Debunking the “mistakes science made” tropes?

Debunking the “mistakes science made” tropes?

I know I shouldn’t use the conspiracy theory fallacy when talking about the pseudoscience-pushing science deniers, who are the bread and butter of topics for skeptics. But, when I keep observing the same ridiculous and insanely illogical arguments used in the same manner by all of the deniers, I begin to wonder if they don’t get together annually at the International Society of Pseudoscience meeting, usually held in Sedona, Arizona, ground zero of woo. They obviously share their stories, because we hear the same regurgitated stories in different contexts.

The antivaccinationists, creationists, anthropogenic global warming deniers, and whomever else pretends to use science to actually deny science frequently focus on a trope covering the mistakes science made.  And then they produce a list of historical events that “prove” that science is wrong. Of course, this indicates more of a misunderstanding of what is science and the history of science than it is a condemnation of science. But your typical science denier is probably not going to let facts get in the way of maintaining faith in their beliefs. So let’s deconstruct and discredit these “science makes mistakes” tropes.

By the way, in my story, I admit that there are many “mistakes science made,” so read on.

What is science?

 

This is where the science deniers get it all wrong. They think that science is a mysterious group-think of a bunch of ivory-tower bound academics who propose an idea and then “prove” it. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Science is actually a logical method to answer questions about the natural universe. It is a way to describe and to understand everything around us, whether our own health or the stars that shine in the night sky.

Science is a process that attempts to remove bias and provide an answer to the question that can stand up to criticism. It is not magical, but it is hard. Even though the vaccine deniers have proclaimed that “vaccines cause autism”, it is not scientific. That hypothesis needs to be tested in unbiased studies, and the results must be available to public review, and, if necessary, critique. And it takes money, time, hard work, and lots of intellectual prowess to design and analyze the results. And lots of people have actually tested the hypothesis that vaccines cause autism, and they have refuted the hypothesis, clearly showing that vaccines do not cause autism.

But more than that, science rarely uses the term “proven”, because the scientific method is not a system to make a definitive answer on any question–scientists always leave open the possibility of an alternative hypothesis that can be tested. If the alternate hypothesis can be supported through experimentation, then it can replace the original one. Yes, science does find errors, all the time. In fact, one of the goals of the scientific process is precisely what defines scientific skepticism, a term frequently co-opted by science deniers, which is a process of evaluating a claim based on the quality and quantity of evidence supporting that claim. A real scientist (or scientific skeptic) is looking for errors, because it is a part of the process.

There are some parts of science that are as close to factual as you can get. The scientific theory of evolution is a fact. The mountains of evidence that support evolution by natural selection and genetic drift are unassailable. That being said, there is a tiny chance (and by tiny, I mean microscopic) that science got it all wrong. There is a Nobel Prize waiting for someone who can provide an alternative explanation for the common descent of all species over time from the moment the first cell arose in the primordial soup 3.5 billion years ago. But to earn that Nobel Prize, you can’t just say that the theory is wrong, you must show it using the scientific method. And trust me, more real scientists look at the mechanisms for evolution (since evolution is a fact, they’re not denying evolution) for new ideas, since it can provide those scientists with fame and fortune.

 
 

Because science is not based on dogma or faith, it is self-challenging and self-critical, uncovering errors is part of the process that makes good science. And science is unbiased. The proper method of science is not to invent a conclusion, then find evidence that supports it. It actually works by gathering all of the evidence, deciding which is high quality and which is junk, then determining where that evidence leads. If I were a paleontologist, and I found a fossilized cell phone in Precambrian rock (about 500 million years old), I’d be wondering about a lot of things. But it wouldn’t eliminate evolution as a fact, I might hypothesize that someone had figured out time travel (which is a problem for physicists, let them deal with it).

So, let’s review. Science isn’t a mysterious groups of wizards. Science isn’t definitive, though in a lot of areas of knowledge, it is about 99.999999999999% definitive (which does not round down to 0%). Science is not dogmatic. Science does not accept false dichotomies, that it’s either black or white. And as opposed to science deniers, who think that they have the one truth, real science makes mistakes and uncovers it rather rapidly.

What’s the scientific method?

