the last Super Bowl was “science”. It’s illuminating to me, in terms of how a rejection of science could take such root, when even putatively intelligent conservatives are so ignorant about what science even is. ---
**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 13, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/139 "2011-09-13T18:58:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And willing to say what the truth is we have **Budget Player Cadet** , and in the original thread **Measure for Measure**. > > And me. > > Why isn’t there a parade of people stepping up to say to Jackmannii and Hentor, “No, on this factual issue, you’re wrong?” **Budget Player Cadet** , and **Measure for Measure** do you really think that making one prediction and looking at the outcome is “science”? Really? ---
**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, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940/140 "2011-09-13T18:59:48Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > For common reference as to what is science, let’s just go to [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com): > > What word shows up in every one of those definitions but #3? > > Okay, so in what way is your example in any way “systematized”, gained by “systematic study”, or reflecting a “body of facts systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws”? > > Science is not simply the prediction that given circumstance A, event B will occur. That’s just a prediction. Your example is no more “science” than the prediction by Peter King that Pittsburgh and Green Bay would play one another in the last Super Bowl was “science”. > > It’s illuminating to me, in terms of how a rejection of science could take such root, when even putatively intelligent conservatives are so ignorant about what science even is. I’m sorry, but I asked you to summarize the scientific method, and you instead offered definitions of the word “science.” Once again: in your understanding, what is the scientific method? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/an-interesting-thought-about-science-denialists/595940.md?page=8)