The Dang Thing

National Review ^ | May 05, 2008 | David Berlinski

[Col Freeper]

[Berlinski’s radical and often wrong-headed skepticism represents an ascendant style in the popular debate over American science: Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do.]

````````````````````````````````
Could you please clarify:

1. Are you an adherent of Al Gore's “Man is causing Global Warming” arguments?
2. What do you mean by “the recent crop” of global-warming skeptics?
3. What are the “AIDS denialists” denying?
4. What are the “biotech activists” activating for (or against)?

[He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved.]

````````````````````````````````````
1. Don't scientists regularly challenge the “consensus” of science when they propose that a currently held scientific belief is inaccurate and/or incomplete?
2. If a scientific consensus lacks “evidence that isn't there” (it is unclear how something that doesn't exist can be evidence) and contains “things that can't be proved”, isn't the validity of that consensus clearly open to questioning?

[In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1. Is the “contrarian approach to science” acceptable, as long as it is not some “extreme and ideological form”?
2. Who are the gatekeepers that determine if questioning a scientific consensus should be designated as “extreme and ideological”?
3. Would those gatekeepers be the ones who have a vested interest in maintaining the consensus?
4. Do you believe that Berlinski (and other practitioners alluded to in your post) are in a paranoid state of permanent suspicion and outrage?

Thanks in advance for your clarifications/responses to these questions.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Publius6961]

This is hilarious.

The angrier the critics of the movie, the more certain that they have not seen it.

Or even are aware of what the only theme of the movie is. The angrier their hissy-fit, the less connection they have to reality.

Kind of has the opposite effect of consensus "science" than they intend.

[curiosity]

Berlinski fails to address the central point of Derb's essay. Why am I not surprised?

[Soliton]

Nice comments. It was a quote. I will get the link and you can argue with him.

[KarinG1]

You’re not one of those evolutionists are you? I’m not going to argue with a Darwinian. I tried it before and they ganged up on me.

[NicknamedBob]

"Berlinski is an excellent writer, in my opinion. I read his book a couple of weeks ago. You’ll notice, in this article, that he never splits an infinitive."

I did observe that his structure and usage was impeccable. For that reason, I read his statements with acute wariness.

That kind of exceedingly precise verbiage can make you think that up is down and black is white if you're not careful.

I noted that he said it was untrue that the video presentation on cell operations was copied, an accurate statement. It wasn't copied; it was derived. A copy would be identical. This was only similar; too similar for coincidence.

Then he said that they didn't need permission to use a portion of "Imagine". Perhaps so. I don't know, but they could have asked, and they didn't.

These of course, are quibbles, and I am not here to quibble. Nothing I have learned of Ben Stein's movie compels me to interest in viewing it.

Narnia, however ...

[BwanaNdege]

Please forgive me as I am one of those “flat-earthers’ (yea, right) and have not bothered to read Derb’s essay, yet.

Please elucidate; what is the central point of Derb’s essay?

[Tax-chick]

Nothing I have learned of Ben Stein's movie compels me to interest in viewing it.

I don't see any compelling reason that you should see it, either. I'll probably rent the DVD, if it hasn't slipped my mind by then. I won't expect to see any new information, since I'm familiar with the topic and the perspectives on both sides. I just think Ben Stein is cute!

I hope they do a better job with the second "Narnia" movie. I was disappointed in the first - departures from the text were too egregious.

[the invisib1e hand]

The facts are easily available from the Expelled website. John Derbyshire has failed to appreciate the neat retributive irony by which frivolous lawsuits have been used to suppress a film calling attention to the suppression of dissent.

I wish I could write stuff like this. On one hand, that is. On the other, I wish it didn't have to be written.

[Mamzelle]

Derb did indeed disgrace himself. Critiquing a movie he did not see—lazy, drunken...

[NicknamedBob]

"The Dang Thing"

I find something else ironic in the title of the piece; the similarity to Ambrose Bierce's "short story."

[Tax-chick]

I can’t read through Bierce when it’s getting on bedtime, but Shoot! nobody could do a “cinematic” screen description like he could. You can see it, hear it, and smell it!

[NicknamedBob]

I just use his dictionary.

[Tax-chick]

I have it, and I pick it off the shelf for a chuckle with some regularity.

[GodGunsGuts]

Just curious, Soliton...do you always lift the work of others without attribution, or even quotation marks?

“Like the recent crop of global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists, Berlinski uses doubt as a weapon against the academy—he’s more concerned with what we don’t know than what we do. He uses uncertainty to challenge the scientific consensus; he points to the evidence that isn’t there and seeks out the things that can’t be proved. In its extreme and ideological form, this contrarian approach to science can turn into a form of paranoia—a state of permanent suspicion and outrage. But Berlinski is hardly a victim of the style. He’s merely its most methodical practitioner.”

http://www.slate.com/id/2189178/entry/2189179/

[GodGunsGuts]

PS...

“global-warming skeptics, AIDS denialists, and biotech activists”

Global Warming skeptics = science far superior to global warming alarmists

AIDS Rethinkers = science far superior to AIDS alarmists

Biotech activists = no comment.

[GodGunsGuts]

==You’re not one of those evolutionists are you? I’m not going to argue with a Darwinian. I tried it before and they ganged up on me.

They are an insecure bunch aren’t they? I wouldn’t be too intimidated by the hyenas from the Temple of Darwin. I have seen complete novices knock down their main arguments without too much effort. And when it’s scientist vs. scientist, Darwinists are no match for either YEC or IDers. I have watched both wipe the floor with Darwinian scientists on many occasions. It’s not that our side is smarter than they are, it’s just that the their side has no real scientific leg to stand on.

All the best—GGG

[Tax-chick]

How informative! Thank you for this input.

[Sun]

I loved the movie, and so did my husband. We don’t always like the same movies, but we both enjoyed this one tremendously.

It was an excellent documentary, but it had it’s light moments, as well, thanks to Ben Stein’s facetious humor. The audience laughed a bunch of times, and at the end the of movie, the audience applauded.

It’s so sad that the hard left is trying to silence ID scientists and professors, and have even fired some scientists for even mentioning ID.

Good bye academic freedom.
==
Here’s the trailer for the movie:

http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php