 

Science is obviously wrong about everything. Including unicorns. Obviously wrong about unicorns.
Science is obviously wrong about everything. Including unicorns. Obviously wrong about unicorns.

The scientific method is an unbiased systematic approach to answer questions about the natural world, including medicine. It has several basic steps:

  1. Define the question–this could be anything from “does this compound have an effect on this disease?” or “how does this disease progress?”
  2. Observations–this is the subjective part of science. Do we observe trends or anomalies? Does a physician notice that every patient from a town or neighborhood exhibit the same disease? A lot of science arises from observations of the natural world, and yes, some of those observations can be anecdotes or personal observations. For example, one of the most famous stories in the early history of medicine is when Edward Jenner observed that milkmaids rarely were infected by smallpox because they were exposed to cowpox, a less virulent disease. Even though anecdotes can be a part of the scientific method, they are not data, and they are rarely used to develop an answer to a question, especially in medicine.
  3. Hypothesis–using the observations, create a hypothesis that can be tested. In Jenner’s case, he hypothesized that those exposed to cowpox would eventually be immune to smallpox.
  4. Experiment–simply, the scientist then tests the hypothesis with experiments and collects the data. The experiments are not designed to solely validate the hypothesis but may also attempt to refute it. In real science, attempting to nullify one’s own hypothesis is an honorable pursuit. Furthermore, the experiments are designed to remove as many biases as possible. For example, the randomized controlled study is considered the gold standard of medical study, because it removes almost all bias from both the subject of the study (the patient) and the physician.*
  5. Analyze–examining the results carefully, usually using acceptable statistical methods.
  6. Interpret–sometimes the data leads to a revision of the hypothesis, which means the scientist has to return to steps 3-6. Or it confirms or supports the hypothesis, which means the researcher can move to Step 7.
  7. Publish–in today’s scientific community, scientific data and analysis is subject to the scrutiny of other scientists before it can be published, a process called “peer-review.” This is a critical step that ensures that the results can stand up to criticism of others.
  8. Retesting–Many times the research is repeated by others, or the hypothesis may be slightly revised with additional data. Science is not static, it constantly revises theories as more data is gathered. For this reason alone, science is not an absolute, it is constantly seeking new data.

Science is an evidence-based systematic analysis without inherent opinion or emotion. In other words, it is a method to cut through opinions and anecdotal observations, so that one can have some reasonable expectation that a medicine or device will work as planned, or if a theory can be predictive.

And as we said, even though the system works very well, mistakes happen.

The case of the Piltdown Man

 

Wow, someone is still using that old story to “prove” that science makes mistakes. Let’s set aside the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific evidence supporting evolution has not been shown to be fraudulent, the creationists use it as their evidence that all evolution is a lie.

Except for one small thing. The story isn’t quite what the evolution deniers claim it is. For those of you who don’t know, Piltdown Man was a hoax perpetrated by an English amateur archeologist, who had combined a modern human skull with a jaw of an orangutan. It was announced in 1912, and was used as “proof” (there’s that nonscientific word) that man descended from apes.

Right from the beginning, a lot of experts (by that, I mean professional scientists who studied archeology and human evolution) disputed everything about the so-called fossil, but back then, we didn’t have the scientific techniques, like radiocarbon dating, that might have quickly debunked the hoax. By 1954, using mostly modern scientific techniques, it was shown to be a deception. In other words, a non-scientist perpetrated a scam. And real science uncovered it. Moreover, if someone tried a hoax like that today, it would last all of 10 seconds.

Now, if Piltdown Man was the only piece of evidence of human evolution, the creationists would have a point. Except, it isn’t. The amount of evidence for many of the steps of human evolution since the split from other great apes around 7 million years ago is enormously broad and definitive. There are literally thousands of books that accurately describe human evolution. Here’s my personal favorite: Human Origins: What Bones and Genomes Tell Us about Ourselves.

Unless you believe that one hoax is indicative of a culture of fraud and deceit in evolutionary biology, which is probably a belief of all evolution deniers, then this story is what it is–an isolated attempt for fame and fortune that was shot down rather quickly (with intervening wars, economic depressions, and the lack of technology) by real science.

Science said smoking is healthy!

