Anti-Science

[The Supreme Canuck]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry. He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous.

Might as well call it like it is, right?

[beskeptical]

My comments may be a bit political but I think we need to distinguish between those that are anti-science and those that don't know the difference between evidence supports vs no evidence.

I think there are some extreme religious folks that view science as a threat to their beliefs. This group truly is anti-science. They would be the ones trying to equate science with religion and claiming their religious beliefs are supported by science.]

The other group just doesn't get it when it comes to what is supported by evidence and what isn't. This is the group we need to be doing a better job teaching in their early school years.

I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.[/list]

[Metricyard]

I read The BA's blog the other day. Good read as always.

And I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

It does have a nice ring to it.

[frogesque]

I'd go wary down that route. Anti has connotations - especially in a religious context. Should I feel the need I'm comfortable that I can find my own terms to describe a stance as the occasion presents itself.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Let me clarify: I'd be absolutely comfortable calling Nancy Lieder or Bart Sibrel an anti-scientist, but I'd call a high school student who doesn't know any better someone who needs to be taught. Only those who actively and purposefully reject scientific thought and reason should be labelled anti-scientists. The point is to make sure that ordinary people are not taken in.

Added:

I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've been thinking of sending my local paper a request for a weekly (or hopefully daily) science and tech section. They already have a weekly tech section, why not just add in the science?

[Maksutov]

I nominate Nancy Lieder for Anti Science. I also nominate Bart Sibrel for Uncle Science (what he had to have said when Buzz was about to continue the whuppin"). Finally I nominate the rest, such as Sitchin, Kaysing, Rene, Neville and Alex (the list goes on), based on what kind of language they probably use every time one of their pet claims gets debunked, as the various Cussins of Anti and Uncle Science.

All in the family. Cue the Vic Mizzy theme music. 8)

[Gillianren]

you know, I read that blog, and it reminded me of how I got here in the first place. I first encountered the book (there's a book attached to this website, you know), and was so delighted with it that I sought out the website. I was then so delighted with the website that I sought out the board. I gather this is not the usual way of it?

in short, Phil is such an excellent writer that I actually joined a scientific board even though I'm definitely not a scientist. proving once again that there actually is some crossover between liberal arts people and science.

[mwill]

I like the term anti-science. It will fit into my vernacualr wonderfully, considering how steaming mad I get when I hear about things like the moon hoax and UFO's and crop circles. Ugh, I'm getting mad already. But I agree that pseudo-scientist is definatly too weak of a term. That makes it sound like they actually do some science.

As far as the media: Angry-letter writing to producers of bad science would be a hobby of mine if it weren't so hard to get in contact with anybody. I wanted to point something out to the History Channel once but there is no possible way to contact them. There little comment box is broken and there's no email addresses. I tried to contact my local fox news station once after running a time-lapse video supposedy showing meteors at sunset, (They were obviously airplanes reflecting sunlight), but I never got a hold of anyone.

And I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

[/i]

[Melusine]

The other group just doesn't get it when it comes to what is supported by evidence and what isn't. This is the group we need to be doing a better job teaching in their early school years.

I also think we need to be campaigning a bit more in the media. I urge everyone to write more letters to editors of all news sources and post more in blogs and forums whenever you see bad science.[/list]

Great idea, or great reminder, BestSkeptical. I don't know that the pen is always mightier than the sword, but it's better than doing nothing!

I like the term anti-science, too, as an idiomatic expression that can include both religious and non-religious people (as noted, there are religious people on BABB who are not anti-science); it's basically synonomous with anti-critical thinking...though that's such a long phrase. Since science and critical thinking have to go hand in hand to be reasonable, then it's a good term:

Anti-science = ID'ers
Anti-science = Flat-earthers
Anti-science = astrologers
Anti-science = UFO conspiracists
Anti-science = moon hoax believers
Anti-science = Christian Scientists*

*I say that last one, because a friend of mine died of breast cancer and she was raised as a Christian Scientist, and thus believed in the power of prayer to heal, and she ignored the lump for way too long. She did, in fact, renounce that aspect of Christian Science and went through all sorts of surgeries and new methods once the tumor had spread to her brain, but alas it was ultimately too late. She knew the lump was there, but she ignored it until she was feeling so sick, and as a newscaster on TV, she had to do something. Some of her last feelings (she was sending me chapters for a book that was to be published) were about prayer not being enough to cure a tumor (or medical problems in general), and how angry/betrayed she felt for letting it go too long, but she had not been raised in the habit of going to doctors every time she had a cough. Science could have healed her.

[Maksutov]

Melusine,

That's so sad it's beyond description, especially in 2005 CE.

I've known that kind of sadness too. It's never forgotten.

[Melusine]

Melusine,

That's so sad it's beyond description, especially in 2005 CE.

I've known that kind of sadness too. It's never forgotten.

I'm sorry Maksutov, I wasn't trying to make anyone sad, and I'm sorry for triggering that memory, I was just illustrating the "craziness" of an anti-science religion as an example, and how it can screw up people's heads (she died in 1998, btw, but still). Again, I don't have a social problem with people who believe in fate or some unknown power behind all of creation--it's not something we'll ever know for sure--my concern is that history has shown that religions or say, belief in witches (i.e. Salem Witch Trials) has been a set-back on human scientific advancement, and we could sure use all the advancement we can get.

I'm concerned with the arguments about global warming, because it's already evident that mankind has had or can have a profound effect on the environment. How much the planet can take is debatable.

[N C More]

The aspect that I find very interesting (in a bit of a perverse sense) is when ouvertly anti-science folks actually latch onto something scientific to base their anti-scientific claims upon! The moon hoax guys, the Geocentrists, various conspiracy theorists, religious extremists all frequently attempt to use certain aspects of science to support their positions but then quickly turn around and "nay say" when science finds their beliefs to be unsupported! It's like, science is valid only when it supports what they already believe is the truth. Very weird, IMO.

[mannisue]

I nominate Nancy Lieder for Anti Science. I also nominate Bart Sibrel for Uncle Science (what he had to have said when Buzz was about to continue the whuppin"). Finally I nominate the rest, such as Sitchin, Kaysing, Rene, Neville and Alex (the list goes on), based on what kind of language they probably use every time one of their pet claims gets debunked, as the various Cussins of Anti and Uncle Science.

All in the family. Cue the Vic Mizzy theme music. 8)

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

dum dum dum dum (snap! snap!)
they're creepy and they're kooky,
mysterious and spooky,
they're altogether ooky,
They're Nancy's family!!!!

[A Thousand Pardons]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry. He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous. ght?

John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote about anitscience in 1994. I think anti-science, as such, is important to science. Link: "Advocates of science must also invite criticism, as criticism of the basic tenets of science is the only way in which science can progress. Must this criticism come only from the true believers? That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy. Science, in the mirror of anti-science, has its blemishes magnified, and that is good for science."

[Gillianren]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .

my mother, despite the arthritis in her knees, does the Avon Walk for the Cure every year. the first time she did it, she sent a letter to everyone in the family and all the friends of the family to ask them to sponsor her.

my uncle, who's born again, was in town visiting my grandmother, who died of Parkinson's a few months ago (this would have been 1998 or so), and came to visit. he said, "now, Mary, you know that Carla (wife #2) and I have been born again, right?"

and my Irish Catholic mother said, "uh huh," because it's marginally more polite than, "yeah, whatever."

"well, now, that means we believe in the power of prayer. like we wanted a computer, and we both prayed, and the church remembered that they owed Carla some money, and we could afford one."

my mother said, "uh huh" again. this time, what she didn't say was, "and why did they owe Carla money? oh, that's right . . . she worked for it!"

"and it's the same with sickness. if you get sick, you pray. if you don't get better, it's not the Lord's will."

now, by this point, my mother is doing a slow burn (our family's good at those), because she, too, had a friend with breast cancer--I'm pretty sure that is past tense at this point--and that was why she was doing it in the first place. "I see," my mother said, and having by now given up on code, she continued, "I would have rather you just said no."

she told me this story, and threw in "God helps those who help themselves," which is a legitimate point. however, I've a different view.

how do you know that penicillin, chemotherapy, etc., aren't the answer to your prayers? this is not an age of direct miracles, though remission is a kind of miracle, too. besides, I'm sure if you took a woman from 400 years ago who was in labor and gave her Demerol, she'd think that was a miracle. (actually, I'm writing a book with a character who comes forward in time from about 1553, and she sure thinks smallpox vaccination is a miracle.)

now, this is getting pretty religious, and I'm sorry, Phil. I guess my point is that it's entirely possible to reconcile science and religion, in this case using medicine, and that, since they don't have to be in conflict, it's more a problem with the person than the institution. (except for organized religions that forbid modern medicine, which is child abuse and actually illegal to make your children obey in some states.)

[The Supreme Canuck]

<Snip>

which is child abuse and actually illegal to make your children obey in some states.)

That comes up every now and then in Canada. The government simply makes the child a state ward, treats them, and then gives the kid back to the parents.

[Glom]

Ahh! A thread about the IPCC. Whoops! #-o

[Metricyard]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .
Snip...

