On the web: science education and the presidential candidates

My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

Don't expect any surprises from Rick Santorum as he wrote the forward to Phillip Johnson's book "Darwin's Nemesis."

bio.jones said: Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.?
If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think.
if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people.
I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions.

If it doesn't matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it.
Thats the only question.

A line of reasoning.

Robert Byers said: Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions. If it doesn't matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question. A line of reasoning.

mplavcan said:

Robert Byers said: Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions. If it doesn't matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question. A line of reasoning.

Not a very good one. Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law, in this case as embodied by the US Constitution. If the majority of citizens wish to deny equal rights to African-Americans, they cannot. If the majority want to establish a religion, they cannot. If the majority want to ban freedom of assembly, they cannot. Sadly for you (and lucky for everyone), science is not decided by public opinion polls.

Byers is illustrating an important notion here. He sees science and politics as being just like religions, where what is "true" depends on what most people think or believe is true. He sees creationism being presented as science not as a matter of whether it IS science, but as a matter of the political interests of a powerful constituency.

Neither politics nor religion, both unlike science, can appeal to physical reality to arbitrate disputes. Politics is about accommodating competing interests and creationism is about achieving power, and both of these are PR battles where facts really don't matter. Power battles aren't about about scientific facts, but rather about funding facts, organizational facts, voter preference facts.

And as creationists seem more acutely aware than scientists generally, political power easily trumps science - in determining curricula, in granting research money (and in prohibiting research that's religiously sensitivie), in swaying the voters who ultimately are responsible for electing representatives, getting judges elected or appointed, and so on.

So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

Flint said: So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

DavidK said: True, science is not decided by public opinion, but what is taught can be subverted by school boards and politicians who could care less about science but more about the votes they can garner from the masses who know nothing of science, nor do they care, for their religion takes precedence over science in their minds.

Mike Elzinga said:

Flint said: So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

As I said on some other thread a couple of years ago, there is a hidden danger in a society whose food and resource distribution mechanisms are so efficient that they can support a large population regardless of whether any of them are in touch with reality. It allows huge numbers of people to be sheltered from the consequences of beliefs and behaviors that have nothing to do with reality. And if they become a voting majority, that society crashes.

Flint said: I suggest that this danger is hidden because for practical purpose it's not there. Deliberate ignorance is annoying, of course. But if I had the power to make the US more competitive internationally, this would be far from the top of my list.

Mike Elzinga said: I would suggest that it is there; and it showed up in the Greek civilization when the primary criterion for “citizenship” rather than slavery was the ability to “philosophize” and contemplate ideals and deities. Many of the ruthless methods for ruling and keeping a hoard of slaves to support the “citizens” can be found even in Plato. The Greeks, and later the Romans, invented religions for the “masses.” I would also suggest that much of what has happened since the industrial revolution has been the result of building that efficient food and resource distribution system and that the US has been damned lucky to have had relative isolation from the conflicts in Europe as well as plentiful resources that allowed independence. Now we are “up against it” in our competition with the rest of the world and with a global population now passing seven billions. Reality is going to really count from now on. Sectarian fanaticism from any religious quarters will simply compound the disruption. A cynical perspective is that some of the worst sectarian religions would best be used to “keep people in line.” Historically that has not worked in the long haul; people catch on; but only after the damage has been done.

Flint said: Maybe we're talking about different things. I just don't see ignorance about evolution, or even rejection of "macro" evolution, presenting all that much of a danger. So I tried to make two points: 1) Rejecting long-term evolution is at best highly marginal in terms of national overall capability; and 2) Such rejection does NOT render one broadly or even specifically incompetent in nearly every field where competence matters in any technological or economic way. I worked for years with people who, unknown to me, were "sectarian fanatics". They were also excellent engineers, rigorous and creative and skilled. And what we did was engineering. So you keep talking about all this damage, and about social crashes, but I just don't see the link. If their rejection of evolution or of an old earth hadn't come up in casual conversation, I'd never have suspected. It's not all that broadly relevant, you know?

Richard B. Hoppe said: My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

Richard B. Hoppe said: My tolerance for [Uber-Troll] has officially reached zero.

My greater concerns lie with that far Right Wing fanaticism that seems to embrace not only anti-evolution, but denies the global environmental damage by humans, undermines objective, scientific evidence, and panders to proud, truculent ignorance.

Some older observations about the evolution/creation positions of the current candidates can be found at the Common Descent blog. Go to the June index on the right side, the blogger has multiple posts on the various candidates. (I am neither affiliated with or know that blogger, I found it via googling.)

eric said: Some older observations about the evolution/creation positions of the current candidates can be found at the Common Descent blog. Go to the June index on the right side, the blogger has multiple posts on the various candidates. (I am neither affiliated with or know that blogger, I found it via googling.)

In a 2006 interview, Newt said this when asked if evolution was true: "Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving." In other public appearances Newt has said that evolution appears to be true but that it doesn't rule out a creative process. It appears that Gingrich does believe in evolution but doesn't want to alienate the religious right. At least we can be sure he's not a young earth creationist, as he has mentioned dinosaurs and deep geological time on several occasions.

Public schools are largely secular institutions. I would expect my kids in science class to be instructed in those things that are somewhat quantifiable and based on thorough and rigorous empirical research. If [design] comes up in sociology or philosophy as differing views on creation, I think that's appropriate," Huntsman said. "But that doesn't happen until college or maybe later in high school.

My greater concerns lie with that far Right Wing fanaticism that seems to embrace not only anti-evolution, but denies the global environmental damage by humans, undermines objective, scientific evidence, and panders to proud, truculent ignorance. They don’t stop at just cutting people off from access to vital information; they actually nourish the mental frame-of-mind that rejects all of objective reality by demonizing anyone who goes out and checks claims against reality. And when the sex lives of flashy, narcissistic celebrities becomes the primary “information” that people in the majority crave, we can expect another Nero fiddling while civilization crumbles.

Opposition to the idea of AGW isn’t arbitrary, but rather based on the conviction that the necessarily highly politicized responses threaten to cause more harm than the warming does! And this isn’t unreasonable.

The Byers troll has made an interesting comment, though not for the reasons it thinks: As bad as representative democracy is, direct democracy is worse.

dalehusband said:

Richard B. Hoppe said: My tolerance for Atheistoclast has officially reached zero.

What took you so long? He's been lying constantly ever since he first came here!

harold said:

bio.jones said: Jon Huntsman actually threatened to veto an anti-evolution bill when he was governor. The bill had already passed through the state senate, but after the threat of veto it was shot down.

I admit that I wouldn't likely have voted for him anyway, but Huntsman is articulate and intelligent, capable of broad appeal, and apparently quite honest by US political standards. To any sane person, he's a far higher quality candidate than Romney or Gingrich, and a comparison with the likes of Cain, Bachmann, or Santorum is just insulting. (This is not intended as a complement to Romney or Gingrich; they are simply more competent at being right wing demagogues than the others.) But Huntsman is not even being considered, and you can be fairly sure that his failure to deny scientific reality is a major reason why. You can look forward to both Romney and Gingrich, neither of whose religion officially denies evolution, dissembling desperately in an effort to pander to creationists.

mplavcan said:

Robert Byers said: Do these candidates know more then anyone else about the contentions on the teaching of origin subjects.? If it matters what people in power think then it must matter what the people think who put them in power think. if it matters what the people think then it should be up to the people. I understand some 70% agree with equal time for creationism and some half agree with kinds of creationism in their opinions. If it doesn't matter what the people think then it could only matter what people in power think if they continue the present school censorship or end it. Thats the only question. A line of reasoning.

Not a very good one. Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law, in this case as embodied by the US Constitution. If the majority of citizens wish to deny equal rights to African-Americans, they cannot. If the majority want to establish a religion, they cannot. If the majority want to ban freedom of assembly, they cannot. Sadly for you (and lucky for everyone), science is not decided by public opinion polls.

