I'd rather avoid most political issues with this blog, but reading Christopher Hitchens' column in slate is almost a perfect case study in the evolution of a crank.

You start out with Hitchens pre-9/11. Liberal, strong-minded, but generally acknowledged to be a thorough researcher, and an excellent if eccentric analyst (he probably made no friends with Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice). My favorite was The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

But with 9/11 something happened to Hitch. He started writing about the war in Iraq like it was intimately related to the war on terror, defended the president's rationale, and subsequently has continued to defend the administration's actions long after it has become clear that they created a total disaster. Not only does he defend them though, he seems to have totally lost all perspective, he doesn't seem to be able to accept facts that contradict his opinion, and has essentially become a crank.

His latest column in Slate is another one of these post hoc justifications for the war, now the story is that Iraq would have collapsed into civil war eventually anyway, so it's not really the fault of the invasion and occupation.

Whether or not you think this rationalization is totally crazy, it fits with the generalized pattern of an evolving crank. Remember the story of how he flipped out at a dinner party after someone refused to be critical of Howard Dean? (That link by the way has a compelling argument for this evolution of Hitch). Or these columns in which he says Al Qaeda is desparate and did us a "favor" on 9/11, Abu Ghraib wasn't bad (because Saddam was worse), not to mention flipping off studio audiences and his somewhat insane defense of the administration's outing of Valerie Plame.

Whether or not you agree with the war, it should be possible to agree that Hitch's pattern of behavior has gotten progressively more and more irrational, to the point where there's only one word left to describe him. Hitch has become a crank. How did this happen? Ezra Klein's explanation is that Hitch latched onto this war as a kind of "great moment" in history and he decided he was going to be on the right side of it no matter what. This desire to be "right" no matter what the facts say, might be a critical component of crank formation. As the facts evolve and show that occupying Iraq has been a disaster, Hitch can't let go of his initial hypothesis because he believes fervently that he was right or in the rightness of the war on terror as a whole. In his mind the facts be damned, this is a war for our existence and nothing should stop our execution of it.

At some point we may have to start talking about how defenders of this war have become denialists. There is something fundamentally dishonest about the people who suggest that everything in Iraq is going fine, conditions are improving, or that make patently false claims like Iraq is safer than Detroit to try to diminish the significance of the daily violence in that country. As I've said though, I'd rather avoid have the definition of denialism devolve into one that simply describes those that oppose your ideas which is how people would see an attack on the Iraq war supporters using that label. It really is about how people fudge debates, hide facts and deceptively argue positions that the facts do not support. T

These days, Hitch has started arguing like a denialist though. And his behavior, and his protection of an overvalued idea (that the war was right and good no matter what), have unfortunately turned him into an unreasonable man. It's a case study in the evolution of a crank.

Labels: Christopher Hitchens, general discussion

What is this whiny crap? We grew up with the constant threat of thermonuclear destruction.

*Found an ad-free you-tube version*

So people get killed by crazy lunatics, this isn't new, if anything, kids these days are exposed to less senseless killing than any time in history (except on the TV). I don't recall a childrens' crusade anytime in the last couple of centuries. And thanks to modern medicine most kids know their mothers, don't die before they're 2 years old, and actually get to meet their octogenarian grandparents.

I'm not trying to diminish the tragedy of this crime for VT students, but to suggest that nationwide kids are horribly traumatized and are now living in fear of being shot in school is a little too hysterical for my taste. All of us have dealt with crap as we've grown up. Fear of Columbine-like killings has replaced fear of death from the Russians. Idiots now suggest thick textbooks to block bullets, it used to be they told us our desks could protect us from 100 megaton bombs. Maybe I'm complaining about walking to school 10 miles uphill both ways through the snow, but c'mon. The world is as safe a place for our kids as it has probably ever been.

Kids are tough. Stop worrying. We can handle this. And kids, historically, have dealt with a lot worse.

*Update*

USA today has an even whinier piece of drivel on the poor children.

The Millennial Generation has every right to be the Melancholy Generation, and the wonder is that it's not. In fact, the trauma this generation has witnessed may make its members more resilient, according to those who have studied them.

Millennials - also known as Gen Y - are typically described as those born since the early 80s. And the signposts on this generation's road to maturity have been a somber directory of tragedy shared. The Oklahoma City bombing. Columbine. September 11. The space shuttle disasters. Hurricane Katrina. And now Virginia Tech.

And why are we so sorry for this generation? Well, because someone left the TV on.

Previous generations of young people have had their allotment of horrors - two world wars, Vietnam, Kent State, the list is long - but no cohort of American youth has ever endured repeated mass catastrophes in the harsh, inescapable glare of a 24/7 media environment.

The poor dears. That TV has been a real cause of suffering for them. If only there were some charity I could send money to that helps these poor children who have watched bad things on TV.

Now really. What is this whiny crap?

Labels: general discussion

I'm thinking of adding a new "technophobe" type of denialist or crank, and my first nomination will be the Independent, and specifically their environmental editor Geoffrey Lean. His list of articles reads like the newspaper version of the Chicken Little story, and the latest? How WiFi creates "electric smog" that is harmful to children.

Britain's top health protection watchdog is pressing for a formal investigation into the hazards of using wireless communication networks in schools amid mounting concern that they may be damaging children's health, 'The Independent on Sunday' can reveal.

Sir William Stewart, the chairman of the Health Protection Agency, wants pupils to be monitored for ill effects from the networks - known as Wi-Fi - which emit radiation and are being installed in classrooms across the nation.

