Not happy to see Chris Mooney - BHtv lost a lot when Carl Zimmer left. I might comment later about Mooney and accomodationism. A couple of relevant links about the anti-vax movement. First, a painful video about the return of whooping cough to Australia. An American woman is the leader of the anti-vax movement in Australia - and dismisses the deaths that have resulted. And the always informative Jenny McCarthy Body Count.

Here is "Scorin' with Orrin," subtitled: "How the gentleman from Utah made it easier for kids to buy steroids, speed, and Spanish fly," by Stephanie Mencimer.

Quoting thprop: Not happy to see Chris Mooney - BHtv lost a lot when Carl Zimmer left. I might comment later about Mooney and accomodationism.

Thanks for that link. I look forward to some reading. I don't agree with the attitude "not happy to see Chris." I don't like (excessive) accommodationism myself, and I have heard him push points of view I disagree with, but he's certainly far from all bad. This was a good diavlog.

And the always informative Jenny McCarthy Body Count.

Heh. Speaking of that, applause for Michael's line about her, in reaction to her claim to have attended "the University of Google" -- "She should go to grad school."

No it is not Denialism.
In 2001 the The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group published a study finding no evidence in the value of mammography screening. This review caused quite a controversy and the conclusions were challenged by fellow scientists.
Spector opines that no studies have found a link between autism and vaacines. Yet a 2002 study by Dr. Vijendra Singh does just that. Spector and Mooney may not agree with the conclusions reached by Dr. Singh but to deny the existence of the study seems like - Denialism.
On almost any topic you can find scientists with opposing views backed by research.
In 2008 the Cochrane Group published a leaflet summarizing thier findings http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/mam...hy-leaflet.pdf. The conclusion, in a ten year period one woman in 2000 will have her life saved by mammography screening but 10 will be treated unnecessarily. Spector points out that Vioxx while deadly to some can be a lifesaver to others. While vaaccines save lives, why is it unreasonable to think a small subset of the population could react negatively. No study I could find states unequivocally that there is no link between autism and vaacine, simply that none was

Quoting cacimbo: ...No study I could find states unequivocally that there is no link between autism and vaacine, simply that none was found. ...

That's the point. You expect too much. There's also no study that concludes that vaccines cause arms to grow from your forehead. Just because there's been an assertion of a relationship (as in the former case) doesn't mean there's a reason to believe that such a relationship exists. The burden is, as it always is, on the people making the assertion to show that it's the case. You will never see a negative proof. That's not how it works in this world.

This was an excellent diavlog with many interesting topics. The diavloggers pose the question about why there is so much distrust of science. It is likely that people have had a misundestanding about the kinds of claims that science can make, at least in the field of medicine and biology. Scientists, health care providers and media have contributed to that mess by oversimplifying research findings and being overly optimistic. While Americans admire science they have a poor understanding of its limitations. Disappointment is the logical result when something goes wrong. As to the promises for the future, we have to be cautious about creating unrealistic expectations again and honest about the mistakes and shortcomings.

I am stunned at how vague the discussion runs in general. If we choose the topic of vitamins for example, the speakers write off all supplements. Hmmm, I recall using creatine fairly effectively while body building. I've seen family members significantly improve joint movement after taking chondroitin regularly. And a quality, well balanced multivitamin is useful particularly for athletes. These are just a few examples. So, could the discussion be a bit more focused? For example, the pros and cons of antioxidants and the lack of clarity in some studies around omega 3s? I'm sure the speakers are aware of these. I'm just troubled by the glib writing off of all supplements because Americans just don't know better.

Quoting mobilator: I am stunned at how vague the discussion runs in general. If we choose the topic of vitamins for example, the speakers write off all supplements. Hmmm, I recall using creatine fairly effectively while body building. I've seen family members significantly improve joint movement after taking chondroitin regularly. And a quality, well balanced multivitamin is useful particularly for athletes. These are just a few examples. So, could the discussion be a bit more focused? For example, the pros and cons of antioxidants and the lack of clarity in some studies around omega 3s? I'm sure the speakers are aware of these. I'm just troubled by the glib writing off of all supplements because Americans just don't know better.