Robert Byers said:

mplavcan said: Democracy, as practiced in the US, is based on representatives whom the citizenry elect to represent them and make responsible decisions that reflect both the will of the people and the duty of government to institute policies in the best interest of the public. It often results in a compromise between conflicting interests. It also reflects the Rule of Law...

If it comes back only to the rule of law then it doesn't matter what candidates think. Save to preserve or overthrow the law.

Flint said: Maybe the world would be a much better place if everyone were like you. But even so, we don't live in the parody world of The Marching Morons.

Flint said: Byers is illustrating an important notion here. He sees science and politics as being just like religions, where what is "true" depends on what most people think or believe is true. He sees creationism being presented as science not as a matter of whether it IS science, but as a matter of the political interests of a powerful constituency. Neither politics nor religion, both unlike science, can appeal to physical reality to arbitrate disputes. Politics is about accommodating competing interests and creationism is about achieving power, and both of these are PR battles where facts really don't matter. Power battles aren't about about scientific facts, but rather about funding facts, organizational facts, voter preference facts. And as creationists seem more acutely aware than scientists generally, political power easily trumps science - in determining curricula, in granting research money (and in prohibiting research that's religiously sensitivie), in swaying the voters who ultimately are responsible for electing representatives, getting judges elected or appointed, and so on. So for every individual court case creationists lose, they win a million home-schooled force-fed victims. All of whom grow up to be voters.

Matt Young said: The Byers troll has made an interesting comment, though not for the reasons it thinks: As bad as representative democracy is, direct democracy is worse.

Robert Byers said: If the people don't decide then a few people do. If a few people do then it could be anyone.

(troll?! Why?!) I think I say excellent points for creationism.

harold said:

Opposition to the idea of AGW isn’t arbitrary, but rather based on the conviction that the necessarily highly politicized responses threaten to cause more harm than the warming does! And this isn’t unreasonable.

Yes it is, it's absurdly unreasonable and dishonest. I'm absolutely shocked that you would suggest otherwise.

The reasonable, ethical thing to do would be to acknowledge the evidence and the range of logical conclusions, and then make a case, within the context of honest acknowledgement of the evidence, for a different preferred response.

(In fact, the behavior you refer to as "not unreasonable" strongly suggests that at some level, the denialists secretly concede that some sort of response that may be short term inconvenient to them is actually justified by the data. Otherwise, why panic and deny the evidence, or its logical interpretation?

It would be far more convincing to say "I agree that this evidence indicates X, but here is the course of action I recommend" than to say "I deny the evidence". Unless, of course, the action you recommend is so at odds with any ethical or pragmatic response to the evidence that it won't be considered, unless you deny the evidence.)

For anyone with any training in science, engineering, or even a general university level education to treat objective reality as if it were a subjective preference is insincere and dishonest.

Robert Byers said: However in a free nation the people must be the ones to decide these issues in mutually held institutions.

You don't have to wait for climate change to see real world effects of the anti-science fervor sweeping the country. In my neck of the woods, for the last 10 years religious exemptions for mandatory vaccinations for public schools and day care centers have been growing steadily. As a result, the pertussis rate, in particular, has skyrocketed. Another example of the social cost of religious privilege.

Seeing both currents of denialism converge and gain strength under a single party's political banner over the last few years has been like watching half of the US turn away from reason itself because it didn't align with their preferred set of sound bite-driven platitudes. It didn't have to be this way. The reason Stephen Colbert can quip about reality's "well-known liberal bias" is because in important issues the political right is moving further away from reality. The political climate has made accepting well-vetted scientific findings in certain areas a complete anathema to electability.

I learned a lot about science itself when I was exposed to the manufactroversy over evolution and Creationism. Years of absorbing knowledge and watching exchanges between scientists and anti-evolutionists was tremendously fascinating and educational for me. Familiarizing myself with real science and the anti-science tactics used by evolution deniers has stood me in good stead when it came to evaluating the merits of mainstream climate science and the rhetoric of denialists. That there is much overlap between the two denialist sets has been sadly unsurprising, as they often require the same kinds of fallacies to be accepted.

As an example of the overlapping requirements for climate and evolution denialism, I offer not a politician, but in fact a real live climate scientist. Roy Spencer is one of the two principal researchers behind the development of the University of Alabama Huntsville lower troposphere temperature record, gleaned from a network of satellites that interpret the signals of radiant energy coming through the atmosphere and out into space. For years he's been a very capable scientist and has many peer-reviewed publications under his belt. But lately he's been diverging away from the climate science mainstream by suggesting that some key forcings have been misunderstood widely by his colleagues, mostly related to clouds. He firmly believes that they have the relationship between cloud cover and climate trends backwards. He believes that climate sensitivity to increasing greenhouse gases is extraordinarily low, and so anthropogenic GHG emissions can't be driving the current warming trend anywhere near the extent it's commonly accepted to by his peers, and that warming won't be a problem for the future. Well, that's all well and good, right? Disagreements are a fact of life even (especially!) in the sciences.

But rather than work through the issue in the peer-reviewed literature, the bulk of his efforts have been spent in convincing the public of his side through his blog and books, largely not engaging the rest of the climate scientists. It's not that he hasn't tried period, but sometimes his papers are rejected; he's convinced that this is due to a real conspiracy against him by a small cabal of "alarmists," to keep his work out of the literature and keep dissenting opinions from circulating. Not unlike attempts by anti-evolutionists to smear the scientific establishment and accuse them of being censorious gatekeepers, rejecting any paper that criticizes evolution. For the last few years he has intentionally avoided submitting his work to rigorously peer-reviewed outlets in favor of a faster-turnaround, refereed Letters-type journal, because of his imagined conspiracy. We see a similar retreat from peer-review when researchers adopt an anti-evolution mindset.

Other troubling signs of losing his grip on scientific methods include a diminishing willingness to criticize his own ideas. He apparently ranks his own expertise very highly, to the point that the introduction to his popular book included musings that either he is smarter than all of the rest of his peers, or they must be dishonestly avoiding the conclusions he has reached (he favors the latter). He did not mention that he could simply be mistaken. He's been fond of criticizing climate models because he believes them to be largely exercised as curve-fitting without real physical merit, but that didn't stop him from attempting to create a simple model which turned out to be an exercise in curve-fitting without real physical merit. Despite several deep criticisms of his approach, he continued to develop the model in all the wrong ways. (When a paper based on an earlier model was held up in review, and then not given much attention immediately afterwards, he took it as evidence that his message was being censored and suppressed instead of any kind of issue over the paper's validity). How many times have Dembski, Sewell, Behe, and so on. pushed papers that they claimed demonstrated evolution as impossible and Design a superior explanation by using a bogus model of information, complex systems, 2LoT, etc.? Even after being called out over the fatal flaws, they either dismiss the criticisms or attempt to "fix" the model by changing something other than what was criticized?

When anti-evolutionists want to publish a paper in a peer-reviewed venue, they often choose journals with weak reviews, friendly editors, or even inappropriate expertise. Sewell's papers about evolution and 2LoT were arguably such subversion of peer-review. Spencer's last peer-reviewed paper (Spencer and Braswell 2011) was published in the small, young journal Remote Sensing. Immediately after it came out, Spencer penned a press release that lied about what the paper contained and this misleading picture was quickly picked up by certain politically-aligned elements of the media with wildly misleading headlines and coverage. This prompted the Editor-in-Chief of the journal to investigate the matter and what he found was such flagrant abuse of the review system that he resigned almost immediately, leaving a damning account of the peer-review failure (prompting Spencer to claim that he was really forced out by IPCC conspirators). The paper has since been disemboweled with a peer-reviewed response (PDF) and by heavy scrutiny on scientist-run blogs. The whole thing was disaster; the paper's arguments were not strong, didn't support the claims Spencer had made to the press, it was revealed that data used in the study contradicted their findings, and so on. The whole thing was different from peer-review subversion by anti-evolutionists only in the amount of public attention it received. Spencer still maintains that the EiC was 'Expelled' as it were, and that there is no problem with the paper.

