27 July 2007

CAGW Orthodoxy: How Do The True Believers Know They're Not Wrong

A recent article in Live Science provides a great example of "begging the question." Entitled "Global Warming: How Do Scientists Know They're Not Wrong," the article is a model of journalistic credulity. Quoting historian Naomi Oreskes extensively, author Andrea Thompson demonstrates why journalists, and the people who take them seriously, cannot think.

The title of this posting is meant to reflect the technique of "begging the question" that the title of the Live Science article utilises. The title of an article can be an almost subliminal persuader. "Scientists?" What "scientists?" Thompson does not really say, other than to quote Oreskes, an historian. When she does quote Richard Lindzen--an MIT atmospheric scientist of high esteem among peers--Thompson hastens to quote historian Oreskes again, in order to neutralise Lindzen's short quote.

Of course this blog is entitled to rhetorical flourish, since its theme is the coming singularity/apocalypse and what lies on the other side. A supposedly neutral article of science journalism in Live Science and other "Science" websites is supposed to reflect the reality of the subject matter--not to use logical fallacies to convince the unpersuaded to adopt the author's viewpoint.

Here is Oreske's essay in Science where she makes the claim of scientific consensus in climate research.

Here are criticisms of Oreskes study from Benny Peiser, and from Viscount Monckton.

Read the links above and consider how "consensus" is arrived at in science. Does science arrive at consensus by "shutting down the debate?", as Oreskes has attempted in a rather underhanded and dishonest way?

Or is "consensus" arrived at (if ever) by allowing all theories to attempt to prove themselves in a public forum--without editorial bias or other forms of intentionally skewing access to ideas?

The future of science, and how humans utilise their minds to arrive at closest approximations of truth, is at stake. If humans forget what "begging the question" means--the fallacy it represents--they have tied part of their brains behind their backs.

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share


Blogger IConrad said...

Get Haloscan! :)

Eerily close to the theme I wrote on my own most recent article, from Thursday 7.26; though mine was on politics & the media in general rather than the scientific angle. approbations. Good piece.

Friday, 27 July, 2007  
Blogger al fin said...

Thanks. I enjoyed your piece as well, and the articles you linked.

Do you think we will all be hanged or burned as heretics?

Friday, 27 July, 2007  
Blogger IConrad said...

You make it sound like an either-or option! That's what they came up with burning in effigy for, y'know.

Personally, when it comes to heresy, I say -- why not go for broke? Throw in a little idolatrous cult of personality while your at it -- because nothing says "life of luxury" quite like having suicidally devoted worshippers. LOL!

Saturday, 28 July, 2007  
Blogger chuckatmain said...


Tuesday, 07 August, 2007  

Post a Comment

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act” _George Orwell

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts