Unsolicited Opinions

The Give Up Blog has a post cataloging the tactics of denialists. Denialists are people who, for particular ideological reasons, dispute the consensus on certain subjects despite the overwhelming evidence that supports that consensus. Denialists come in many flavors: evolution deniers, HIV causes AIDS deniers, holocaust deniers, etc. Despite the particulars of what well-supported finding they deny across these groups, they all seem to draw from the same box of flawed reasoning and use of logical falacies to support their denial belief.

I've discussed this before with respect to a particular lesser-known denialist belief (Einstein denial), and Seth at Whiskey Before Breakfast has been ruminating on this with several posts trying to work out how and why this denial "memeplex" gets propagated.

As I commented on Seth's blog earlier, I think "denialism" can be adequately explained as a subset of credulous thinking. There's little difference between denying specific conclusions that are based on overwhelming evidence like evolution, AIDS, etc., and accepting pseudoscience like UFO abduction stories, astrology, and psychic phenomona with no supporting evidence. The latter enthusiasts of such credulous beliefs simply deny the overwhelming evidence that these things (UFO's, astrology, psychic powers) don't exist. And they use the same flawed reasoning and logical falacies to ignore all the evidence that points to more mundane explanations.

Still, it's illuminating to see all the common arguments laid bare for future profiling.

Labels: craziness, skepticism

Over at The Panda's Thumb, the contributors are doing a good ol' fashioned chapter-by-chapter fisking shredding of Jonathan Wells' newest creationist tract book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Given that Wells is the author of that textbook example of quote mining, Icons of Evolution (link goes to the TalkOrigins FAQ on the book), it's no surprise he's, shall we say, less than careful with his facts and arguments. It gets really tiresome to see biblical creationists scientific creationists intelligent design proponents recycle the same discredited arguments over and over ad infinitum, and I'm glad there are people willing to continue to take up the thankless task of refuting these arguments yet again.

But this post isn't about Wells' book per se, but rather the whole "Politically Incorrect" series. PZ Myers linked to a post on another blog parodying the series of books with additional made-up topics. It was good for a laugh and nicely illustrates how the phrase "politically incorrect" has apparently mutated (at least in the minds of Regnery publishing and their readers) from "don't be afraid to voice an unpopular opinion if you can back it up with facts" (as demonstrated by Bill Maher) to mean "any part of conventional histororical or scientific knowledge that supports a 'liberal' position is actually wrong, and all the 'real' facts support our preconceived prejudices and justify our bigotry." The supreme irony, of course, is that it seems like all the "Politically Incorrect" books rely on dishonest rhetoric and distortion of facts to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that everything "liberal" is bad.

Unfortunately, what is chilling is that the actual books in this series are just as ridiculous (if not moreso for apparently being serious arguments) as the parodies on display at that blog post on 90% True. The other books in this series besides Wells' include:

• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism - Women should have remained barefoot and pregnant, and their uppity quest for careers is destroying the American family.
  
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and The Crusades) - The European Christian Crusaders were "defensively" trying to conquer the Middle East, and all Muslims are terrorists.
  
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science - Global warming, evolution, and stem cell research are all junk pseudoscience.
  
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History - The Founding Fathers were "conservatives" and "hundreds" of American liberals were traitor commie bastards.
  
• The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature (Coming soon!) - "Dead white males rock!" (I kid you not, that is on the cover of the book) and the "greatest" English literature is "explicitly Christian and celebrates military courage."

Well, it looks like I've got my fall reading list together! And if your irony meter has survived the absurdity of these books and their "mythbusting" of conventional knowledge, here's the crowning touch: since "Politically Incorrect Guide" forms the acronym P.I.G., they apparently thought it was a great idea to use a pig as the representative icon for their book series! How appropriate for such pig-ignorant, pig-headed crap.