Where the overlap becomes most obvious in Spencer is that he has become an outspoken endorser of Creationism over evolution. He's lent his reputation as a scientist to the claim that a Special Creation account is more scientific than evolution. Granted, it's not uncommon for a scientist in one field to be deeply wrong about the state of a totally different field, however most don't pin their credibility as practitioners of science to such opinions as blatantly as Spencer has. Taking this even further into the realm of anti-science, Spencer is a member of the Cornwall Alliance, a religious organization that holds as its central belief the idea that God wouldn't create a world so fragile that humans could seriously muck it up. He has signed their Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming which outlines the faith-based nature of their conviction that recent warming is not us, and is nothing to worry about. This is tantamount to admitting that his stance on anthropogenic global warming is now a matter of religious faith, not a properly scientific view with all the tentativeness and provisional nature that implies.

So in Spencer we have the following: A) belief in a conspiracy to suppress his dissenting opinion and censor the literature to align with their agenda, B) distancing his work from peer-review, C) an overriding uncritical belief in his own abilities such that him being correct and everyone else being wrong doesn't raise a warning flag, D) an inability to distinguish between legitimate science and pseudoscience despite claiming to have looked into the matter dutifully and using his expertise as a practicing scientist, E) a religious Statement of Faith revealing that he has abandoned proper scientific skepticism. The overlap between AGW denialism and evolution denialism has never been so well embodied. The same kinds of misconceptions and shortcomings that are needed for one to accept the cdesign proponentsists' narrative now seem to be compromising Spencer's performance in his own area of expertise. This is clear evidence that anti-evolutionism is anti-science, period. One doesn't need a political platform to draw these denialist currents together, but as we can see it certainly does help.

Sorry for the length and links, but I believe in being thorough when making this kind of case against a person.

The reasonable, ethical thing to do would be to acknowledge the evidence and the range of logical conclusions, and then make a case, within the context of honest acknowledgement of the evidence, for a different preferred response.

Uh, no kidding? You mean that? Golly.

Opposition to the idea of AGW isn’t arbitrary, but rather based on the conviction that the necessarily highly politicized responses threaten to cause more harm than the warming does! And this isn’t unreasonable.

Yes it is, it’s absurdly unreasonable and dishonest. I’m absolutely shocked that you would suggest otherwise.

You continue with the kneejerk response. The claim here is NOT that AGW is not real. People are worried that current models will go into the political process, and self-serving ineffective expensive unstoppable “waste more money in MY district” policies will emerge out the other end. And once again, I consider this a real danger. AGW results from global population increase (and try to stop that!), combined with global demand for power (and try to stop that!), at a time when such power is only available from fossil fuels (and try to stop that!) And already, we’re looking at a political solution...

Political realities are nonetheless real. Sticking your head in the sand and not only pretending they don’t happen, but that anyone who has watched the process and understands what it does and why is “unreasonable and dishonest” is, uh, unreasonable and dishonest. Physician heal thyself.

ksplawn said: Seeing both currents of denialism converge and gain strength under a single party's political banner over the last few years has been like watching half of the US turn away from reason itself because it didn't align with their preferred set of sound bite-driven platitudes. It didn't have to be this way. The reason Stephen Colbert can quip about reality's "well-known liberal bias" is because in important issues the political right is moving further away from reality. The political climate has made accepting well-vetted scientific findings in certain areas a complete anathema to electability.

John said:

ksplawn said: Seeing both currents of denialism converge and gain strength under a single party's political banner over the last few years has been like watching half of the US turn away from reason itself because it didn't align with their preferred set of sound bite-driven platitudes. It didn't have to be this way. The reason Stephen Colbert can quip about reality's "well-known liberal bias" is because in important issues the political right is moving further away from reality. The political climate has made accepting well-vetted scientific findings in certain areas a complete anathema to electability.

That's exactly why Huntsman has warned our fellow Republicans about the strength of anti-science bias within our party and why it needs to be challenged. I am surprised no one has yet mentioned Shawn Otto's excellent "Fool Me Twice" - I am in the midst of writing an excellent review of it that will be posted at Amazon - or his organization Science Debate, whose founders include Charles Darwin's great-great-grandson, filmmaker and author Matthew Chapman: http://www.sciencedebate.org/ Lastly, ksplawn, thanks for the links. Occasionally we need the reminders.

Why? Some observers might be tempted to blame this paradox on the rise of the religious right: while the craft of science might be respected, its conclusions are not. Others point to powerful commercial concerns (such as oil companies), who have a vested interest in twisting debate, and attacking science they dislike. Another line of thinking blames the polarisation of the media and political class: when there is an emphasis on partisan shrieking, there is less room for reasoned debate.

But Otto of Science Debate likes to blame another factor: the impact of social sciences. Since the 1960s, he argues, society has been marked by a growing sense of cultural relativism, epitomised by anthropology. And as post-modernist ideas spread, this has undermined the demand for scientific evidence. Today, any idea can be promoted as worthy, irrespective of facts – and tolerated in the name of “fairness”.

In my neck of the woods, for the last 10 years religious exemptions for mandatory vaccinations for public schools and day care centers have been growing steadily. As a result, the pertussis rate, in particular, has skyrocketed. Another example of the social cost of religious privilege.

harold said:

But Otto of Science Debate likes to blame another factor: the impact of social sciences. Since the 1960s, he argues, society has been marked by a growing sense of cultural relativism, epitomised by anthropology. And as post-modernist ideas spread, this has undermined the demand for scientific evidence. Today, any idea can be promoted as worthy, irrespective of facts – and tolerated in the name of “fairness”.

Well, that's a testable hypothesis. If Otto's hypothesis is true, efforts to preach creationism in public schools, global warming denial, vaccine denial, HIV denial, etc, should be coming predominantly from academic social sciences departments. (Post-modern theorizing can be annoying. My personal way of dealing with it is to agree that empiricism is just another "way of knowing". I happen to make the assumptions that my senses can accurately detect a real universe, that other humans exist and their senses detect the same universe, and that the intuitively credible/well-formalized system of thought that we call "logic" is valid. If you choose to make other assumptions, knock yourself out. If you claim to make other assumptions, but take the stairs or elevator down from the tenth floor, rather than saving time by jumping out the window, I suspect that you secretly make the same assumptions that I do.) For all the irritation they provoke, philosophers and social scientists in general have a strong track record of defending the teaching of science and opposing religious authoritarianism and self-serving science denial, not the other way around. Let's not confuse annoying but to some degree healthy intellectual challenge with crass political propaganda.

John said:

harold said:

But Otto of Science Debate likes to blame another factor: the impact of social sciences. Since the 1960s, he argues, society has been marked by a growing sense of cultural relativism, epitomised by anthropology. And as post-modernist ideas spread, this has undermined the demand for scientific evidence. Today, any idea can be promoted as worthy, irrespective of facts – and tolerated in the name of “fairness”.

Well, that's a testable hypothesis. If Otto's hypothesis is true, efforts to preach creationism in public schools, global warming denial, vaccine denial, HIV denial, etc, should be coming predominantly from academic social sciences departments. (Post-modern theorizing can be annoying. My personal way of dealing with it is to agree that empiricism is just another "way of knowing". I happen to make the assumptions that my senses can accurately detect a real universe, that other humans exist and their senses detect the same universe, and that the intuitively credible/well-formalized system of thought that we call "logic" is valid. If you choose to make other assumptions, knock yourself out. If you claim to make other assumptions, but take the stairs or elevator down from the tenth floor, rather than saving time by jumping out the window, I suspect that you secretly make the same assumptions that I do.) For all the irritation they provoke, philosophers and social scientists in general have a strong track record of defending the teaching of science and opposing religious authoritarianism and self-serving science denial, not the other way around. Let's not confuse annoying but to some degree healthy intellectual challenge with crass political propaganda.