 

Here’s another one of those tropes used by the antivaccination crowd mostly. They use it to discredit “science,” attempting to imply that if these so-called scientists thought that tobacco was healthy, then how can we trust them to say the same thing about vaccines. Or GMO’s. Or cancer treatments. Or climate change. Apparently, this myth is shared at the aforementioned meeting of pseudoscience meeting among all of the participants.

But really, did any real scientist claim that smoking was healthy? Smoking tobacco was prevalent through the native American tribes well before the advent of modern science. There was no Native American CDC, FDA or Board of Physicians to approve the use of tobacco as “safe and effective.”

In fact, those Native Americans and Europeans who picked up the habit believed in all kinds of nonsense about tobacco, including that it cured cancer. This wasn’t “science” pushing these beliefs, but it was the traditions of the world at the time that put inordinate faith in various herbs and how they could cure various maladies. In fact, thinking smoking or tobacco was healthy was advertised by the woo-pushers of the time (who are barely different than the woo-pushers of the modern world).**

By the late 1800’s, when real evidence-based medicine was in its infancy, many British journals were publishing articles warning about some of the negative health effects of smoking. An article in The Lancet in 1913 warns “that tobacco smoking can give rise to constitutional effects which diminish the resisting power of the body to disease” (see citation below since this 1913 article lacks an inline citation).

By the 1930’s, real science observed the increase in lung cancer from smoking. The Nazis banned cigarette smoking in the 1930’s because of the known health effects (and that will be the last time I will mention Nazis in any positive sense in anything I ever write again).

In 1950, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an article by Martin Levin that linked smoking and lung cancer. By the mid-1950’s, numerous epidemiological studies showed a profound increase in lung cancer risk for smokers. The Royal College of Physicians (UK) warned against smoking in 1962. The Surgeon General of the USA warned against smoking in 1964. The CDC has warned against smoking for over 50 years.

Yes, tobacco advertisers used to make ads that showed doctors smoking, or worse, endorsing cigarettes. But that wasn’t the “science” of the time. Big Tobacco (a truly evil lot of characters) said just about anything to get people to smoke, whether it was showing doctors smoking or that smoking made you sexy. But they weren’t using peer-reviewed science, these ads were worse than anecdotes, because they were outright lies and mischaracterizations. Science had already concluded that cigarettes were unhealthy a half century before those ads.

Once real epidemiological studies were published in peer-reviewed journals, the attitude about smoking changed almost immediately in the medical and general scientific community. And that’s how real science works–it self-corrects.

So if you think that “scientists pushed tobacco,” nothing could be further from the truth, unless you want to accept the advertising from Big Tobacco as some sort of truth. And it was real science that found the link (when modern epidemiology really developed as a discipline), and it was real science that became the basis of the worldwide effort against smoking.

As a suggestion to the science deniers–quit using this trope. It shows how ignorant you are of history, the scientific method, and reality.

ddt-is-good-for-me

The myths about DDT

 

What about DDT? For a little background, DDT is a powerful insecticide, invented by Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 “for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods.” OK, I’m going to concede that a real scientist invented DDT.

But, there is much more to the story. The chemical was used extensively during World War II by the Allies, in both the Pacific and Europe, to control the insect vectors of typhus, dengue fever and malaria, nearly eliminating the disease in Europe. DDT was spectacularly successful in eradicating these diseases in Australia, the South Pacific, South America and other areas of the world after WWII. At the time, the goal of defeating those diseases far exceeded any risk known at that time.

However, if you think those mythical science wizards were standing in their Dark Tower waving their wands of power suppressing all other knowledge of DDT, you would be wrong. Early data about the harmful effects of DDT was known by scientists (I guess not the ones standing in the tower), and by 1950, the US Department of Agriculture, which had jurisdiction over insecticide use at the time, were beginning to establish regulations to limit DDT’s use.

By the early 1960’s, upon publication of Rachel Carson’s book, Silent Spring, which described some scientific, but mostly anecdotal evidence that DDT had harmful and long-lasting effects on the environment, the tide turned against DDT and it was mostly banned or strictly controlled by the late 1960’s.

Today, DDT is still used because it is still an effective means of controlling certain insect vectors, especially in areas where governments cannot afford more expensive insecticides or the latest medical treatments, especially for malaria. It is through the scientific method that real scientists determined the potential environmental dangers of DDT, but also on how to use it safely where alternatives are costly.

