Heh, gotta love this. Get popcorn. I was tipped off to this by Chris Mooney in a Tweet where he’s calling for reinforcements:
Kevin Green of the American Enterprise Institute got the war of words rolling with these comments at Mooney’s new digs at scienceprogress:
Ken Green ·
Right, so let’s continue on your dismiss-a-thon of leftist anti-science, shall we? DDT and cancer, BPA and phthalates as carcinogens and endocrine disruptors; claims that organic food are safer because they have less pesticides/contaminants; claims that eating local foods are better for the environment than foods from elsewhere; claims that re-usable cloth bags are better for the environment than plastic or paper bags; false claims of species endangerment; pseudo-scientific claims about species loss treated as gospel; claims that climate models have predictive power; claims that individual weather events represent climate change…I think you missed a few.
Ken Green ·
Oh, wait, I forgot a few: frogs dying from climate change, alligator penis malformations from endocrine disruptors, bees dying from climate change (or is it cell-phones this week?), butterflies dying from BT crops…And, let’s not forget Alar, or cancer from video displays, or cell phones, or anything vaguely reminiscent of modernity.
Ken Green ·
Oops! Oh yes, then there’s the giant plastic ocean graveyard that was never seen again, and, let’s not forget the now-famous drowning polar bears.
Chris Mooney replied, though it is hardly much of one, which is why I suppose he’s trying to get Revkin and Kloor interested in it for defense.
Chris Mooney · Top Commenter · Yale University
This is quite a grab bag of claims. Many are misleading, some might be valid, some are wrong claims that have been made sometimes on the left but refuted just as vigorously by fellow liberals….including me.
I was pretty amazed (as were other commenters on other issues) that Mooney didn’t bother to address the totally bogus and overhyped “frogs dying from climate change” issue, because that was one of the worst blunders in climate science ever.
It turned out to be totally unrelated to climate, as I’ve addressed here on WUWT. The frog decline was definitively linked an infection of the chytrid fungus. The PNAS peer reviewed paper slapping down this nonsense said:
Finally, almost all of our findings were opposite to the predictions of the chytrid-thermal-optimum hypothesis.
Even Hansen’s buddies at Columbia agree. See this: Global Warming not to blame for toad extinction
Mooney was undeterred by the rebuttals, and the war was on. Green made a full post out of it at the AEI blog:
====================
Over at scienceprogress, Chris Mooney opines that the political Right is more “anti-science” than the political Left. He points to climate change and evolution as areas where the Right is anti-science, and dismisses the idea that the Left is anti-science when it comes to things like their exaggerations of the risks of genetically modified crops, nuclear power, and vaccines.
His reasoning seems to break down into two arguments:
1) Chris argues that one can’t really tag the Left as being anti-science on things like vaccines and nukes because he (and a few other environmental journalists) have done their own policing on the issues, or, at least, walked away from actively shilling them. Chris actually says that he and journalists on the Left have “chased vaccine denial out of the realm of polite discourse.” That’s going to come as a shock to virtually every social-network user, who probably sees half-a-dozen anti-vaccine posts a week.
2) Chris argues that the anti-science issues usually associated with the Left (vaccines, nuclear-danger exaggerations, GMO danger claims) aren’t really left-wing issues, but rather, are held by people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Read it all here at So Who’s Anti-Science?
The “anti-science” label (which I think was coined by Joe Romm, if not he’s the worst serial user of the phrase) is no different that the “denier” label. The idea is to denigrate your opponent by applying ugly labels.
Legatus says:
September 27, 2011 at 7:06 pm
I would implore you to re-examine the meaning of the verse, I Peter 3:15.
That we are able to adequately and rationally explain some of God’s wondrous ways founded in sound science and theory isn’t what gives us Hope. Our cause for Hope is Christ’s victory over death and God’s Grace to share this gift with mankind. It is this that is the basis of our Hope. And this is the instruction of Peter.
Legatus, this has been most interesting. I thank you for sharing your thoughts on some of the passages. Perhaps we can pick up this conversation in another time or another place.