Paul R. Gross - himself a fellow Conservative - co-author of "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design" does blame post-modernist thinking on relativism. So does Ken Miller in Ken's "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul".

Shawn Otto does demonstrate - and more convincingly than Ken IMHO - that the “new creationists” - Intelligent Design creationists - are borrowing post-modern thought in their thinking, and that is indicative of their relatively new desire to “teach the controversy”.

harold said:

Shawn Otto does demonstrate - and more convincingly than Ken IMHO - that the “new creationists” - Intelligent Design creationists - are borrowing post-modern thought in their thinking, and that is indicative of their relatively new desire to “teach the controversy”.

If that's his point I strongly agree with it, and it's most ironic that a position designed to pander to fundamentalists does indeed borrow such language. I just wanted to clarify that the academic social sciences and liberal arts communities are not strongly associated with direct political assaults on science. In fact, some such academics, such as Barbara Forrest, are strong supporters of science. That ID creationists borrow memes from post-modern thought is undeniable. In fact, I've often noted that contemporary "fundamentalism" is very post-modern, strongly rejecting the old Christian ideals of humility, discipline, and concern for others in favor of a cult of narcissistic wish fulfillment and harsh bigotry.

Am sorry to disappoint you Harold, but Ken Miller in “Only A Theory” did hint that postmodernist Leftist thought is at odds with science, and this is more so the case in Shawn Otto’s “Fool Me Twice”, in which he cites an early book of Paul R. Gross’ (with Norman Levitt) “Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science”.

harold said:

Am sorry to disappoint you Harold, but Ken Miller in “Only A Theory” did hint that postmodernist Leftist thought is at odds with science, and this is more so the case in Shawn Otto’s “Fool Me Twice”, in which he cites an early book of Paul R. Gross’ (with Norman Levitt) “Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science”.

It is impossible for us to agree here - lord knows, I tried - but for the sake of third party readers I will make one final clarifying comment. Those arguments above arguments from authority, and not very accurate summaries of the given authorities. Unfortunately, you are denying empirical reality because of your emotional biases. You are a conservative, but support science, so you wish that some type of "liberals" or "leftists" were behind major science denial in the US. Here, your argument is that, since creationists appropriate language from social sciences/liberal arts, "academic leftists" are a major source of political anti-science activity. This is somewhat akin to arguing that since creationists appropriate language from mathematics and information science, mathematicians are a a major source of political anti-science activity. If this were empirically true, I would agree and condemn the situation, but it isn't empirically true. 1) This thread overall is discussing science denial among Republican presidential candidates. 2) AGW denial is almost exclusively expressed in right wing venues or by right wing commenters. It has become a required stance and a defining stance for many on the right. 3) HIV denialism has strong right wing and homophobic overtones, and is concentrated on the religious right. 4) False statements about the health effects of contraception are almost exclusively associated with the religious right. 5) Vaccine denialism has, ludicrously, been advanced as a type of "liberal" science denial; in fact, it is found across the political spectrum and was endorsed by Michelle Bachman. 6) Astrology, UFO abduction fantasies, pyramidology, kabbalah, etc, are neither associated strongly with "liberals", "progressives", or "the left" (for example, one of the right wing authoritarians who posts here is an advocate of druidism), nor associated with direct political science denial, either. For whatever reason, it's overwhelmingly a right wing problem. Not a "conservative" problem by any sane standard of what "conservative" should mean. A right wing problem.

I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design".

For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design").

Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

SLC said:

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

Mr. Harold's claim that anti-vaccination nuttiness is found across the political spectrum has been amply demonstrated by Dr. David Gorski who blogs under the pseudonym Orac over at the Scienceblogs site. Dr. Gorski is no liberal Democrat by his own admission and has been blogging about the anti-vaccination movement for many years.

harold said:

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

One final message to clear up any confusion than anyone else may have. 1) I am not endorsing post-modern theorizing in the liberal arts/social sciences. In fact I think much or most of it is ridiculous (with the caveat that I have little interest in or knowledge of the fields). The point I am making is that the specific individuals who are employed as post-modern theorizing academics are not, as a group, associated with political attacks on science. And if they were, the way to prove me wrong would be to show evidence of such events as cultural anthropology professors running for school board as ID/creationists, post-modern philosophers submitting global warming denial pieces to the media, social construct theorists agitating against universal vaccination, etc. 2) Many, many people who self-identify as conservatives are strong defenders of good science. No-one here has ever denied that. 3) As noted above, vaccine denial is by no means associated with the Democratic party or "liberals" as a group.

Just to get the thread back on Republican presidential candidates, three of them, Gingrich, Huntsman and Romney have indicated their strong suppot of biological evolution in the past; what is a bit more problematic is their "song and dance" routines with regards to anthropogenic global warming. Needless to say, as a registered Republican voter, those are the only three potential candidates whom I would vote for if any became our party's Presidential nominee. Under no circumstances could I ever imagine myself voting for Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.

Gingrich? He used to claim he supported science but that was then, this is now. On September 29th, at a campaign event in Iowa, Gingrich mocked anyone who accepts evolution by asking, “do you think we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?”

Romney was vocal about evolution before the 2008 election but has been very silent this time around. Who knows which way he will flip or flop since he's scared to death of offending the tea partiers. On climate change he questions the science behind it. Last month he said, “Do I think the world’s getting hotter? Yeah, I don’t know that, but I think that it is. I don’t know if it’s mostly caused by humans.”

Huntsman, of course, is the lone voice of reason on science. Which is a big part of why he has zero chance of getting the nomination.

Michele Bachman has said that to exclude ID in schools amounted to government censorship. I strongly agree, if she had a semblance of the facts correct. ID is not excluded from schools, it is excluded from the science class; go read about it in the library, or have it expounded upon in Social Science, or Religious Studies classes. She said this in Des Moisne, to a crowd of, oh, I don't know, paranoid, 'the gov'ment's out to getya' trilobytes? She also said that religion helped inform her opinion of science. Now if the average listener does not make the connection between, religious conservative, Republican, AGWDenialist, (closet, quiet, 'don't ask don't tell'-rascist)and plain and simple loon, then the average listener is considerably below average, by all measures.
Sorry John, your lot basically destroy science at all levels. From denying NASA, to denying AGW, to denying evolution etc, etc,etc, you contribute little and deny, a hell of a lot.

tomh said: Gingrich? He used to claim he supported science but that was then, this is now. On September 29th, at a campaign event in Iowa, Gingrich mocked anyone who accepts evolution by asking, “do you think we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?”

harold said: 3) As noted above, vaccine denial is by no means associated with the Democratic party or "liberals" as a group.

Reminder: the interview takes place today, 11:30 EST, or about 3 and a bit hours from now.

1) Am sorry harold, but I am exasperated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I AM CITING SHAWN OTTO’s work? That he concurs with an opinion first stated eloquently by Paul Gross in the book he co-authored with Ned Levitt.

harold said: John said -

1) Am sorry harold, but I am exasperated. DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT I AM CITING SHAWN OTTO’s work? That he concurs with an opinion first stated eloquently by Paul Gross in the book he co-authored with Ned Levitt.

