Right, but not the need of asking the same ones, virtually all the questions seen on the recent discussions from the denialists mentioned in the OP are of the “Have you tried 10:20:30?” variety, I’ll let Richard Feynman explain:
Good point.
I guess that if they are, we – at least on this board – don’t see too many examples of the same poster being both an ardent astrologist and an ardent political junkie.
But I agree they would, if present, get shredded too.
it’s true that the front-row seats in the anti-science brigade are occupied by the Right. But I don’t agree that the Left is as absent as you suggest. Anti-nuke rhetoric isn’t front and center in the current political three-ring circus, but the environmentalists on the have by embracing it held a lot of nuclear power progress back in this country.
It wasn’t the Right that demanded taxpayer dollars for NCCAM, either.
Ethanol subsidies are a good example of a no-science based political decision with backers from both sides. And opponents from both sides, too.
I don’t know what you mean by “denying the science”, but I was exploring ethical points about patents on genetically engineered organisms.
True I did question the value of one application of genetic engineering at one point, however trying to say that was “denying the science” is a bit like saying “don’t shoot me” is denying ballistic science. However that concern was moot as the pollen just doesn’t have the range I believed it did.
I have to disagree. Woo falls all over the political spectrum. A large part of its success has to do with suspicion of government/authorities/intellectuals as well as conspiracy-theorizing (They Don’t Want Us To Know The Fabulousness Of Our Chosen Woo), and this mindset plagues the Right and libertarian types as commonly as the Left.
As far as alt med goes, the two arguably most powerful politicians who back it in Congress are Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) who are rather far apart on the political spectrum but concur in thinking that “nutritional supplements” are terrific and deserve to be exempted from FDA oversight. Harkin has been a major booster of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, helping it to spend over a hundred million of dollars annually on researching woo (though lately he’s been pissed off that NCCAM has failed to validate alt med theories).
Ron Paul (L-Crab Nebula) is a hero to antivaxers since he’s opposed to mandatory immunization programs. That’s not just due to his libertarian views; he buys into a lot of antivax nonsense.
*"“I think we’ve gone way overboard, and I think Persian Gulf War syndrome is related to vaccines, and other things, chemicals, and depleted uranium.”
In the video (Paul) talks about having three kids that practice medicine and that have children of their own. “They have to be concerned about giving these vaccines.” He thinks that doctors have gotten to the point where they give too many vaccines, too often. “They bunch together four or five vaccines, overwhelming the immune system.”
Dr. Paul states that in a Free Society it would be assumed that the individual makes up their own mind. He explains that if you didn’t take a vaccine for polio, you’re not a danger to him, you’re a danger to yourself. He stated that he doesn’t like the idea of the use of force and he thinks we’ve gone way overboard, and “there’s a lot of people that have suffered severe consequences from overdoing these immunizations.”*
Your “feelings” aside, I have not seen evidence that science denialism among leftists is tolerated here. It is unfortunate for right-wingers that, as noted, two prominent examples of denialism (anti-evolution and anti-climate change views) are more prominent on the Right (especially applying to a number of its political leaders), but you can console yourself that other denialist nonsense is equally popular on the Left.
And we do this by (drumroll) presenting evidence and making cogent arguments on why prevailing scientific opinion should be revised. The wrong way (beloved by those steeped in the arrogance of ignorance) is to wave one’s hands and say “Science wuz wrong before, therefore you must respect my woo!”
Can you possibly mean – to question the concept of science itself? Not some particular scientific theory or scientist?
As he presents it, even if it is the same question, that doesn’t mean that the asker had heard it before, or ever had an answer. It’s one of the things this board does - the 10:20:30 question comes out and a majority make the assumption that there is some ulterior motive behind the question, other than just flat not knowing.
As long as you aren’t assuming that there must be woo simply because someone doesn’t consider science infallible…
I’m talking about the latter. I know that scientists have made some pretty serious blunders in the past, and that corporations have, er, under-reported science in the past, so I don’t automatically trust anything. OTOH, I don’t have much education and I definitely don’t keep up on scientific breakthrus in areas that don’t directly affect me, so on occasion something will catch my eye and I’ll ask a question. Most of the time people assume I have some sort of “woo” belief, when I may not have an opinion on the subject at all, and I frequently don’t get an answer.