They didn't write off all supplements. In fact they mentioned a few as helpful (and medically endorsed) supplements. They touched on many topics without going into specifics. Perhaps if you read the book you could get a better idea.

Thanks, Ocean. I was just going by the conversation online. Will check out the book.

Well said statement, and it even holds when arguing against pacifistic notions about using force. http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/238...8:59&out=29:14
I think I will save that for a later time.

Putting aside religious views (the soul is created at conception, evolution is false, etc.), which end of the political spectrum is more prone to pseudo-science? Since I have zero empirical evidence, I should probably keep my mouth shut, but my wild guess, based on decades of listening to New Age claims, is that the secular left may be more susceptible to believing unfounded health claims than the secular right. I think it's because, as Michael and Chris suggested, a lot of the fringe healthcare products are linked to environmentalism and holistic health claims that are dear to organic food consumers and vegetarians (mostly progressive folks politically.) On the other hand, every drug store in the country is now filled with substances for magical herbal and homeopathic treatments and "cures," and the packaging and marketing seems to appeal to all demographics. Family practice physicians also seem to be increasingly complicit. When I was a kid, the family doctor would tell you that homeopathy was silly and didn't work. Period. Now they go along with "alternative healthcare" treatments and tend not to express skepticism about nonscientific claims for fear of losing healthcare market share entirely. Anyone have

Quoting Wonderment: Putting aside religious views (the soul is created at conception, evolution is false, etc.), which end of the political spectrum is more prone to pseudo-science?

Since I have zero empirical evidence, I should probably keep my mouth shut, but my wild guess, based on decades of listening to New Age claims, is that the secular left may be more susceptible to believing unfounded health claims than the secular right.

I think it's because, as Michael and Chris suggested, a lot of the fringe healthcare products are linked to environmentalism and holistic health claims that are dear to organic food consumers and vegetarians (mostly progressive folks politically.)

On the other hand, every drug store in the country is now filled with substances for magical herbal and homeopathic treatments and "cures," and the packaging and marketing seems to appeal to all demographics. Family practice physicians also seem to be increasingly complicit. When I was a kid, the family doctor would tell you that homeopathy was silly and didn't work. Period. Now they go along with "alternative healthcare" treatments and tend not to express skepticism about nonscientific claims for fear of losing healthcare market share entirely.

Anyone have

Lots of people are looking for shortcuts. Real science is hard -- generalizing about stuff called natural, organic, etc is easy, whether you're for 'em or agin 'em. Fun fact: the biggest alt med/supplement booster in congress is Orrin Hatch.

Any other conspiracy theories you want to throw at the wall? One problem with pushing the spin, that the MMR vaccine causes autism, is, that there is no consensus about what causes autism - indeed the definition of autism has expanded (which discusses Andrew Wakefield in Paul Offit's book, Autism's False Prophets). The number of children who will get vaccinated exceeds the number who have some form of autism, by any definition. It's clear, though, that without vaccinations, the incidence of infectious diseases, like measles, has increased, and will continue to increase. Shades of Behe, too, there's money in pushing crackpot fear and death, as the Andrew Wakefield example shows.