No matter what we think of DDT now, it was responsible for saving millions of lives. Science isn’t black and white, it’s politicians and pseudoscience believers who think that science is some yes/no answer to a question. In a balanced and nuanced discussion about DDT, there are two sides of the story: one side is saving lives, and on the other, an environmental disaster.

But science has discovered new technologies mosquito control, like the innovative Frankensquito, where we might get both environmental safety and protecting humans. But more than that, real science is looking for a better solution, whether it’s safer insecticides or vaccines to protect individuals against malaria and dengue fever.

It’s kind of ironic that cancer therapies are declared successful even if they increase lifespan by only a few months at a cost of significant pain and suffering from the treatment itself. It’s a simple cost-benefit calculation for cancer sufferers–they get maybe 6 months of life and hope, even if the quality of life is affected by the medication.

In a similar vein, some may argue any damage to the environment is unacceptable, but is there not a similar cost-benefit calculation to save lives from malaria, dengue fever or other insect vector diseases? What if you’re in a country where malaria is endemic and can be destroyed cheaply and effectively with DDT, but the application is managed in a way to limit environmental damage? Is that not an acceptable tradeoff, similar to the cancer patient?

So, sure, science gave us DDT, but it saved millions of lives, before science itself discovered that it might have some negative effect on the environment. Scientific principles change as it accumulates evidence, and that’s a good thing.

Scientists said thalidomide was safe!

 

Well, they never did, but this is prime example of the poisoning of the well fallacy, which abounds throughout the antivaccination cults. There are numerous tired, hackneyed myths about the drug thalidomide, which, in the 1950’s was marketed by a German pharmaceutical company for the treatment of morning sickness in pregnant women (as one of its many indications).

At that time, medications were not as strictly controlled as they are today for use during pregnancy, and thalidomide was given out rather freely to pregnant women to some parts of the world. Unfortunately, nearly 10,000 children (half of them born in the former Federal Republic of Germany, also known as West Germany, but none in East Germany, because the communists did not approve it for use) were born with birth defects as a direct result of using the medication.

Here’s an important point. Despite significant pressure from politicians and Big Pharma, the FDA, as a result of the actions of a top scientist there, Dr. Frances Oldham Kelsey, blocked approval of thalidomide in the USA, because it did not have the testing that proved it was not dangerous to the fetus.

So you can invent whatever myth you want, but science had issues with thalidomide, and Dr. Kelsey was smart enough and strong enough to make sure that Americans didn’t get the drug. Because many other countries follow the lead of the US FDA on drug regulations, many other countries blocked its importation.

Even though Dr. Kelsey knew that there wasn’t any evidence that the drug was safe for pregnancy, it caused a sea change in both the independence of the FDA from congressional interference, but also in the amount, complexity and quality of research that must be done before a drug can be approved by the FDA. But Dr. Kelsey is one of the heroes of modern medicine for standing up for better drug testing. And saving a lot of American babies from birth defects.

Dr. Kelsey spent over 45 years at the FDA (only retiring in 2005, and passing away in 2015) pushing scientific analysis of medications, which lead to greater safety of medications.

Despite the tragedies from the 1960s, thalidomide is not laying on the waste heap of failed drugs. It is part of the standard treatment for leprosy, a horrible disease in many parts of the world. Because of our understanding of how thalidomide did harm the developing fetus, scientists began to examine its power in treating other diseases.

For example, thalidomide is part of the chemotherapy regimen that is used to treat multiple myeloma, a type of cancer of plasma cells. Modern treatments, which include thalidomide, has increased survivability from 3-4 years by almost double to 5-7 years or more. So if you’re going to invent a vacuous strawman argument, trying to poison the well about pharmaceutical companies and the FDA, well, using thalidomide as your well-poisoner is not going to fly in an intelligent conversation.

 

Science isn’t perfect

 

Science is not perfect, and no scientist would make that claim. There are many examples regarding mistakes science made, but the great thing about science is that it is self correcting as evidence is gathered.

