Theories, Facts, and 'Denialism'

American Thinker ^ | March 06, 2010 | Daniel H. Fernald

[neverdem]

Several years ago, as a member of a discussion listserv, I was surprised to learn that even prominent scientists do not necessarily hold with certain central tenets of what has traditionally been understood to be scientific method.

A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a "fact" that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.   

This scientist was quite adamant on the point, going so far as to assert that we inquisitive laymen on this listserv should just take his word for it, since he is an expert and we aren't. 

I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it, while also so blithely refusing to engage in constructive discussion. The recent Climategate scandal is instructive in this regard.

One sees the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike. 

Even those sympathetic to the claims of climate change scientists are ridiculed for asking honest questions. Such "Climate Deniers" are implicitly compared to the unbalanced and ignorant few who claim that the Holocaust never happened -- i.e. "Holocaust Deniers." Wikipedia even has an entry on "Denialism" (which has my vote for the silliest-sounding ad hominem attack ever).

This linguistic three-card Monte is made possible only via the same conflation of facts and theories in which my former colleague engaged. The climate is constantly changing. That is a fact. The notion that climate change is caused by human activities is a theory that seeks to explain the fact. By calling the theory a "fact," climate change scientists have effectively foreclosed the possibility of further discussion. After all, only a fool argues about facts, right? 

This seemingly obvious ruse has been surprisingly effective, and the whole business hinges on the words used. "Theories" are fair game for discussion and debate because these are simply frameworks within which facts are to be understood. "Facts," conversely, just are what they are. Every reasonable person agrees that while we are all entitled to our opinions, we are not entitled to our own facts. Thus, in order to shut down the opposition without the bother of having to argue with them, the faux scientist need only redefine what a "fact" is.

When that hasn't worked, "Denialism" is invoked to shame those persistent enough to continue to ask questions.

Diehard "Cheers" fans may recall that when the ever-amorous Sam Malone finally persuaded perennial gold-digger Rebecca Howe to give up waiting for "Mr. Right," she consoled herself by saying, "After all, it's not like Donald Trump or Robin Colcord is going to walk through the door and sweep me off my feet."

"Robin Colcord," of course, does not exist. The "Cheers" writing staff used a neat little trick to introduce a new character. They had Ms. Howe refer to the fictional "Robin Colcord" as a peer of the well-known Donald Trump, and -- voila! -- a mogul is born!

"Denialism" slouched into existence as a result of similar sort of legerdemain. In just the way in which the talented "Cheers" writing staff created a billionaire out of whole cloth by doing nothing more complicated than putting his name next to Donald Trump's, so too did the no-less-imaginative Climategate fabulists associate those who question the AGW thesis with Holocaust Deniers.

After all, questioning a scientific theory and turning a blind eye to genocide are pretty much the same thing, right?

But wait, there's more.

The Wikipedia entry on "Denialism" portrays "Deniers" as engaging in the following: Conspiracy Theories, Cherry-Picking, the use of False Experts, Moving the Goalpost, and Logical Fallacies.

The very people who came up with this silly "ism" are guilty of every one of these. 

First, they attribute every challenge to the AGW theory to dark ulterior motives and often point to an underlying conspiracy. To hear them tell it, you would think that a wicked cabal made up of George W. Bush, Halliburton, Dick Cheney, Talk Radio, Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Bird, The Dallas Cowboys Defensive Line, and Karl Rove's tailor is trying to discredit these hard-working warriors for truth.

Cherry-Picking: The tree-ring evidence used to support the temperature change assertions required for the AGW thesis were taken from a very small number of anomalous samples. Cherry-picking extraordinaire!

As for false experts, has anyone heard of a fellow named "Al Gore"? The former U.S. vice president and divinity school flunk-out has no scientific background, yet this eco-guru has earned a Nobel Prize for his error-riddled slide show, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-related business ventures. 

Moving the Goalpost: Depending on the weather during a given year, we are either told that high temperatures are evidence of global warming or that low temperatures are evidence of global warming. (In logic, they call that a "tautology." In real life, they call that "having your cake and eating it, too.") Those goalposts are not just moving; they're sprinting!

Finally, the logical fallacies committed during the Climategate imbroglio are too numerous to count, but their abusive use of just one fallacy -- the argumentum ad hominem (personal attack) -- is so noteworthy that even Triumph the Insult Comic Dog is reportedly telling them to ease up.

Gee, this makes the AGW cohort sound a lot like "Deniers," doesn't it? Hmm.

The psychological term for attributing one's own trickery and failings onto others is "Projection." 

This describes "Denialism" perfectly: projection of the dishonest, illiberal, and anti-intellectual tactics of the Enviro-Inquisition onto those "eco-heretics" who dare to question, however politely and intelligently, these dedicated adherents of the One True Faith. 

This corruption of science is an object lesson to the rest of us never to hesitate to look with a gimlet eye at those who are more skilled in the use of invective than rational argument. The truth need not express itself with a sneer.

The writer holds a Ph.D. in philosophy and rhetoric from Emory University and is an Associate Professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. He has taught and lectured in the United States, Asia, Europe, and South America. He may be reached at professordhf@hotmail.com.

[valkyry1]

This is one thing that was always lost on the FR-evolutionists.