Nope, Feynman gives many reasons why the question is dismissed. The problem with the latest deniers I encountered was that they do not like the answers and willfully ignore the reasons why it is unlikely that they would be correct, it is indeed like Feynman telling the person asking the question that it is actually a 5 number combination…
And the asker spends the next 5 pages claiming that the scientist should **still **use his proposed solution, regardless of what he was told about the limitation, or else he’ll pout. Or even tell the scientist he should use another safe.
From your link:
Since CAM is widespread, it seems like an excellent idea to have someone study the effectiveness of these methods, since the pill maker sure aren’t going to. If this organization were denying medicine, then there would be a real problem, but you seem to be under the misconception that science has stuff it knows to be false without bothering to study.
I’m pretty damn skeptical of any of this stuff, but the way to go is to study it, not assume it.
It’s not like ethanol doesn’t work, it is just that the economic effects make it a damn poor method.
As for a previous post, thanks for admitting that leftwing Dopers aren’t kooks. Right wing Dopers, as far as I can tell, accept evolution in far greater numbers than rightwingers as whole. But we don’t count. If a set if Democratic presidential nomination candidates were so much for astrology or crystal power or homeopathy that one coming out against this nitwittery was news and controversial, then our side would have a problem. The top levels of your party are dominated by anti-science buffoons. Therein lies the danger to the country.
What do you mean by “question science?” A particular theory? The way funding is done or papers reviewed? Them sure, and it is questioned all the time. If you mean science as a process, we have about 500 years of progress on all fronts that demonstrates science works.
One thing that never fails to both annoy and amuse me is the tendency of science denial to include some reports from scientists. They just love the one where a scientist publishes a re-examination of his own, or some other experiment to bring up an inconsistancy, or possible bias in data selection. This article is immediatly trumpeted as “proof” that the theory is wrong. No further study is needed, they checked, it was wrong.
Now actual scientists who think explaining the process of experimental observation and refinment of modeling as part of an ongoing process to understand complex interactions ignore the glaring logical error in the argument.
The only evidence the denier has is the work of a scientist. He chooses which scientist to believe, and wholeheartedly believes what he thinks that scientist said. And for that reason, he believes that scientists don’t know what they are talking about. The absurdity is just mind boggling.
If you think the data and statistical methods used to arrive at the average temperature of the earth’s surface in 1998 are accurate, what makes the same people’s measurments of the same phenomenon by the same methods for every other year so obviously wrong?
Almost every “skeptical” public report is based on some small number of scientists’ opionion, and a fundamental assumption that that one is right, and all the others are wrong. Talk about a selection bias.
Tris
There is a pretty obvious problem with the OP, as well as the whole concept being bitched about here. And it is simple enough to point out.
What isn’t simple, much less going to hit home with the hardcore arrogant, is understanding it.
The problem is this: Everything in the OP, as well as expanded commentary in later posts, does not meet the criteria of science. So a complaint/rant/thoughtful commentary about “science deniers”, which is what the OP is about, does not itself meet the requirements it wishes to load everyone else up with.
There are no double blind experiments, no papers published, no scientific authority, or even an experiment to back up all the statements made with such absolute certainty.
In short, the OP has no scientific basis, it is something just made up. It does not meet any standard, much less bear any proof. It is in and of itself, exactly an example of what it complains about.
Certainly you can read it and grasp that it seems true, and is self evident, it needs no logic or science or any sort of evidence to bolster it. Which is sort of ironic, since it places that heavy burden on everyone who would disagree.
Baloney. That was a 1 page thread, not a 32 page wonder. A total of 2 posters were stubborn: I’d place everyone else on the other side, including the OP who explicitly appreciated the input by the scientists on this board.