People think that “science” is a magical word with some magical properties, but it is, at its basic level, a logical method to find evidence to answer a question. But until such time science is performed by unfeeling robots, it is a human activity, wracked with errors of human intellect, bias, and random mistakes. As science accumulates evidence over time, the theories and principles established by the evidence become closer and closer to a scientific fact.

Science has always been open to criticism and analysis, in fact, part of developing those theories and principles is provide evidence in the most transparent manner possible, and then stand in front of your peers for hostile and critical questions. No real scientist could get away with a claim that “smoking is healthy” today, because there would be a hundred scientists jumping on it, and showing the contrary evidence.

We have high quality open source journals that publish information quickly (still heavily peer-reviewed), so that claims that don’t make scientific sense get smashed out of existence quickly. As opposed the misinformation pushed by pseudoscientists, scientific evidence is based on the quality and quantity of evidence. That’s why we know that evolution is a fact, anthropogenic global warming is a fact, HIV causes AIDS is a fact, and vaccines being safe and effect are a fact.

The four examples used here, Piltdown man, thalidomide, smoking and DDT, are really ancient news, given how fast science moves today.

Sometimes, when we invent criticisms of science, we forget about all the great successes of science, which vastly outweigh the mistakes. For example, vaccines have nearly eliminated most infectious diseases (sorry vaccine deniers, but you just have no scientific standing to say anything else; even evolution deniers accept vaccines).

We have computers and phones that allow you to read my article 5 seconds after I publish it. We’ve explored Mars and landed on the moon. We understand the beginnings of the universe. I’m incapable of reading maps, but thanks to GPS systems I never get lost, thank you science. I can’t even list the billions of things that make your life better, just because of science.

So cherry picking a few errors of science (if I were an anti-science person, I would have focused on some real winners, like canals on Mars, or using an ultra-high speed drill to open calcified atherosclerotic lesions) just to confirm your cognitive biases about science. It does not provide support for your pseudoscience belief. It just makes you look foolish. Moreover, for every “mistake” you can find about science, I can easily show you that it was real science that uncovered that mistake.

Emily Willingham, in an article in Forbes, wrote the following about science:

 

That said, other ways of viewing of our world clearly carry greater weight for people than science or evidence does. If evidence and data were the only factors in human decision-making, the epic debates humans engage in about whether vaccines eradicated smallpox or whether global climate change is real wouldn’t exist. Even though science is the ultimate lens for truly understanding what underlies our entire existence, we obviously use other, frequently more myopic lenses available to us.

And that leads me to the faults of science. Humans do science, and because we bring our own personalized lenses and biases to whatever we do, science will involve error. But the wonderful thing about science is that it’s a self-correcting process that over time, disciplines itself. How did we discover the real effects of tobacco or DDT that ultimately were revealed? Science made those revelations, and science provided the data everyone needed to know the truth.

Only in an imaginary world would anyone think that science is perfect. But in this real world, science makes our lives better in innumerable ways. My life has been devoted to science, and I have made more mistakes doing it than you can ever believe, but in the end, what I have done in the pursuit of scientific knowledge has helped my fellow man in direct, quantifiable ways.

I think that’s what science does best, it helps mankind, both directly and indirectly. And finding a few errors along the way? That’s just part of the process. And all of you should be thankful that the process self corrects, or you wouldn’t have that computer that allows you to read my words. Or detect cancer. Or guide a spacecraft 100 million km (give or take a couple of km) from the Earth to Mars.

TL;DR – mistakes science made

 

  • Science is a logical, rational process to discover evidence to support our understanding of the natural universe.
  • Science is harshly self critical and is self correcting over time
  • Science isn’t perfect
  • Science didn’t support DDT, smoking, thalidomide, and the Piltdown man. In fact, real science uncovered the evidence that involve those myths.

Notes

*Antivaccine lunatics often demand unscientific studies as “proof” that vaccines are safe or effective. They want one group that doesn’t receive a vaccination vs. a group that does get it. The problem is that the vaccine deniers will always want their kids in the unvaccinated group. And there goes the randomization, and in comes bias. They don’t understand this problem.

**This kind of puts a bit of perspective on “traditional herbal remedies” because much of the evidence for their usefulness is based on oral tradition which is a recounting of anecdotes rather than clinical trials.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in August 2014. It has been completely revised and updated to include more comprehensive information, to improve readability and to add current research.

