Logic with False Premises and Cherry Picking
This is so WIN. I ♥ this discussion.
Eugenie Scott, in an interview with Liza Gross, talks about cherry picking data by anti-science folks and using logic with a false premise (anomalies). She also discusses how there are dichotomies setup (false ones) that make it difficult to reach the people that might not be anti-science.
Regarding anti-vaxxers, Scott had this to say To understand this phenomenon you really have to dig deeper into what is motivating people. First of all, I’d like to distinguish between the people who lead these movements versus the people who follow them. They’re not the ones generating the vaccine anomaly, so to speak, but they’ve read this literature and they’re parroting what they’ve heard. And your heart goes out to them. They’re concerned about their children. They don’t want their kids to get sick. But as many admit, they don’t fully understand the science. And your decisions are obviously going to be influenced by your emotions. We’re human beings, not automatons. But you need to temper them with good information, empirical information, dare I say scientific information, in order to make the best decisions.
Since people liked it, I’m adding this quote from my profile page:
There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Isaac Asimov, column in Newsweek (21 January 1980)
#Anti_anti_intellectualism
Big h/t to Liza Gross
#ScienceEveryday when it isn’t #ScienceSunday
Originally shared by Liza Gross
How to deal with science denialists? Talk to America’s No. 1 science defender: cc ScienceSunday
August 23, 2012
I think Buddhini Samarasinghe Kimberly Chapman and Filippo Salustri will like this interview. Filippo Salustri this isn’t the circular argument post I mentioned. I’m still digging for that.
August 23, 2012
Brilliant post! And I’ve stored that Asimov quote from my quotations list. Deserves a thousand plusses.
August 24, 2012
I liked the article. I appreciated that she didn’t resort to branding people in the center (of any of the controversies) as idiots, or general name-calling. That wins no one. Indeed, she seems sympathetic to the heartfelt motives.
For myself, I want to go where I think the truth leads me. I’ve always loved learning about science, but faith had always been important, too. More recently, science has persuaded me to be open to other possibilities than I previously considered. It’s probably precisely because Michio Kaku makes science an open and inviting and welcome place to visit that this changed. As Scott points out, the middle group is generally more open. But, they won’t be persuaded by rhetoric that is abusive as religion (but not religion alone) has been.
For my money, we go where the truth leads as best we can. And, we keep ourselves open to new possibilities using our minds and hearts. The person who says, “I’ll never believe that,” sometimes finds reason to change. I know. I have.
August 24, 2012
The secret is, I think, to follow the evidence. Believe what the evidence tells you. When the evidence changes, you believe the new evidence, because its the evidence.
August 24, 2012
Totally agreed. Thanks.
August 24, 2012
Filippo Salustri I found this which is still not what I had mentioned to you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
I tried posting it in the conversation about talking snakes and “theory” here: http://goo.gl/QydkF
Alas, it has gone unnoticed.
August 24, 2012
Chad Haney I tried reading the other thread you pointed to, but my stomach started to turn. There were a few sensible comments (including yours), but most of them belied such extraordinary ignorance and stupidity that I didn’t even know where to start correcting them.
Example: You countered the trope about the theory of gravity being ‘just a theory.’ So far, so food. But then some yutz responds with something like ‘of course we accept gravity.’ Which of course isn’t the point at all. Gravity is one thing; a theory of gravity is quite another.
August 24, 2012
And about the evidence of absence article. Not the best wikipedia article – when it’s cited as being problematic by the editors, it’s begging the trolls to come out in full force.
I think of evidence of absence a little differently. Take the biblical flood. The evidence of absence (from my POV) is the copious evidence that shows all kinds of geologic and hydrologic phenomena but not evidence of a universal flood. So not only is there no evidence in favour, but all the evidence available is against. I didn’t quite get that sense from the wikipedia article.
August 24, 2012
Sometimes it’s hard get anywhere. That’s why I sometimes put a disclaimer on my posts, that I’m not in the mood for aluminum foil hat wearing folks and will delete comments and block them.
August 24, 2012
Here is a video where James Randi explains his stance on “you can’t prove a negative”
James Randi Lecture @ Caltech – Cant Prove a Negative