If anything, the thread was an example of ignorance being fought and left-side cognitive flexibility. Sorry Bricker, but the mainstream American left likes science, and the lack of traction for GM regulation in the US exemplifies this.
Admittedly, I’d like to continue and say you always make bogus and whiny arguments about lefty bias here-- except I recall a couple of good examples that you’ve posted in the past (alas). I don’t think this is one of them though.
I think an issue here is that, a lot of people begin by being fed an unreasonably rose tinted view of science.
There is a lot of bad science happening and there are a lot of shitty papers being published, and scientists can sometimes forget this, because we are trained to evaluate them, but it isn’t reasonable to expect other people to do that. I flatter myself that I can make a reasonably good assessment of the validity and implications of a paper in fields that I am famililar with, but this represents pretty advanced knowledge and is damn time consuming, and I’ve met a lot of other scientists who don’t have the skill or the diligence to do it. Experience also tells me that I can’t rely on abstracts or conclusions to get that information, let alone what now passes as popular scientific journalism.
We don’t seem to teach logical priniciples and fallacies in school, we live in a world in which statistics is used far more often to obfuscate arguments, than to support them. These are all problems with people, rather than problems with science and maths, but it’s easy for that to get lost, and certainly not obvious to those people that have never had much exposure to them to begin with.
I believe absolutely in Science and the principles that it is founded on. I know that a lot of other scientists still do. I’m proud of the good work that is stilling happening, and I’m proud of the millions of lives that work is still saving and improving
My experiences in Academia however, have also left me with the conclusion that science is sick, that the academic system with it’s industry grants, industry board members, politics, peer review circle jerks, and big name periodicals, is fundamentally compromised. That whilst good science is happening in industry, people seem to end up bemoaning the fact that this represents only profitable good science, which betrays a failure to understand the basic economic principles of their own damn society.
Like a lot of modern institutions, science needs a lot of regulatory attention, academia needs restructuring (although I’m actually of the opinion that this is going to happen messily in the next 5 years no matter what else happens), intellectual property and publication processes need considering, and alternative sources of funding need to be found for the science that people claim that they want, but can’t pay for over the counter.
The problem is, that all of the above processes needs to be enacted or guided by people who actually know what the fuck they are doing, and I see little prospect of that happening.
So then, like a lot of scientists, I’m reluctant to talk about this, because bad science is still so much better than no science at all, and I don’t want the next retro trend to involve dark ages.
Science has enemies who have better funding, better rhetoric, better celebrity advocates, fewer scruples, and no interest in the truth. The courtroom is the ten second soundbite, and most of the jury are incapable of understanding the issues involved and have stated their intended verdict ahead of the trial.
Unprofitable, controversial, science is fucked.
Missed that. Trick question your honour, that’s like asking whether hebephrenic schizophrenia is a left-wing or right-wing disease 
Oh, of course. Legitimate questions can and will always be asked. However, there’s a big difference between the attitude of a skeptic who hasn’t seen the data yet and, say, the average creationist. There are simply some issues where skepticism is, at this point, unreasonable and unrealistic. When it comes to, say, evolution, it’s like questioning gravity: if you have a complaint with the current established science, you don’t proclaim it in the public arena; you go to the peer-review and try to get your voice heard there. If your objections are rational, you will be heard, I guarantee it. However, getting the data and then saying “I don’t believe it” with neither a way to convince you nor any real understanding of the topic is not reasonable.
The questions that have to be asked about climate change and evolution are ones that need to be dealt with in the scientific arena, not the political one. The objections that politicians (and voters) have to global warming are not nuanced refutations of the science; they are tired old arguments that failed the first time and haven’t gotten better over time, or they are simply statements of denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. Again, “I think I’m smarter than the smartest people in this field in regards to its validity”-style logic.
Which anti-nuke rhetoric is backed by poor science? Most people I meet are concerned about the long lifespan of radioactive waste and a lack of storage for it (both fully legitimate complaints), or the possibility of nuclear disasters (very illegitimate, but then again, it’s less this and more the other). Certainly there aren’t many politicians arguing on pseudoscience here, right? Can you cite some of them?