Key citations:

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!
  • Pingback: The DDT facts – examining the evidence after 50 years()

  • Pingback: Mistakes were made – but by who? | Open Parachute()

  • Pingback: Ancient knowledge and the test of time | The Logic of Science()

  • Pingback: Review of Trace Amounts – bad science and conspiracies()

  • Pingback: 3 tips on finding and reading scientific papers… | Agricultural with Dr Lindsay()

  • skepticalhovian

    *ahem*

    Second paragraph: it’s “whoever” not “whomever” …

  • Pingback: Marijuana and pregnancy – again hitting that bong of science()

  • Sandy Perlmutter

    Anybody who wants to see a raw discussion of hypothesis testing, which underlies all this, try the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_hypothesis_testing

  • Pingback: How to prevent cancer in 12 easy steps–OK, not that easy()

  • Berry Muhl

    I notice that the intro mentions “climate change deniers” but the article is pretty thin on specific detail on the subject.

    There are “deniers” who take the Creationist approach, yes.

    There are also “deniers” who ARE scientists and who disagree with the “consensus,” which is, actually, a much smaller consensus than the media report (opinion is divided much closer to 50 / 50 than to 80 / 20).

    • First, science has no “opinion.” It is based on evidence. Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact factor journals support the theory (in other words, a scientific fact) that man causes global warming. So it’s not 80/20. And it’s certainly not 50/50. It’s 97/3.

      The scientific consensus is SOLID. There are precious few real “scientists” that deny the evidence support anthropogenic global warming. You need to start using that thing above your neck and quit listening to the liars on Fox News. I mean really, you’re wasting your brain. Sad.

      • Berry Muhl

        LOL. “Fox News.” Please do your readers the courtesy of not ASSuming things, and not dismissing what you cannot disprove.

        I don’t watch any propaganda channel. I read science articles.

        And the scientists seem to disagree with you.

        Up until just a few months ago, I was in full agreement with you on this. Then a couple of key events took place. First, the atmosphere passed that 4pmm “milestone” of CO2 concentration, and the media predictably unleashed hysteria. “Concentrations not seen on Earth for nearly three million years!” we were told.

        What conclusion can you draw from the fact that the planet, unassisted by any anthropogenic component, achieved that milestone? What conclusion can you draw from the fact that the planet’s life just kept on truckin’?

        The second event was the publication of the most recent report from the IPCC, which acknowledges that their models fail to account for the amount of warming now observed…which is several degrees *less* than predicted on the basis of carbon forcing.

        The IPCC then goes on to assert that, nonetheless, the observed warming is *still* the result of human activity, because hey, what else can cause it?

        The IPCC lost my confidence at that moment, and revealed itself to be a politicized body. Now I’m a bit more objective on the subject, and being objective, have discovered that the “consensus” is nowhere near as overwhelming as we’ve been told. (Further, the Paleogene climate maximum demonstrates that even in the case of *exceedingly* rapid global warming, the ecosphere can not only adapt but thrive. Corals didn’t bleach into extinction; ocean acidification didn’t eliminate mollusks from the fossil record. And this kind of rapidity can take place ENTIRELY NATURALLY.)

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

        http://justbunk.net/2014/02/27/97-of-scientists-agree-with-global-warming-bunk/

        The IPCC can regain my confidence by improving its models. Unlike you, apparently, my mind isn’t closed on this matter. That’s because science, you see. But the heavy politicization of this issue, and the tendency of environmentalists to make an us-versus-them controversy (depicting energy companies as the bad guys, natch) will encourage me to *always* take a few extra grains of salt with my reading, henceforth.

        It should compel you to do the same, but somehow I doubt it…you seem like the type who would rather vilify those who disagree with you, and call their intelligence and / or education into question.

        Meh.

        • Ah the “ASSuming” humor. Oh how intellectual of you.

          Who cares what YOU think of the IPCC. Please, provide me with your credentials? You have a Ph.D. in what science? Geology? Paleontology? Please list your peer reviewed articles?

          Please, also show me the evidence you’ve accumulated that have been published that move your denial of scientific fact to something I can actually believe?