James
Sparkey said:
“Forgive me if this was addressed earlier, but gnomish doesn’t understand what faith is or how someone gets faith… I injected the serum into my veins.”
is that you algore? that’s quite the relattsio.
your references now include Tonto and Quien.No.Sabe?
There’s silliness in the exchanges reported in this thread.
Certainly climate alarmists are almost always environmentalists, and environmentalists often believe Marxist economic presumptions as well as the various irrational notions chronicled in the book “Higher Superstition: the academic left and its quarrel with science”.
But many environmentalists are religious – for example, Elizabeth May, “leader” of the Green Party of Canada is studying to be an Anglican Minister. (Apparently common in the Anglican Church of Canada to be environmentalist, and neo-Marxist. I forget the name of the US sect that is equivalent.) And keep in mind that many religious people have odd notions of how to acquire knowledge, such as “discernment”.
I’d expect many skeptics of AGW etc. are in the more fundamentalist Christian category, but other individuals are definitely not religious – notably Objectivists. (Alex Epstein, Keith Lockitch, and Yaron Brook come to mind as public speakers on energy and environment, there are many others.)
I think there are a few skeptics who are racist, which is an irrational position. (Of course many alarmists are fundamentally against human life.)
Sparkey says:
September 28, 2011 at 10:24 am
The idea that any given science factoid proves or disproves the existence of God is laughably absurd. Faith is fundamental, Ephesians 2:8 For by grace ye are saved though faith…
Hence, a deterministic knowledge of Him is not going to happen, that will only occur through faith.
You are confusing faith and belief here, the devil beleives in God, but he certianly does not have faith. It is indeed possible to aquire a BELIEF in God from a “science factoid “, faith is another matter. This is also in answer to James Sexton’s latest post.
It is stated in Rom 1:20 that the visible world DOES show that there is indeed a God, “so that they are without excuse”. Now, you say you believe the bible, well, do you beleive Rom 1:20? You either believe this stuff or not, if you do, you believe Rom 1:20, which directly contradicts this statment “the idea that any given science factoid proves or disproves the existence of God is laughably absurd”. I have already covered Rom 1:20 and it’s context above, I suggest you look there. The idea that the nessissary existance of God cannot be shown by science is just jargon, it has no basis in fact. I mean, ask yourself, where did you get that idea? What sort of backing does it have, is it just “everybody knows”? The question I am asking is, how do you KNOW this? If you say “well, I just know it”, ask yourself, am I all knowing, or does my “knowing” something make it true simply because I “know” it? Simply ask yourself why you “know” this, and ask yourself what is the basis of that belief, I suspect you will find that there is no real basis that you can find.
“I feel pretty confident in saying that God did not look for a PhD in Astrophysics to author Genesis. Obviously the author had no knowledge of celestial mechanics, and to him a black hole was a deep hole in the ground. The author is describing events the best way he can given his experience and knowledge that what’s important is the religious. Come’on folks, think critically, not dogmatically!”
I am thinking critically, simply read the text. Where did Moses get the ideas he wrote in Genesis, was he an eyewitness to these events? No, of course he was not, using, actually using, critical thinking says of course he could not be 4.5 billion years old. Well, then, where did he get the idea, folklore? How could there be such folklore since non one else was present to witness those events either? And yet it accuratly describes the big bang, planatery formation, evolution in the correct order, and other verified facts, therefore we cannot say it is just folklore http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html . However, we can see, if we READ THE TEXT, that Moses spoke to God directly in his tent. Now God WAS an eyewitness, hence, the problem of it’s accuracy is solved. And if God is going to tell him about this, what will he tell him, some untrue fable, or the truth (in simplified form obviously, I doubt there is room for all the physics or math)? There is no reason at all for God to not tell Moses the simple truth here. Moses did not need to have a PhD, he simple needed to be able to write what God told him, hear the words, write the words, simple, a child could do it. Or do you think he just dreamt all that stuff up out of his imagination, made up a fable or story (somehow dreaming up a scientifically verified fable, odd that)? If you beleive that, well, than that statement about your faith is false, and your faith has no basis in fact. “The author is describing events the best way he can given his experience and knowledge” is, using critical thinking, obviously a false statement, Moses had no experience or knowledge of the big bang, planatery formation, evolution, or any of that, and yet he wrote about it.