This has been addressed by another poster, but I just thought I’d mention something…
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/decisions/consideringcam.htm#information
Notice how they aren’t just simply pushing alternative medicine, but doing so in an informed, careful manner? Now check this one out:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/
Sure, it’s advocating, but look at how it earnestly points to metareviews from PubMed. This is generally seen as a good sign. Just sayin’. This seems less like a pseudoscientific shill organization and more like a scientific organization trying to investigate alternative medicines without bias in one way or another. All things considered, not a horrible idea. I think it’s a waste of money, personally, but it could have some positive results, and it’s probably not as bad as you think it is.
This is either a fairly hilarious joke post or you missed the point of the thread entirely. I’m not making a scientific observation. I’m simply ranting about how those who would doubt and deny established science aren’t either, and how they seem to miss that they are, logically, assuming that they’re smarter than the actual experts. That’s all, really.
What exactly are you saying? That academia is corrupt and is producing falsehoods? Or that it simply isn’t addressing science that is unpopular and unprofitable? If the former, I’m really not going to take that on your word, I really need some citation for that. If the latter… Are you really surprised? Scientific research is expensive. Pouring money into a hole in the ground is really not viable for most parties. Hell, we should be glad that we got the LHC, despite the fact that it’s very unlikely to ever pay itself off in any practical manner (sure, we will learn things from it, but those things aren’t likely to manifest in the next big technological advancement, no?). Or maybe I’m just getting you wrong… Because that wasn’t the point at all of my post. I recognize that knowledge for its own sake isn’t always a reasonable goal for a capitalistic society like ours, I’m simply pointing out that people who deny established science are retardedly arrogant.
I am saying that there is nothing wrong with science.
I am saying that based on *my own experience *, there is a lot going wrong with academia. And I don’t think that this is predominantly a result of corruption (although it certainly does happen), I think it’s mostly resulting from the way academia is structured and funded, and in some cases a disconnect between seniority in academia and actual competence.
This is basically my point, we have a lot of people who want unprofitable science to happen, but don’t stop to think about where the money is going to come from. Many of them are somehow under the impression that the money that is going into academia is supporting work into less commercial stuff, and for a variety of reasons it often isn’t.
I am saying that I think science is fatally compromised because it is happening in real world institutions containing real world, fallible, people, often according to principles that were laid down centuries ago. It is being targeted to people that are accusing it of failing to meet standards that they themselves will never even try to adhere to, and no one is likely to call them on those double standards. In this environment these weaknesses in academia become a huge liability.
You’d have a lot of trouble convincing me that modern academia works as intended. But, while I do think that regulation and changes need to happen, the people competent to do it probably don’t actually exist, and the prospect of science being regulated and “reformed” by the Tea Party brigade is absolutely terrifying.
To summarise
Science = good
Academia = compromised
Likely alternatives = much worse
Prospects = bleak
Yes, agreed. But that’s not the problem with NCCAM. Here’s the problem with NCCAM:
Harkin as much as admits that the reason he’s caused millions of dollars to be fenced off for NCCAM was not to test alternative medicine but to prove it works. In a world of limited research dollars, spending this much not because honest analysis indicates a fruitful area of inquiry, but because a nutcase with a senator’s hat thinks bee pollen cures allergies.
Correct. Which is kind of the point. The subsidies were put in place with the pseudo-claim that they made economic sense. When the science didn’t support that claim, guess what won? (Now, I am please to say, the tide is finally turning).
Most aren’t. Some are. And some are kooks that dismiss science. But I agree that’s a relatively rare breed here.
My point was about Dopers. I can cite some of them that have been pretty vocal about nuclear disasters.
I got that, and I tend to agree. What I was meandering about was how such behavior, especially if I really really believe it to be true, is unscientific in the extreme.
My conclusions are based on my “gut feelings”, and no matter what science and reason somebody presents to me, it won’t change my feelings about it at all. I will still think somebody who denies science is an idiot. But in doing that, I am not approaching things scientifically myself. It’s ironic.