Sir William - who is a former chief scientific adviser to the Government, and has chaired two official inquiries into the hazards of mobile phones - is adding his weight to growing pressure for a similar examination of Wi-Fi, which some scientists fear could cause cancer and premature senility.

...

This week the Professional Association of Teachers, which represents 35,000 staff across the country, will write to Alan Johnson, Secretary of State for Education, to demand an official inquiry. Virtually no studies have been carried out into Wi-Fi's effects on pupils, but it gives off radiation similar to emissions from mobile phones and phone masts.

Recent research has linked radiation from mobiles to cancer and to brain damage. And many studies have found disturbing symptoms in people near masts.

Oh please. Electronic smog? Radiation? This is some pretty silly fear of radio signals. WiFi and cell phones emit radiation the same way your computer screen emits radiation, that is, it is non-ionizing radiation. How have people become so fearful of any part of the EM spectrum that isn't visible light? Is this a failure of the schools to give people a proper physics education? Read about health issues related to radio frequency radiation here and about cell phones here.

Cell phones have not been proven to cause cancer despite intense study. WiFi, again using a non-interacting part of the EM spectrum is not causing senility or cancer. This is technophobic fear-mongering and the Independent is absolutely full of it.

This guy must be working as a double agent for the global warming denialists, because when you put articles about global warming (and his are pretty shill examples to start with) next to this garbage science it damages the fact that there is a great deal of real research and study of climate change. It is confusing to readers, I'm sure, because there is no credible research that radiowaves from cell phones or WiFi have ill health effects. This is hysteria and undermines the credibility of legitimate environmentalism.

I rate these Independent articles accordingly.

Labels: general discussion, Technophobia

Listen to Chris discuss denialism and the Denialists' Deck of Cards on BBC4:

Have you heard companies insist that "it's not a problem", when confronted with consumer concerns? Chris Hoofnagle is an American academic who's given a name to this public relations strategy - he calls it "denialism". Patrick Barrow, Director General of the Public Relations Consultants Association responds.

Labels: general discussion

Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing has the most accurate take on the whole VA Tech situation. He posted this reply which, though from after 9/11, is still timely.

Of course the World Trade Center bombings [insert VA Tech here] are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. However, we must also consider if this is not also a lesson to us all; a lesson that my political views are correct. Although what is done can never be undone, the fact remains that if the world were organised according to my political views, this tragedy would never have happened.

Many people will use this terrible tragedy as an excuse to put through a political agenda other than my own. This tawdry abuse of human suffering for political gain sickens me to the core of my being. Those people who have different political views from me ought to be ashamed of themselves for thinking of cheap partisan point-scoring at a time like this. In any case, what this tragedy really shows us is that, so far from putting into practice political views other than my own, it is precisely my political agenda which ought to be advanced.

Not only are my political views vindicated by this terrible tragedy, but also the status of my profession. Furthermore, it is only in the context of a national and international tragedy like this that we are reminded of the very special status of my hobby, and its particular claim to legislative protection. My religious and spiritual views also have much to teach us about the appropriate reaction to these truly terrible events.

Countries which I like seem to never suffer such tragedies, while countries which, for one reason or another, I dislike, suffer them all the time. The one common factor which seems to explain this has to do with my political views, and it suggests that my political views should be implemented as a matter of urgency, even though they are, as a matter of fact, not implemented in the countries which I like.

Of course the World Trade Center [insert VA Tech here] attacks are a uniquely tragic event, and it is vital that we never lose sight of the human tragedy involved. But we must also not lose sight of the fact that I am right on every significant moral and political issue, and everybody ought to agree with me. Please, I ask you as fellow human beings, vote for the political party which I support, and ask your legislators to support policies endorsed by me, as a matter of urgency.

It would be a fitting memorial.

I have not seen a single argument put forward that would have actually prevented this. Instead everything from video games, to handgun registration, to making illegal weapons purchases harder, to Muslims, to evolution, to violence on TV has been blamed.

The sad fact is he did this with a legally-purchased firearm. If handguns had been illegal, he still could have done this with a shotgun or rifle. Firearms bans are not a realistic political goal in this country anyway, and there are already too many guns distributed around to country to get the shit back in the horse. And as far as Islam, video games, and violent TV, we might as well blame the kid's basketball hobby.

People need to cram whatever rational explanation they can into an irrational event. Sometimes there's no good explanation, and no good solution.

Update - I like Amanda's take at Pandagon, and it's less snarky than mine.

Labels: general discussion

Pew Polling (PDF) on the younger generations is proving to be very interesting. Take for instance, some signs of progress.



Looks like it's the boomers that are keeping us back on evolution (sorry Ted).

The thing I hate about polls like these is when the pollsters ask people's opinions on things and then proceed to mistake their opinions for facts.

For instance:



Now. Does anyone see the problem here? The actual data on drug use shows that it has undergone a 20 year decline, the 60s and 70s were the peak of drug use in the youth. This is a popular misconception. Check out the data on teen drug use and you actually see we're getting better. Further, crime is down, violent crime is at the lowest levels since the 60s. Are we really more likely to resort to violence? The voting issue too is a joke, young people are voting in increasingly higher numbers with each election (Bush has helped).

Finally, binge drinking has only become a "problem" since some idiot decided to describe a binge as more then 3 or 4 drinks at a time. Give me a break. What prohibitionist prude came up with that definition? And it conflicts with the data from NIDA etc.

