Denialism Blog

Month: May 2007

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 6s, "Stifles Innovation" and "Technology Can't Be Regulated"

    Competition is magic. But this argument must be amplified! How? Easy, appeal to “innovation.”

    i-0e101f65eb2af18162cb37225d4d5ac2-6h.jpg The denalist will argue that the intervention will stifle innovation. Typical 6 of Hearts arguments include “this is just a tool,” and “you’re banning technology.”

    Next is the 6 of Diamonds, a somewhat contradictory but still widely-used argument–that technology “can’t be regulated.” Of course, any technology can (just look at standard setting organizations), but this exercise isn’t about being cogent, it’s about stopping whatever intervention the denialist opposes.

    		 i-80d93bc4eecfe9d2f2d365246fb0f3c4-6d.jpg

  • 60th Skeptics Circle

    At Infophilia.

    In particular I like Conspiracy factory’s anecdote about anecdotes.

  • Reading Comprehension – it's important

    Not to harp on Uncommon Descent today, but their seeming inability to see words that they don’t like gives the appearance of no reading comprehension skills whatsoever. Take for example their read of this New Scientist article on cute little marsupials.

    Let’s first quote from the article:
    (more…)

  • Don't Screw with T.J.

    DaveScot, crank extraordinaire at Uncommon Descent, has made the mistake of talking about Thomas Jefferson now that there is UVa representation on the Scienceblogs.

    He makes the argument that because the constitution only dealt with federal separation of church and state (before the reconstruction amendments of course) that established religion was perfectly ok in the states.

    You see, the intent of declaring that inalienable rights are bestowed by a Creator is not just ceremonial. It’s a core principle. It’s what makes the rights inalienable. Governments exist only to secure these rights not to grant them for if governments are the source of these rights then governments can rightly take them away. Thus it is important to remember that a higher authority exists that grants these rights so that no government can take them away.

    …

    So you see, when Jefferson and a few other founders talked about a wall of separation they were only talking about a wall between federal government and churches. State governments could do whatever they wanted with laws regarding religion. I mention the 14th because it adds crucial context to the early use of the phrase Jefferson coined i.e.; it was only about federal laws at that time. None of them were arguing that state and local governments couldn’t do as they saw fit and this ties neatly back into the articles I wrote about preambles in state constitutions. States weren’t nearly as bashful about God and government as the federal government was in the early days.

    Now, you can’t hope to win by citing Jefferson here, all UVa students are required to defend Jefferson from false representation. Further, if these guys actually bothered reading anything after the preambles you see that many states not only forbade establishment of religion but forbade clergy from even participating in government!
    (more…)

  • The Wall Street Journal, A Denialist Debunker?

    I’m a real fan of the Wall Street Journal. I read it on the BART every morning, to the displeasure of my knee-jerk co-passengers.

    Why is the Journal awesome? Because days like today, you find reporting showing how branding is often an illusion, how cheaper printer cartridges are actually more expensive, and how formaldehyde is used as a preservative in Asia. Denialists may be reading the opinion page, but the rest of the paper seems to highlight the many difficulties and imperfections in the market–from insider trading to outrageous executive pay. All in the same day.

    Back to the opinion page…it’s crazy. The editors are infatuated with boogeymen. Today, they hit four of them: the IRS, Elliott Spitzer, the trial lawyers, and George Soros. And the facts asserted on it often differ from the reporting elsewhere in the paper. Going forward, I’m going to document examples of this, and I invite you to do so as well!

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Third Hand, Competition is Magic

    i-c2389d448fdaa3a787a1059c5a46809d-6c.jpg A denialist does not soft pedal competition. It is a religious term. It is frequently employed, because any market can be described as competitive, regardless of the facts or the myriad factors that practically limit choice.

    Competition solves all problems. Period. If competition doesn’t solve the problem at issue, then it isn’t a problem, or people really like the problem (4 of Spades, 5 of Hearts).

    Because competition is magic, there are no problems to solve. And those that may exist will be solved, eventually. The denialist will say: “give competition a chance” or “sometimes a competitive market takes time to reform” (3 of Spades, 5 of Spades).

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The Ace of Clubs, "Our Rights"

    Allow me to jump ahead in the Denialists’ Deck of Cards, in light of Verizon’s claim that giving customer records to the National Security Agency is protected by the First Amendment:

    “Communicating facts to the government is protected petitioning activity,” says the response, even when the communication of those facts would normally be illegal or would violate a company’s owner promises to its customers. Verizon argues that, if the EFF and other groups have concerns about customer call records, the only proper remedy “is to impose restrictions on the government, not on the speaker’s right to communicate.”

    This is a great example of “Our Rights!”

    i-61e1d912b04d64604016e05fe2aaa8a2-ac.jpg The denalist can almost always argue that any restriction on business activity is unconstitutional. After all, businesses were afforded many civil rights before women achieved suffrage.

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: The 5 of Spades, "Delay Tactics"

    Delay always benefits the denalist. At this point, any number of delay tactics can be employed to wait and see whether consumer education will solve the problem that doesn’t exist.

    i-cd6f090dc53e3317d3d68a695418f18a-5s.jpg

  • Beware the bashers of peer review

    I’d like to hear from some other sciencebloggers and science readers what they think reform of peer-review should look like. I’m not of the opinion that it has any critical flaws, but most people would like to see more accountability for sand-bagging and other bad reviewer habits. Something like a grading system that allows submitters to rate the performance of their reviewers, then editors of magazines would tend to only consult with reviewers that authors felt were doing a fair job of evaluating their paper.

    The drawback of course would be that reviewers might start going easier on papers just because they don’t want bad grades.

    One thing I do know for sure though, we shouldn’t take advice about peer review from HIV/AIDS denialists…
    (more…)

  • Denialists' Deck of Cards: Consumers Want It, Or They Don't Know What They Want

    The spectacle manifests itself as an enormous positivity, out of reach and beyond dispute. All it says is: “Everything that appears is good; whatever is good will appear.” – Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle

    i-9d936ebcbb671ac98c18d0fb1b4e58c6-4s.jpeg You’ve argued that consumer education can set individuals free. Now argue that because something exists, people must want it. After all, the market is perfect, and even if it produces a seemly odious product, it’s not really a problem. On the other hand, if consumers start making choices that the denialist doesn’t like, the denialist will say that individuals don’t really know what they want. i-4c97633fd541b43d1718e227370307bb-5h.jpeg

    So, whether you go with consumers want it or consumers do not know what they want, you conclude with the “no problem” chorus.

    i-24f3928018e4a410ca06a6d0a4839de9-5c.jpg

    (more…)