I don't think it is so much that the science is hard (although I agree that much of it is difficult to understand). What is more important in driving denial is two things: 1) whether the evidence supports or refutes conclusions that conflict with our ideologies. I am guessing most people accept Einstein's equation of E = mc2 not because they understand it but because it does not overtly conflict with their ideology. and 2) What the status quo of the society is at large is. You can walk into a social gathering at most places in the US and proclaim that the world is about 6000 years old. This allows these nonsense views to persist and provides validation. This is especially true if people spend little time thinking of the subject at hand--they are easily swayed by majority opinion. The question of whether the left or right is more anti-science is a silly question. We should stand up for reason whatever the case. What is important it is for us leftists to understand that some of our fellow political allies can hold crazy, irrational, and harmful views. Although, I would argue that the Repubs

It seems "blue-state" denialism is related to fear of a concentration of power. Genetic testing leads to a master race, or corporations pushing evil drugs and vaccines. I also think, as Cacimbo shows above, that many people are not un-scientific. They just either stop at the hypothesis stage, at coincidence (e.g., my kid got vaccinated and he also is autistic...hmmmm), or listen to friends, family, or celebrities. But, it's the people who do their own research, who ask questions, and are rude about it, who don't seem to be crackpots.

Quoting dpc: We should stand up for reason whatever the case. What is important it is for us leftists to understand that some of our fellow political allies can hold crazy, irrational, and harmful views.

I recall that George Bernard Shaw quote:"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." Also, my interpretation of C.S. Peirce and science is, that one person can discern if an argument is valid and might reach a conclusion through experiment, but it takes others to confirm continually whether that fact still applies to human understanding of the world. Perhaps a crackpot is just a person who has discovered an exception - that's me being generous. But, generally, for sectarians the world never changes, whereas for sane people the world does nothing but change. Other persons still have to confirm results for their circumstances, and that process never ends.

Quoting Wonderment: Putting aside religious views (the soul is created at conception, evolution is false, etc.), which end of the political spectrum is more prone to pseudo-science?

The right. It's not that they get more things wrong on the science front as a group average, it's that what they tend to get wrong more often is worse in kind compared to the lefts issues (i.e. religious based doubts about evolution).
That said, I think the left has a tendency to house more new age beliefs among its tent. Less God, but that void is often filled with "spiritual" notions as opposed to divine authority or cold reason and logic. Any time I hear someone call themselves spiritual, after my eyes have finished rolling dismissively, I think slacker who wants the mystical without the demands or standards to hold to. Hippies. I think the left leaning side tends to put a greater sacred value on the environment, while the right tends to put more sacred value towards the holy. Again, the notion of the sacred, even without a religious basis, often seeps into people as opposed to them being filled with cold reason. (i.e. endangered species protections) And why is it no

Quoting JonIrenicus: And why is it no animals ought to be allowed to go extinct do to human actions? Is it not the case that greater than 99% of species that have ever existed on this earth have gone extinct? What makes a difference now? Ah, mans involvement, extinctions based on our actions are inherently different than that caused by the natural elements, geological changes or climate shifts over the eons, and even the introduction of new predators or plagues.

While I slightly agree with you that some of the fervor that permeates much of the environmental movement is a result from people having rerouted their religious drives from various churches to the environmental movement, I feel you are being far to dismissive about the culling of genetic diversity in the wild. The obvious answer to your question is that we are here now, and it would be nice to avoid huge ecological shifts that would likely result in chaos for man.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: While I slightly agree with you that some of the fervor that permeates much of the environmental movement is a result from people having rerouted their religious drives from various churches to the environmental movement, I feel you are being far to dismissive about the culling of genetic diversity in the wild. The obvious answer to your question is that we are here now, and it would be nice to avoid huge ecological shifts that would likely result in chaos for man.

At least you put the rationale where it belongs, the desires of man for a certain level of ecological diversity and preservation as opposed to placing the natural state above man, like some sacred slice of time and space. There is a certain level of reshaping nature to our whims that I Desire and wish to promote. I do not care that human parasites are natural, I want them eradicated to the best of our ability. Studied and preserved to the extent we wish to learn from their biology and function, but not allowed to thrive unfettered. This is not controversial, and a widely held sentiment, even

Again, the notion of the sacred, even without a religious basis, often seeps into people as opposed to them being filled with cold reason.

