choofnagle | May 7, 2007
Given that there is consumer education, any attempt to limit the practices in questions threaten consumer freedom. Denialists will assume that people are perfectly rational and in possession of all relevant information. Thus, individuals choose the problem being addressed, and to limit it frustrates consumer freedom, because they like the problem or harm at issue.
denialism | May 7, 2007I should just feed every xkcd straight into the scienceblogs.
Luckily they believe in CC.
denialism | May 7, 2007Dembski misses the point as always with his recent post describing why the vertebrate eye is again evidence of design. You see, the big bad Darwinists used the structure of the eye, which has its photoreceptors in the back behind all the layers of the retina, as evidence that our eye isn't designed, because what kind of designer would have the light pass all the way through the layers of the retina to reach the receptor cells?
I'm interested in talking about these cranks today because I think this argument is one that exposes the fundamentally deceptive nature of the DI and proponents of the…
choofnagle | May 6, 2007Okay, you've tried denying that the problem exists, you've tried to trivialize the problem, and you've even argued that the problem causes so harm, so it isn't a problem. Obviously, this no harm thing begins to have diminishing returns. What's next?
Consumer Education Solves the Problem that Doesn't Exist.
Therefore, there's no problem
While continuing to deny that there is a problem, argue that if it exists, it benefits the economy, and if consumers really care, they will become educated and avoid it. Therefore, no problem.
Denialists can endorse consumer education because they know…
denialism | May 4, 2007For this Friday afternoon I thought I'd rehash a previous post from denialism.com on adult stem cells and those that hype results inappropriately to disparage embryonic stem (ES) cells. It all started with an exciting JAMA article about using autologous stem cell transplants to help treat type I diabetics who still had some capacity to produce insulin. The problem is that the adult stem cell hypers, like Wesley Smith (you guys remember him right? Senior fellow of DI etc.) will jump on any article that says "adult stem cells" and blather on and on about there are no ES cell cures - so why…
denialism | May 4, 2007I'm turning on moderation since the 9/11 truthers have shown up and desire to show me how they're not cranks by hijacking threads and linking their conspiracy sites.
Sorry about that. But I don't think it's a valuable use of time to argue with cranks. I also won't accept comments that are just drive-by trollings, or thread hijacks.
If my commenters want to take them on, that's fine, but I have a limited tolerance for futile endeavors.
After the weekend (Chris and I don't blog much on Saturday and Sunday) when I can monitor things more closely I'll take moderation off.
denialism | May 4, 2007I realize I've put this up before, but it's too relevant to our discussions all week to pass up.
Via xkcd.
choofnagle | May 4, 2007
At this point, the denalist engages in delay. The problem that doesn't exist, and the harms that do not occur will continue not occur in the future, if we just wait.
A great "wait and see" tactic is to "shift the goal posts." The denialist does by stating, "we don't know that there is a problem until X is demonstrated." The denialist will set unrealistic expectations for X, and if X is shown, it can easily be changed to Y. In the climate change debate, denialists claimed that we did not have enough historical information to make determinations about global temperatures. In 1998, Michael…
denialism | May 4, 2007Almost everybody knows about the fallacies of logic, formal and informal, that are routinely used in arguments with denialists. While these fallacies aren't perfect examples of logic that show when an argument is always wrong, they are good rules of thumb to tell when you're listening to bunk, and if you listen to denialists you'll hear plenty. I wish they'd teach these to high school students as a required part of their curriculum, but it probably would decrease the efficacy of advertisement on future consumers.
The problem comes when the denialists get a hold of the fallacies then accuse…
denialism | May 3, 2007Well, I won't watch CNN anymore, after Glenn Beck decided to call climate scientists who actually believe climate science Nazis. You read his profile at Media Matters and it's clear pretty much anyone he disagrees with is a Nazi.
Disagree with him on healthcare? You're a Nazi.
Disagree with him on global warming? You're a Nazi.
Oh, and some people aren't just Nazi's, like Hillary Clinton, she's also the Anti-Christ, and those Katrina victims? They're scumbags. Muslims (even in congress)? They're traitors.
This guy has never met a hyperbole he didn't like (like my hyperbole?). It is…
choofnagle | May 3, 2007Okay, my industry lobbyists in training. You've said "no problem" over and over. You've dismissed problems as attributable to bad apples, or diminished the problem as a "mere inconvenience." But people still seem to think that the problem that doesn't exist still exists. You're getting more and more press calls on the non-existent problem. What next?
