Important Article
Jun 12, 2016 12:04:24 #
There seems to be a large number of those who disparge so that I thought the following article might be worth recommending. It is the June California Institute of Technology Commencement Address by Atul Gawande entitled "The Mistrust of Science" reprinted in the June 11 issue of The New Yorker.
Jun 12, 2016 12:12:40 #
[quote=John_F]There seems to be a large number of those who disparge so that I thought the following article might be worth recommending. It is the June California Institute of Technology Commencement Address by Atul Gawande entitled "The Mistrust of Science" reprinted in the June 11 issue of The New Yorker.[/quot
http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=4941
http://thenonsequitur.com/?p=4941
Jun 13, 2016 04:22:08 #
Here are the key points form the article in my view:
"Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists.
1) They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views.
2) They produce f**e experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record.
3) They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field.
4) They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies.
5) And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.
To be precise, all five of those moves are logical fallacies–well most of them anyway. And this speaks to the broader point–it’s not just science, but basic reasoning that he’s defending. The trouble is, however, that the enemies, as it were, of reason take themselves to be its defenders. In fact, calling them out on their sorry reasoning, as Gawande has just done, is, as Gawande notes, not advisable:"
[...]
"By analogy, the t***hs and techniques of critical thinking 101 don’t matter to the people who most need them and invoking them only serves to make matters worse."
"Science’s defenders have identified five hallmark moves of pseudoscientists.
1) They argue that the scientific consensus emerges from a conspiracy to suppress dissenting views.
2) They produce f**e experts, who have views contrary to established knowledge but do not actually have a credible scientific track record.
3) They cherry-pick the data and papers that challenge the dominant view as a means of discrediting an entire field.
4) They deploy false analogies and other logical fallacies.
5) And they set impossible expectations of research: when scientists produce one level of certainty, the pseudoscientists insist they achieve another.
To be precise, all five of those moves are logical fallacies–well most of them anyway. And this speaks to the broader point–it’s not just science, but basic reasoning that he’s defending. The trouble is, however, that the enemies, as it were, of reason take themselves to be its defenders. In fact, calling them out on their sorry reasoning, as Gawande has just done, is, as Gawande notes, not advisable:"
[...]
"By analogy, the t***hs and techniques of critical thinking 101 don’t matter to the people who most need them and invoking them only serves to make matters worse."
Jun 13, 2016 22:35:53 #
This article reminds me of some UHH members who I've attempted to reason with as of late. Particularly that part about "the enemies, as it were, of reason take themselves to be its defenders," and "By analogy, the t***hs and techniques of critical thinking 101 don’t matter to the people who most need them and invoking them only serves to make matters worse."
This seems particularly true of the Trump fanatics and gun nuts.
This seems particularly true of the Trump fanatics and gun nuts.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.