Labels: craziness, culture wars, irony

Now I've seen everything. Apparently Albert Einstein did not develop the Theory of Relativity, but was in fact an "incorrigible" plagiarist who stole his ideas from every prominent scientist of the time. Needless to say, this seemed like an outrageous and unsubstantiated claim. However, this guy Christopher Jon Bjerknes published a book in 2002 detailing Einstein's supposed malfeasance.

Well, check out Mr. Bjerknes' entry on Wikipedia. Not much more info about his theory, other than the fact that he got into a flame war with another science historian, John Stachel, over his controversial thesis (not surprising). Then we find this little tibit:

Bjerknes and Winterberg have spoken up to defend some highly controversial figures, including David Irving and Arthur Rudolph. Despite being lionized in some articles at the White Nationalist Wiki, Bjerknes disavows any antisemitic motivation for his attacks on Einstein. Bjerknes has written himself on the Holocaust for the Holocaust denial "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust", claiming that "Racist Zionists" perpetuated the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust, as well as having later used the history of anti-Semitism as "a means to control public opinion in a most corrupt and deplorable fashion". He also claims that "Jewish racists helped to put Hitler into power in order to herd up the Jews of Europe and force them into segregation", that "Jewish racists collaborated with the Nazis to kill off the weakest Jews and preserve the best genetic stock for deportation to Palestine", and that, contrary to mainstream historical opinion, that the Nazis did not plot genocide at the Wannsee Conference.

Hmmm... blaming the Jews, ... er, "Racist Zionists," for the Holocaust in some sort of elaborate conspiracy theory and defending the views of Holocaust deniers does a lot to impeach this guy's credibility in my estimation. Sort of seems like this Einstein-denial thing is just a specific manifestation of his general anti-Semitism. Still, I'd be employing the ad hominem logical falacy if I dismissed his arguments solely on the basis of his apparent anti-semitism.

So we turn to reliable source Cecil Adams of The Straight Dope to deliver a balanced view of the subject:

Questions of priority have long swirled around the theories of relativity, both special and general. Though no one thinks Einstein confected special relativity out of thin air, his 1905 paper had no notes or references, which was odd even for the times. In fact, as Einstein's critics long ago demonstrated, virtually all the better-known elements of the theory--most famously, the equivalence of matter and energy (E = mc²)--had previously been suggested by others. Two men in particular, French mathematician Henri Poincare and Dutch physicist Hendrik Lorentz, are credited with anticipating many of Einstein's discoveries.

Some latter-day writers have seized on these observations as proof that Einstein was a fraud, notably Christopher Jon Bjerknes, author of Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist (2002). The gist of his argument: (a) Einstein got many of his ideas from his first wife, Mileva Maric; (b) Maric herself plagiarized her ideas from others; and (c) the theory is a crock anyway. Clearly, some aspects of Bjerknes's attack operate at cross-purposes--if relativity is fatally flawed, who cares if it was pirated? More importantly, though he seems to have unearthed every remark ever penned that could conceivably be construed as undercutting Einstein's contribution, he never manages to demonstrate that Einstein ventured over the line between building on other people's work and stealing it.

Still, you ask, given that Big Al was just one of a bunch of scientists sniffing around the same turf at the same time, why did the Smartest Person Ever trophy go to him and not one of his contemporaries? Poincare, for instance, gave a prescient lecture in 1904 (Einstein doesn't seem to have been aware of it) that posited many aspects of special relativity, among them the idea that the speed of light was an impassable limit. So illuminatingly did he dilate on the issues that one historian of science professes bafflement that Poincare failed to invent the theory of special relativity himself. But he didn't. His comments make it clear he was still wedded to classical physics, with its comforting notion of space and time as unchanging verities. Einstein alone was able to make the conceptual leap and realize that space and time were about as immutable as Silly Putty, paving the way for our modern view of the cosmos as a profoundly strange place.

