Thog's Science Masterclass #27

[realthog]

The Discovery Institute has the reputation of at least aspiring toward rationality in its denial of evolution by natural selection -- to represent the seemingly sober IDeologues rather than the froth-flecked Young Earth Creationists -- and to have a certain measure of integrity in the arguments it offers, no matter how dumbfoundingly wrong they might be.

So I was deeply troubled by their latest "Evolution News and Views" blog entry from Discovery Institute staffer John West. His subject is the recent New York Times article by Leslie Kaufman (in which West himself features) discussing how Creationist pressure groups are attempting to gain traction in their campaign to have the "scientific controversy" over evolution taught in classrooms by tagging onto it an insistence that the similarly spurious "scientific controversy" over anthropogenic global warming also be taught.

Those who know their history will be reminded forcefully of the technique developed a few decades ago by the tobacco companies, eager to reject claims that consuming their product might conceivably be bad for your health. They knew that trying to sow doubts in the community about those scientific conclusions alone would be all too obvious a publicity ruse -- or "lie", as one might alternatively describe it -- and so they (or rather a PR company they employed) devised the stratagem of making the public distrust all science. In particular, they selected the environmental sciences as a companion area to attack alongside the medical evidence of smoking's harmful effects. The legacy of this cynical promotion of false information into the public discourse is a primary reason why in this country we not only have rampant pollution (see here for a recent, extraordinarily vile example) but also must suffer such a proliferation of astonishing bullshit from self-styled "climate skeptics" . . . who pontificate with all the academic rigor you expect from that loud guy in the pub you do your best to avoid, yet demand equal media time with, ya know, qualified climatologists.

Kaufman's piece on the latest development of this severely dishonest technique is perhaps rather too balanced, but anyone with an adequate supply of brain cells will be able to understand what's going on. However, West's summarization of it in his blog . . . well, I'm not sure if it's one of the most deceitful pieces of spin I've recently come across or if he can really be that muddle-headed and stupid. Here's a sample:

The nationwide effort to protect the freedom of teachers to hold balanced classroom discussions of evolution, global warming, and other scientific issues is highlighted on the front page of today’s New York Times. The article, “Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets,” contains the usual errors and mischaracterizations one expects from the establishment media. But mischaracterizations or not, the article gets one thing right: It reveals how both the public and policymakers are increasingly dissatisfied with the scientific establishment’s attempt to misuse science to support various ideological agendas, whether it be Richard Dawkins’ scientific atheism or some global warming alarmists’ efforts to push us back to the Stone Age. People want genuine education about scientific topics, and that includes being able to study all of the evidence, not just a few data points cherry-picked for their propaganda value.

Note, for example, the complaint about "contains the usual errors and mischaracterizations one expects from the establishment media" followed just a couple of lines later by the remark concerning "some global warming alarmists’ efforts to push us back to the Stone Age". Could there be a greater mischaracterization of someone else's argument than this? Might West supply us with a list of "global warming alarmists" who're trying "to push us back to the Stone Age"? Indeed, could West supply us with the name of just one?

As for West's accusations of cherry-picking, either that's projection or mendacity -- and I find it hard to believe it's not the latter, because unless he's in a coma he must be aware that this is exactly a technique of which he himself makes extensive use.

What West is keen to obscure is, of course, that there is no "scientific controversy" over what one might loosely call Darwinian evolution, just as there is no "scientific controversy" over AGW. There are, however, political controversies; and it's the prevalent tactic of the "climate skeptics" to confuse the two. Shame on West for promoting this dishonesty.

Comments

[bondo-ba.livejournal.com]

Perhaps "developing country" might describe us better in this post cold-war era. We have issues that are definitely third-world in nature (huge divide between the rich and poor, extremely low wages) and some things that run pretty well (education isn't bad, neither is health care - although it is a hot topic, the same as everywhere else).

I agree with your analysis on the reasons, although I wouldn't blame it all on the people behind it. It is much easier and more comfortable to be a sheep than a shepherd, and even a lot of people who have the capacity to do some critical thinking prefer not to. I see it here with other topics: I can never understand why otherwise intelligent people watch Big Brother, for example. I always thought vouyerism was only fun when it was done on the sly!

I guess it's just an extension of the Romans' "Bread and Circus" philosophy, but the bread and circuses they've chosen this time seem to have a huge risk of backfiring, as they stand directly in the way of progress in the information age. Probably not a good idea...

[realthog.livejournal.com]

We have issues that are definitely third-world in nature (huge divide between the rich and poor, extremely low wages)

Same here, alas.

even a lot of people who have the capacity to do some critical thinking prefer not to

Obviously this is true too. At the moment, though, there's a strong tide of feeling in the US that "intellectualism" is some kind of social stigma. It can be very intimidating. So I think a lot of people are bowing to peer pressure alongside their own laziness when they refuse to face up to reality.

That said, there are huge numbers of Americans to whom this doesn't apply; I hadn't realized how many until I moved to this country, because from Britain one assumed all Americans were like the ones who shouted loudest -- which is to say, the tantruming infants.

I can never understand why otherwise intelligent people watch Big Brother

Me neither. It sounds ghastly.

I guess it's just an extension of the Romans' "Bread and Circus" philosophy

I think this is very much the case.

Probably not a good idea

I've been looking all over for the quote I read today where someone told FOX News that brazenly lying to the public was a risky business model. The person who cited this remark pointed out that all through US history brazenly lying to the public has proven to be the most successful of all business models.