Without even metioning religion, I just can't see how so many people will shun and disrust modern medicine, but gladly shove "suppliments" with all kinds of shady claims down there throat.

Now I know there is nothing taking a vitamin supplement, but sometimes, I look at some of the bottles and wonder exactly what in the world is in these things.

Let's take the latest fade, silver. Why is so popular? Yah, it works great cleaning operating rooms. I'm sure Lysol does a good job too, but Im not about to strart spraying it down my throat as a mouthmash.

It's always a good idea to qestion doctors of course, but why won't people question "Natural Medicine"?

[mannisue]

on the subject of anti-medicine . . . .

how do you know that penicillin, chemotherapy, etc., aren't the answer to your prayers?

With this, gillianren, I have to agree wholeheartedly. There was a woman in the town that I live, that, a few years ago, suffered an agonizing death from cervical and ovarian cancer: she would not go to the doctor, in that she thouroughly believed in homeopathic remedies (none of her children were immunized because of this mode of thinking.) To me, this a dangerous and irresponsible way of life.

I believe that in light of the much publicized, media-hyped "conspiracy theories" against the health of the general population (keep them sick, population control, etc. :roll:,) staunch fundamentalist religious practice and other scariness that overruns our society, that there are too many people that suffer needlessly. While, too, there are also a large group of people who take medications without warrant, such as antibiotics and painkillers, we need to find a happy medium. I hate to break it to "believers," but modern medical advances, in my opinion, are the answer to many, many prayers. 8)

[zebo-the-fat]

I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

How about "Hard of thinking"?

[Halcyon Dayz]

How about "Hard of thinking"?

LOL

[Maksutov]

The BA coined a new term to describe pseudo-scientists in the BABlog in this entry. He calls them anti-scientists. The reasons are described in the entry. I like this new term. I'll be using it from now on, and I think we all should make an effort to do so. It's more to the point, and is far less ambiguous. ght?

John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote about anitscience in 1994. I think anti-science, as such, is important to science. Link: "Advocates of science must also invite criticism, as criticism of the basic tenets of science is the only way in which science can progress. Must this criticism come only from the true believers? That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy. Science, in the mirror of anti-science, has its blemishes magnified, and that is good for science."

First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion. Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".

Re "antiscience" his point is ill-founded. The object of science isn't the production of a "philosophy" (thus the remark about "That would produce an ultimately sterile philosophy." is not applicable), it's about producing reliable data about nature. The scientific method has built into it mechanisms for self-criticism, such as the testing any hypothesis will be subject to in order to assure that it produces reliable results. As the BA wrote, "Science uses evidence, is testable, and if it fails the test, the idea is modified or dropped." This process has been going on for hundreds of years now, and the various fields of science are more alive now than any time in the past, and definitely not "sterile".

Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.

Note: The section in quotes in the ATP post above isn't by John Maddox (folks reading the post who don't go to the link may get the impression it is), but by a Richard Mentock, of Durham, NC. Mentock, NC, ATP, NC...coincidence?

BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink:

[Maksutov]

I do like the term Anti-scientist, but wonder if a more politically correct term would be better, say, for instance "Scientifically Impaired" ?

How about "Hard of thinking"?

I think that is outstanding! =D> =D> =D>

[A Thousand Pardons]

First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion.

Maddox started it.

Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".

I did not say they were equivalent. Just ask soupdragon.

Of course there is room in science for philosophers. Mach's work was often as much philosophical as not. And Einstein's remarkable results proceded from that philosophy, shaped by his own philosophy. Philosophy does not dilute science, it augments it.

Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.

Unfortunately, it's a continuum. There is no sharp and well-defined dividing line like that. There may be a significant difference between one endpoint and the other, but in between, the difference is subtle.

Folks all along the continuum try to insist that their foes are on the wrong side of that dividing line, while their foes do the same thing, instead of addressing the issues. That's the key.

coincidence?

Nope.

BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink:

"Not matter"

[Maksutov]

First, Mentock's mixing in of religious and philosophical terminology is inappropriate to such a discussion.

Maddox started it.

Not matter how hard practitioners of those two fields (especially the former) attempt to dilute science through claims of equivalence, they're wrong. There's no room in science for "true believers" or "philosophers".

I did not say they were equivalent. Just ask soupdragon.

Of course there is room in science for philosophers. Mach's work was often as much philosophical as not. And Einstein's remarkable results proceded from that philosophy, shaped by his own philosophy. Philosophy does not dilute science, it augments it.

Another thing that destroys his argument is the significant difference between scientific criticism and the wild speculations of the antiscientists. This is similar to the difference between having your calculus assignment graded by a person with a Ph.D. in mathematics and by someone who can't add 1 + 1.