While one doesn't want to deprecate Einstein's intellectual boldness, the fact remains that he put together a puzzle all the pieces of which were then in plain sight. He himself conceded that had he not invented the theory someone else would soon have done so. (He thought the theory of general relativity, which he completed in 1915, was a more impressive achievement--although even there, controversy still rages about who first deduced the crucial equations, Einstein or German mathematician David Hilbert.) This is not to say that Einstein was unworthy of the esteem in which he continues to be held--merely that, like every other physicist who ever lived, he stood on the shoulders of giants.

So, it seems there was nothing particularly sinister about Einstein after all (other than that he was left-handed, like me; look up the original meaning of sinister). If you go and John Stachel's critique of Bjerknes' book, you'll also find that Bjerknes employs tactics and arguments that have uncanny parallels to creationist propaganda, such as quote mining, and presenting self-contradictory, inconsistent criticisms.

Seth, if you're reading, you might want to add Einstein-denial to your list of crazy belief pathologies.

By the way, if you're wondering how I stumbled onto this little gem, I was looking for a particular science fiction story written by H.G. Wells (no, not The Time Machine), and I did a google search for "H G Wells higher dimensions." Bjerknes' website was the 5th result. However, after this diversion, I did find the story I was looking for eventually. I was looking for the Wells story becuase it was mentioned in a few comments I read on The Panda's Thumb in the Design Challenge thread. Talk about your unexpected detours!

Labels: craziness, Einstein, skepticism

I like to think of myself as a pretty reasonable guy. I try not to make snap judgments or let my anger get the better of me. I try to think things through and draw conclusions based on the facts as I see them. I'm always willing to admit I could be wrong about the facts, that I might have made a logical error, or that I let my prejudices blind me to the truth. I'm also willing to say "I don't know" when I don't have all the facts and haven't done enough research on a subject to come to a conclusion. But, once in a while, something really gets under my skin, and I just have to respond. Few things can set me off, but Ann Coulter just makes me see red.

Never have in my life have I encountered such a combination of disregard for facts and truth coupled with towering arrogance and self-righteousness, with a dollup of extreme hate-mongering thrown in for good measure. But this isn't what really rankles me. There are lots of odious people spewing lots of lies, distortions, and hateful rhetoric all over the place. And they have the right to do so. Freedom of speech is a concept I wholeheartedly endorse. Even when the speaker is Ann Coulter, or Rush Limbaugh, or even the execrable Fred Phelps (the link goes to his Wikipedia entry; I can't bring myself to actually link to his hate-filled website).

The problem with Ann Coulter, and what personally frustrates me, is that she is treated with kid gloves by the "liberal media" and regarded as a mainstream pundit, when her views and rhetoric put her to the far right of Pat Robertson. Coulter's rhetoric should be marginalized, ignored, and dismissed by the media and the public in the same fashion that hate groups like the KKK and neo-nazis are ignored. Her writing is just as offensive and filled with untruths, but no one calls her on it. And any righteous indignation directed at her just adds fuel to her fire. Which is why I'm conflicted about writing this post. I guess I can take comfort in the fact that very few people read my blog anyway, so I can safely vent in relative obscurity.

Well, looking back at what I've written so far, I guess it's not really Ann Coulter than makes me so mad. It's the state of rational public discourse in America. We've become so polarized that people will support a horrible demagogue regardless of whatever outrageous lies they tell, as long as that demagogue can convince them that he or she is on "their" side. The fact that Ann Coulter's latest book is a bestseller is a symptom of the disease afflicting American politics.

Journalist David Neiwert has insightfully identified Coulter as one of several right-wing "transmitters;" someone who can take the outrageous views of the extreme far right, package them up and put a nice pretty bow on them, and present them to the mainstream as normal, reasonable "conservative" views. This has the effect of radicalizing the right more and more, since "mainstream" conservatism becomes increasingly extreme. This also creates a polarizing effect which contributes to radicalizing the left as well, as Coulter surely generates as much, if not more, contempt as she does admiration.