Thinking aloud...it seems to me that devotion to the cold reason of Science is a kind of religion, with rules even stricter than the ten commandments, and no chance of redemption. Bodily and environmental concerns could be seen as sub-cults. Or the three together as a triune god. The Science, the Body, and the Environment.

You mean like these

Up to 40 people have been killed and thousands more left homeless after unusually early winter blizzards hit north-central China.

The heavy snowfalls caused nearly 10,000 buildings to collapse and destroyed almost 500,000 acres of winter crops, Chinese officials said. More than 158,000 people have had to be evacuated from their homes.

Around half the estimated 40 deaths resulted from traffic accidents, as the unexpected weather caused havoc on ungritted roads…

…Beijing has been hit by three successive waves of snow, forcing the cancellation or delay of scores of flights.

I know it's only weather; for the last 11 years.

Quoting piscivorous: You mean like these I know it's only weather; for the last 11 years.

In the first place, it has been said for years, if not decades, that human effects on the climate are not expected to produce warming that is uniform across the globe. Some regions are expected to get colder, and further, the prediction is long standing that one of the effects is/will be more, and more severe storms. Start, for example, here and here. In the second place, you're vaguely right when you say "only weather," even in your attempt to be sarcastic: no one can say at this point whether an individual storm is due to human effects on the climate. Third, please be aware that this snowstorm did not last for eleven years. It was more like three days, according to your source. Finally, I note that you picked out this story but seemed to have overlooked something else just as recently in the headlines. Of course that article must be dismissed out of hand, right? Because it's not a cherry.

Quoting Wonderment: Putting aside religious views (the soul is created at conception, evolution is false, etc.), which end of the political spectrum is more prone to pseudo-science?

Hey Wonderment, I think Chris Mooney hacked into your account. Boy, talk about a game rigged to show "balance." Putting aside all the physical contact (the blocking, the tackling, etc.), which sport is more likely to cause serious injury, football or basketball? That aside, I still think you'd have to go with the right, for one reason alone. [Added] Just realized that you said "secular right" in your subject line, so ... never mind.

Quoting look: ...it seems to me that devotion to the cold reason of Science is a kind of religion, with rules even stricter than the ten commandments, and no chance of redemption.

I don't know why it would seem this way to you. Science has precisely none of the qualities of religion or even of a belief system. Science is just a methodology. I recently had my cholesterol levels checked. Science is the method we use to determine what sort of medical tests we undertake and how to undertake them. Why would I look to my cholesterol test results for redemption? Or to know whether I should covet my neighbour's wife? You're not making any sense.

Specter misses the point on Vioxx, even though he all but expresses it. Would somebody in agony take a 1% chance at a fatal heart attack in order to end the agony? Sure. But that person would take a 50% chance, too. Or 75%, 80%, 99%!!! Ultimately, people will commit suicide, rather than continue to live in agony. That's the problem: you can sell these people anything. It's just another example of why health care should never be sold in a market. It is not like other goods and services. Consumers cannot make rational choices about health care.

Quoting Ray: Specter misses the point on Vioxx, even though he all but expresses it.

Would somebody in agony take a 1% chance at a fatal heart attack in order to end the agony? Sure.

But that person would take a 50% chance, too. Or 75%, 80%, 99%!!!

Ultimately, people will commit suicide, rather than continue to live in agony. That's the problem: you can sell these people anything.

It's just another example of why health care should never be sold in a market. It is not like other goods and services. Consumers cannot make rational choices about health care.

It does not need to be perfectly rational, all the time. Just rational enough most of the time. And by the way, who decides whether a decision is rational or not? If taking a drug had a 100 percent chance to kill me at the end of 2 years, abruptly, but removed the physical pain and torture of some debilitating illness that would have killed me anyway in 5 years, is that rational? If the definition of what is rational = what makes one live longest, then no it is not rational. That is not the only conception of what rational is, and who should determine such

Quoting JonIrenicus: who decides whether a decision is rational or not?

