Anti-science Is Not A State Of Mind. (And it does matter.)

[HuckleB]

http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/08/05/anti-science-is-not-a-state-of-mind/


"...

When I use the term “anti-science,” (and I have a couple times), I’m referring to the act of ignoring studies that refute your hypothesis without explaining their flaw, cherry-picking studies that support your hypothesis without regard to their rigor, ignoring the consensus of experts in peer reviewed literature, making claims that are not based in fact, shouting down people who point out those facts as shills, liars or worse etc.

Who’d be simplistic enough to be “pro” the whole of science? What sort of shallow, shampoo advert “science bit” approach to the complexities of modernity are they living by?

Who’d be simplistic enough to expand a term to it’s most far-reaching interpretation, and sophistic enough to argue against that interpretation as if it meant anything. The opposite of being “anti-science” on GMO is not being “‘pro’ the whole of science.” And what’s so wrong about being pro-science? It doesn’t take much nuance to accept that the scientific process is, as Carl Sagan said, “by far the most successful claim to knowledge accessible to humans,” while also acknowledging, again as Carl Sagan said, “It is not perfect, it’s just the best we have.”

...

I would love to move to a discussion of economics and politics. There’s a lot to be said, a lot of policy that could be changed. Despite my criticism of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ position on GMO crops, their proposals around agriculture policy generally are excellent and deserve serious discussion. But having those discussions while people scream about non-existent allergens, toxins and health risks due to GMO is impossible.

For environmentalists that care about the health of the planet (I consider myself among them), agriculture is one of many 1,000 lbs gorillas in the room, but we’re not having the right conversations. The anti-science of GMO activists is not a state of mind, not a philosophy or underlying motivation, it’s an adjective for a subset of positions that is not based in experimental reality. And I for one will continue to call them out on it."


---------------------------

A very good read, IMO. Probably not in the opinion of some others, but it does explain something very well, and that something is important, IMO.

[immoderate]

1. He points out the purpose of calling someone "anti-science" is to shut down debate.

I have experienced it here.

Did you notice that his arguments are straw men? His conclusion is that he can't discuss the political and economic aspects until opponents concede his points?

I really don't think asking that food be labeled is anti-science.

--imm

[mmonk]

3. Imagine someone like Einstein saying you can't assume my equation means there is no static universe,

but it means it absolutely is. Then they do and in actually, did show an expanding one. And of course he made so such statement. But yet they don't see their arrogance about others and how they differ.

[Igel]

13. So ...

Does that mean we can't call (R) "anti-science" any more?

How about anti-vaxxers?

I don't. Because "anti-science" isn't anti all of science any more than pro-science means pro "all of science." Those words with those meanings are pure hyperbole. They essentially have no meaning and all but constitute straw men.

To be "anti-science" is to be anti the general application of the same standards of fact, data analysis, and hypothesis confirmation/falsification that most people apply to those areas of science they like and accept. We love us some of that hyperbole because it lets us broadbrush those whose views we dislike for whatever reason.

Most (R) aren't "anti-science": some are anti-evolution, some anti-vaccine, some anti-GMO, some are anti-AGW/climate change. Most (D) aren't anti-science: some are anti-vaccine, some anti-GMO, some are anti-pesticide or anti-plastic, no matter how many studies may show that something doesn't cause any detectable damage.

Most of us have internalized that "Science doesn't prove things, it's a methodology for producing hypotheses and if it finds no evidence to contrary to a hypothesis and the hypothesis makes reasonable, falsifiable predictions based on causal mechanisms, usually assumes they're true." Then, a minute later, "Science hasn't proven this plastic absolutely safe." Flip. Flop.

Mostly this is just a case of unchallenged confirmation bias and an unwillingness to engage in critical thinking either when we're challenged and stand to lose a fight that might bruise our egos or when it would damage our own self-identity.

[immoderate]

14. I was called anti-science for questions no one could answer.

I also think you have misestimated how many have internalized the scientific method.

How long can a person smoke cigarettes, and show no signs of danger?

--imm

[HuckleB]

2. I can't see the only response. Very funny.

[Fumesucker]

4. LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

[HuckleB]

5. And I'm missing response number three, too!

Hmmm.

[Fumesucker]

6. That's where you and I differ

I don't consider bragging of being closed minded to be a virtue.

[HuckleB]

7. I have two people blocked. How does that equate to being closed minded?

Shoot. I haven't blocked you!

[Fumesucker]

9. Have you checked out Toastmasters yet?

They could really help you a lot with presentation.

[HuckleB]

10. Right back at you!

Of course, the sad reality is that my presentation would be accepted widely if I were anti-GMO.

[HuckleB]

8. An awesome video on open-mindedness.

[HuckleB]

11. The science matters, folks. Why not discuss it?

Why not challenge your predispositions?

Isn't that the heart of being liberal and progressive?

It is for me, and I know most people at DU don't like me, but maybe just maybe, if you dig deeper into your own knowledge base, and into the world's knowledge base, you'll find that I'm not as bad as you think I am.

[HuckleB]

12. Scientists overwhelmingly think GMOs are safe to eat. The public doesn't.

http://www.vox.com/2015/1/29/7947695/gmos-safety-poll

Hmm.