So, take this survey at it's word when they ask people opinions about themselves since that's something people can reliably speak to. Don't pay attention when people are asked opinions about what others have done, because they have no idea.

Labels: general discussion

Over the weekend an interesting fight has popped up in the scienceblogs community.

Starting with Mooney and Nisbet's latest Op-Ed in the WaPo, the uppity atheist community, including PZ and Larry Moran are really tearing into the framers. Chris Mooney has responded to some of the criticisms.

Here's a breakdown of the problem. It stems from this statement by M&N:

If the defenders of evolution wanted to give their creationist adversaries a boost, it's hard to see how they could do better than Richard Dawkins, the famed Oxford scientist who had a bestseller with "The God Delusion." Dawkins, who rose to fame with his lucid expositions of evolution in such books as "The Selfish Gene," has never gone easy on religion. But recently he has ramped up his atheist message, further mixing his defense of evolution with his attack on belief.

Leave aside for a moment the validity of Dawkins's arguments against religion. The fact remains: The public cannot be expected to differentiate between his advocacy of evolution and his atheism. More than 80 percent of Americans believe in God, after all, and many fear that teaching evolution in our schools could undermine the belief system they consider the foundation of morality. Dawkins not only reinforces and validates such fears -- baseless though they may be -- but lends them an exclamation point.

We agree with Dawkins on evolution and admire his books, so we don't enjoy singling him out. But he stands as a particularly stark example of scientists' failure to explain hot-button issues, such as global warming and evolution, to a wary public.

Scientists excel at research; creating knowledge is their forte. But presenting this knowledge to the public is something else altogether.

Now this of course set PZ and LM's teeth on edge.

PZ:

Good grief, this is bogus beyond belief. Let's pretend: let's say I shut down my blog, Dawkins refuses to lecture on atheism anymore, Dennett retires to a grass shack in the South Pacific, and Sam Harris converts to Mormonism. Furthermore, every scientist in the country shies away completely from ever mentioning religion, except of course for people like Collins and Miller, who continue their "I'm a scientist, and I believe in Jeeezus!" schtick. We'll forget about the odious implications for the freedom of speech for atheists in this suggestion, and just ask whether it would make the slightest difference in accommodating the public to evolution.

Moran:

Forget about the fact that Dawkins has done more to change the climate of the debate than Nisbet & Mooney have ever done with their appeasement policy. That dosen't matter. If you're a fan of "framing" then you've got to modify your opinion so you never disagree with anyone.

...


As we've seen during the framing debates on various blogs, Nisbet & Mooney seem to be incapable of making the distinction between explaining science and what you do with that knowledge. Evolutionists have done a good job of explaining evolution. If Nisbet & Mooney don't think this is true then I challenge them to come up with a better way of describing the science of evolutionary biology.

What they're upset about is the fact that a segment of the population doesn't buy the scientific explanation. That's true, but it doesn't matter how well you explain it to those people, they still won't accept it. They won't accept it even it's economically beneficial and leads to medical advances.

Why won't they accept it? Because it's against their religion. How do we change their minds? Part of the solution is to show them that their religion is false if it conflicts with science. This doesn't have anything to do with explaining the facts of science. It has to do with fighting superstition and anti-science attitudes.

M&N really agitated a hornet's nest there. It's interesting to me because on the one hand, PZ and Moran are wrong about the inherent conflict of reason and religion. For instance take the example of Sagan's discussing science with the Dalai Lama:

CS: Well, when I talk to religious leaders, one thing I always ask them is: What would you do if a fundamental tenet of your religion was definitively disproved by science? And, at least in the West, and especially among fundamentalist religions, the tendency is to say, "Science couldn't possibly," or, "My religion is an absolute truth, and if science gets different answers, too bad for science." The Dalai Lama's answer was: "If science found a serious error in Tibetan Buddhism, of course we would change Tibetan Buddhism." So I tried to push him on this issue. Suppose it was something basic? Suppose, for instance, it was reincarnation? And the Dalai Lama said to me, "If science can disprove reincarnation, Tibetan Buddhism would abandon reincarnation." And then he said, "But it's going to be mighty hard to disprove reincarnation."with a twinkle - it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.

Now, I know PZ and Moran's response to this, that the Dalai Lama is just pushing his irrational ideas further from the realm of empirical testing, thus ensuring their safety from science. But it's really the first part that is critical, Sagan was pointing out the problem that M&N are trying, and failing to address. Which leads to my problem with their take on the issue. The problem is not Dawkins, the problem is the unwillingness of people to accept facts from the real world which conflict with their worldview. As is obvious from a study of denialists, it's not just religion which creates this clash between reason and unreason. It's an unfortunate aspect of human nature that some people develop overvalued ideas, then refuse to relinquish them when they are proven wrong, again and again.

Mooney and Nisbet's framing is worthless against cranks, so they are missing their own point. The point is we are competing with cranks for the public's understanding of facts. To say that we should fear of upsetting cranks by exposing the illogic of people's overvalued ideas is hopeless. While they are appropriately wary of alienating people with Dawkins more frontal assault on religion, it is simply not possible to communicate science effectively and not challenge ideas like creation myths, Noah's ark, or, more generally, conspiracy theories, superstitious beliefs, racism, etc., that are the source of the cranks' ire.

So, do we need to be uppity atheists like PZ and Moran to communicate science? Of course not. Do uppity atheists lose us the debate? I strongly doubt it. Even if we didn't have uppity atheists and the like the cranks would invent them to attack science.