Simple. No harm. The problem that doesn't exist doesn't cause harm, so there's no problem.
Denalists' definition of harm typically is elusive. They won't acknowledge harm until blood is spilled, but when that happens, it can always be…
denialism | May 3, 2007I'm sorry for mixing terminologies. But moving goalposts isn't adequate to describe the full hilarity of the kinds of arguments denialists make. For instance, the goalposts never have to be moved when they require evidence that places them somewhere in the land before time. What I mean is the use, by denialists, of the absence of complete and absolute knowledge of a subject to prevent implementation of sound policies, or acceptance of an idea or a theory.
So while moving goalposts describes a way of continuing to avoid acceptance of a theory after scientists have obligingly provided…
denialism | May 2, 2007It was pointed out in a comment in our FRC post how much cherry picking resembles rank dishonesty.
That's because it is. Deception is inherent in denialist arguments, and there are few better examples than Sal Cordova's selective quotation as demonstrated by Ed Brayton in Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
Check out the Sal Cordova version:
Charles Darwin, perhaps medicine's most famous dropout, provided the impetus for a subject that figures so rarely in medical education. Indeed, even the iconic textbook example of evolution--antibiotic resistance--is rarely described as "evolution" in…
choofnagle | May 2, 2007Are you practicing the "no problem" hand? You know how it goes--"there's no problem" (damn persnickety do gooders)! And even if people sometimes think that there is a problem, the problem that isn't a problem is caused by bad apples. But it really isn't even a problem.
It's just a mere inconvenience! Therefore, there's no problem! Remember this argument from the do-not-call debate on telemarketing?
choofnagle | May 2, 2007Okay, I'm going to open a can of worms, and I'll need the commentors to help me with this one.
Last week, Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago School of Law published an oped in the Wall Street Journal. Epstein's a charming fellow, and I like him, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where he is in charge of things! Most of the article discusses pharmaceutical regulation and the changing winds in Congress. But he ends with this whopper, which isn't really even related to his main argument, and exposes the Journal's editorial excess:
But neither Congress nor the FDA has…
denialism | May 2, 2007You know who they are - those organizations that have words like "freedom" and "rights" "choice" and "consumer" in their names but always shill for corporate interests...those occasional MDs or engineers creationists find that will say evolution has nothing to do with science. They are the fake experts.
But how do we tell which experts are fake and which are real?
To figure out who is a fake expert you have to figure out what a real expert is. My definition would be a real expert is someone with a thorough understanding of the field they are discussing, who accurately represents the…
denialism | May 1, 2007How will we ever know the truth about 4-29. I say, it was a conspiracy to undermine 9-11 truth to show that fuel from a tanker truck could actually melt steel and cause a freeway to collapse. Initial photos from the site raise lots of questions.
And if you visit the 9/11 truth site 9/11 blogger, they've already gathered evidence this was all a hoax and has nothing to do with the physics of combustion. Clearly, no real authority doubts that steel can't be melted by fire, and 4-29 should do nothing to change your mind about this clear fact.
Now, luckily, 4-29 truth has been created to…
choofnagle | May 1, 2007I'm going to be less active for a few days. Going to Montreal (for the first time) for the 17th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy. I'll be moderating a panel on the new landscape of online advertising, featuring Microsoft's Kim Howell, the Center for Digital Democracy's Jeff Chester, and Mike Zaneis of the Interactive Advertising Bureau. There may be some denialism afoot, in which case I'll project a card or two on the screen.
Anyone have any restaurant suggestions?
choofnagle | May 1, 2007Yesterday, I discussed how "no problem" is a chorus in denialist rhetoric. But sometimes, something bad has happened, and it's more or less impossible say "no problem" with a straight face. What can a denialist do?
The 2 of Hearts, Bad apples! Yes, to the extent that something bad may have happened, blame it on "bad apples." You know the type. The barrel isn't rotten. Therefore, there's no problem! Remember, "no problem" is a chorus. Get used to saying or hearing it.
Watch for this important technique--a spokesperson from a trade group will make some guarantee that an industry won'…
denialism | May 1, 2007Some might wonder why I include some right-wing "family" organizations on the list of denialists. It's simple. In their efforts to oppose all forms of contraception, they routinely lie about the science behind the efficacy of condoms for STD-prevention (just like HIV/AIDS denialists), the efficacy of contraception, as well as social effects of contraception like the falsehood that contraceptive availability leads to promiscuity and higher STD transmission.
Take for instance, the Family Research Council on emergency contraception.
(republished from denialism.com - this was too good an example…