I'm afraid I must reluctantly take fellow SB'er Mark Hoofnagle to task here, because he appears to have allowed himself to get a bit carried away when it comes to throwing around the label of "denialist."
In an otherwise excellent takedown of some really bad propaganda in the Wall Street Journal editorial page, he did something below the usual high standards of his blog. He casually and offhandedly lumped Paul Offit in with the other "denialists" that he was castigating, based on this editorial about Michael Moore's new movie Sicko. It's something that most people probably wouldn't have noticed, were they not as involved in combatting real denialism, namely antivaccination lunacy, as I am. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending upon your point of view), I am involved and I did notice.
I merely point this out because this is the same Paul Offit who's been a steadfast defender of vaccines against antivaccination cranks and has become target #1 of the mercury militia, suffering demonization on par with the demonization to which Kentucky Fried Chicken is subjected by PETA. (OK, maybe #2. Julie Gerberding of the CDC is probably target #1.) Moreover, Dr. Offit's the #1 go-to guy whenever the antivaxers start agitating and has been for quite some time.
I'll admit that you could argue about Offit's specific complaints about Michael Moore's movie and I'll admit that his appeal to emotion when it comes to pharmaceutical executive Dr. Penny Heaton did grate on me as a bit over-the-top as I read his editorial, but most of the points Offit raised at the end of his article were eminently reasonable. I saw nothing in the editorial that could reasonably be construed as "denialist," only as annoyance with Michael Moore's line of attack. (Of course, I could facetiously point out that expecting any sort of objectivity out of Michael Moore is totally wishful thinking.) I consider it a massive exaggeration to lump Dr. Offit in with the denialists so casually. Dr. Offit has arguably done more to champion safe and effective vaccines than anyone since Maurice Hilleman. He's the vaccine denialists' worst enemy, and that's something to be proud of.
Unfortunately, in response to criticism, Mark claims that he "wasn't calling Offit a denialist or a crank in this instance." As much as I truly pains me to say it, that excuse strikes me as a tad bit disingenuous. What message am I supposed to take away when Mark characterizes the WSJ as a "denialist organization" and its editorial page as "virtual clearinghouse of denialism on par with Uncommon Descent," while citing Paul Offit's article as one of only three examples to support his characterization, one of which is so completely full of bad math as to be utterly risible? Sadly, I must come to the conclusion that either Mark was indeed by association calling Offit a denialist (or at the very least accusing him of contributing to the "clearinghouse of denialism" that is the WSJ editorial page), or, by casually lumping Offit in with real denialists, he was just as sloppy in his writing and thinking as he accuses Offit of being in his review of Sicko.
Take your pick.
Mark later complains that Offit was attacking straw men in his review of Sicko. Even if that is indeed the case, it would not justify lumping him in with real "denialism." The term "denialist" implies a consistent history of making denialist arguments; there is no way anyone could reasonably accuse Dr. Offit of such a thing. At the very worst, one could characterize Dr. Offit's review of Sicko as a bit of a misfire, nothing more. Lumping him in with the the anti-evolution clods at Uncommon Descent and whatever idiot wrote the Laffer Curve article is unjustified and profoundly unfair to Dr. Offit. In his zeal to target the WSJ as a denialist organ, Mark slimed one of the good guys, someone who's on our side and has not published, as far as I am aware, anything that could be characterized as "denialist" in nature.
As much as Iike Marks' blog, I must say that I've always been a bit uncomfortable with the term "denialism." (This is, of course, not the first time I've said this.) It's a powerful label that should be used only very sparingly. Certainly it's absolutely appropriate in the case of Holocaust deniers, evolution denialists, antivaccinationists, and HIV/AIDS denialists, to all of whom the term clearly applies. However, I see a very real danger of diluting its meaning by applying the label too liberally, which is an easy trap to fall into, given how seductive it is as a shorthand for cranks. There is a very real danger of applying the label to people whose views might be a bit out of the mainstream but are not truly "denialists." There was a time when I virtually never used the term other than for Holocaust deniers, but more recently I admit that I've started using it more frequently, probably subtly influenced by my fellow SBer and my near daily reading of denialism.com. In light of this incident, I think I'm going to make a conscious effort to use the term much less and only in the most egregious cases.
ADDENDUM: Paul Offit has responded to Mark's comments.
It's a fair point that one should think long and hard before pinning the term "denialist" on somebody.
However, you seem to be committing a logical fallacy in basing your defence of Offit partly on his upright championing of vaccines. It's perfectly possible for him to be motivated to root out vaccine junk science on the one hand while indulging a bit of denialism-lite on the side.
For example, a lot of libertarians out there staunchly defend evolution against creationist Luddites, yet deny the consensus behind human-caused climate change. I mean, they're all for reason and enlightenment on Darwin, but once you mention CO2 emissions, it's like the IPCC is an ideologically driven monstrosity, and climate "sceptics" are all Galileo.
Heck, one blogger I often read merrily links to a PZ Myers takedown of some ID loon in one post, then in the next he's applauding Michael Crichton!
For some people, it really is all about politics.
Point taken, and I agree that this is something to keep in mind too. Tim Slagle, the comic I've written about a couple of times over the last few days, is an excellent example of the very phenomenon of which you speak. He makes fun of creationists and antivaxers, but when it comes to global warming he's off the deep end.
In response, though, I note that I did mention that I saw nothing in the WSJ editorial that I considered to be "denialist" in nature; if I had, I would not have defended Dr. Offit. Similarly, I am unaware of anything ever published by Dr. Offit that is denialist in nature. Consequently, I found Mark's casually lumping him in with real denialists to be a big mistake, so much so that I was ticked off enough to take him to task publicly for it even though I generally consider him a blog friend.