In short, the problem isn't the atheism. The problem is the cranks. Cranks do not accept evidence, they do not accept anything that conflicts with their pre-formed and un-evidenced "truths". The fact that they fear atheism is besides the point. Shifting the debate to Dawkins is a terrible idea. And saying that Dawkins isn't a good communicator is frankly nuts. PZ and Moran are wrong in that we have to take on all religion, Mooney and Nisbet are wrong that we can win this fight without pissing off religions.

We're competing with cranks and denialists for public opinion. The real focus to me (maybe I'm biased), should be on explaining to people how to tell the difference between the BS and the real science. It's about creating sources of factual information that people can rely on that are thorough, unbiased, and effectively expose crank arguments in a highly public fashion. If the crank argument happens to be something like teaching kids the Grand Canyon was formed by the biblical flood, then yes, you're going to have to attack a few sacred cows and piss off the religious. It's unavoidable, if people want to believe in silly things (and try to push them on everyone else), we're going to have fight back.

Mooney and Nisbet have taken their eye off the ball. Getting scientists to communicate effectively makes sense. What they should do is throwing everything we've got behind science lobbying groups - like the Union of Concerned Scientists or Scientists and Engineers for America but better funded - that makes sure that in every article about "controversial" science that they get a say. That when there is testimony in front of congress they are there, and lobbying congress on behalf of people who care about scientific truth. We need our own power lobby. We need to be sure when unscientific garbage gets to the desks of policy makers there is a lobbyist pounding on the door demanding that they get a chance to respond. The lobby of reason.

Labels: Chris Mooney, general discussion, Larry Moran, Matt Nisbet, PZ Myers

The 58th skeptic's circle is at Geek Counterpoint.

That's for real skeptics, you know, the ones that want data. Not the ones who just don't want to accept something. And it's not for the British either dammit, we spell skeptic the right way in this country.

Labels: general discussion

I don't even know where to begin. I don't think I'm going to bother with a rebuttal since I'm sure Orac will surely get around do destroying him if he isn't too tired of feeding traffic to the guy. Orac also has a great review of the "proof" of DCA efficacy from the DCA site. The usual altie-woo, but nicely researched and dissected apart.

But what this is a good example of is the complete inability cranks have of maintaining any kind of consistency, and I'm not just talking about specifics of arguments, but more generally. In the specific sense, Egnor's latest rant appears to contradict several previous rants about what Darwinism, psuedo-Darwinism, and evolution are. None of his definitions is consistent across more than a couple of arguments and his current description of cancer as a Darwinian process seems to contradict the previous assertion of using Darwinism to study cancer as "psuedo".

Anyway, one of my points is that unraveling this kind of stuff can be very time consuming, and ultimately, not very rewarding, after all, it'll just be whackamole - tomorrow when the next riff off the top of his head needs to be shredded. I'll leave that to some of the other sciencebloggers who are more patient than me in that regard.

Instead let's talk about how generally cranks are very inconsistent. Notice, for instance, that the Discovery Institute doesn't seem to have a specific problem with Ken Ham or other Young Earth Creationists. A few weeks ago there was even a little mini-discussion about whether they should take a more aggressive posture towards YEC which they admit is inconsistent with ID. But they didn't. Are we surprised? Also look at the general willingness to accept all kinds of arguments, even ones that aren't consistent with other proponents of ID. Behe, for instance, doesn't argue that evolution essentially never occurred, his positions are often completely at opposition to Egnor's, and Egnor even makes Dembski look extreme. But they more than happily give Egnor a big loudspeaker, they're "big-tent" after all. They give a loudspeaker to Dave Scot, who levels pretty inane attacks on global warming science while talking conspiratorially about big pharma and DCA.

This is yet another reason why Denialism isn't real argument. Cranks who promote this stuff aren't inside of some actual "debate", in which data is important and various interpretations of that data are considered and discussed. Cranks sit outside a debate, and essentially shovel horse manure into the discussion. And if someone else wants to shovel in cow manure? Hell, they don't care, as long as it stinks and it's getting shoveled, they don't care what it is or who it is promoting it. It's pretty shameless.

So, what do you think a good description for this type of crank unity would be? That is, how would you simply describe the tendency of cranks not to care about the specifics of the denialist arguments being made, just as long as it creates confusion and sows doubt?

Labels: general discussion, Michael Egnor

For more fodder for the discussion of cranks, consider Michael Crichton. Uncommon Descent has just linked this 2003 lecture of his entitled "aliens cause global warming", in which Crichton links more weakly-justified scientific endeavors like SETI, with the debate of global warming (I'm sure he'd mention the Mars canard if it hadn't been three years ago too). And just look at this statement:

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Now that's a hell of a statement. It's quite clear why UC likes this lecture and why they're linking it. After all, evolution represents consensus science, and Dave Scot in attacking global warming from an anti-consensus viewpoint is hitting two birds with one stone. But lets think about some other scientific consensuses (consensi?).

Relativity is certainly a scientific consensus, as is the theory of quantum mechanics. Gravity is most definitely a consensus theory. So is germ theory. The consensus among scientists is that the genetic code is responsible for gene transcription and translation. Does one really need to continue? Basically Crichton is saying that one should never believe settled science. And he's not just offering healthy skepticism about the completeness of theories, he's saying that if something becomes consensus it should be specifically disbelieved. Now that's something else. As proof he provides a bizarre reversal of the Thomas Kuhn argument (surely he's read Kuhn?) in which the past examples of paradigm shifts means that one should never believe anything! I think Orac would also call this the Galileo Gambit (Crichton then goes on to compare Lomborg to Galileo), which is the idea that anyone who believes something that contradicts the reigning "authority" is immediately correct, just like Galileo. The rest is a bunch of cherry-picked quotes, some insanely bad analogies, straw men and non sequiters. Easily dismissable as denialist garbage.