The net effect is that we're left with an untenable catch-22 situation. Sure, I can ignore Coulter and dismiss her rhetoric, but a significant portion of the population is swallowing her crap like it's filet mignon, and the media is giving her national TV coverage. If no one speaks out against her propaganda, she stands completely unchallenged to reach as many people as she can with her "arguments." On the other hand, if we refute her work and call it the hate-mongering BS that it is, we're feeding into her notoriety and will be marginalized simply as "Coulter-haters." Is there any way out of this?

Well, maybe, just maybe, if we can refute her work with the facts alone, calmly, rationally, even dispassionately, that may convince enough people that she's not worth listening to. Stick to all the errors, distortions, and half-truths she spins, and refrain from name calling or speculation about her gender traits and/or sexuality, and these rebuttals might just be able to get through to some people. I know, I'm dreaming right?

Currently, all the press is reporting on her vicious statements about the 9/11 widows. While this is another lovely bit of hateful rhetoric from Ms. Coulter, her critics' indignation is still just feeding her fire. I can't believe some New Jersey lawmakers didn't realize how much they played right into her hands with that talk of banning her book in New Jersey. Now she can claim she's a "victim" of liberal censorship!

A better avenue of attack may be what the folks at the Panda's Thumb are doing; they're shredding the third of her book she's devoted to "debunking" evolution. I have little direct familiarity with Coulter's work, but my observation of her past attacks is that she's limited herself to political targets. Thus, she may distort the truth and misrepresent people's views and political agendas, but she doesn't directly challenge objective reality and call it a "liberal myth." Well, it seems now that's exactly what she's doing with her screed on evolution. And the evolution guys aren't calling her names or getting pissed off; they're calmly, rationally, and dispassionately dissecting her statements one by one and exposing the crapload of errors and distortions to the light of day. In the wake of the Dover decision outlawing the teaching of intelligent design in public school science classes, this has to put at least a little bit of a dent into her credibility with her fans, right? I know, I know, I'm still dreaming. But go read the rebuttals to her writing on evolution. They're very informative with links to several resources on the science of evolution.

Labels: Ann Coulter, craziness, evolution, intelligent design

Ever hear of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement? Me neither. Until I saw this website. They don't advocate anything so radical as mass suicide or genocide. They merely want to convince all human beings everywhere to stop having children. Then, when everyone currently alive dies, the human race will quietly go extinct, and the planet and all other living species can recover from our horrible abuse of the environment.

Wow. Of course, the solution to all our ecological problems is to get rid of the source! Humanity is the source of all problems, thus humanity should be destroyed! Genius, pure genius! (to echo Homer Simpson in this episode, "In case you can't tell, I'm being sarcastic.")

I think you've got an unreasonably pessimistic view of humanity if you think we are inexorably headed to ruin for both ourselves and the Earth. Rather than giving up and saying we're no longer worthy to exist, shouldn't we focus on fixing our problems and cleaning up our messes? Polution and population growth are problems, but they are not unsolvable and insurmountable. I'm not an expert and I'll have to look up the statistics, but isn't population growth slowing or even negative in developed countries? As more and more people rise above poverty in India and China, won't these countries as well get to the point where their populations stabilize?

Admittedly, we're not doing enough to protect the environment. But aren't we doing more now than we did in the 80's and 90's? Haven't aerosol spray cans stopped using CFC's so that they don't continue to harm the ozone layer? Don't we recycle more than we used to?

I'm not saying there is no problem, or that all problems are easily solved. But I think it's a bit premature to throw in the towel on humanity. Human beings are just as much a part of nature as any other species. Don't we deserve to give ourselves a chance?

Of course, I think the result of VHEMT's efforts won't be the extinction of humanity. I doubt they'll convince more that 0.00001% of people in the world to actually stop reproducing. And the people they do convince won't have any kids they can pass their beliefs and ideals on to. Natural selection wins again, and humanity goes on.

Labels: craziness, oddities