I'm sure he'd do the same thing for me to keep me honest if I were to screw up like that.
Ok, so I'm really not an apologist for the pharmaceutical industry for the most part. Indeed, I have my serious qualms with much of what goes on there. But this was a very reasonable op-ed piece. Certainly there was nothing to warrant labeling the writer a denialist. Hell, I could add my own anecdote.
Several years ago, I needed a medication that I really couldn't afford. The public health service didn't have it in their listing of covered meds. The doctor that was treating me, made a couple of calls and the manufacturer (I believe it was Eli Lilly) contacted the local non-profit hospital, to have them fill it for me. They could do it for free, because the manufacturer provides them with a supply to have on hand, for just such situations.
All I got from Dr. Dr. Offit's WSJ editorial was that he didn't much like Michael Moore's latest film, "Sicko." I have not seen it myself, so I cannot say whether I agree or disagree with Dr. Offit's criticisms of it, but since when does giving a film a bad review make one a "denialist?"
Perhaps the reason why some people will make fun of creationists and antivaxers while, at the same time, questioning humanity's contributions to climate change, is because climate change is a relatively new issue.
Creationists have been around since, well creation, and Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is over a century old. Antivaxers have been around since the first vaccines were invented over two centuries ago. However, "global warming" has only recently -- in the past decade or so -- gotten the attention of the teeming masses.
My other hypothesis on this dynamic is that creationism and anti-vaccination activism have very little effect upon the profit and loss columns of industry; and "going green" is still perceived, by many, as overregulation that is stifling to free enterprise.
A number of capitalists have not yet figured out how to turn the concept of "green" into profitable opportunities, which is actually their own fault, but they nonetheless prefer to blame scientists and government regulations for their own lack of imagination and creativity.
Ugg, I'll write here too as I go down my RSS feed seing you freak out about this.
WSJ = denialist.
People who write for WSJ = may or may not be denialist.
This editorial I disagree with, and don't think presented an honest argument. It argued a point Moore didn't make.
Does that make Offit a denialist? No. One BS argument does not make a denialist or a crank, and it only met one criteria.
It did fit with an example of the kind of crap that WSJ likes to publish that has very little to do with reality. It is possible for people to publish for WSJ without being denialists, I'm not hanging everyone who has ever appeared on the page. But the WSJ page itself has a long history of publishing denialist garbage from AGW denialism to some pretty extraordinary anti-regulatory nonsense.
That Offit chose to publish there is at the very least a lapse in judgement. I'm not sure who in their right mind thinks that's a good place to publish anything - unless you're trying to walk amongst the sinners as I've said. That his editorial turned out to be a straw-man attack - again disappointing. But merely appearing on my blog or on the WSJ page isn't enough to make you a denialist. You're alleging guilt-by-association, not me. His editorial only meets 1 criteria. It isn't denialism. It's just wrong. That the WSJ includes it with about 100 other incorrect, factually nuts, and blatantly deceptive crap make them the denialists, not Offit.
Bullshit.
You're the one who used Offit's article as an example of why the WSJ's editorial page is "denialist." You're the one who lumped his article in with that ridiculous Laffer curve article and the evolutionist denialists at Uncommon Descent.
I merely called you on it.
When did we lose all appreciation for degree here?
Why is it so difficult to see that Offit is merely slightly off but that the WSJ is a giant aggregator of BS? His editorial is wrong, it uses a straw man to attack Moore. Not denialism on it's own, you know I have specific criteria. But the aggregator of BS, the WSJ, on a single page will might have all 5.
I can't use an article that's wrong on the facts to show that WSJ aggregates BS without calling every one of their contributors denialist?
Make up your mind. After lumping it in with really dishonest pieces, you later called Offit's article "dishonest" and "pathetic," among other things (such as "intellectually dishonest"). That hardly sounds like "slightly off" to me. It sounds a whole lot worse. Now you characterize it as "slightly off"? If all you had said was that Offit's article was "slightly off," I wouldn't have reacted so vociferously. In fact, I probably wouldn't have reacted at all.
Now who's using straw men, by the way? I never said that the WSJ editorial page is not a giant aggregator of BS. That isn't the issue. The issue that pissed me off is your inappropriate and overblown use of Dr. Offit's editorial as one of your key examples of why you consider the WSJ editorial page to be that way:
You sure didn't make any distinctions there, such as saying that the "Sick Propaganda" article was only "slightly off" while that other stuff was really loony.
I think straw men are dishonest. I can't apologize for that. Attacking people for things they don't say isn't just a simple mistake.
The examples I chose were just the ones at my finger tips. They were by no means the worst I've seen on WSJ. Some of their anti-FDA or anti-global warming denialism (Lindzen for instance?) is far worse.
I can only apologize for the misunderstanding that Offit or Fadhil in particular were being called denialists. I hope that regular readers of my blog will realize that I have more extensive criteria for the designation than mere linking from my blog. I would like to have the ability to point at things without being accused of throwing denialism around.
It's regrettable even to see the term "denialist" in the same sentence as the name of Dr. Offit. He is a scientist in the truest sense of the word.
Is all this a tantrum over someone daring to criticize Michael Moore, I wonder?
I'm with MarkH on this. Using strawman arguments is a form of denialism. Thus the WSJ is denialist, regardless of the truth value of Offit's piece. This says nothing about Offit and everything about the WSJ.