Crichton is clearly a smart guy. He understands some science quite well, well enough to write boiler-plate fiction with creative ideas about the implications of some science. But how did he get to this point about global warming? What made him lose it? This statement is almost completely insane, how did he get from there to here?

Labels: general discussion, global warming denialism, Michael Crichton

Based on comments and emails I get from people it's still not entirely clear to everybody what the purpose of denialism.com is. Very simply, we want to help people identify the difference between legitimate science/policy debate - between opponents with opposing but substantiated views - and illegitimate debate, in which one of the opponents uses illegitimate tactics and is essentially not an honest broker in the discussion. Denialism is not merely disagreement. This can not be emphasized enough. It is about tactics, and identifying denialist tactics is both necessary and useful.

In the way of a for instance, we often see in media coverage the desired goal of "parity". That is, the journalists attempt to cover both sides of the debate. While balance in journalism is desirable, the obvious flaw in this type of journalism is that say you're going to write an article about the global positioning system, should you contact the flat-earthers and see what they think? Or if you're going to write about the moon landing, are you going to give equal time to people who deny it ever happened? Should articles about holocaust survivors include interviews with people who deny it ever happened? In other words, how does the journalist tell the difference between a legitimate opposing view, or alternative interpretation of the available data, and a total and complete crank? How do non-scientists in particular differentiate between legitimate debates about scientific interpretations of data, and people who are essentially lying or deceptive about their objectives, and their use of the facts? The examples of flat-earthers and holocaust deniers are pretty obvious, but sometimes it's not so easy.

I think we've been successful so far at identifying patterns in arguments all different types of denialists use that are not legitimate, and have identified a few of the major sites that use this type of false argument to sow confusion about science. We believe there are five criteria that overlap in most denialist arguments, that is, the use of conspiracy theories, the selective quotation of scientists or of data, the employment of false experts, the moving goalpost or impossible expectation, and finally, the routine use of logical fallacies, such as arguments from analogy, appeals to consequences, appeals to ignorance, and straw men. It doesn't really matter what the denialist is arguing about, it's specifically the use of these tactics that makes them a denialist, and they use these five tactics almost exclusively to acheive their goal.

It's time to move onto the next of my goals for denialism.com.

I've been thinking a lot lately about cranks, and how we all have observed how they argue. But what exactly is a crank? Why do people become cranks? What motivates cranks? Why do they persist in being cranks when there seems to be no apparent benefit?

I've got my own ideas but I think I'd like to involve the community in a discussion of cranks.

From my observations of cranks I find their unifying feature is that they've fallen victim to what psychiatrists would call an "overvalued idea". An example of an overvalued idea would be racial superiority, as is the case with holocaust deniers, or in biblical literalism, which is the case for some evolution denialism. But within each denialist group there is often more than one simple overvalued idea. I think some holocaust deniers simply are trying to avoid a sense of personal or national guilt or avoid thinking about the potential inhumanity of man. HIV/AIDS denialists seem to be split between people who don't want to admit the origins of their own disease, a group of racists who want to believe the worst of all white people, and a bizarre group of egotists who seem to feel superior because they have an unpopular belief. Some evolution deniers clearly don't believe in biblical literalism, but don't want to let go of a belief in their idea of an ordered universe. The mercury/autism denialism seems to stem again from either avoiding personal (and quite misplaced) guilt, or alternatively, making sense of the insensible by trying to find someone, anyone, to blame for a child getting sick.

Then there are the people who are clearly just afflicted with paranoid personality disorder. The quintessential conspiracy theorist who makes up a small percentage of each of these groups (and the human population as a whole - probably around 1-3%).

What do others think? I'm curious about how people go down the path to being a crank who weren't exactly crazy to begin with. Also, quite a few people are roped in by cranks, without actually becoming cranks themselves, but usually identify with the crank ideas. Also what do you think of the tendency of cranks to ally with other cranks even if they have conflicting ideas, for instance the young-earth creationists and the intelligent design creationists? It seems more important to recognize the common enemy that to develop a consistent factual basis for belief in their idea.

Labels: general discussion

I'm going to delay publishing my Unified Theory of Cranks in order to discuss Chris Mooney and Matthew Nisbet's article in Science Framing Science. It's an interesting article about how scientists need to do more than just harp on the technical aspects of a theory in order to encourage belief in the lay populace. Instead, scientists need to focus or "frame" the science in a way that is emotionally appealing or more likely to sway the populace through self-interest.

Issues at the intersection of science and politics, such as climate change, evolution, and embryonic stem cell research, receive considerable public attention, which is likely to grow, especially in the United States as the 2008 presidential election heats up. Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively "frame" information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message (1). However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists', and controversy would subside.

...

Frames organize central ideas, defining a controversy to resonate with core values and assumptions. Frames pare down complex issues by giving some aspects greater emphasis. They allow citizens to rapidly identify why an issue matters, who might be responsible, and what should be done (4, 5).

Consider global climate change. With its successive assessment reports summarizing the scientific literature, the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has steadily increased its confidence that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. So if science alone drove public responses, we would expect increasing public confidence in the validity of the science, and decreasing political gridlock.

...