Unfortunately, it's a continuum. There is no sharp and well-defined dividing line like that. There may be a significant difference between one endpoint and the other, but in between, the difference is subtle.

Folks all along the continuum try to insist that their foes are on the wrong side of that dividing line, while their foes do the same thing, instead of addressing the issues. That's the key.

coincidence?

Nope.

BTW, what's "anitscience"? A field for the antiscience nit pickers? :wink:

"Not matter"

So Nancy Lieder, Richard Hoagland, and Richard Feynman are part of the same continuum? Right!

Wrong! That "continuum" statement throws the content of your post into such a light that there's really nothing left to comment on.

Except for, I left "Not matter" in there to give you something to do that you apparently consider useful. Why do you think I ended my reply with the phrase "nit pickers"? Your correction is the one part of your post that stands to reason. The rest? Too close to metaphysics for comfort.

WORF
Sir, I'm getting very strange reports from all decks --

PICARD
Such as?

WORF
Such as the ship's training division ordering all officers to attend a lecture on metaphysics.

PICARD
Metaphysics?

DATA
Confirmed, sir. And there is a rather peculiar limerick being delivered by someone in the shuttlecraft bay. I am not sure I understand it...
(quoting)
There was a young lady from Venus...

[David Carroll]

While compiling our list of antiscientists let's not forget those embarrassments to the progressive movement, the anarcho/socialist/enviro/animal rights crowd who use biotech and biomedical research as the whipping boys for their causes against animal "abusers" and "evil" corporations.

[beskeptical]

While compiling our list of antiscientists let's not forget those embarrassments to the progressive movement, the anarcho/socialist/enviro/animal rights crowd who use biotech and bimedical research as the whipping boys for their causes against animal "abusers" and "evil" corporations.

Hear hear!! But I can't say as much as I'd like to without getting political.

I am getting very annoyed at the bizaro crowd hijacking the left wing political movement just as the evangelical extremists are hijacking the right. I see I'm not the only one to notice.

Air America, (Progressive talk radio), has had numerous nonsense programs on like the mercury in your fillings causes Alzheimer's because some chemistry professor believes it. :roll:

They have ad after ad for homeopathy and other not evidence based medicine. One that lately has been annoying me is the one claiming, "You don't get a headache from a Tylenol deficiency". Aarrrgghh!!! No and Tylenol doesn't treat a deficiency. It teaches bad logic and bad medicine all in one. Definitely anti-science.

So I guess my first comment was off. I do think these guys are anti-science, just in a different style than the anti-science religious movement that is more direct about their disdain for science.

[A Thousand Pardons]

So Nancy Lieder, Richard Hoagland, and Richard Feynman are part of the same continuum? Right!

A continuum goes from one extreme to another, and even beyond.

Wrong! That "continuum" statement throws the content of your post into such a light that there's really nothing left to comment on.

I didn't mention Lieder or Feynman. But they probably would be close to the extremes, about as far aprat as you can get. That's no implication on Feynman, no more than just using the names in the same sentence.

There are people who are lesser scientists than Feynman, and people who are lesser whatevers than Lieder. And it's not even linear. There are seemingly perfectly rational people who suddenly get bent out of shape, to various degrees. It happens. It's a continuum, it's not a matter of discrete types. It's not a matter of one side versus the other side. I wish it were.

[Celestial Mechanic]

[Snip!]Air America, (Progressive talk radio), has had numerous nonsense programs on like the mercury in your fillings causes Alzheimer's because some chemistry professor believes it. :roll:

They have ad after ad for homeopathy and other not evidence based medicine. One that lately has been annoying me is the one claiming, "You don't get a headache from a Tylenol deficiency". Aarrrgghh!!! No and Tylenol doesn't treat a deficiency. It teaches bad logic and bad medicine all in one. Definitely anti-science.[Snip!]

I live in one of the metropolitan areas that does not have an Air America affiliate, so i haven't heard this. Problem is, if that's all they can get to pay the bills ...

I'll have to tune in to Rush Limbaugh for a bit of "Hate Radio" and see what nostrums they're advertising there. I mainly remember Garlique, but I'm sure there are others. I generally don't listen much to Rush anymore, he stopped being entertaining a good 7 or 8 years ago. I only tune in once in a while to see what is knotting the undergarments of reactionary America. Oh how I long for Imus in the Morning!

[Grey]

...no more than just using the names in the same sentence.

This is completely off-topic, but I'm reminded of a time years ago, when a friend made a statement about Madonna and Bach in the same sentence. I no longer recall what the statement was, but I remember that he carefully exhaled and then inhaled in the middle of the sentence, between saying their names, just to make sure that he wasn't mentioning them in the same breath.