Author: MarkH

  • Adult Stem Cell Nonsense

    For this Friday afternoon I thought I’d rehash a previous post from denialism.com on adult stem cells and those that hype results inappropriately to disparage embryonic stem (ES) cells. It all started with an exciting JAMA article about using autologous stem cell transplants to help treat type I diabetics who still had some capacity to produce insulin. The problem is that the adult stem cell hypers, like Wesley Smith (you guys remember him right? Senior fellow of DI etc.) will jump on any article that says “adult stem cells” and blather on and on about there are no ES cell cures – so why study them?
    (more…)

  • Comment policy

    I’m turning on moderation since the 9/11 truthers have shown up and desire to show me how they’re not cranks by hijacking threads and linking their conspiracy sites.

    Sorry about that. But I don’t think it’s a valuable use of time to argue with cranks. I also won’t accept comments that are just drive-by trollings, or thread hijacks.

    If my commenters want to take them on, that’s fine, but I have a limited tolerance for futile endeavors.

    After the weekend (Chris and I don’t blog much on Saturday and Sunday) when I can monitor things more closely I’ll take moderation off.

  • Friday Cartoon fun

    I realize I’ve put this up before, but it’s too relevant to our discussions all week to pass up.

    Via xkcd.

  • Logical Fallacies

    Almost everybody knows about the fallacies of logic, formal and informal, that are routinely used in arguments with denialists. While these fallacies aren’t perfect examples of logic that show when an argument is always wrong, they are good rules of thumb to tell when you’re listening to bunk, and if you listen to denialists you’ll hear plenty. I wish they’d teach these to high school students as a required part of their curriculum, but it probably would decrease the efficacy of advertisement on future consumers.

    The problem comes when the denialists get a hold of the fallacies then accuse you, usually, of ad hominem! It goes like this.
    (more…)

  • Where's the Hitler Zombie when you need it?

    Well, I won’t watch CNN anymore, after Glenn Beck decided to call climate scientists who actually believe climate science Nazis. You read his profile at Media Matters and it’s clear pretty much anyone he disagrees with is a Nazi.

    (more…)

  • Impossible expectations (and moving goalposts)

    I’m sorry for mixing terminologies. But moving goalposts isn’t adequate to describe the full hilarity of the kinds of arguments denialists make. For instance, the goalposts never have to be moved when they require evidence that places them somewhere in the land before time. What I mean is the use, by denialists, of the absence of complete and absolute knowledge of a subject to prevent implementation of sound policies, or acceptance of an idea or a theory.

    So while moving goalposts describes a way of continuing to avoid acceptance of a theory after scientists have obligingly provided additional evidence that was a stated requirement for belief, impossible expectations describes a way to make it impossible for scientists to ever prove anything to the satisfaction of the denialist. They’re related though so we’ll group both together.

    (more…)

  • Ed Brayton Exposes Sal Cordova's Cherry Picking

    It was pointed out in a comment in our FRC post how much cherry picking resembles rank dishonesty.

    That’s because it is. Deception is inherent in denialist arguments, and there are few better examples than Sal Cordova’s selective quotation as demonstrated by Ed Brayton in Dispatches from the Culture Wars.
    (more…)

  • Fake Experts

    You know who they are – those organizations that have words like “freedom” and “rights” “choice” and “consumer” in their names but always shill for corporate interests…those occasional MDs or engineers creationists find that will say evolution has nothing to do with science. They are the fake experts.

    But how do we tell which experts are fake and which are real?
    (more…)

  • Never forget 4-29

    How will we ever know the truth about 4-29. I say, it was a conspiracy to undermine 9-11 truth to show that fuel from a tanker truck could actually melt steel and cause a freeway to collapse. Initial photos from the site raise lots of questions.

    (more…)

  • Selectivity from the Family Research Council

    Some might wonder why I include some right-wing “family” organizations on the list of denialists. It’s simple. In their efforts to oppose all forms of contraception, they routinely lie about the science behind the efficacy of condoms for STD-prevention (just like HIV/AIDS denialists), the efficacy of contraception, as well as social effects of contraception like the falsehood that contraceptive availability leads to promiscuity and higher STD transmission.

    Take for instance, the Family Research Council on emergency contraception.

    (republished from denialism.com – this was too good an example to pass up)
    *Update* Calladus has a good overview of their “research” into the efficacy of abstinence education. What kind of family value is lying anyway?
    (more…)