Recently, a coalition of Evangelical leaders have adopted a different strategy, framing the problem of climate change as a matter of religious morality. The business pages tout the economic opportunities from developing innovative technologies for climate change. Complaints about the Bush Administration's interference with communication of climate science have led to a "public accountability" frame that has helped move the issue away from uncertainty to political wrongdoing.

As another example, the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over "intelligent design" was launched, antievolutionists promoted "scientific uncertainty" and "teach-the-controversy" frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of "public accountability" that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, "economic development" that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and "social progress" that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.

...

On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using "social progress" and "economic competitiveness" frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005 (9, 10). However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are "playing God" and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge (11).

Some readers may consider our proposals too Orwellian, preferring to safely stick to the facts. Yet scientists must realize that facts will be repeatedly misapplied and twisted in direct proportion to their relevance to the political debate and decision-making. In short, as unnatural as it might feel, in many cases, scientists should strategically avoid emphasizing the technical details of science when trying to defend it.

Mooney and Nisbet have an interesting point and I tend to agree with it. From my perspective, of identifying and defusing denialism, the technical aspects of the science under discussion are largely irrelevant. After all, your opponents are not interested in data, or legitimate debate, rather they are interested in sowing confusion and creating enough doubt that "controversy" may be used as an excuse to spread their bankrupt ideas. The science that denialists attack is settled, there is no controversy other than that they can falsely generate, and they don't come to the table as honest brokers with real data. Further, most people are not equipped to identify and dismiss denialist arguments, these arguments wouldn't be so widely used if they weren't effective, and there is a great deal of evidence that shows that the scientific content of an argument is largely irrelevant.

So, we are left with the question. Other than identifying and raising awareness of denialist tactics, how does one go about framing science in such a way that denialist arguments are less likely to sway the general population? In evolution I think the answer is clear, "by their fruits you shall know them." All that the DI and ID movements have accomplished for school boards trying to insert their neo-Paleyist creationism into their curricula is waste of taxpayer dollars, pointless acrimony, and ultimately fiscal ruin. With global warming I think Clinton was the real master of framing. Global warming isn't an economic crisis but an economic opportunity. Let the United States become an industrial and economic leader again by providing clean technologies to the world.

Mooney and Nisbet are talking about something that's existed for quite a while and has been used to great effect by (mostly) conservative and some liberal politicians. The reason this is so great is that finally, someone is taking this discussion directly to the scientists so they may start thinking this way.

Labels: general discussion

Ed Brayton is writing about the lead up to the million family march in which Farrakhan will take a page from the Rev. Moon and perform a giant marriage re-commitment ceremony. He also notes that Bartholomew's notes on religion who is tracking all this, has some evidence of seriously crazy conspiracy-mongering on behalf of Farrakhan about Jews and the Illuminati. Here's a little excerpt from Bartholomew's blog

...One of the methods Satan uses in casting first is by reproducing himself or herself, through the creation of "dumb devils," whom Satan hides behind and uses to carry out wicked deeds. At this point is where the group of wise persons, known as The Illuminati, was mentioned.

The Illuminati, the Minister explained, is a secret society that was established in the late 18th Century in Europe, which is comprised largely today of the richest people in the world-international bankers who control mainstream media, the work force, educational systems, companies, banks, energy supplies and governments.

...

He also delved into the significance of the year 1913, when the Defamation League [sic] of B'nai B'rith and the FBI were formed, as well as Congress' passing of the Federal Reserve Act which legalized international bankers to print money.

These links are interesting for a few reasons. The Rev. Moon is a creationist denialist, and Jonathan Wells, a member of the Unification Church, famously got his PhD training at Moon's request in order to help him throw a wrench into evolutionary science (deception again). That he's influencing the NOI and Farrakhan in particular is scary, not like he needed any help in appearing anti-Semitic and paranoid, and it's sad that it is likely so many people will show up to these marches to be led by a person who has time and again shown he is full of hate towards Jews and talked about how great Hitler was (he hasn't progressed to holocaust denial but it appears the only reason for that seems to be that he feels the holocaust makes white people look evil - no kidding).

The other thing I'd suggest this highlights is just how stupid conspiracy theories are and how people who believe in them are almost always doing so to protect some over-valued idea, in this case I'm betting anti-Semitism. Conspiracy theories are just idiotic, people who believe in them or express them are not to be listened to, and on a more sinister note, they at best represent paranoia on the part of the individual, and at worst, racism and bigotry.

Labels: general discussion

An oldie but a goodie. It's what I think about when arguing with the denialists.



If you don't already you should subscribe to XKCD's feed.

Labels: general discussion

For keeping the Lancet denialists at bay.

I didn't really want to include these guys in this site, there's already so many cranks to cover and they really are a specialized set. But I'm glad we've got Tim Lambert in there fighting the good fight with his 135th post on denial of the Lancet study showing high numbers of excess deaths in Iraq.

Maybe I should call them "sampling denialists" because they act like sampling is some kind of BS technique.

Labels: general discussion

Have you been getting your Friday Dose of Woo from Orac? If not you should.

You might notice that I don't list the alties as part of the denialists, and many have suggested that I should. However, while I see many altie meds as woo, and the companies that sell it as little more than charlatans, I don't see a concerted attack on science coming from the altie med types.

If people can find the equivalent of the DI for altie meds, I'll track it, but I think for the most part people use alternative medicine to increase the feeling of control they have over their lives, and when they get sick, the go see the real doctor. And while the companies that sell this junk based on lies and made up facts and deprive people of good money are essentially crooks, I don't think you should lump swindlers in with denialists automatically. Exceptions abound, Abraham Cherrix would be an obvious example of someone who didn't see the real doctor when he should have, but I don't see the same campaign against reason from the alties that one sees from the global warming denialists, or ID proponents.

