The False Ideology Of Science Deniers: Research Is Easy

[HuckleB]

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/false-ideology-science-deniers-research-easy/

"...

To become a great baseball player, it takes thousands of hours of practice and study. The best athletes, I believe, are also the most intelligent ones. They watch film or observe their competitors for weaknesses and strengths. And you can’t Google “how to pitch a curve ball,” and then suddenly presume you will throw the best curve ball in the world. (As I know I have international readers. Just replace baseball with soccer. And replace curveball with bend it like Beckham.) And those are games (intense, high level games, but they have nothing to do with life and death directly).

Similarly, you cannot expect to Google “how to induce an immune response” and then become an immunologist. I took several graduate and medical school level immunology courses, and I don’t claim to be an immunologist, and I have a broad background in biochemistry that allows me to understand it. But there are just so many points, so complex, and so detailed, to become an “expert” takes 10-20 years of study and research. Not 10-20 minutes. Or even hours.

...

All that you have to understand is that (science deniers) believe that becoming knowledgeable is easy. The think that sitting on their couch with their iPad will pass on great wisdom to them. But what they don’t understand, what flies over their head is that scientific knowledge is gained through blood, sweat, and tears, not luck and a proclamation that they know it all.

So lacking any real knowledge, they have to tack in another direction. They invent lies instead of scientific knowledge. They cherry pick one article instead of reading 500 articles to get the true consensus in a field of science. They claim that their 2 course in biology is sufficient, when some of us took over 75 courses in biomedical sciences over 8 years. In each case, the hard way to go was the extremely hard way to go. It’s almost a false dichotomy–in science, your choice is take the easy route or the extremely difficult, challenging, and self sacrifice route.

..."



Now, part two, of course, is that the experts aren't always right, and questions must always be asked. It is fallacious to go with authority only. Still, the author's point is worth considering, IMO.

[The Magistrate]

1. As Someone Said, Sir: 'Anything I Don't Understand Is Simple And Easy'

[Fuddnik]

2. They don't sit on their couches with i-pads.

They sit on their asses with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Fox News and Rush.

Why study artificial intelligence when you can listen directly to the wisdom of the Gods?

[Gothmog]

3. Science is not that hard if you know what to look for

Part of the issue is that most journalists try to treat all issues as if there are two sides to the issue. That is not the case in the area of science. I used to debate on the college level and so I am used to reading peer reviewed scientific works and I know how to screen out non-peer reviewed works. It is amazing that many of the same sources that were telling people that cigarettes were safe in the 1970s when I was debating are now making conclusions about global warming and the like.

One good way to check is to take the name of a source and see if it is cited in the literature from trustworthy sources or if the only people citing a source or study are Fox News, Newsmax, the National Review or another conservative source. Neither Fox nor Newmax are trustworthy and there are no reporters at the Fox News, the National Review or Newsmax who have a clue about science.

[HuckleB]

4. That's part of the problem.

Just because an individual peer-reviewed study says something doesn't mean it's all that great. There is post publication criticism, which is very important. There is comparing the results to those of other studies. There is the question of whether the study can be replicated or not, and on and on.

In today's Internet, people can find cherry picked studies to support their preconceived notions on everything from climate change, to vaccinations, to GMos, to alt-med silliness. Yet, the consensus of the research often does not support those preconceived notions. The truth is that there are very few good science reporters anywhere in this day and age. False equivalency is the norm.

[Gothmog]

6. You have to rely not just on any one individual peer reviewed study but the post publication review

It is not hard to look for and see where a particular peer review study is cited. The post publication review is critical to understanding the consensus of views. In the Climate area, there are good sources for peer reviewed works such http://www.realclimate.org/ and http://www.skepticalscience.com/ the real climate website is run by some NASA types and is very good if you like peer reviewed works.

There are also some very good sources for determining who paid for the study. The Koch Brothers are now the primary funding source for climate denial studies. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-funds-contrariness-on/ Exxon used to have this honor but now the Koch Brothers If you see a study from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, you can be assured that the "science" is of the same quality as the old Tobacco company studies.

[HuckleB]

7. All good and well, and I don't disagree.

Unfortunately, in this world of "I'm right!" "You're wrong!" Great swaths of people and movements now cherry pick studies that support their claims while ignoring everything else. They think science means finding some study that agrees with them. They don't understand the context or much of anything else about the matter. Thus, we have a massive anti-vaccine movement, a ridiculously large contingent of people who don't believe in climate change, and a massive number of anti-GMO activists. In each case, the evidence against them is massive, but their vehemence is even greater.

[mike_c]

5. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing....

This article makes some great points.

The hard work in science is never really over, either. Staying current in your discipline is just as much work as learning it was in the first place, really-- and it never ends. I've had several grad students revise their career plans over the years when they realized that their progress-- and bunches of other students'-- was at least partly dependent upon my willingness to work seven days a week so I could edit their proposals and help with their data analysis on weekends and evenings-- and they realized that my 12+ hour work day was their future if they continued on an academic science trajectory.

[HuckleB]

8. Absolutely. It's just bizarre. -eom-

[HuckleB]

9. Hello.

[oldhippie]

10. My biggest problem ....

... in trying to discuss issues of science around here is the complete lack of agreement as to the definitions and usage of such terms as "fact," "belief," "believe," "know," "theory," "accept" etc. So many people have never taken a course in philosophy or argument and rhetoric and use the terms incorrectly, or even worse, interchangeably. You can't discuss what the "facts" are when someone confuses that term with "beliefs," or people saying that they "know" something when it is physically and logically impossible for that thing to be "known." Or people "believing" something is a fact, which can be based on "faith" in whatever (bible or "scientists) or on observed evidence.

Until I am sure that the parties to the discussion have an agreed frame of reference as to the definitions of these terms, something that is just too laborious to attempt, trying to discuss issues of science is a waste of time. But it sure does lead to some long threads where folks try to force their definitions and framing upon others.

That's why I try not to participate in climate threads. I get called a "climate change denier" when I am really not.