On manufactroversies

Leah Ceccarelli in the Seattle Times:

My own research seeks to reveal what makes today's manufactroversies work. First, I've discovered that modern-day sophists skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the public, such as free speech, skeptical inquiry and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who draws on these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.

Second, the modern sophists exploit the gap between the technical and public spheres. Scientific experts who can't spare the time for public communication are then surprised when the public distrusts them.

Third, today's sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is, portraying it as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent is cited as evidence that there's no consensus, and thus that truth must not have been discovered yet.

A more accurate portrayal of science recognizes it to be a process of debate among a community of experts in which the side with superior evidence and argument wins. Unanimity of belief never exists, but the process of science moves forward with the weight of a supermajority.

More here.

More like this

It's a been a while since I checked in with Dembski and Co. over at Uncommon Descent. But this entry caught my eye. In it, Dembski reproduces eight criteria indicative of groupthink. He writes, “Read the following and ask yourself which side in the ID vs. Darwinism debate exhibits the groupthink…
Sandy Szwarc continues to wage her war against the "obesity myth", and has fallen into the classic crank trap of the attack on scientific consensus. It's right up there with attacking peer-review as a sure sign you're about to listen to someone's anti-science propaganda. She cites this article at…
Luckily they don't make the mistake of actually debating denialists. The feature of last weeks issue, "Age of Denial" is a series of articles by skeptics and one laughable rebuttal, discussing the nature of denialism and tactics to use against it. They do quite a good job covering the basics,…
Guestblogger Sastra checking in: A few years back the little Unitarian Universalist Fellowship in my area asked me to give a brief talk (!) on the topic of my choice. Seems they were looking for speakers, any speaker, and had noticed that I tend to talk a lot. So I considered the sorts of things…

Leah Ceccarelli points out that Aristotle wrote "Rhetoric" to answer the sophists. Perhaps the academics in the humanities ought stop debating postmodernism, and come to the aid of their collegues in the sciences who are being attacked in ways that they are ill-equipped to defend themselves against.

By Paul Murray (not verified) on 08 Jul 2008 #permalink

Umm, that's precisely what Ceccarelli and the vast majority of those of us that study the Rhetoric of Science are doing. She is super smart, her book is fascinating. Science and postmodernism are not incompatible. Quite to the contrary, the postmodern notion that knowledge is historically situated is consistent with the self-correcting function of science. There aren't really any serious scholars that accept the idea that because knwoledge is contigent, therefore all knowledge claims are equal -- such a caricature is the product of the same type of Sophists that Ceccarelli critiques in her editorial.

By winnebago (not verified) on 11 Jul 2008 #permalink