Actually, "Fool Me Twice" by Shawn Otto contains a chapter, beginning on page 132, entitled "Post-Modernism and the Scientific Right", which aptly describes the appropriation of post-modern argumentation strategies by right wing science denialits, when it so suits them. While other nations, such as the former Soviet Union, have a substantial history of authoritarian, economically collectivist politicians denying science, historically and presently, that has not been the problem in the US. Since the days of denial of the association of cigarette smoking with health problems - and by the way, the political right is still working to block public education about the health effects of cigarettes http://consortiumnews.com/2011/11/09/who-is-judge-richard-leon/ - relevant political science denial has come from right. That's been true on tobacco, creationism in schools, AGW denial, false statements about medical science by opponents of contraception, stem cell research restrictions, and now, thanks to Bachmann, it's even true that the most prominent political attack on universal vaccination has come from the right. I oppose ALL political denial or distortion of scientific reality and would never defend it, apologize for it, or dissemble about where it was coming from. No-one is anywhere near perfect, across the political spectrum, but the main thrust of science denial is from the mainstream Fox News/Limbaugh/Tea Party/Republican Party right wing. This is not remotely the same thing as saying that all "conservatives" engage in science denial. However, the annoying fact for conservatives is, neither the Democratic party, the Green party, nor independent progressive politicians are anywhere near as strongly and systematically associated with science denial as the political right is. (As an aside, the Democratic party is quite conservative by sane standards, and claims that Democrats are "Marxists" or the like, while arguably subjective, border on denial of reality as well.)

John said:

SLC said:

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

Mr. Harold's claim that anti-vaccination nuttiness is found across the political spectrum has been amply demonstrated by Dr. David Gorski who blogs under the pseudonym Orac over at the Scienceblogs site. Dr. Gorski is no liberal Democrat by his own admission and has been blogging about the anti-vaccination movement for many years.

Take that argument up with Shawn Otto, not me, since he wrote that. However, having said this, there is predominantly more of an anti vaccination movement among the Left than there is in the Right.

John said: Just to get the thread back on Republican presidential candidates, three of them, Gingrich, Huntsman and Romney have indicated their strong suppot of biological evolution in the past; what is a bit more problematic is their "song and dance" routines with regards to anthropogenic global warming. Needless to say, as a registered Republican voter, those are the only three potential candidates whom I would vote for if any became our party's Presidential nominee. Under no circumstances could I ever imagine myself voting for Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.

Gingrich, who used to support that position has apparently flip flopped and is now, if not a denier, a skeptic.

SLC -

That last comment may have been a bit obscure - to fully clarify, I agree with you about Gingrich but consider AGW "skeptics" to be denialists, not true skeptics.

harold said: Shawn Otto is worth reading.

SLC said:

John said:

SLC said:

John said: I hope you realize that the Paul Gross who condemned the Left's embrace of post-modernist thought as a means of being critical of science back in the early 1990s with his book co-authored with Norman Levitt, "Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science" IS THE Paul Gross who co-authored, with Barbara Forrest, "Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design". For some reason that is utterly inexplicable, you fail to realize that there are credible Conservatives like Paul Gross, Larry Arnhart (one of his books is entitled "Darwinian Conservatism" BTW) and Michael Shermer ("Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design"). Again, Otto has stressed the Left's peculiarly strong anti-science bias with the Anti-Vaccination Movement in his new book "Fool Me Twice". I'm saying this not to defend Bachmann - like you I utterly despise her - but I am noting what Otto has written, not what you think ought to have been published in his book.

Mr. Harold's claim that anti-vaccination nuttiness is found across the political spectrum has been amply demonstrated by Dr. David Gorski who blogs under the pseudonym Orac over at the Scienceblogs site. Dr. Gorski is no liberal Democrat by his own admission and has been blogging about the anti-vaccination movement for many years.

Take that argument up with Shawn Otto, not me, since he wrote that. However, having said this, there is predominantly more of an anti vaccination movement among the Left than there is in the Right.

I have no interest in Shawn Otto. Dr. Gorski has been studying the problem of anti-vax for years and his qualifications are at least equal to Mr. Otto's.

SLC said:

John said: Just to get the thread back on Republican presidential candidates, three of them, Gingrich, Huntsman and Romney have indicated their strong suppot of biological evolution in the past; what is a bit more problematic is their "song and dance" routines with regards to anthropogenic global warming. Needless to say, as a registered Republican voter, those are the only three potential candidates whom I would vote for if any became our party's Presidential nominee. Under no circumstances could I ever imagine myself voting for Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Rick Perry or Rick Santorum.

Excuse me, former Governor Huntsman has stated that he accepts the consensus of 95% of the climate scientists relative to global climate change. Gingrich, who used to support that position has apparently flip flopped and is now, if not a denier, a skeptic. As for Romney, his position on climate change is as variable as his position on many other issues. I suggest reading Ed Brayton's blog as Mr. Brayton greatly enjoys exposing Romney the weathervane.

John, one big difference, even though there are "those on the Left who are vaccine denialists", is that politicians on the left are not proudly declaring their disbelief on vaccine efficacy. Vaccine denial is not a part of liberal platforms, while (at least in Bachmann's case) it is. The same is true of other anti-science movements.

While there are Democrats and left-of-center people who deny evolution and AGW (and accept other kinds of woo as well), I would go so far as to say that you NEVER see these ideas as part of a Democratic platform or discussed favorably at Demo conventions. In contrast to that, these are not only ideas that are part of Repub platforms, but in some cases you'll probably be called a RINO if you don't subscribe to them. I would bet that, among your conservative peers, there are those that consider you (as a long time supporter of good science) to be something of a heretic.

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, one big difference, even though there are "those on the Left who are vaccine denialists", is that politicians on the left are not proudly declaring their disbelief on vaccine efficacy. Vaccine denial is not a part of liberal platforms, while (at least in Bachmann's case) it is. The same is true of other anti-science movements. While there are Democrats and left-of-center people who deny evolution and AGW (and accept other kinds of woo as well), I would go so far as to say that you NEVER see these ideas as part of a Democratic platform or discussed favorably at Demo conventions. In contrast to that, these are not only ideas that are part of Repub platforms, but in some cases you'll probably be called a RINO if you don't subscribe to them. I would bet that, among your conservative peers, there are those that consider you (as a long time supporter of good science) to be something of a heretic.

John, I wish it was semantics. The point that I think that most posters here are making is that the Right right now is infused at its highest levels with anti-science rhetoric, if for no other reason than to pander to an ignorant base. A Republican candidate who accepts scientific reality in all likelihood cannot be nominated (i.e. Huntsman), whereas a Democratic candidate will not be harmed, and in all likelihood, a Demo who denies scientific reality would not be nominated.

Sure, Jenny McCarthy is a well known anti-vaccer, but she is not a prominent Democratic figure, and in fact is probably regarded as a nut case by both sides. The same cannot be said of science deniers the other side of the aisle.

What you're doing here is basically saying, "well, there are some on the right that are anti-science, but there are those on the left too." That is technically true, but it is not fair, because it far more common on the right, and the attitudes are accepted on the right at the highest levels, where the same is not true on the left.

John said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, one big difference, even though there are "those on the Left who are vaccine denialists", is that politicians on the left are not proudly declaring their disbelief on vaccine efficacy. Vaccine denial is not a part of liberal platforms, while (at least in Bachmann's case) it is. The same is true of other anti-science movements. While there are Democrats and left-of-center people who deny evolution and AGW (and accept other kinds of woo as well), I would go so far as to say that you NEVER see these ideas as part of a Democratic platform or discussed favorably at Demo conventions. In contrast to that, these are not only ideas that are part of Repub platforms, but in some cases you'll probably be called a RINO if you don't subscribe to them. I would bet that, among your conservative peers, there are those that consider you (as a long time supporter of good science) to be something of a heretic.

I wouldn't quibble on semantics GvlGeologist, especially since Jenny McCarthy has been the Joan of Arc of the anti-vaccination movement. As for what my conservative peers, think, do you really think I care? If I did, I wouldn't have written a glowing 5 star Amazon review of Otto's book emphasizing that I, as a science-educated Conservative Republican, believe that this book should be read by fellow Conservatives and Republicans.

