[random] Anti-science claptrap debunking for the non-scientist
Nobody needs to be a card-carrying biologist or climate scientist to recognize that things like belief in intelligent design or climate change denial are based on some deeply flawed thinking. Not that science is all-knowing or always right per definition. But there's a big difference between, say, criticizing the flaws inherent in hallowed concepts like academic objectivity, and rejecting a widely-supported scientific fact because you don't believe in science.
Still, it's not always self-evident to argue back at "non-believers" if you're not an expert in the relevant field yourself. People can read "ten myths used by climate change deniers/intelligent design proponents/whatnot" lists and explanatory websites and Bad Science posts as much as they like, that still won't give most of them a truly profound understanding of the arguments. Personally, I really prefer to feel like I know what I'm talking about before I enter into a complex discussion. Perhaps a lot of "non-believers" have no scruples whatsoever about denying things they have no solid grasp of, but sinking to that level and waving around scientific information without truly understanding it can easily result in simply more confusion. (Compare with, say, the often very unhelpful internet lawyering that takes place in discussions about the legal status of fic.)
Which is why this graph is a really welcome reminder that to start debunking anti-science nonsense, you often don't need more than really, really basic logic:
(From here, found via approximately half of Twitter)
"Which makes more sense?" is not a solid argument, of course. Things that seem to make no sense can still be true. But stopping for two minutes to consider exactly who is involved in a debate and what their motives might be is still pretty helpful in a lot of these discussions. Regardless of complex scientific facts, theories, and models that you and I may or may not understand profoundly enough to wield them well: exactly how likely is it that vast numbers of scientists argue against intelligent design/climate change denial/a link between abortion and breast cancer/a link between vaccination and autism/et cetera because they like to troll/want to earn tons of grant money/are all part of a grand anti-corporation liberal socialist communist environmentalist conspiracy/hate religion/hate freedom? This entry was originally posted at http://fanficforensics.dreamwidth.org/44616.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
Still, it's not always self-evident to argue back at "non-believers" if you're not an expert in the relevant field yourself. People can read "ten myths used by climate change deniers/intelligent design proponents/whatnot" lists and explanatory websites and Bad Science posts as much as they like, that still won't give most of them a truly profound understanding of the arguments. Personally, I really prefer to feel like I know what I'm talking about before I enter into a complex discussion. Perhaps a lot of "non-believers" have no scruples whatsoever about denying things they have no solid grasp of, but sinking to that level and waving around scientific information without truly understanding it can easily result in simply more confusion. (Compare with, say, the often very unhelpful internet lawyering that takes place in discussions about the legal status of fic.)
Which is why this graph is a really welcome reminder that to start debunking anti-science nonsense, you often don't need more than really, really basic logic:
(From here, found via approximately half of Twitter)
"Which makes more sense?" is not a solid argument, of course. Things that seem to make no sense can still be true. But stopping for two minutes to consider exactly who is involved in a debate and what their motives might be is still pretty helpful in a lot of these discussions. Regardless of complex scientific facts, theories, and models that you and I may or may not understand profoundly enough to wield them well: exactly how likely is it that vast numbers of scientists argue against intelligent design/climate change denial/a link between abortion and breast cancer/a link between vaccination and autism/et cetera because they like to troll/want to earn tons of grant money/are all part of a grand anti-corporation liberal socialist communist environmentalist conspiracy/hate religion/hate freedom? This entry was originally posted at http://fanficforensics.dreamwidth.org/44616.html. Please comment there using OpenID.