The democracy does. This is why the government establishes and executes a criminal's punishment, rather than allowing the criminal's victim to do so.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Where we can, lets stick to leaving individuals with some autonomy on the trade offs made at the end of their days. At least when the competing options are grim.

By saying "where we can", you're neutering your own point. But you've also missed mine. What's important about rationality here is that there isn't enough to base a market on. If we allow people to buy whatever health care options they are offered, the market will immediately collapse and lots and lots people will die unnecessarily. The problem is that if the suppliers know that the customers will buy pretty much anything, then the suppliers will sell pretty much anything. And people who are in a desperate position because of illness, will buy pretty much anything.

Quoting Ray: The democracy does. This is why the government establishes and executes a criminal's punishment, rather than allowing the criminal's victim to do so.

I don't think rationality is the right driver for this. The democracy decides what is allowable, and what is not, it does not decide what is rational. That is a judgment that people make, not a government body. There are no laws about the rationality of driving intoxicated. There are laws prohibiting it, and this is primarily because of the harm to others. Whether behavior is rational, or irrational in nature, if it causes some sort of negative effect we often put some constraints on that behavior.
I think the word optimal would be a better choice. Wanting to optimize a system beyond what people, left to their own devices would realize. At some point, you do not trust the sick and tortured to make rational decisions about their health, and this leads to sub optimal results for the group as a whole as many would be taken advantage of.

By saying "where we can", you're neutering your own point.

But you've also missed mine. What's important about rationality here is that there

A short Finnish documentary about climate change. Climate Catastrophe Canceled

Quoting piscivorous: A short Finnish documentary about climate change. Climate Catastrophe Canceled

From looking around, it appears the documentary is based on interviews with Steve McIntyre and Richard Lindzen. We've discussed McIntyre before on this site (some scrolling required). Short version: he's unqualified, and he's been repeatedly shown to have played fast and loose with the facts. Lindzen has better scientific credentials, but it's worth keeping in mind who has been signing some of his paychecks. So, consider the sources, even if you're of a mind to think that two people's views should count for more than thousands of others.

Gee once again it is typical BJ don't actually address the issues discussed in the clip discuss the authors!

Quoting piscivorous: Gee once again it is typical BJ don't actually address the issues discussed in the clip discuss the authors!

Correct. Because once again, it is you trotting out something from people whose histories, like yours, precede them. I'm sorry that I'm not interested in watching yet another pitch that is almost certainly intended for your choir. It is far too likely that it will be more of the same old same old, and it just doesn't seem worth it to me to go over ground already well-trampled. Like creationists, AGW deniers are always happy to present a bunch more sciencey-sounding talk, no matter how consistently they've been shot down in the past. Once one knows the source, it begins to feel like it takes more effort than it's worth to address the new claims on the "merits" (quote marks most definitely required), because one knows that a thorough debunking isn't going to stop the next wave of bs from the same exact people. If, against all odds, there is anything of worth to this video, it will come to the attention of those not already firmly in the denialist camp, and I will

Quoting bjkeefe: Correct. Because once again, it is you trotting out something from people whose histories, like yours, precede them. I'm sorry that I'm not interested in watching yet another pitch that is almost certainly intended for your choir. It is far too likely that it will be more of the same old same old, and it just doesn't seem worth it to me to go over ground already well-trampled. Like creationists, AGW deniers are always happy to present a bunch more sciencey-sounding talk, no matter how consistently they've been shot down in the past. Once one knows the source, it begins to feel like it takes more effort than it's worth to address the new claims on the "merits" (quote marks most definitely required), because one knows that a thorough debunking isn't going to stop the next wave of bs from the same exact people.

If, against all odds, there is anything of worth to this video, it will come to the attention of those not already firmly in the denialist camp, and I will give it a look then.

