I imagine that quite a few people were upset by the title for this post, so let me explain what I mean, and please hear me out before you sharpen your pitchforks. The arguments used by all three of these groups, and indeed by science deniers more generally, are all fundamentally the same. In other words, the underlying logical structure is identical for the arguments used in support of all three of these positions. Thus, it is logically inconsistent to criticize one of these positions while embracing another.
You see, what I have observed over the past few years of blogging is that very few people like to think of themselves as “anti-science” or as a “science denier.” Those people certainly exist, and I do encounter them, but most of the people who visit my blog/page claim to love science…at least until it disagrees with their ideology. This puts them in a difficult position, because when a scientific result conflicts with their beliefs, they have to find some excuse or justification for why they don’t accept the results of science on that particular topic, and what I see over and over again is that everyone falls back on exactly the same excuses, regardless of what anti-science position they are trying to defend. For example, on several occasions, I have seen people criticize anti-vaccers for appealing to the authority of a few fringe “experts.” Then, a few threads later, I see those same people appealing to the authority of a few fringe experts on topics like climate change and GMOs. Similarly, I see people ridicule climate change deniers for thinking that all climatologists have been bought off, but when the topic shifts to GMOs, suddenly those same people start claiming that Monsanto has bought off all of the world’s genetic engineers/food scientists. Do you see what I am getting it? You can’t criticize someone for using a particular line of reasoning, then turn around and use that same line of reasoning to support your own particular form of science denial. That’s not logically consistent, and it’s not how science operates. Science is a method. It either works or it doesn’t, and you can’t cherry-pick when to accept it.
Is this science then?
What about this?
Just asking because my anti-vax anti chemtrail niece posted the first link and I stumbled across the second when I was looking for something simple to shoot her with!
The first is a statement that leads to a dead link.
The second is an abstract of a paper that purports to replicate a study carried out by school students. Don’t know the bone fides of the academic institution, but if they are accepted, then yes, this is the way science works. however, there’s a large gap between the second statement & the first.
Questions to be asked: How large were the samples? Were they grown in truly identical conditions? what else could have caused the differences (eg experimenters talking to one set of seedlings)? Maybe Wifi is dangerous - to what? Seedlings? Humans? At what range? At this stage, I don’t think so, but what I think doesn’t matter. What your niece thinks - about chemtrails, vaccines or Wifi - doesn’t matter. The answer will be what ever it is.
Fixed the link. Sorry. What are you @silentC some sort of chicken?
I think it does matter what she thinks Teddles, because she has bred! If her unvaccinated kids survived the great plague, only to be struck down by a dose of irradiated alfalfa sprouts, while hiding from chemtrails, it would be nice to know that she was wrong.