Fallacy Man indulges in a bit of venting on The Logic Of Science:
Let’s begin with climate change arguments. There are many that I could choose from here, but let’s start with the argument that the current warming is just a natural cycle because the climate has changed naturally in the past. If you like to use this argument, then I have several questions for you. Do you honestly think that climatologists never thought of this? Do you really think that the people who spend their lives collecting those data on past climates never even bothered to check and see if the current warming was part of a natural trend? I realize that I probably sound flippant here, but I’m actually asking these questions sincerely. Do you truly think that the entire scientific community is so hopelessly incompetent and stupid that they never even bothered to check the natural drivers of climate change? If you do, then I have news for you: they aren’t. Scientists have looked at past climate changes (Lorius et al. 1990; Tripati et al. 2009; Shakun et al. 2012), and they have very carefully looked at the natural drivers of climate change, and they have consistently found that the current warming does not match natural cycles and can only be explained by including our greenhouse gasses in the analyses (Stott et al. 2001; Meehl, et al. 2004; Allen et al. 2006; Wild et al. 2007; Lockwood and Frohlich 2007, 2008; Lean and Rind 2008; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011; Imbers et al. 2014).
And so on, as he[1] briefly counters the climate deniers, anti-vaxxers, and Creationists. Here’s the thing – he’s repetitious. In each case, he points out that the arguments against the theory du jour, while superficially convincing, are actually those of the ignorant. He then presents the current factual case against a few of the more popular opposing arguments.
And this is not necessarily wrong (I’ll defer to his greater experience concerning the nature of most arguments), but they’re suggestive of a deeper current which I wish he would have explored. Sometimes the folks at Skeptical Inquirer dip a toe, even a foot, into that current, but it’s really the hard nut they must crack, and, you know, it’s really out of scientists’ line of research.
So, briefly, consider the very fact that we can say Creationists, or the anti-vaxxers, or climate deniers. These are not merely terms to characterize a bunch of unconnected actors in the debate; oh, no. We designate them that way, they even self-designate that way, because they are organized communities. And what do communities do? They communicate among themselves. And that means they discuss their own alternative theories, building in their own biases.
In fact, this characterizes the scientific community which FM defends, complete with bias. Here’s the key difference, though – the built-in bias of the scientific community is towards truth and reality[2]. That’s the end-point of the science community, to discover true knowledge concerning the nature of the Universe, whether it be static fact (how many quarks in a proton) or dynamic process (how species change over time in response to changes in the environment).
By contrast, understand that the entire point of Creationists is to create a theory that supports their preferred interpretation of the Bible, and then thrust it upon society in their evangelical rapture.
Communities exist to support their members, but a nearly inevitable integral part of any community is the power structure. There’s usually a pecking order which exists to direct the community in terms of behavior and ideology, which in turn translates to survival of the community. This is what dispenses the ammunition of those who go out to defend the community – whether it’s with guns overseas, or with intellectual arguments against critics.
And this difficult target must be attacked. What FM does is important, but it’s passive and, at least in this one post (I haven’t read the rest of what appears to be a large blog), appears to assume the members of the opposing communities share the general scientists’ reverence for facts.
Their facts are not your facts, unfortunately. The belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, for example, is one facet separating most scientists from most Creationists.
I think that simply presenting countervailing facts and explanations is not enough. You have to take a look at the coordinating ideology and find arguments which will separate the person from their ideology. In a sense, it’ll recapitulate the history of science. Take some outdated scientific paradigm, and ask why it became outdated. Well, there were some observations, some questions, which it could not adequately answer. I think the same must be done in these arguments, and beyond what FM is doing. And all this done while keeping in mind that the power structure of the opposing community will violently object to its very base of existence being attacked. That, in itself, may prove useful. Always remain a step ahead of your opponent.