In the meantime, I suspect your hypersensitivity to my adding a little information regarding the

Quoting piscivorous: Yes and unless those who proselytize before their god, of man made models, instead of science ever disavow their beliefs acknowledge any information that may prove their false gods the world will need to what cool for 30 years instead of the 11 that the data shows. As the continued debate here about the existence/nonexistence of the Jewish/Christin/Muslim god or the ridicules argument abut how inclusion of ID in schools might lead too irreversible damage to education, while ignoring the real bear in the room, speaks volumes to that possibility.

That paragraph suggests nothing so much as the damage has already been done. But! We should try to remain optimistic.

Quoting piscivorous: And could you please stop projecting your reactions on to me for once.

Pretty comical request, considering that you start by projecting a belief onto me which I do not at all hold. Try to let go of your instinct to demonize the opposition for a few minutes, and repeat to yourself the following: Brendan has repeatedly acknowledged that computer models of the climate are incomplete and must be taken only as the best we have so far

I projected nothing on to you but commented on your insistence that unless you see someone on your rather limited list of experts actually say so it ain't true because those making these claims are tainted by their biases; yet fail to recognize the biases of those very same individuals that you anoint as the only experts that count. But if wish to acknowledge that you fit the description in the prior comment then I can hardly disagree with you.

Your correct, but there are studies showing a possible link and research is supposedly ongoing. So while I would vaccinate, someone with autism in the family choosing not to is understandable to me.

Quoting piscivorous: I projected nothing on to you but commented on your insistence that unless you see someone on your rather limited list of experts actually say so it ain't true because those making these claims are tainted by their biases; yet fail to recognize the biases of those very same individuals that you anoint as the only experts that count. But if wish to acknowledge that you fit the description in the prior comment then I can hardly disagree with you.

Pisc, on this issue your middle name is confirmation bias. You never seem to fail to the most ridiculous sources (remember these guys?) to bolster your unwavering opinion on this matter. The complaint that Brendan's cites come from a "limited list" is pure projection.

Quoting cacimbo: Your correct, but there are studies showing a possible link and research is supposedly ongoing. So while I would vaccinate, someone with autism in the family choosing not to is understandable to me.

They're allowing the return of deadly infectious diseases based on their personal irrationality. People are dying and there's no believable data to support that opinion.

Quoting piscivorous: I projected nothing on to you but commented on your insistence that unless you see someone on your rather limited list of experts actually say so it ain't true because those making these claims are tainted by their biases; yet fail to recognize the biases of those very same individuals that you anoint as the only experts that count. But if wish to acknowledge that you fit the description in the prior comment then I can hardly disagree with you.

No, I don't wish to acknowledge that, and I said so directly. That effort to flip it around was weak, even by your standards. And no, I don't have a "limited list of experts." I accept the consensus view of thousands of scientists, and I reject the nonsense of cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists.

Yep it's only cranks Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming but that must be fresh news to you.

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

Can you please go through this list and distinguish the "cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists" so that I might know who to quote from now on.

It has always struck me as strange that there are so many that would sign such petitions, yet there are so few papers of quality that question things related to our current understanding of the earth's climate that make it to the light of day.

Quoting piscivorous: Yep it's only cranks Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming but that must be fresh news to you. Can you please go through this list and distinguish the "cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists" so that I might know who to quote from now on.

Be careful what you cite to support your assertions. For example:
(source)

Scientific American took a random sample of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science. Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.

(source)

In less than 10 minutes of casual scanning, I found duplicate names (Did two Joe R. Eaglemans and two David Tompkins sign the petition, or were some individuals counted twice?), single names without even an

Quoting piscivorous: Yep it's only cranks Thousands of scientists sign petition against global warming but that must be fresh news to you.

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master’s level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

No, it is not news to me that some people have signed a petition. Good to know they're against global warming. So am I. That's why I want to take steps to mitigate it.

Quoting piscivorous: Can you please go through this list and distinguish the "cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists" so that I might know who to quote from now on.

