General Discussion
denialism | May 18, 2007As I sit here, trying to write a paper, I found this article entitled "How to write consistently boring scientific literature" very interesting. (via The Annals of Improbably Research"
I'm afraid it's behind a paywall, so I'll summarize their findings.
Here's their table that summarizes their findings in bullet-points.
Avoid Focus
This is my favorite one:
If an author really wants to make sure that the reader looses interest, I recommend that he/she does not introduce the ideas and main findings straightaway, but instead hide them at the end of a lengthy narrative. The technique can be…
choofnagle | May 17, 2007Next week's New Yorker makes a point that I hadn't considered, perhaps because there is so much religiosity in America. In a review of recently-published books on atheism, Anthony Gottlieb writes:
...one can venture conservative estimates of the number of unbelievers in the world today. Reviewing a large number of studies among some fifty countries, Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist at Pitzer College, in Claremont, California, puts the figure at between five hundred million and seven hundred and fifty million. This excludes such highly populated places as Brazil, Iran, Indonesia, and Nigeria,…
denialism | May 16, 2007This is good. I'll get some writing (non-blog) done. However I'd like to pose the rare political question based on the coverage of last night's debate. Everyone from CNN to the National Review is all atwitter over Giuliani's brash response to the question about whether the first Gulf War might have had something to do with 9/11. His response? Angrily denouncing the idea that anyone could find blame for anything America has done as a potential reason for the attack (I bet the answer would have been different if they suggested it was Clinton's fault).
Have we really failed to move past…
denialism | May 15, 2007Here's an interesting article in BBC which suggests that more hysterical messages on climate change might fall on deaf ears.
Professor Mike Hulme, of the UK's Tyndall Centre, has been conducting research on people's attitudes to media portrayals of a catastrophic future.
He says strong messages designed to prompt people to change behaviour only seem to generate apathy.
His initial findings will be shown to a meeting run by the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
...
The study compared the responses of a group of people shown sensational media coverage with those given the more…
denialism | May 10, 2007At Infophilia.
In particular I like Conspiracy factory's anecdote about anecdotes.
choofnagle | May 9, 2007I'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…
denialism | May 7, 2007Visit 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.
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…
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?
denialism | April 30, 2007Hello and welcome to denialism blog.
Here we will discuss the problem of denialists, their standard arguing techniques, how to identify denialists and/or cranks, and discuss topics of general interest such as skepticism, medicine, law and science. I'll be taking on denialists in the sciences, while my brother, Chris, will be geared more towards the legal and policy implications of industry groups using denialist arguments to prevent sound policies.
First of all, we have to get some basic terms defined for all of our new readers.
Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give…