Eugenie Scott in the OC Register:
Poll scientific specialists on evolution and global warming, and the results are overwhelming: a strong consensus that the scientists say is founded on equally strong data.
But among the general public, the response can be quite different. Eugenie Scott, a science education activist best known for fighting creationism in public schools, says denial of evolution has much in common with the popular backlash against climate science.
Both, she contends, have ideological underpinnings, and both represent a threat to education.
Scott, who is accustomed to stirring controversy, gives a free public talk in Anaheim Saturday: “Deja vu all over again: Denial of Climate Change and Evolution.” She is the executive director of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland; the talk is part of a biology teachers’ conference at the Anaheim Marriott, and begins at 8:30 a.m.
Q. How did this come about?
A. The National Association of Biology Teachers is the largest group of biology teachers in the country. They usually invite me to speak every few years or so. Clearly, teaching evolution is going to be something biology teachers are going to be concerned about.
Q. Is there concern about the teaching of evolution in California schools?
A. There are concerns about the teaching of evolution and there are concerns about the teaching of global warming, in California schools and all over the country.
We actually are going to be, next month, announcing a new initiative for NCSE. We’re going to be adding climate change to our portfolio of topics that we will help teachers cope with.
Q. Why are you adding climate change?
A. Because we were finding that, as teachers have come to us for years for advice about how to handle the teaching of evolution as a controversial issue, we are now being approached by teachers who are being pressured to either not teach global warming, or teach it only as tentative, even though the scientific consensus on global warming is very, very strong — as it is with evolution. So we see it as a parallel issue.
You certainly believe in straw men…
actually, no.
nor do I believe in talking snakes.
Omnologos, I suppose that the most appropriate response to your comment would be something like “You certainly state falsehoods…” but that would commit the same sin you commit: making an accusation lacking either details or substance. If you have something to say, perhaps you might deign to say it. Would that be asking too much of you?
Hey sinchiroca what is there to respond to? I suppose if I were looking for a flame war I would be mentioning now Charles Manson and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (and Franny Armstrong) and pontificate how believers in the religion of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (cACC) are mass murderers or aspire to do so. But that’s not serious, just as it isn’t serious the silly notion that people with questions about the usefulness of believing in cACC are some kind of primitive science ignoramuses as supposedly demonstrated by their inability to deal with evolution.
And besides, the trouble with evolution is mainly an American thing, and believe it or not it has political more than scientific/pseudoscientific roots. If you can, get from the internet or a local library this article from the New York Review of Books, on William Jennings Bryan, who was as much as a Democrat as an an enemy of “evolution”: because when “evolution” reached America people were pushing to apply its concepts to human societies (“social darwinism”), a concept that is the antithesis of a modern democracy.
Onmologos, that’s quite a pile of claims you make; it’s difficult to discern any reasoning behind them. I’ll address a few of the more irrational claims. You yourself rely on a straw man in referring to ‘believers in the religion of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.’ I have seen little evidence here of any such religious beliefs. The material presented here, and most of the reactions to that material, focus on evidence, not belief. I can’t recall ever seeing any catastrophism in the primary material, although I can’t affirm that none of the commentators ever made a comment that could be construed as catastrophism. Do you have any examples of religious belief in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change in the articles presented here? If not, then you would be guilty of using a straw man.
Moreover, when you refer to “people with questions about the usefulness of believing in cACC”, you are using a kind of ‘inverse straw man’, because there are very few such people. The vast majority of deniers whom I have encountered on the net are indeed “primitive science ignoramuses” who don’t understand the basic science, deny the scientific evidence, reject the conclusions of the vast majority of climatologists, and refuse to read the scientific material on the subject.
Lastly, you mention that rejection of evolution is mainly an American thing. As it happens, so is denialism; polling data indicates that, among the OECD countries, denialism is strongest in the USA. Furthermore, there is a strong correlation between ACC denialism and evolution denialism in individuals Americans.
Who’s that? The straw sucker?
Mind the Dunning–Kruger effect!
The Taliban hates the education of girls. The Tea-Party is amazingly similar in that while they may not behead teachers, bomb schools or murder children, they certainly demonstrate the same mindless and virulent opposition to a scientific education. The Tea-Party and their founders and funders – the Kochs have an unprincipled ideology that aims to suppress the Public understanding of science.
