Maybe I do exist

Just in case you have read all this and now think you would like to become a denier, here's the final part, giving details about how you go about denying.

How do you become a denier? Martin McKee In The New Scientist suggests that all denialist movements employ six tactics.

Allege a conspiracy i.e scientific consensus has arisen by collusion rather than accumulation of evidence.

Fake experts to support the story - this creates a facade of credibility. The experts may be genuine but consider who’s paying them.

Cherry-pick evidence - highlight anything that supports your idea and ignore or rubbish the rest. Even if your evidence is discredited continue to use it.

Make the standards of evidence required by your opponents impossibly high by claiming existing evidence is not good enough. If more evidence is produced, then move the goal-post again.

Deliberately misrepresent the scientific consensus.

Use doubt by portraying scientists as so divided that their advice cannot be relied upon.

So there you have it (although in a some what shortened version). You can now go on to be a denier or, a sceptic you can become, and at least be willing to change should evidence dictate.

It's up to you now. I found these thoughts very interesting and having read them you'll be amazed how many people that you meet in your daily life will be deniers. The more you question them, the more you realise that most people are fixed in their beliefs and ideas, or maybe just scared to admit the truth.

How about you?????????????

I deny that I exist

Following on from the thread of earlier postings about deniers and sceptics here's the next instalment of the piece written in the New Scientist.

A lie can be an important tool in the arsenal of a denial group, especially when considering that we believe that which we can perceive, something which I will talk about another day. A prime example of this can be shown by the story of a quote given by John Houghton, a former chair of the IPCC;

“Unless we announce disaster no one will listen”

This quote was published by an Australian journalist as evidence that climate change warnings were deliberately exaggerated. Before taking this any further consider that the journalist is a conservative who disbelieves climate science.

On face value the quote seems pretty damning, especially considering its source. 

This quote then went on to be used the following year by a Canadian journalist and again at a later date in an article by a scholar at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. Slowly the quote has gone on to be used in several books, on blog postings (and here’s yet another one) and many web sites, eventually becoming cited as prime evidence by climate change deniers. Great you may say, what’s the problem. Well I suppose the real problem is that John Houghton never said or wrote those words.

This lie became prominent because it had a degree of believability about it to those who first used it i.e. people hostile to climate change are always likely to believe that Scientists are trying to bully them with extreme ideas. Once taken up as genuine by these few it is then easy enough in today’s technology/information age for the masses to come into contact with the statement, taking what was once a lie and for many making it true.

The moral of this being that you should always check your sources and question the motives of those providing the information. So, what’s my angle?

What sceptic?

Following on from my previous observations about deniers here is a quick look at some well known denial subjects and consideration of how much influence they may have. Again taken from the same Michael Shermer article.

Climate denial - when considering global warming the deniers tend to claim i) It isn’t real ii) It isn’t caused by human activity iii) It doesn’t matter. These people tend to call themselves climate sceptics, even when the majority of evidence suggest they are wrong. Unfortunately they can have a great deal of influence, especially when dealing with the non-scientific community (this will be discussed at a later date)

Evolution denial - the basis of this denial is that the theory of evolution is an atheist conspiracy to undermine religion. Again these deniers (creationists or intelligent design advocates) can be a  strong and active lobbyists group and exert a great deal of influence.

As an environmental scientist and atheist these are the two groups of denial that are of most interest to me. While I find their stance on such issues puzzling I must state that I have no problem with them having different views to my own. However I do have a problem with the fact that no amount of evidence or argument will ever change their view. Generally when dealing with such groups it is important to consider their starting point and what they are trying to achieve or protect.   Often denial is driven by an overtly political agenda. As an atheist I believe each person should be free to believe whatever they chose, and if a religious person came to me with proof of God then I would be forced to reconsider my position - until that time an atheist I shall stay.

One of the points made in this special report in an article by Debora Mackenzie suggests that many instances of denialism comes from people fighting a sense of loss of control and as a means to stand up to “experts”. She goes on to note that denials most futile ground is in areas where scientific knowledge must be taken on trust. This knowledge is often delivered by scientists, doctors or technical experts who can often appear to be arrogant to the lay-man. In the end however, the denialists will use the language of science to give their arguments more credence, but closer examination shows that the denialist has no solid foundation for such arguments, just anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal.

And now for something completely different:

Though we travel the world over to find the beautiful we must carry it with us, or we find it not

And talking of beautiful, how about this image (Nat. Geo.)

Sceptical of New Scientists?

There was a good series of articles in a recent edition of The New scientist (15/05/10) looking at the idea of deniers (who often believe they are sceptics but generally are not). As someone who is trained in environmental science I believe in the rigures and processes of good analytical and theoretical science and that it can find answers - not all answers, certainly not with absolute truth and that element of doubt means we must be alert to the possibility of changing our ideas. I’m not saying science doesn’t get things wrong, or that sometimes it is mislead, but a good scientist (sceptic) will follow the evidence to find the truth, even if it means it contradicts their initial position. As there’s a great deal to consider on this topic I shall probably look at it over a period of time, otherwise this piece could be too long and boring for one reading.

To start with lets look at the broad definition given in the first article (by Michael Shermer).

Sceptic - carefully considers the evidence for each (idea/claim) and is willing to follow the facts wherever they lead.

Denier - has a tendency to look for and find confirmatory evidence for pre-existing beliefs and ignore or dismiss the rest.

Clearly the definition given here of a sceptic must include all scientific investigation and the good scientist. I’m sure that there are scientists who are so entrenched in their ideas that they fall into the category of denier, and it is those scientists that can be considered “bad” and who can find themselves inadvertently useful to other deniers.

Michael Shermer suggests that “denial is typically driven by ideology or religious belief where the belief takes precedence over evidence”. You could use the phrase “what I believe is true and everything else is a lie” In this case a sceptic would add “... is a lie, until proven otherwise”

I could carry on along these lines but I’m sure you see the point. If you don’t could it be that you are a denier, or is it that I haven’t made a very good argument to persuade you (such a sceptic)