John said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, one big difference, even though there are "those on the Left who are vaccine denialists", is that politicians on the left are not proudly declaring their disbelief on vaccine efficacy. Vaccine denial is not a part of liberal platforms, while (at least in Bachmann's case) it is. The same is true of other anti-science movements. While there are Democrats and left-of-center people who deny evolution and AGW (and accept other kinds of woo as well), I would go so far as to say that you NEVER see these ideas as part of a Democratic platform or discussed favorably at Demo conventions. In contrast to that, these are not only ideas that are part of Repub platforms, but in some cases you'll probably be called a RINO if you don't subscribe to them. I would bet that, among your conservative peers, there are those that consider you (as a long time supporter of good science) to be something of a heretic.

I wouldn't quibble on semantics GvlGeologist, especially since Jenny McCarthy has been the Joan of Arc of the anti-vaccination movement. As for what my conservative peers, think, do you really think I care? If I did, I wouldn't have written a glowing 5 star Amazon review of Otto's book emphasizing that I, as a science-educated Conservative Republican, believe that this book should be read by fellow Conservatives and Republicans.

SLC said:

John said:

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, one big difference, even though there are "those on the Left who are vaccine denialists", is that politicians on the left are not proudly declaring their disbelief on vaccine efficacy. Vaccine denial is not a part of liberal platforms, while (at least in Bachmann's case) it is. The same is true of other anti-science movements. While there are Democrats and left-of-center people who deny evolution and AGW (and accept other kinds of woo as well), I would go so far as to say that you NEVER see these ideas as part of a Democratic platform or discussed favorably at Demo conventions. In contrast to that, these are not only ideas that are part of Repub platforms, but in some cases you'll probably be called a RINO if you don't subscribe to them. I would bet that, among your conservative peers, there are those that consider you (as a long time supporter of good science) to be something of a heretic.

I wouldn't quibble on semantics GvlGeologist, especially since Jenny McCarthy has been the Joan of Arc of the anti-vaccination movement. As for what my conservative peers, think, do you really think I care? If I did, I wouldn't have written a glowing 5 star Amazon review of Otto's book emphasizing that I, as a science-educated Conservative Republican, believe that this book should be read by fellow Conservatives and Republicans.

I think we have beaten this to death but as recently as August 22 of this year, former Governor Huntsman was pretty emphatic about climate change. Not much wobble there. http://www.grist.org/list/2011-08-22-jon-huntsman-speaks-out-on-climate-change

GvlGeologist, FCD said: John, I wish it was semantics. The point that I think that most posters here are making is that the Right right now is infused at its highest levels with anti-science rhetoric, if for no other reason than to pander to an ignorant base. A Republican candidate who accepts scientific reality in all likelihood cannot be nominated (i.e. Huntsman), whereas a Democratic candidate will not be harmed, and in all likelihood, a Demo who denies scientific reality would not be nominated. Sure, Jenny McCarthy is a well known anti-vaccer, but she is not a prominent Democratic figure, and in fact is probably regarded as a nut case by both sides. The same cannot be said of science deniers the other side of the aisle. What you're doing here is basically saying, "well, there are some on the right that are anti-science, but there are those on the left too." That is technically true, but it is not fair, because it far more common on the right, and the attitudes are accepted on the right at the highest levels, where the same is not true on the left.

John said: Jenny McCarthy has effectively taken the place of Democratic politicians with regards to her steadfast opposition to vaccination.

John said: Jenny McCarthy has effectively taken the place of Democratic politicians with regards to her steadfast opposition to vaccination.

Both you and tomh need to read Otto's book, please. Here's a relevant passage from pages 147 - 148 (from my Advanced Reading Copy, may be different in the officialy published text):

"The situation was greatly exacerbated when talk show hosts Oprah Winfrey and Larry King gave antivaccine advocate and former Playboy model Jenny McCarthy a platform on their shows, but included no scientists to balance her opinions with facts. McCarthy is like many of us - well meaning, passionate, and concerned for her child - but she has no background in science, and, with an a priori conclusion and a skepticism of science itself that impaired her ability to gain knowledge, she unintentionally did harm by promoting the nonexistent link. She was not alone. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., another nonscientist celebrity on the political left, authored a widely distributed, well-intentioned 2005 article in Rolling Stone and on Salon.com (since removed from the site), arguing that he was 'convinced that the link betweeh thimerosal and the epidemic of childhood neurological disorders is real.' In an age when truth is subjective, this sort of public prononuncement could seem reasonable."

This is merely one example in which Otto argues the pernicious effect of postmodernist thought on the Left's thinking with respect to scientific truth.

As an aside, Otto has seen - and is quite pleased - with my Amazon review of his book.

As usual, you leave logic and reason behind when it comes to politics. You trot out a couple of dingbat celebrities, and a dead nobody, and equate them to the entire current slate of anti-science Republican would-be candidates, any of whom might end up as president. Republicans embrace simpletons, that's the long and short of it.

If you're going to ignore things like climate change, what's taught in science classes, and just focus on the vaccine question, the first thing you should try to do is to get rid of the religious exemption for vaccinating students. This is what allows parents to legally send unvaccinated kids to school.

Oh, I guess Robert F. Kennedy, Jr isn't the one who is dead. Still a nobody, though, a radio host it seems.

tomh said: Oh, I guess Robert F. Kennedy, Jr isn't the one who is dead. Still a nobody, though, a radio host it seems.

John said: I am quoting a passage from Otto's book, and yet you blame me.

John said: Both you and tomh need to read Otto's book, please. Here's a relevant passage from pages 147 - 148 (from my Advanced Reading Copy, may be different in the officialy published text):

When Romney went for the nomination in 2008 he was pretty straightforward about evolution saying, “In my opinion, the science class is where to teach evolution," ... and went on to say intelligent design is for religion or philosophy class. But if you just started following him with this campaign, you would never know it, since this time around he has been absolutely silent on the subject.

On climate change he has said more; during his unsuccessful 2008 campaign, he said unequivocally, "I believe the world is getting warmer, and I believe that humans have contributed to that.” For the 2012 election that has morphed into, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet." Romney has also said it makes no sense to act on climate because it’s “global warming” not “America warming”.

Of course, some of this might have to do with the fact that 20% of Iowa Republican voters believe the science behind climate change, and about 30% of those same voters accept evolution.

tomh said:

John said: I am quoting a passage from Otto's book, and yet you blame me.

Well, you obviously agree with the passage you quote. And you obviously think that what some wacko minor celebrity says about vaccines is just as important as the anti-science simpletons that Republicans want to see as president. You know, the ones that are the topic of the original post.

ksplawn said:

John said: Both you and tomh need to read Otto's book, please. Here's a relevant passage from pages 147 - 148 (from my Advanced Reading Copy, may be different in the officialy published text):

And yet what does this mean in the context of polling data from the population (not cherry-picked celebrity spew) indicating virtually no difference in attitudes about vaccination among the left and right? The polls aren't ideal for answering the question but they're much better than looking at a couple of people saying some things in the media. It's the problem of data versus anecdote here. I can find Libertarian media figures who thought that Mexico was about to invade the US back in 2007 but that doesn't mean the belief was widespread among Libertarians. Furthermore none of the ant-vaccination rhetoric you harp about is showing up on the national stage when it comes to Democratic policy makers. By contrast all the serious contenders for the Republican nomination have expressed anti-science opinions on climate change, and all but Romney have expressed anti-scientific opinions on Evolution (Romney seems like a Theistic Evolutionist and has specified that evolution needs to be in the science curriculum).

Say harold, if you think Otto is well worth reading, why haven't you jumped in to endorse him (Or are you more interested now in seeing me getting attacked)?