Tea-Party and Taliban, both nasty, both driven by an ideology and determined to suppress education and force others into their way of NOT thinking.
hehehe. It’s not straw men, it’s a whole…baleful of them…
sinchiroca – somehow my message didn’t come across. I was responding to a straw man by making a straw man. Yes, that was exactly the point: it’s absurd to discuss straw man arguments.
As for your encounters am sorry to hear how bad they were but am not sure about your criteria for qualifying as a “primitive science ignoramuses”. Perhaps lukewarmers are included?
Finally people respond according to what they’re asked so I’d avoid using polls as evidence.
Fair enough. So where’s the straw man in the original article?
My criteria for people qualifying as “primitive science ignoramuses” are:
1. don’t understand the basic science,
2. deny the scientific evidence,
3. reject the conclusions of the vast majority of climatologists, and/or
4. refuse to read the scientific material on the subject.
Since I don’t know your definition of “lukewarmer” I cannot determine such people fit into the picture.
The straw man is the juvenile attempt of linking whatever the word “denier” means with an anti-science stance typical of America and due to long past societal misgivings against social darwinism. The complexities on both points are truly staggering.
As for those criteria, as I expect sensitivity to be between 0.5 and 1.1C, I’ll go get my club and hunt a couple of mastodons.
Btw apologies for opening a new thread every time but my mobile browser only allows me that, not inline replies.
I see no straw man in associating denialism with anti-scientific attitudes; indeed, I see the connection as very strong. Perhaps you have not encountered many deniers; perhaps you associate with that rarified class of deniers who have some knowledge of science. I can assure you that the great majority of deniers I have encountered are truly ignorant of basic scientific principles. The mistakes they make have been repeatedly refuted, yet they continue to mouth them like mynah birds repeating their mimicry of human speech. Trying to discuss ACC with a denier is usually no different from discussing anything with a mynah.
“As for those criteria, as I expect sensitivity to be between 0.5 and 1.1C, I’ll go get my club and hunt a couple of mastodons.”
Are you declaring you meet one or more of my criteria?
The 0.5C was a giveaway wasn’t it?
Seriously your desire for classifying people won’t take you far. And if you want to take home something out of this silly blog post is that if WJB refused Darwin it wasn’t because he was ignorant of scientific principles or a denier of the scientific evidence.
“Seriously your desire for classifying people won’t take you far.”
I disagree. The term “deniers” applies to a clearly identifiable group of people.
“And if you want to take home something out of this silly blog post is that if WJB refused Darwin it wasn’t because he was ignorant of scientific principles or a denier of the scientific evidence.”
*You* were the one who brought up Mr. William Jennings Brian, not the blog article. Whatever your reason for doing so, your point is quite irrelevant to the article.
Au contraire …as repeatedly pointed out, it’s the silliness and oversimplification of a straw man of a blog post, that make it irrelevant. And that was the point of my first comment.
And I repeat my assertion that there was no straw man in the original article. The existence of such a straw man is a figment of your imagination that you have failed to even specify. You have instead danced all around without ever actually saying anything relevant to the original article; you blow much smoke and erect many insinuative mirrors, but never actually say anything of substance. Should you wish to make an actual statement of fact or opinion regarding that article (as opposed to vague insinuations), I would be eager to discuss your judgements.
This exhausting exchange about the nature of an apparent logical fallacy in Omnologos opening assertion is fascinating. Let’s try applying his logic to a less controversial domain. Please correct my hip-shot false analogy analogy – Statistically, most championship teams have at least one all-star athlete, therefore every team with an all-star athlete wins a championship.
Mr. Zeller, please see my earlier comment on the difference between headlines and content (it’s on the second page). I would therefore correct your hip-shot false analogy analogy to read as follows:
Headline: “Americans too fat, study shows”
Therefore: Every American is too fat.
Applying a generalization about a class to every single member of the class is a fallacy — but that doesn’t mean that the generalization is wrong. It’s still fair to conclude from that headline that many or most Americans are too fat.
Besides, arguing over the precise meaning of a headline is silly. It’s a headline, not a dictionary definition! Look to the content, not the headline.
Sinchiroca, I think our analogies are more or less analogous, and that we basically agree. Although I was less certain that Omnologos was relying on the headline.