[CondoleezzaProtege]

Just wanted to say, “American Thinker” is one of the best publications out there.

[valkyry1]

ping

[valkyry1]

A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a “fact” that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.

This scientist was quite adamant on the point, going so far as to assert that we inquisitive laymen on this listserv should just take his word for it, since he is an expert and we aren't.

I wondered at the time how such a universally acclaimed scholar in the sciences could make an error so elementary that even my freshmen logic students could see it, while also so blithely refusing to engage in constructive discussion.

One sees the same lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation that have characterized the response of some global warming/climate change supporters to the legitimate questions that have been raised by scientists and laymen alike.

Or maybe the point was not lost on the FR-evolutionist’s, the article sounds a lot like them. I think we can the the FR-evolutionist’s Denialists in the religion of Denialism.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[blu]

For anyone who is interested in how the scientific community REALLY works, and REALLY shuts down its members who don’t agree with them, I highly recommend Ben Stein’s “Expelled!”

It’s a movie about how the scientific community deals with those among them who even mention “Intelligent Design”. (hint: picture those three monkeys seeing nothing, hearing nothing, and saying nothing)

[J Aguilar]

Good post. An object falling is a fact, Newton's gravity is a theory, well surpassed by Einstein's relativity theory.

Scientifics are human beings, and as human beings they are motivated in an ordered way. According to the Maslow's hierarchy of needs they would always put their stomach before their brains.

[Mojave]

Do gravitons exist? What is the speed of gravity?

[Right Wing Assault]

Most people think “theory” is equivalent to “hypothesis.” They say things such as, “Oh, that’s just a theory.” No, theory is a strong word in science.

[count-your-change]

The two, belief in biological evolution and belief in human caused climate change, are promoted in much the same way but for slightly different purposes.

One can intellectually accept evolution as fact while sitting comfortably all day on the sofa but for any concept to make the grade as Al Gore's “central organizing principle” the heart as well as the head must be involved and that demands action, positive demonstrative acts in one’s life. That means getting up and doing “green”.

It's not enough for the carbon consumer to say he believes in the Green Goddess Gaia, he must do something, give that pinch of incense on the altar however insincere the act is, so to speak.

The two notions, climate change (aka, “global warming”) whether attributed to humans or not, and evolution are wedded together. Climate change brought about and spurred evolution, sort of made us what we are today says the true believer scientists, but, being without purpose and direction, ran amok and humans proved a tad too successful.

Now humans can get organized under a low carbon banner and make amends for over reproduction and with the help of experts, scholars, scientists, etc. mitigate our progress.

And why not, after all they speak hard facts while everyone blathers opinion, they deal with evidence while the rest of us commerce in emotion, reality versus faith and so forth.

All we have to do is toss a pinch of incense on the consensus altar and shut up lest we discourage others from saving the planet, thank you.

As for the “ lack of openness and intellectual rigor in the arrogance, stonewalling, name-calling, and apparently deliberate obfuscation...”? When the planet is being saved one has to be tolerant of such things, I suppose.

[RipSawyer]

“I think we can the the”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Is that anything like “The Can Can”?

[RipSawyer]

I probably thought the same until I entered the US Navy class “A” electronics school where I studied the “theory” of electronics. It was then that I realized that a theory is an explanation of observed facts and when the theory becomes insufficient to explain the newly observed facts the theory must be revised.

The statement that “that is only a theory” is a reliable indicator of ignorance.

[neverdem]

Scandal special! Special thanks to Delacon & Ernest at the Beach for the CONSENSUS EXPOSED threads.

Walter Russell Mead: Treason Is A Matter Of Dates (Rips NY Times ignoring climategate)

CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 1

EPW POLICY BEAT: CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 2 ( Global Warming Consensus that is )

CONSENSUS EXPOSED, PART 3: 'HIDE THE DECLINE'

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[steelyourfaith]

Thanx !

 

Beam me to Planet Gore ! _

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[Cicero]

As for false experts, has anyone heard of a fellow named "Al Gore"? The former U.S. vice president and divinity school flunk-out has no scientific background, yet this eco-guru has earned a Nobel Prize for his error-riddled slide show, as well as hundreds of millions of dollars in climate-related business ventures.

One more nugget: Al Gore managed to get a D at Harvard in Nat Sci. That was an obligatory core course for all undergraduates, which most students at the time considered to be a "gut course."

[neverdem]

D? LOL!

[metmom]

A world-class scientist on the listserv claimed in the course of an unrelated debate that gravity was a fact, not a theory. This struck me as fundamentally wrongheaded, and it still does. It is, of course, a "fact" that unsupported objects fall. What explains this observable fact is the theory of gravity. Gravity is the theory; the falling object is the fact. The theory explains the fact, but the theory never becomes a fact.

So much for the FRevos self-proclaimed mastery of science.

For all their contentions what creationists *just don't get it* and need *to go back to college and learn what science is really all about*, they have ended up with egg on their faces.

[Right Wing Assault]

I think most people think the same thing. It shows the lack of good science teaching to the general public. Most people don’t learn what ‘theory’ means until they get into a good high school science course or a good college course. “Good” is an important detail.

But still, we move along.