          I’m guessing that you have nothing. Otherwise, you’d be waiting on your Nobel Prize.

          This blog demands evidence. You’re the denier. You provide the evidence. We’ll all sit here with our popcorn waiting for you. I imagine we won’t get anything.

          Meh.

          • Berry Muhl

            “Oh how intellectual of you.”

            Hey, pal, *you* set the unnecessarily combative tone with your dismissive response to me. You come across as a typical brittle personality: unwilling to brook even the slightest disagreement or criticism for fear of losing face.

            Who cares what I think? I, for one. And as a citizen of a still ostensibly-free nation, I’m entitled to my opinion, no less than you. The IPCC is a body that derives its very existence from state funding. If you’re capable of ascribing unethical motivations to corporations for having “greedy” people operating them, surely you’re capable of pointing that same lens at the IPCC.

            I am not denying scientific fact. I am disputing scientific OPINION. Just like you are, I’m a “skeptic.” At least, I’m a *real* skeptic, and not someone who has publicly adopted the label. I have no horse in this race. I don’t care in which direction the controversy is settled. I do, however, expect the bare minimum of intellectual honesty from YOU. Admit that, in the entire history of the human race, NO scientific controversy of this magnitude has ever been settled within a matter of decades, much less years. Even today, substantial challenges to GTR still come in from the field as new observations upset our understanding of Einsteinian gravity. Even today, substantial challenges to STR still come in from the field as people observe what appear to be superluminal activities. Even today, quantum mechanics–the single most well-observationally-supported discipline in science, outside of natural selection–is still highly controversial, not because “unbelievers” have a hard time accepting its principles, but because it is fundamentally irreconcilable with GTR.

            This debate is NOT settled. It won’t be settled for quite some time to come. And those on BOTH sides who argue that it IS stand to face major embarrassment with the very next major discovery.

            I notice that you’d rather call my credentials into question than dispute my assertions. That’s another dismissal tactic. You’re running a BLOG here, not a peer-reviewed journal. Get over yourself. There are autodidactic polymaths out here in the real world who regard degrees as pretentious social climbing. As for the Nobel Prize crack, that’s particularly weak, considering that there are millions of scientists with peer-reviewed articles that will never come closer than an audience at a Nobel ceremony. The awarding of Nobel Prizes is *another* aspect of science that demonstrates the inherent problems in letting committees decide what’s true.

            Consensus is not truth. Even if your 97% figure was correct–and the sources I posted, which you evidently refuse to consider, demonstrate that it isn’t–we shouldn’t be acting on consensus. We damn sure shouldn’t be allowing governments to impose force on its basis.

            I’m not here to prove that I’m the smartest person in the room. I’m not here to embarrass you, for that matter, or make you an enemy. I understand that this is your little fiefdom and that you have to take every disagreement as some kind of challenge.

            But the only way you can impress me–if you’re so inclined–is to argue away the assertions I’ve previously made. Oh, and maybe drop the condescension, which is what got my dander up (“ASSuming”) in the first place.

            Your “blog” demands evidence? Read the sources I posted. You oughta love them; they’re also blogs.

      • MDBritt

        Skeptical Raptor – there is a lot of controversy swirling around that “97% of climate scientists agree” fact. It turns out that the “high impact journals” included a fair number of social science journals investigating peoples’ attitudes toward AGW. They also systematically purged articles from influential climatologists like Roger Pielke and Judith Curry from the database, etc. Now, Cook, John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli (who write at the Guardian) are insisting that they have done nothing wrong but Jose Duarte seems to have caught them with their pants around their ankles.

        Now, I imagine that most climatologists buy AGW. Hell, *I* buy AGW – I don’t see how you can increase Co2 levels and NOT get some degree of primary forcing in temperatures. Then again, I am not a Climatologist so my opinion means little. Real climatologists who have a better understanding than me have been publicly backtracking on some aspects of AGW – especially on the apocalyptic climate disruption scenarios (cf. the latest IPCC report).

        But the whole 97% thing? That is pretty much propaganda for the rubes. I say this just to keep you ahead of the curve. Keep up the good work!

        • The only people inventing these controversies are climate change deniers.

          Who’s been backtracking? Who is claiming there is a controversy?

