A fun thing about reading things on the ID sites and then actually checking primary sources is how bizarre Uncommon Descent is as an information filter. I guess this would be an example of the dreaded "framing" of science which I don't want to fight with my sciblings over. Take for example their discussion of Guillermo Gonzalez's qualifications in light of his failure to get tenure. UC says:"he has had his research featured in Science, Nature, and on the cover of Scientific American." Then you see what they're talking about and you see they're talking about this negative review of "…
The trick to using the "Jobs" card is to totally over inflate the size of your industry and the number of employees it has. It's quite a compelling argument, and sometimes it's true. But I've seen many cases where a regulation creates new jobs and economic development. A great recent example of the 7 of Hearts was occurred in the debate surrounding adoption of the federal Do-Not-Call Telemarketing Registry. The telemarketing industry claimed that they employed 6 million Americans, and had $668 billion in sales. But the economic census showed that telemarketing only accounted for 500,000…
All the evolution denialists are up in arms because one of their own, Guillermo Gonzalez, was denied tenure. It's persecution they cry! Let's write a letter to ISU they cry! And now Denyse O'Leary says, "It's a conspiracy!" How tiresome. Could a kind reader make me an animated gif of a man climbing up on a cross for me? This persecution complex of the IDers needs a graphic. There are a number of good reasons why Gonzalez might have been denied tenure (and so far I haven't seen Gonzalez himself cry persecution - just his fans at UC) It's getting so old. If you criticize them it's…
Many cards in the Denialists' Deck allow one to make a bogus argument no matter the situation. So, with the Six of Spades and the Seven of Clubs, you use one card if your industry is highly regulated, and the other if it isn't.
"It's just murder...It's really just that simple." -Anthony Fauci on the HIV/AIDS denialist Peter Duesberg I think that one of the clearest examples of denialism, and of the harm that anti-scientific attitudes can have, is in HIV/AIDS denialism. But who in this day and age can continue to promote such a thoroughly absurd idea that HIV doesn't cause AIDS, and worse yet, actively discourage those infected with the virus from pursuing treatments that have been proven to extend life? I'll tell you who. The denialists. Any discussion of HIV/AIDS denialists has to start with Peter Duesberg who…
Happy Mother's Day this weekend! In honor of the day I'd think we should talk about divorce myths. I was scanning the Family Research Council blog and they repeated the commonly-believed myth that half of all marriages end in divorce. But what is the evidence this is true? *Updated with cohabitation information* Divorce is often maligned, and even though quite a few of us wouldn't be here if it weren't for divorce (thanks Mom!) it still gets a bad rap. For some reason, the moralists think that divorce is a uniform negative, but really, what kind of world would it be if women didn't have…
Is it the 9/11 cranks saying it? Of course not. Instead it's the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page featuring Peter Hoekstra. And you wonder why we call the WSJ editorial page a denialist organization? In the mid-1990s, Bill Clinton's first Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, declared that environmental concerns and national security would share equal status in U.S. foreign policy. Immediately following that announcement, CIA Director John Deutch said in July 1996 that the U.S. was diverting spy satellites to photograph "ecologically sensitive" sites. ... Instead of focusing on looming…
Competition is magic. But this argument must be amplified! How? Easy, appeal to "innovation." The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include "this is just a tool," and "you're banning technology." Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still widely-used argument--that technology "can't be regulated." Of course, any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but this exercise isn't about being cogent, it's about stopping whatever intervention the denialist opposes.
At Infophilia. In particular I like Conspiracy factory's anecdote about anecdotes.
Not to harp on Uncommon Descent today, but their seeming inability to see words that they don't like gives the appearance of no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Take for example their read of this New Scientist article on cute little marsupials. Let's first quote from the article: From the genome sequences of placental mammals such as humans, mice and chimpanzees, the researchers identified a set of sequences that are relatively unchanged (conserved) in all placental mammals and are therefore likely to be of some functional significance. About one-third of these sequences lay within…
DaveScot, crank extraordinaire at Uncommon Descent, has made the mistake of talking about Thomas Jefferson now that there is UVa representation on the Scienceblogs. He makes the argument that because the constitution only dealt with federal separation of church and state (before the reconstruction amendments of course) that established religion was perfectly ok in the states. You see, the intent of declaring that inalienable rights are bestowed by a Creator is not just ceremonial. It's a core principle. It's what makes the rights inalienable. Governments exist only to secure these rights…
I'm a real fan of the Wall Street Journal. I read it on the BART every morning, to the displeasure of my knee-jerk co-passengers. Why is the Journal awesome? Because days like today, you find reporting showing how branding is often an illusion, how cheaper printer cartridges are actually more expensive, and how formaldehyde is used as a preservative in Asia. Denialists may be reading the opinion page, but the rest of the paper seems to highlight the many difficulties and imperfections in the market--from insider trading to outrageous executive pay. All in the same day. Back to the opinion…
A denialist does not soft pedal competition. It is a religious term. It is frequently employed, because any market can be described as competitive, regardless of the facts or the myriad factors that practically limit choice. Competition solves all problems. Period. If competition doesn't solve the problem at issue, then it isn't a problem, or people really like the problem (4 of Spades, 5 of Hearts). Because competition is magic, there are no problems to solve. And those that may exist will be solved, eventually. The denialist will say: "give competition a chance" or "sometimes a…
Allow me to jump ahead in the Denialists' Deck of Cards, in light of Verizon's claim that giving customer records to the National Security Agency is protected by the First Amendment: "Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity," says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company's owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy "is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker's right to…
Delay always benefits the denalist. At this point, any number of delay tactics can be employed to wait and see whether consumer education will solve the problem that doesn't exist.
I'd like to hear from some other sciencebloggers and science readers what they think reform of peer-review should look like. I'm not of the opinion that it has any critical flaws, but most people would like to see more accountability for sand-bagging and other bad reviewer habits. Something like a grading system that allows submitters to rate the performance of their reviewers, then editors of magazines would tend to only consult with reviewers that authors felt were doing a fair job of evaluating their paper. The drawback of course would be that reviewers might start going easier on papers…
The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute. All it says is: "Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear." - Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle You've argued that consumer education can set individuals free. Now argue that because something exists, people must want it. After all, the market is perfect, and even if it produces a seemly odious product, it's not really a problem. On the other hand, if consumers start making choices that the denialist doesn't like, the denialist will say that individuals don't really know…
Hey PZ, when do I get access to the time machine! I'm so jealous. Apparently sites like Talk Origins and Panda's thumb have been subverting the study of transposons because of their Darwinist bigotry. And they've been doing it since 1956! According to the press release, however, it has taken scientists decades to investigate and validate this function--a lot longer than it should have: "Bejerano and his colleagues aren't the first to suggest that transposons play a role in regulating nearby genes. In fact, Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock, PhD, who first discovered transposons, proposed…
Visit the Bronze Blog for a very thorough list of woo justifications, or Doggerel as Bronze Dog puts it, and help him think of more examples. My favorite so far they once thought the Earth was flat.
I thought Michael Egnor was the DI's biggest liability for stupid arguments. Now I'm thinking based on Aferensis' posts that it's probably Dave Scot based on his suggestion that "All the hominid fossils we have wouldn't fill a single coffin." But my favorite part of how embarrassing he is for humanity is how people, sometimes inadvertently, make predictions about his stupidity. Take this entry on global warming on Mars The planet Mars it seems has heated up a half degree since 1970 just like the Earth has. Its southern ice cap is melting just as the northern glaciers are melting on Earth.…