John said: Say harold, if you think Otto is well worth reading, why haven't you jumped in to endorse him (Or are you more interested now in seeing me getting attacked)?

With regards to the Left, he cites concerns with regards to microwave radiation and the anti-vaccination movement

harold said:

John said: Say harold, if you think Otto is well worth reading, why haven't you jumped in to endorse him (Or are you more interested now in seeing me getting attacked)?

No-one is attacking you, John. Some of your points are being critiqued, in a civil manner, even though we all agree on many points.

harold said:

With regards to the Left, he cites concerns with regards to microwave radiation and the anti-vaccination movement

We have dealt with the anti-vaccination movement, and how it is not uniquely associated with any particular political association. I would say the same, unless evidence is shown to the contrary, about excessively expressed concern over weak electromagnetic radiation. You seem to agree on which types of science denial are concentrated on the political right. But you seem to arbitrarily assign all other forms of science denial or science misinterpretation to "the left". You also seem to use the term "the left" in a nebulous way; for example, why does being an academic post-modern theorist make someone a member of the political left? It doesn't, and over the years, a surprising number of poets, outrageous philosophers, literary theorists, and that like have been quite conservative in political stance. I actually don't lump concerns over weak electromagnetic radiation into science denial, because the issue has mainly been covered in a rational way. It seems intuitively unlikely that non-ionizing radiation from cell phones would be a significant cancer risk, for example, but the concerns arose from epidemiologic data. Several studies were done in an effort to confirm or rule out an empidemiologic trend (after all, there can be surprises). The current consensus is that there seems to be no significant risk. Nevertheless, partly for bureaucratic reasons, the WHO classifies cell phone radiation as the lowest possible type of potential risk factor for cancer, which may be mildly excessive but is not terribly unreasonable. Research on the epidemiologic impact of high power lines has followed a similar trajectory. I don't see blatant science denialism here.

harold said:

John said: Say harold, if you think Otto is well worth reading, why haven't you jumped in to endorse him (Or are you more interested now in seeing me getting attacked)?

No-one is attacking you, John. Some of your points are being critiqued, in a civil manner, even though we all agree on many points.

Am sorry, but it sounds like tomh especially has an axe to grind with me. If you could join me in reminding him that he needs to read Otto's new book, I would be most appreciative. Just because I post a paragraph in which Otto mentions both McCarthy's and Kennedy's opposition to vaccination doesn't mean that I am:

1) claiming that Republicans and Conservatives should be treated with kid gloves for their espousal of science denialism (I think I've demonstrated all too often here how much I am angry with the activities of "Conservatives" like Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh in promoting science denialism, whether it is their rejection of biological evolution or anthropogenic global warming.)

2) suggesting that I am glad Otto is condemning McCarthy and Kennedy (though I believe is correct for the reasons he has given)

However, what I am saying - and I think you too have missed the point - is that we need to recgnize that postmodernist thought has had a negative influence on both the Radical Left and the Radical Right in shaping their science denialist attitudes, whether it is their opposition to vacination, biological evolution or anthropogenic global warming.

John said: Otto has argued persuasively - reinforcing what Paul Gross and Ned Levitt first said back in the early 1990s, and what Ken Miller said in his "Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul" - that postmodern thought with its emphasis on "relativism" and its rejection that scientific truth could be seen as absolute - has had a pernicious impact on anti-science attitudes existing amongst the Radical Left and the Radical Right. With regards to the Left, he cites concerns with regards to microwave radiation and the anti-vaccination movement; with regards to the Right, evolution denialism, and global warming denialism.

Chris Mooney has been criticized here by some with regards to his superficial proposals for addressing scientific illiteracy and for the "Tom Johnson" affair, and yet, you seem willing to give him some credit. IMHO you can't have it both ways, especially when tomh has criticized him in the past (if my memory is correct).

I suggest you read my latest back and forth with harold, and I think he's coming to the realization that there is amongst some on the American Radical Left, science denialism based on postmodernist thought, which, I may remind you, that even a self-described Leftist as NYU physicist Alan Sokal illustrated, by writing as a hoax, a paper that was published in 1996 in the leading postmodernist journal Social Text.

I am in agreement with virtually all you said, except here:

"I concur with those who say they can’t."

I can't speak for Otto, but it seems as though he cited both as examples of Liberal anti-science attitudes which have been influenced by the very postmodernist thought that Gross, Levitt, Sokal and Bricmont have been criticizing.

I greatly appreciate your concluding remark (see below), but, as a reminder, you need to do your homework before concluding that the Radical Left is incapable of demonstrating its own serious science denial issues based on its embrace of postmodernist thought:

"That seems sensible enough; I am not aware of organized Radical Left science denial in the US, but authoritarian collective states such as the former Soviet Union often do have a history of science denial policies."
"

John, none of anything you posted is data.
Where is the data for this claim?

ksplawn said: John, none of anything you posted is data. Where is the data for this claim?

John said: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom acknowledge that biological evolution is an established scientific fact

tomh said:

John said: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom acknowledge that biological evolution is an established scientific fact

You keep making this claim about Gingrich when his most recent statements ridicule evolution and mock anyone who accepts it.

tomh said:

John said: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom acknowledge that biological evolution is an established scientific fact

You keep making this claim about Gingrich when his most recent statements ridicule evolution and mock anyone who accepts it.

apokryltaros said:

tomh said:

John said: Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney, both of whom acknowledge that biological evolution is an established scientific fact

You keep making this claim about Gingrich when his most recent statements ridicule evolution and mock anyone who accepts it.

Whether or not Gingrich actually believes his own taunts is a moot point. He's simply pandering to Rightwinged Christian Fundamentalists, who make up a powerful and vocal subpopulations of Republicans. The sad fact of the matter is that Newt Gingrich readily sacrifices anything, his dignity, honesty, or integrity, if it means even the flimsiest chance at the slightest increase of power.

John said: Gingrich was being sarcastic.

John said: I think that observation of yours applies to Obama even more.

This thread is slowly sinking beneath the waves, folks. Lots of "T'is!" "T'isn't!" types of arguments.

tomh said:

John said: Gingrich was being sarcastic.

You can't be serious. Did you listen to him? He was answering a question about the role of religion and government, and after promoting prayer in schools and mocking nonbelievers, he said,“do you think we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?” You don't get much more anti-science than this, it's a statement Bachmann would be proud of. Even if he's just pandering to the GOP base, that's a pretty sorry base that needs pandering like that, and a pretty sorry leader that would do it. And then there's his benevolent stance on child labor laws, which he thinks are "truly stupid" and he'd like to get rid of them. “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid.” He says kids as young as 9 years old could work as school janitors and “would be dramatically less expensive than unionized janitors.” “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.” Stereotype much? This is the one you think would make a fine president.

John said: I think that observation of yours applies to Obama even more.

Four years ago you spent months trying to show that Obama wasn't born in the US and wasn't an American citizen. Now you claim he's a Marxist and who knows what else. You can't give it up, can you?

Richard B. Hoppe said: This thread is slowly sinking beneath the waves, folks. Lots of "T'is!" "T'isn't!" types of arguments.

In all the "Right!", "Left!" multilogue, I'm still trying to figure out how mapping a complex variable (at least nine dimensions) onto a single line can produce anything but amphigory.

If the Left/Right model as expressed in these exchanges reflects reality, then Nelson Mandela, Pol Pot, Lenin, the Dalai Lama and Angela Davis all have exactly identical opinions on all topics. Ditto for D. W. Eisenhower, F. Franco, W. F. Buckley and any recent post-Soviet Balkan dictator.

