A comparative guide to science denial

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
\int\sqrt{x^2 \pm a^2} dx = \frac{1}{2}x\sqrt{x^2\pm a^2}
 +
\pm\frac{1}{2}a^2 \ln \left | x + \sqrt{x^2\pm a^2} \right | + C
 +
 
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php]
 
[http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/02/how_to_respond_to_requests_to.php]
 
[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119]
 
[http://richarddawkins.net/articles/119]

Revision as of 13:33, 21 April 2010

\int\sqrt{x^2 \pm a^2} dx = \frac{1}{2}x\sqrt{x^2\pm a^2} \pm\frac{1}{2}a^2 \ln \left | x + \sqrt{x^2\pm a^2} \right | + C

[1] [2] [3] look<<<<

[4] [5] [6] [7]

Contents

Denial of well-established evidence

The following are quotes from denialists about the purported lack of scientific evidence.

Tobacco Industry Spokesman

Clarence C. Little:It is my purpose to present certain of the reasons why all such data (which are at time based on rather superficial and indirect observations) fail to convince other scientists and medical men that a cause-and-effect relationship between tobacco use and bronchogenic carcinoma has been established.

This does not mean that certain existing studies have not produced suggestive findings. It merely proposes that the problems raised by such studies are not yet solved and that much more research in depth is needed before definitive answers will be available.[1]

ID/Creationist Movement

Michael Behe:On a small scale, Darwin's theory has triumphed; it is now as controversial as an athlete's assertion that he or she could jump over a four-foot ditch. But, it is at the level of macroevolution—of large jumps—that the theory evokes skepticism. Many people have followed Darwin in proposing that huge changes can be broken down into plausible, small steps over great periods of time. Persuasive evidence to support that position, however, has not been forthcoming.[2]

Global Warming Denialists

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.[3]

Petitions of supporters, perhaps scientists

The following are statements from the petitions of denialist movements.


Tobacco Industry Petition

ID/Creationist Petition

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.[4]

Global Warming Denialists

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. [5]

On manufactured controversies

About the Tobacco Industry

The industry’s strategy does not require winning the debates it manufactures. It is enough to foster and perpetuate the illusion of controversy in order to muddy the waters around scientific findings that threaten the industry.[6]

ID/Creationist Movement

Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. [7]

Global Warming Denialists

Languaging expert Frank Luntz admitted as much in his now infamous talking points memo on the environment, leaked to the public in 2002, where he confessed that the window for claiming controversy about global warming was closing, but he nonetheless urged conservative congressional and executive leaders “to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate.”[8]

A commitment to doing research, after science has damning evidence

  1. Little, Clarence C. "Some Phases of the Problem of Smoking and Lung Cancer" New England Journal of Medicine 1964 (264), 1241-1245.
  2. Behe, Michael J. Darwin's Black Box 10th anniversary ed. Simon and Shuster: New York, 2006, p. 15.
  3. As quoted in Lane, Allen (2006-08-19). "The denial industry". The Guardian.
  4. http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
  5. http://www.petitionproject.org/
  6. http://www.scielosp.org/scielo.php?pid=S0042-96862000000700007&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
  7. http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/Excerpts.html
  8. http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/print_edition/manufactroversy.pdf
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support