Science Denial

[RickG]

Most of the Science Denial I have encountered seems to originate from non-science sources targeted toward the non-science public (laymen). This is especially pronounced in the area of Climate Change and is quite obviously politically oriented.

 

[AV1611VET]

Most of the Science Denial I have encountered seems to originate from non-science sources ...

Isn't there a word for someone who uses science to deny science?

Is it "hypocrite"? irony? something like that.

 

[KWCrazy]

You do know that while slavery was a big reason for the Civil War, it wasn't the only cause, right?

That's true, but it was one insurmountable obstacle to peace.

And what does any of this have to do with the denial of science?

Just a response to an unwarranted attack.

 

[KWCrazy]

It was the British who had to park warships off the coast of Africa, to try and prevent America carrying on with the slave trade, after it had been abolished throughout the British Empire.

If they had not been a nation of slave owners, they would have never exported their evil onto our shores. You attacked our founders for carrying on British policies. Talk about denial.

 

[KWCrazy]

Most of the Science Denial I have encountered seems to originate from non-science sources targeted toward the non-science public (laymen).

Consensus is the antithesis of science. Real scientists aren't in the business of promoting the status quo, they are looking for the next big breakthrough. Some scientists believe in AGW, some do not believe in AGW. However when you start talking about consensus you move beyond science and into social and political discourse.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's true, but it was one insurmountable obstacle to peace.

Eh, peace is a bit strong of a word. Stability, is a bit better I think.

Just a response to an unwarranted attack.

Or you could have just ignored it and kept to the OP topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If they had not been a nation of slave owners, they would have never exported their evil onto our shores. You attacked our founders for carrying on British policies. Talk about denial.

And it was a French, Spanish and Portuguese ideal too. To solely put the blame on the British for slavery in North America is just insanely stupid.

 

[Goonie]

And it was a French, Spanish and Portuguese ideal too. To solely put the blame on the British for slavery in North America is just insanely stupid.

Crazy even.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Crazy even.

That too.

 

[KWCrazy]

And it was a French, Spanish and Portuguese ideal too. To solely put the blame on the British for slavery in North America is just insanely stupid.

The colonies were British colonies, not French, Spanish and Portuguese, though all of the above were present.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The colonies were British colonies, not French, Spanish and Portuguese, though all of the above were present.

But to solely but the blame on the British is just stupid. And the term "nation of slaveowners" is absolutely ridiculous since it was only the super-wealthy in Britain that owned slaves. Learn some actual history.

 

[RickG]

Isn't there are word for someone who uses science to deny science?

Is it "hypocrite"? irony? something like that.

The term I have known mainstream scientists to use is "intellectual dishonesty", which for the most part accepts the science that appears to support their position while ignoring all the science that shows that position to be wrong. It can be either intentional, unintentional or both.

 

[KWCrazy]

But to solely but the blame on the British is just stupid.

So by your logic, it's all Switzerland's fault that WWII happened because blaming it only on the country responsible is just stupid. British colonies are subject to British law, not the laws of any other nation. Had slavery not been a part of British law it would not have come to our shores. Period.

And the term "nation of slaveowners" is absolutely ridiculous since it was only the super-wealthy in Britain that owned slaves.

Only about 1.4% of free whites in America owned slaves, compared to 43% of free blacks in South Carolina and 20% in Georgia. Learn some actual history.

 

[Cearbhall]

I used to wonder what lay behind climate change denial. I came to the conclusion that climate change deniers just didn't want to be inconvenienced by unwelcome facts, and who care about the future anyway - we won't be alive then, even if our grandchildren will.

It truly puzzles me. I look at my parents and can't figure it out. It's not that they don't care about their descendants. They get very upset at that suggestion. They sincerely don't believe that climate change is real.

Most of the time, I understand beliefs like that, because religion can have that effect on a person. But my folks are both Catholic, my mother very much so, and the Catholic Church is very into science and environmental justice. The Catholic Church believes in climate change. I don't know what's influencing them or why both of my parents are so intent on denying it.

 

[AV1611VET]

It can be either intentional, unintentional or both.

And whether intentional, unintentional, or both: you consider it a non-science source?

 

[Michael]

The term I have known mainstream scientists to use is "intellectual dishonesty", which for the most part accepts the science that appears to support their position while ignoring all the science that shows that position to be wrong. It can be either intentional, unintentional or both.

I think the historical term 'confirmation bias' is actually a better term. I doubt that most scientists are "dishonest" by intent. If anything they've simply been indoctrinated to believe a certain way. They therefore tend to ignore information that is contrary to what they've been taught, while focusing on anything that tends to agree with their preconceived (taught) belief system. I don't really like the term "dishonest" because it implies a malicious intent, when there probably isn't any such intent. It's a typical human bias problem.

 

[Michael]

Most of the Science Denial I have encountered seems to originate from non-science sources targeted toward the non-science public (laymen). This is especially pronounced in the area of Climate Change and is quite obviously politically oriented.

I agree.

 

[RickG]

Some scientists believe in AGW, some do not believe in AGW. However when you start talking about consensus you move beyond science and into social and political discourse.

A scientific consensus is what the science shows. It is not based on opinion or a poll.

For example: The Cook et al, 2013, paper on AGW consensus is a published peer review research paper that shows more than 97% of the published peer review research in climate science that addresses AGW shows it to be factual. The important thing to understand about this paper is that it evaluates what the science says, not what scientists or anyone says. Here's the abstract.

Abstract: "We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."

Here's a link to the full paper: Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

And here are the important aspects of it to understand.

• All scientific literature was searched in a scientific search engine for the topics "Global climate change" or "global warming" published between 1991 and 2011.
• Of that "all inclusive" search during that period, 11,944 matched (addressed) the topic.
• Of that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
• Thus, a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
• In addition, they went the extra mile and asked the authors of those papers expressing a position on AGW if their evaluation of them was correct. Among those self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Thus the actual consensus increased to 97.2%.

 

[RickG]

I think the historical term 'confirmation bias' is actually a better term. I doubt that most scientists are "dishonest" by intent. If anything they've simply been indoctrinated to believe a certain way. They therefore tend to ignore information that is contrary to what they've been taught, while focusing on anything that tends to agree with their preconceived (taught) belief system. I don't really like the term "dishonest" because it implies a malicious intent, when there probably isn't any such intent. It's a typical human bias problem.

I agree, 'confirmation bias' is a much better term.

 

[AV1611VET]

I agree, 'confirmation bias' is a much better term.

Then why have I been called a hypocrite way more than I have been called 'confirmation biased'? Do educatees know more than you?