Do you?

Labels: altie meds, general discussion

Uncommon Descent's post on why it's good they're denialists made me realize that it's time to write a post about the denialist's defense against being called a denialist. Here's the many tactics they will used when this label is applied.

1. Simplest of all, just deny that they're a denialist. This is the plugging your ears defense.
   


2. Make out that they are part of a long line of "hero" denialists that changed the scientific consensus, like Pasteur or Einstein (Orac calls this the Galileo Gambit). This is the changing the definition defense or ego defense.
   


3. Accuse the accuser of being a denialist. This is the projection defense.


4. Accuse the accuser of making a black-list. This is the McCarthy defense.

Now, the plugging your ears defense is pretty consistent with generally denialist behavior, when you don't want your worldview challenged, and all the data suggests your worldview is silly, then you have little choice, you're just going to have to plug your ears every once in a while and yell "Mary had a little lamb" at the top of your lungs.

The changing definition defense defense /ego defense both rely on changing the definition of denialism, which I've made quite clear, to make the heroes of science just like them. Suddenly Einstein isn't a patent clerk who wrote amazing papers that changed the way scientists think about the universe, he's a crank who sat around writing nasty things on inter-office mail and was never believed in his own time. The denialist alleges by mere virtue that they are a crank, that they are somehow special, that one day they'll be vindicated for their special or elite knowledge. This is the ego side of it and is most common among the HIV/AIDS denialists when I see them argue. However, denialism is not defined as merely having a minority opinion (after all a minority of people believe in evolution). Denialism is the use of rhetorical tactics to undermine scientific debate. It is the use of conspiracy theories, selective or cherry-picked data, false experts, moving goalposts to obfuscate debate, and logical fallacies.

The difference between a crank and these paradigm shifters is the paradigm shifters had data. Further, no one saw these people as "cranks" in the scientific establishment. They might not have believed them, but it wasn't like they were denied faculty positions, excluded from meetings, or mocked for their views. They simply hadn't met the threshold to overturn consensus yet. They like mentioning Barry Marshall (who was at UVA I might add). Marshall wasn't seen as a crank, just wrong. He proved his point with data (very interesting data I might add), and then people believed him. He didn't sit around alleging conspiracies and cherry-picking results. He didn't hire the Cato institute or AEI to confuse the science. He didn't make up a bunch of silly analogies about arson. He used evidence.

That's the difference between a real paradigm shifter and a crank.

Then there's the accuse the accuser defense, this is the most natural defense of all for a denialist. It fits with the kinds of arguments that they believe in, like that you can overturn data with bad analogies. If you're accuser is just a denialist, your worldview remains protected, think about it.

You'll see them assert that it's those damn historians who believe in the holocaust must be the real denialists, those dirty believers in history, or those damn HIV/AIDS doctors and researchers who believe that HAART saves lives are the real denialists, or those damn global warming scientists who measure climate change, they're the real cranks, or those damn biologists who study biology and believe that fossils, DNA, geology are evidence for evolution, they're the worsts denialists of all... Screw those people.

Those guys are the cranks, not me, never me.

Finally, there's the McCarthy defense that is by calling people denialists you're creating guilt-by-association. An HIV/AIDS denialist will say denying the link between HIV and AIDS isn't unreasonable, and pointing out that they use the same methods as other denialists, like evolution denialists or holocausts denialists is unfair. They're not like those other dirty denialists, they're just misunderstood.

But they are like those other denialists. That's the whole point that we make here at denialism.com. The methods of all denialists are the same. We're not creating guilt-by-association, we're pointing out that that they're using similar tactics, and that no matter what the denialists deny, they use the same rhetorical tricks to sow confusion and disrupt debate. If they feel guilty that they share space with these other denialists, that's not my problem. They're the ones using denialist tactics to make their point. If they don't want to be called cranks or denialists, I suggest instead of alleging conspiracies and making fallacious arguments, they actually provide data.

Labels: general discussion

I suppose I should be slightly worried about giving denialists ammunition against science, but in the end I think this discussion reveals important aspects of how research is done. I'm talking about how science requires replication because it is so often wrong. Sometimes it's upsetting to see just how often scientists get things wrong, and how many wrong turns are made before a "true" result is obtained.

Enter John Ioannidis, author of the famous and wonderful paper in PLoS Biology Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, and his very highly-cited Nature Genetics paper Replication validity of genetic association studies. While the math is sometimes over my head, the story is pretty simple. With scientific journals and scientists always looking to publish the exceptional result, the bias of the literature is going to be those rare results that are counter-intuitive, or revolutionary, but ultimately may not be replicated. Think of it this way, if you report a result that is statistically significant, that means the probability it occurred by chance was less than 5%. If you perform it twice (each time with significance), it drops to about 0.25% or a 1 in 400 chance of being just due to chance. But think about it. The results that get into Science and Nature are often the exceptional results. With many researchers studying a problem, eventually that 1/400 exception is going to occur by chance, and you may very well have duplicated a result that ultimately won't be replicated with more testing. If you're smart, you'll publish it quickly before someone repeats it again and ruins your Nature paper for you. Many times statistical significance is acquired only after repeating the result multiple times, so even with duplication, there's still about a 1 in 20 chance that the result was just that, chance - not including all the other sources of bias like the desire of Journals to publish exceptional results, thus selecting for things that probably won't be replicated.

