The Washington Post is still trying to contain the read-rage of its subscribers over George Will’s denial of global warming. The furor has centered on some arcane bits of data from 1978. The Post is hiding behind its claim that many fact-checkers misread the data summary. The question in the debate should not focus on whether George Will or the Washington Post misrepresented the facts, but on whether they are debating science with faith-disguised-as-science in a nay-sayers exercise in anti-intellectualism.
I am concerned about how science is discussed in the public arena when it intersects with politics, how it seems that the volatile emotions of the civic debate - since emotional appeals do change people's minds - have made it fine to color scientific debate in the same manner. I am thinking of global warming and of evolution, where the science may have question marks within it and could someday undergo a radical shift, but that shift would still include the facts as we know them today. Evolution is not going to be completely overthrown, nor is global warming. There is too much data.
People get confused because science does undergo enormous theoretical shifts when new information arrives. I can remember in my life being scoffed at by a geography teacher for my belief that surely Africa and South America must have broken off from each other. Once satellites went up and the movement of land masses was recorded, science tossed out the old model of geophysics and came up with plate tectonics.
This does not mean I can toss aside all science when it contradicts my beliefs. This instead shows the resilience and trustworthiness of science because of its fundamental divergence from belief systems like religion; science admits of disproof. Science actively looks for ways to disprove its most cherished theories. If fact contradicts theory, then theory falls, not fact. I could imagine a number of ways to test the theory of gravity, and if any of them worked, the relevant theories would have to change.
Pointing out flaws in current theories is a healthy way to challenge scientific orthodoxy. But when the challenge arises out of an opposing orthodoxy, then that opposition must submit to the same rigor. However, when one is a theory and the other is an a priori position simply denying the validity of the theory, the fundamental battle between science and faith falls right into our laps.
I ask George Will to conceive of any evidence that would disprove his belief that global warming is natural. If his viewpoint is not faith-based, then he must envision a way to surrender his theory. Then it can be tested. As it is, he is simply saying "That's not true" and we all know it is impossible to disprove a negative statement.
This kind of anti-science ignorance is not something the Post should be defending, even if presented by an eminent commentator. Fact-checking is not the same as intellectual honesty. Even if the facts supported his claims of flaws in the global warming arguments, what is the overarching viewpoint that is driving his belief that the scientists are wrong. Is it scientific, and thus does it contain arguments that he himself would accept as undoing his position? Or is it something he just "knows" and so remains impenetrable to evidence?
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Will and Faith in Global Warming Denial
Thursday, February 12, 2009
The O’Reilly Tool - How to write with no substance, just abuse
I was listening to O’Reilly spin about the Helen Thomas kerfuffle that resulted from his tasteless remarks. His rhetoric was a wonderful template for insult and propaganda. To prove there is no substance but just abuse, I took out the key words and made a kind of mad-libs game with it. I have supplied some suggestions for each category, but feel free to substitute your own mad-as-hell-libs to get a real feel for how simple and powerful the O’Reilly tool really is.
First read O'Reilly's original item, transcribed from his broadcast, with a few ellipses to make it mangeable.
Political correctness gone mad, that is the subject of this evenings talking points memo. Let me introduce you to the players. First we have the far-left Media Matters website which routinely assassinates the characters of conservatives and Republicans . These guttersnipes distort the public record hoping to harm people with whom they disagree. They never scrutinize liberals. Then we have a group called the WMC which was started by Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinham among others. ...
Last week I was a racist for supporting responsible immigration reform. This week I’m a sexist ageist for poking fun at Helen Thomas. ...And please remember this. Saturday Night Live can mock Sarah Palin all day long but I can’t mock Helen Thomas. The New York Times can brand people any vile name they want but I can’t make fun of an absurd question at a Presidential press conference? That’s some system isn’t it?
Now you try it.
(Hated ideology) gone mad, that is the subject of this evenings talking points memo. Let me introduce you to the players. First we have the (extreme position) (hated organization) website which routinely assassinates the characters of (people we like) and (more people we like). These (denigrating name) distort the public record hoping to harm people with whom they disagree. They NEVER scrutinize (people we despise). Then we have a group called (another hated org.) which (show connection to) (despised opposition leader) among others.
Last week I was a (insulting label) for supporting responsible (hot-button issue). This week I’m a (insulting label) for poking fun at (opposition leader). And please remember this. (Hated organization) can mock (people we like) all day long but I can’t mock (respected person). (Loudmouth opposition tool) can brand people any vile name they want but I can’t make fun of (liberal-leaning respectable person)? That’s some system isn’t it?
You can watch the video clip and follow along at the Women's Media Center website here.