Therefore, your statements here show that you have not actually read the text, and then applied critical thinking to it, you are, in fact, simply expressing dogmatic opinions. You would do well to ask yourself “where did these opinions come from, how did I come to beleive them, why do I beleive they are true?”. THAT is called CRITICAL THINKING.
gnomish says:
September 27, 2011 at 11:22 pm
” another typically unsupported statement which we are to believe simply because you said it, to accept your word on faith”
it seems we agree on the definition of faith, at least- accepting unsupported statements as truth.
We do NOT agree on that definition. It is very possible to have faith in something that IS supported. I have faith that when I flip the switch, the light will come on, that is very defiantly a supported faith. The Christian religion at least (other religions differ) specifically states that it IS a supported faith, supported by eyewitness accounts and by the facts of the visible universe and this world. It is specifically stated, for instance, that if a real live Jesus who was killed very very dead did not then come back to life and was witnessed by many to have done so, then the entire faith is unsupported and is in vain. You should also note that there is at least some difference between belief and faith, it is possible to believe that there is a god without putting your faith in that god. It is possible to believe in a god, what you do about that is where faith comes in. This latter is more of a biblical definition of faith, and may not be what you mean by faith.
happily enough, you also seem to agree that it is not required to choose faith. given that faith must not depend on reason, do you consider it virtuous for a person choose against reason?
(indeed- do you not consider faith The Primary Virtue?)
The Christian faith, at least (other faiths differ) states the exact opposite. It states that it is entirely supported on reason, on witnessed facts, and that without those facts it is entirely groundless. Paul said to “give a REASON for the hope that lies within you”, note the word REASON, you cannot give them something you do not have. It is NOT virtuous to choose against reason. Also, if you choose against reason, then you have no basis to believe the Christian religion, which is entirely based on reason from observed facts. Faith is stated not to be the primary virtue, it is stated that if you have faith to move mountains, but do not have love, you are nothing. Of course, that includes love of God, which requires reason-from-fact based faith that God exists, of course.
this thing you have about appeal to authority- plz note that i’ve cited none for logic requires no man to vouch for it. whereas, if you forgo your appeals to authority, what do you have left?
Well…science. Science tells me about the big bang. The big bang tells me that this universe started at such a low state of entropy that it is impossible to have done so unless it was planned that way (as does the anthropic principle, evolution from non living matter, etc). Therefore, reason based on science, tells me there is a God, and even tells me which one it must be (the others are not supported by these facts). Therefore, it is possible to believe in God the authority, not based on direct “appeal to authority”, but based on science and reason from observed and eye witnessed facts.
Logic may need no one to vouch for it, but the underlying premises on which you base your logical statements do. If the premise is false, it doesn’t matter how correct the logic is.
Also, note that some people may have faith in God, but not do so based on scientific facts. Just because they believe something in a non fact based way does not automatically make it not true, any more than my believing that the light will come on if I flip the switch will not be true if I know nothing about electricity.
when i define a term i use, you should accept my definition as the meaning of the word when i use it. feel free to make your own meaning clear by defining your terms.
it’s really hard to be confusing that way – if your purpose were not to confuse.
I will only accept that your definition is your definition, I do not see, nor have you given me reason to see, why I should just change my definition of a word to what you wish it to be. Or are you claiming now that I should “appeal to authority”, in this case, you, for my definition of the word, is that not illogic, unreason, anti-science? I feel perfectly free to state that your definition is a false one, and the reasons why. Or am I now to give up reason?
anti- is a prefix meaning ‘against’. a synonym is contra-. the word ‘contradict’ derives from words that mean ‘speak against’ which means repudiate. anti-science is that which contradicts abstraction of truth by means of logic and experiment which is science.