          And Fox News doesn’t count as a source. I want a real journal article somewhere. And since 97% of peer-reviewed articles support AGW, then you owe me 97% retraction. Go for it silly man.

          • Anders Westlund

            As I wrote above: “Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact religious
            journals support the theory that God exist.” Does that prove anything?
            Also: Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles conserning astrology published in high impact journals support the theory that astrology work. Does that prove anything?
            The right way to verify a scientific hypothese is to use “The Scientific Method”: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/scientific-method:

            An argument based on The Scientific Method (systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses) is a scientific argument.

            Can someone please tell me if this is the method that is used for veryfying the hypothese of manmade global warming?

            Can someone please tell me how the CO2-hypotesis has been reliably tested with attempts at refutation?

            And I would also like to know where IPCCs data, methods and statistical calculations are descriebed with an openness so it can be evaluated by other experts.

      • Anders Westlund

        Skeptical Raptor write: “Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact factor
        journals support the theory (in other words, a scientific fact) that man
        causes global warming”
        My answer: “Over 97% of peer-reviewed articles published in high impact religious
        journals support the theory that God exist.”

  • Kat CE

    Uh oh… You’re becoming as wordy as orac! But like orac, your blogs are always worth the read 🙂 keep up the good work…and thanks for the TLDR version. I think a large part of the problem with trying to reason with science deniers is that they really don’t understand what science is or how it works, especially its self-correcting nature. Perhaps it is difficult for science deniers to accept the self correcting nature of science because they are unable to correct their own perceptions, choosing instead to deny all evidence in favour of protecting their worldview.

  • jre

    I continue to be impressed and inspired by the care and effort you put into these posts. Great job!

    I’d like to add a footnote re/ DDT. The singing cow and cucumber have been reprinted many times and pressed into the service of various causes. Some years ago, I found an original, in a microfilm archive of Time magazine from 1947. For me, the most striking aspect of the ad was its bland optimism about the potential of technology. The Pennsalt company really was excited that “everyone can enjoy added health, comfort and safety though the insect-killing powers of Pennsalt DDT products …” — and this was perfectly reasonable at a time when the scariest things were famine and disease, both of which technology promised to vanquish. DDT was never banned, but it has been removed from agriculture and targeted by measures such as insecticide-treated bed nets and indoor residual spraying. That’s as it should be.

    Sometimes we are surprised by the results of our own cleverness. The cure for that is not to stop being clever, but to try to be wise.

    http://www.somesnarksareboojums.com/blog/?p=28

  • Carl Sagan said: In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

    Most conspiracy theories, and alternative medical systems, are essentially religions. They behave exactly as Sagan describes religions and politics.

  • turtlegirl784

    I know this is years old, but since it got reposted on TWIP…

    “It’s kind of ironic that cancer therapies, which often are declared successful if they increase lifespan by a few months even when they can be toxic with some awful side-effects.”

    What is this sentence trying to say? I usually don’t call out mistakes, but ones like this are clearly missing something and kind of confusing to read.

    • Although it read clear to me, as the writer, of course, maybe I just knew what I was trying to say. I rewrote the few paragraphs around it so it was clearer. Tell me what you think.

      What is “years old?”

      • turtlegirl784

        It was the comma and the “which”. It set up a separate clause, and then the first part was never finished. It looks good now. 0:)

        And… oops. I misread the date at the top. I tend to just glance at the last couple digits to see what year a post was written, so I was thinking this was written in 2010.

        • Sorry, I use the international dating system, an old habit from years of having to use it. I also use a 24 hour clock. The metric system. But drive on the correct side of the road. 😀

  • Vickie Zisman

    I think there is also a gender issue. If more women would chose to study science, maybe this back-2-middle ages wave wouldn’t be so big and vociferous.

    • I think as more women get Ph.D.’s and faculty positions, they become mentors to more up and coming women scientists, causing a positive feedback mechanism. I also think we need less dogma in science (though I don’t want that to be interpreted that sound scientific principles like evolution or the safety of vaccines is a dogma–they’re supported by vast amounts of evidence).

      • Vickie Zisman

        You’re funny….Your last sentence is soooooo apologetic…..LOL. As if it still needs to be reiterated.

      • Marrena

        Well this I will uprate.