Furrfu.

tomh said: Four years ago you spent months trying to show that Obama wasn't born in the US and wasn't an American citizen. Now you claim he's a Marxist and who knows what else. You can't give it up, can you?

ksplawn said:

tomh said: Four years ago you spent months trying to show that Obama wasn't born in the US and wasn't an American citizen. Now you claim he's a Marxist and who knows what else. You can't give it up, can you?

Wow, thanks for that trip down memory lane. Anybody who forgets or doesn't know how doggedly irrational John Kwok will be concerning politics could do with a read of that link. The citizenship accusation starts around page 3, and almost two months later Mr. Kwok reconsiders the issue not because of all the evidence, official statements, and documentation of Barack Obama's citizenship (which he never acknowledged as valid), but because he liked the cabinet members that were being picked at the time. Along the way he credulously parroted almost every partisan lie from the civilian "Brown Shirts" corps. paranoia to the Bill Ayers guilt-by-association tactic and the emphasis on the president's middle name, while imagining that it would conceivably be necessary for the military to stage a coup in the event that the obviously Marxist Obama tried to turn the nation all hammer-and-sickle. So yeah, I was just strongly reminded that asking him for evidence is futile and will only result in a tragic, ugly display of willful ignorance.

Now Huntsman enters the Valley of the Crazed.

Nice Knowin' ya Jon.

It’s worth mentioning that Sokal and Bricmont are, in fact, highly vocal Marxists and the purpose of their rather feeble attempt to discredit all postmodern thought by gulling an relatively obscure journal and building a book around about a few dozen out-of-context quotes from a disparate set of philosophers they don’t like much arose out of this. Marxists hate postmodernists, because if there’s one thing that you can isolate as a constant of ‘postmodernist’ thought, it’s denial of the existence of grand historical narratives.

There really isn’t any such thing as ‘the postmodernist left’.

Matt Bright said: It’s worth mentioning that Sokal and Bricmont are, in fact, highly vocal Marxists and the purpose of their rather feeble attempt to discredit all postmodern thought by gulling an relatively obscure journal and building a book around about a few dozen out-of-context quotes from a disparate set of philosophers they don’t like much arose out of this. Marxists hate postmodernists, because if there’s one thing that you can isolate as a constant of ‘postmodernist’ thought, it’s denial of the existence of grand historical narratives. There really isn’t any such thing as ‘the postmodernist left’.

What I’m discrediting is your intellectually dishonest attempts to smuggle in assumed identites complexly-related terms like ‘postmodernism’, ‘liberals’ and ‘the left’ to create by fiat a simplistic and suspect narrative of ‘socialist anti-science’.

I’d be happy to discredit the content of Sokal and Bricmont’s message also, but it’s been done rather better here:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n14/john-sturrock/le-pauvre-sokal

(tl:dr – Sokal and Bricmont have wilfully misinterpreted what the discipline and the philosophers they denigrate are doing in general and in the specific cases they discuss in the service of an not-overtly-stated ideological agenda ).

The fact that this one guy mentioned the Social Text hoax and this other guy referred to it obliquely in some of their books don’t really go very far. Show me actual evidence that:

1) the creationist/ID cause has actually been supported by the people you consider to be ‘the postmodernist left’ (as opposed to IDers themselves simply mouthing the words just as they do with scientific terms)

2) they have ever espoused the prevention of science teaching in public education or

3) they have been complicit in the suppression or distortion of scientific research for political ends, and I might start believing you.

Sorry – edit cock up.

Sentence one to read

‘…smuggle in assumptions about the identity of…’

Red Right Hand said: Now Huntsman enters the Valley of the Crazed. Nice Knowin' ya Jon.

Has the podcast become available? I visited the RadioExiles site a few times to try and find it, but never could.

Matt Bright said: What I’m discrediting is your intellectually dishonest attempts to smuggle in assumed identites complexly-related terms like ‘postmodernism’, ‘liberals’ and ‘the left’ to create by fiat a simplistic and suspect narrative of ‘socialist anti-science’. I’d be happy to discredit the content of Sokal and Bricmont’s message also, but it’s been done rather better here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n14/john-sturrock/le-pauvre-sokal (tl:dr – Sokal and Bricmont have wilfully misinterpreted what the discipline and the philosophers they denigrate are doing in general and in the specific cases they discuss in the service of an not-overtly-stated ideological agenda ). The fact that this one guy mentioned the Social Text hoax and this other guy referred to it obliquely in some of their books don’t really go very far. Show me actual evidence that: 1) the creationist/ID cause has actually been supported by the people you consider to be ‘the postmodernist left’ (as opposed to IDers themselves simply mouthing the words just as they do with scientific terms) 2) they have ever espoused the prevention of science teaching in public education or 3) they have been complicit in the suppression or distortion of scientific research for political ends, and I might start believing you.

John said:

Matt Bright said: What I’m discrediting is your intellectually dishonest attempts to smuggle in assumed identites complexly-related terms like ‘postmodernism’, ‘liberals’ and ‘the left’ to create by fiat a simplistic and suspect narrative of ‘socialist anti-science’. I’d be happy to discredit the content of Sokal and Bricmont’s message also, but it’s been done rather better here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v20/n14/john-sturrock/le-pauvre-sokal (tl:dr – Sokal and Bricmont have wilfully misinterpreted what the discipline and the philosophers they denigrate are doing in general and in the specific cases they discuss in the service of an not-overtly-stated ideological agenda ). The fact that this one guy mentioned the Social Text hoax and this other guy referred to it obliquely in some of their books don’t really go very far. Show me actual evidence that: 1) the creationist/ID cause has actually been supported by the people you consider to be ‘the postmodernist left’ (as opposed to IDers themselves simply mouthing the words just as they do with scientific terms) 2) they have ever espoused the prevention of science teaching in public education or 3) they have been complicit in the suppression or distortion of scientific research for political ends, and I might start believing you.

Take your complaints up with Paul R. Gross, Shawn Otto and Ken Miller, please. I respectfully disagree with your complaints, which are replate in their breathtaking inanity.

No evidence of the kind I've suggested, then.

Fair enough.

Matt Bright said: No evidence of the kind I've suggested, then. Fair enough.

tomh said:

John said: Gingrich was being sarcastic.

You can't be serious. Did you listen to him? He was answering a question about the role of religion and government, and after promoting prayer in schools and mocking nonbelievers, he said,“do you think we’re randomly gathered protoplasm? We could have been rhinoceroses, but we got lucky this week?” You don't get much more anti-science than this, it's a statement Bachmann would be proud of. Even if he's just pandering to the GOP base, that's a pretty sorry base that needs pandering like that, and a pretty sorry leader that would do it. And then there's his benevolent stance on child labor laws, which he thinks are "truly stupid" and he'd like to get rid of them. “It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in child laws which are truly stupid.” He says kids as young as 9 years old could work as school janitors and “would be dramatically less expensive than unionized janitors.” “Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.” Stereotype much? This is the one you think would make a fine president.

John said: I think that observation of yours applies to Obama even more.

Four years ago you spent months trying to show that Obama wasn't born in the US and wasn't an American citizen. Now you claim he's a Marxist and who knows what else. You can't give it up, can you?

I hate it when a good thread degenerates into the Kwok wars. It would really be better to just shut this one down before it gets even more out of hand.

On a side note, this could be an invaluable to the study of thread entropy. Do all threads in an isolated system with the presence of John go from a state of on topic to off to drop kick Kwok's schtick.

J. Biggs - speaking only for myself, I'd prefer if Kwok and detractors just took it to the BW. I'm genuinely interested in what the FL. Citizens for Science had to say about the candidates as well as other relevant info on them, such as provided by Red Right Hand.

eric said: J. Biggs - speaking only for myself, I'd prefer if Kwok and detractors just took it to the BW. I'm genuinely interested in what the FL. Citizens for Science had to say about the candidates as well as other relevant info on them, such as provided by Red Right Hand.

And it's sunk. Thanks for participating, folks.