There are religions that are, indeed, anti-science, they state that you must have faith, unsupported, in everything. Christianity is not one of them, being a religion that specifically states that it is entirely fact based. Therefore you can be said to be partially correct, SOME faith (based on some religions) is anti-science, but not ALL.
those ‘commands’ you speak of- this is some supernatural authority issuing the ‘command’?
you say it requires obedience?
obedience is to substitute the judgement of another for your own – it’s a default of reason – that’s anti-scientific. it’s worse. for a creature who depends on reason for his survival, obedience is a way to repudiate his own nature. can you picture a bird struggling to rip off his own wings? a creature that contradicts its nature receives the name ‘monster’.
i’m certainly not certified as any authority – i’m not even peer reviewed like the bible is.
i’ve never issued any commandments, for sure. i merely know what i know.
Well, lets look at this idea, “supernatural authority”. Scientists tell us that there is really only two possible explanations for this universe coming out like it did, God, a supernatural authority, or there being an infinite number of universes (which latter doesn’t really solve the problem, see my earlier posts). If you have faith in these infinite other dimensions (there being no evidence, that is all you can have), then, in an infinite number of dimensions, there could be other beings. Since they are not part of this nature, they are by definition “supernatural”. Thus, science tells us we can either believe in the supernatural, or we can believe in the supernatural (natures other than this one). Either way, we must believe in the supernatural, and in the latter case, entirely on blind faith. So, do you believe in the supernatural, or the supernatural?
How is it a default of reason to, by a chain of reason, which tells me that there is a God (from science), which one it is, that that God is, in fact, the authority (having created all the rules, such as the laws of nature), and that therefore it would be wise to listen to that authority? That is not anti-scientific, it is, at it’s core, based on science and fact. To substitute the judgment of someone who has demonstrated that their judgment is always correct is not anti-reason, it is the height of reason. To admit that my judgment, in contrast, is prone to error, that I am not all knowing, is also the height of reason, based on observation and personal experience. Your belief that you CAN base all your judgment on only your own knowledge is anti-reason. And to make a statement such as “i merely know what i know”, is to state that you, yourself, must be all knowing, since you know it simply because it is YOU doing the knowing. Thus you are making the illogical statement:
There is no God.
And I know because.
I am God.
you know, halloween is coming up. kids will dress as ghosts and devils and witches and try to scare people. are they satanists?
Nope, just kids having fun. I am able to tell this by reason, by observing them, and by having been them once. Some people who call themselves Christians seem intimidated by anything that might even remotely be called “Satanism”, however, that shows that they don’t know much. In the bible, Satan comes out the loser, and also, God, with infinite power, must therefore be more powerful than Satan. So, if God is on you side, what, exactly, are you intimidated about? Chill out and go out and have fun this Halloween.
lavey was an entertainer like billy graham. he yanked the same chains – but in the opposite direction. he believed in giving a show.
He certainly seemed to be an entertainer. I don’t usually choose entertainers as my arbiters of truth. And, unless he can back up HIS statements with proof, they are “anti-science” (by your definition).
May I point out something?
The statement “you cannot prove there is a God” may be considered true if you only stick to direct detection of a non material being, which, by definition cannot be detected directly (assumes it did not create a universe and thus leave evidence of it’s existence).
However, the statement “you cannot prove there is no God” would then also be true.
Is the latter statement also, then, anti-science?
Therefore, the only statement science can make about direct (as compared to indirect) detection of God is “we don’t know”.
Which sometimes is the smartest thing a scientist can say.
Dear Moderators:
Aren’t the last two posts (“continental free sports” and “Freaky Download (dot com, visit my site)”) the sort of fake likely-auto-generated no-content link-spamming posts you normally just delete?
(BTW I saw the last one in Recent Comments, wondered why someone was at this old post. Seen this type of late comments on forgotten posts before, seen them deleted too.)
[well spotted – will investigate ~ac]
[Fixed. Thanks for the notice. Robt]