That's why Ioannidis' work is so interesting. He writes about the probabilities of translation, nonreplication, and credibility of research and he recently delivered a grand rounds at the NIH on this topic (available as Real Video or in the google video I posted below.) This talk is incredible and worth your time.



My favorite slide? I need 8 slides to write the zeroes...

I recommend anyone interested in the biomedical sciences to watch the entire video, and for non-scientists, it's a great view of what a good scientific talk and discussion looks like. Ioannidis is engaging, his work is fascinating and ultimately very humbling. But, ultimately it speaks to the robustness of scientific research because it emphasizes that while mistakes might be frequent, the important principle of replication saves the scientific enterprise. It also emphasizes something I've believed for a while, that research, and in particular meta-analyses, on nutrition is virtually worthless.

Regarding denialism, it stresses the importance of fighting the selective arguments of denialists. Because the scientific literature will always be contaminated with results that can never be repeated, often incorrect things will be "discovered" and a lot of work will go into correcting the literature, and it takes time and effort to do this. That's why it's always important not to cherry-pick the data or literature you want to be true (or alternatively harp endlessly on long-dead mistakes), and instead base your understanding of a field on the totality, or "state" of the literature as a more fluid concept, based on the best available data at a given period of time. Oh, and for the HIV/AIDS denialists, Ioannidis repeatedly uses HAART therapy as an example of most solid, beneficial and replicated finding there is in biomedical research, one questioner even compares it to the discovery of insulin.

Labels: general discussion

I'm really excited about Denialism.com and I want to give an overview of some of the things I'd like to start discussing and maybe getting some feedback from the internet hive mind.

In particular, what organizations have you found employ denialist tactics? Examples of exclusively denialists organizations or websites would be the Discovery Institute, or Junkscience.com. I'm interested in others you might know about or organizations that might just employ denialist arguments with some frequency (Cato, Heritage, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page etc.) Which denialists have been pissing you off? Send me links, or post them in the comments.

Second I'd also like the blog to discuss some of the motivations for denialism. I have my own opinions, but I can't pretend I've ecountered as many denialists and their arguments as some other esteemed bloggers. I'd like to hear what kind of motivations they think underlie some of these arguments. Right now, based on my contact with them on the scienceblogs and elsewhere, I'd characterize denialists as follows:

1. HIV/AIDS Denialism - seems to feed into some egomania of this particular type of denialist. They frequently make statements about how one day they'll be vindicated, and seen as heroes because they saw the truth first. They also seem to really like inversions, and to feel superior because they believe in something that no one else does. Other conspiracy theorists, such as 9/11 conspiracy theorists, I think are similar. There is an egotistical appeal to possessing "secret" knowledge or holding controversial opinions. Basically, I'm calling them assholes.
   
   
2. Global Warming denialism - motivations seem to range from financial (industry, their lobbyists and think tanks), to individual cognitive dissonance. Many global warming denialists that argue from a non-financial standpoint seem to fear the changes that reducing a carbon footprint entails, and are concerned about losing quality of life. Others, I think, suffer from the same egomania as the HIV/AIDS denialists like Monckton. Still others, most recently Falwell, seem upset from a religious perspective as it suggests humans could somehow harm God's creation or worse, that global warming might be a positive sign of Armageddon.
   
   
3. Evolution Denialism - Almost exclusively religious objections, stemming from cognitive dissonance from fear of non-literal interpretation of the bible. The insistence on believing the truthfulness of some of the more absurd stories of the Bible such as Noah's Ark seems indicative of a certain stubbornness and fear of upsetting the fragile balance of the literalist's world view. The idea that the Bible might contain metaphor, rather than absolutes, is therefore terrifying and ideas such as evolution, that appear to negate the creation myth must be opposed at all costs.
   
   
4. Holocaust Denial - Hopefully we won't have to cover this disgusting kind of denialism as much. Its motivations are perhaps the clearest of them all. It's just plain Antisemitism.
   
   
5. Anti-Vaccination denialists - I have less experience with these but it seems mostly to be fearfulness of science, and a propensity towards believing in what Orac would call "woo". A small amount also seems to be paranoia or paranoid personality disorder. Finally, I think many of the parents of autistic children seem fearful of genetic or environmental causes of autism that might implicate their culpability in their child's illness. Sadly, throughout the history of autism parents have often been blamed, specifically absent fathers and cold or "Frigidaire" mothers were implicated. So it's understandable if people still feel some stigma or guilt from such a diagnosis given such a cruddy history from the psychologists on that one. Many parents would like to believe in something, anything that explains why their child has been singled out by nature to have autism. Having something to blame, like a vaccination, therefore becomes emotionally very appealing and alleviates some of the helplessness or misplaced guilt they may feel.
   
   
6. Animal testing denialists - I am somewhat uncertain about inclusion of some animal rights activists (ARAs) into the denialism camp. My reasons for doing so include the general dismissiveness I've seen of science by ARAs. For instance, saying things like science can be done without animals (or worse on a computer), claims from PETA that chickens are as smart as dogs or babies, that dogs are actually vegetarians (oy), and any number of discussions in which they imply that animals or animal models say nothing helpful about biology. Their motivations, for the most part, are more noble, they're interested in alleviating suffering, all suffering. That this is impossible, misguided or unwise is not important, and if they have to lie about science then so be it.

Anyway, just some starting thoughts. What do people think?

Labels: general discussion