A Tribute to Our New School Board Members

Misconception: Scientists Disagree on Everything

Another excellent article rom Recovering Fundamentalists in their misconceptions about science series:

This misconception is frequently alluded to in Christian circles in an attempt to discount the findings of the scientific community as merely “one man’s opinion.” While there is a constant hum of debate among scientists, Christians seem to think that no one agrees on anything, and that there are no theories that aren’t questionable.

This is not true. The body of accepted scientific knowledge is vast and elegantly interwoven. But this is only accomplished through dialog and criticism.

Science as Faith?

From Recovering Fundamentalists:

Misconception #2: Theories Require “Faith” to Believe.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard that scientists have just as much faith in their theories as religious people do in their dogma. It frustrates me every time. Anyone who says this is defining theory, faith, or both, incorrectly.

Faith has multiple definitions.

1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing
2. Belief that is not based on proof
When Christians make the statement that science requires faith, it seemingly defines “faith” under definition #1, but the implication bleeds into definition #2. The statement implies that just as Christian principals [sic] haven’t been proven, scientific theories haven’t been proven either. One implication, for example, that the Theory of Evolution is “just a theory” and therefore should not be believed.

The word “Theory” also has multiple definitions. Here are two:
1. A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Christians often think the scientific use of the word “theory” falls under definition #2. That is incorrect. Science uses the word as defined in definition #1. Evolution is a theory that explains the developing complexity of life. Gravity is a theory that explains physics. If a person doesn’t believe in either theory, then they are faced with the daunting task of refuting the mountains of data that support them. Simply saying, “well, gravity is just a theory” is a very weak argument against gravity, and reveals an incorrect usage of the word “theory.”
So if someone says it requires faith to believe a theory, they are being slippery with definitions and implying something absolutely wrong.

Evolution and Global Warming are frequently referred to as religions by fundamentalists.  Its misleading and dishonest and nothing more than a desperate attempt to undermine science that threatens their preconceived notion of how the world should work.  Read the rest of the article here.

 

The Five Characteristics of Scientific Denialism

From Skeptical Science:

1. Conspiracy theories
   When the overwhelming body of scientific opinion believes something is true, the denialist won’t admit scientists have independently studied the evidence to reach the same conclusion. Instead, they claim scientists are engaged in a complex and secretive conspiracy. The South African government of Thabo Mbeki was heavily influenced by conspiracy theorists claiming that HIV was not the cause of AIDS. When such fringe groups gain the ear of policy makers who cease to base their decisions on science-based evidence, the human impact can be disastrous.
2. Fake experts
   These are individuals purporting to be experts but whose views are inconsistent with established knowledge. Fake experts have been used extensively by the tobacco industry who developed a strategy to recruit scientists who would counteract the growing evidence on the harmful effects of second-hand smoke. This tactic is often complemented by denigration of established experts, seeking to discredit their work. Tobacco denialists have frequently attacked Stanton Glantz, professor of medicine at the University of California, for his exposure of tobacco industry tactics, labelling his research ‘junk science’.
3. Cherry picking
   This involves selectively drawing on isolated papers that challenge the consensus to the neglect of the broader body of research. An example is a paper describing intestinal abnormalities in 12 children with autism, which suggested a possible link with immunization. This has been used extensively by campaigners against immunization, even though 10 of the paper’s 13 authors subsequently retracted the suggestion of an association.
4. Impossible expectations of what research can deliver
   The tobacco company Philip Morris tried to promote a new standard for the conduct of epidemiological studies. These stricter guidelines would have invalidated in one sweep a large body of research on the health effects of cigarettes.
5. Misrepresentation and logical fallacies
   Logical fallacies include the use of straw men, where the opposing argument is misrepresented, making it easier to refute. For example, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined in 1992 that environmental tobacco smoke was carcinogenic. This was attacked as nothing less than a ‘threat to the very core of democratic values and democratic public policy’.

Yet Another Source Reporting On CO2 Reduction of the Iceland Volcano

Volcanoes are pointed to by global warming skeptics as a much larger source of CO2 emissions than humans.  As the graphic in an earlier post pointed out, that is not the case with the Iceland Volcano.  Here is another report on the emissions of the volcano which support that graphic.  One point I should make, however, is that the earlier graphic didn’t take into account the CO2 emissions from alternate modes of transportation people in Europe are seeking, so the actual amount of CO2 reduction from the lack of air travel is probably overstated.  What it and this report do show, is that man-made emissions are far greater than the volcano itself.  It just isn’t good science to say that volcanoes dwarf human CO2 emissions.