No, I will not do your work for you. However, I will give you some starting suggestions. Start by striking off everyone who doesn't have an advanced degree in climate science. That'll probably mean that a couple of reasonably well-informed people are cut, but it should serve as a good first pass. That means you don't have to bother with more than half of them right off the bat -- all of the MDs and the BSoEs and probably a good chunk of the MSes and PhDs. Next, look up all the people remaining, and find

I freely acknowledge the problems inherent in petitions of this kind but the leap of faith that there is no distention with in the scientific community is disingenuous and to write them all off as "cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists" is not exactly consistent with the tenants of scientific practice, but more in line with fanaticism. If I were a practicing scientist would I dare speak against the "conventional wisdom" and put my reputation, credibility and standing among my piers in play but more importantly it would jeopardize my ability to secure funding to continue in my profession. The pressure to conform, as any study of the history of science will show, is well documented; mix in the caveat of those who spout the party line get financed easier than those that don't. And please don't plead ignorance of the financing issues the media is replete with such stories though they are mostly opinion pieces.

Here is Maher's (left-wing) assessment of vaccines. This is a brand of vaccine paranoia from the presumably pro-science left. Don't know quite what to make of this. Is Maher just a quirky iconoclast, or is there a pseudo-science left that bears similarities to the intelligent design, pseudo-scientific right?

Quoting Wonderment: Here is Maher's (left-wing) assessment of vaccines.

This is a brand of vaccine paranoia from the presumably pro-science left.

Don't know quite what to make of this. Is Maher just a quirky iconoclast, or is there a pseudo-science left that bears similarities to the intelligent design, pseudo-scientific right?

I think it's a rare genetic mutation.

Quoting Wonderment: Here is Maher's (left-wing) assessment of vaccines.

This is a brand of vaccine paranoia from the presumably pro-science left.

Don't know quite what to make of this. Is Maher just a quirky iconoclast, or is there a pseudo-science left that bears similarities to the intelligent design, pseudo-scientific right?

I think so. It just more likely manifests as new ageism.

Goes to show just how inane and counterproductive trying to describe humanity using the right/left model is. You couldn't describe a sheet of paper with a one dimensional model and people are in love with trying to fit all issues and opinions into one. Even worse, people try to fit themselves into the model. Bad model, bad results.

I am not anti-vaccine, nor do I advocate going unvaccinated. However, the idea that a tiny percentage could react negatively to MMR does not seem outlandish to me. Penicillin is a life saver yet can cause severe allergic reaction. Even aspirin comes with a warning label. I agree that too many children are going unvaccinated. Which is why rather than adamantly declaring no way, no how can MMR cause autism, a switch in tactics. Instead of presenting the MMR as risk free point out the greater risks of not receiving. Also bring back the option of three separate shots. Talk of autism and vaccines did not start until MMR came along. If less people would refuse vaccines administered separately why is the option not available.

Quoting cragger: Goes to show just how inane and counterproductive trying to describe humanity using the right/left model is. You couldn't describe a sheet of paper with a one dimensional model and people are in love with trying to fit all issues and opinions into one. Even worse, people try to fit themselves into the model. Bad model, bad results.

I was trying to think of a way of saying that. Thanks, cragger. Don't get what your point is here, Wonderment. Are you concerned that there is a segment of readers of this board that thinks the left is composed of 100% coldly rational thinkers?

Don't get what your point is here, Wonderment. Are you concerned that there is a segment of readers of this board that thinks the left is composed of 100% coldly rational thinkers?

No, I'm just fascinated with the subject of how political views line up with a scientific world view. It's somewhat related to that psychologist -- I forget his name -- who did a couple of Bhead talks on correlating values (purity, respect for authority, etc.) with politics. I was surprised, for example, to find out that Maher had weird non-mainstream views on vaccines. How did he acquire them? Are they unrelated to his politics? It's especially interesting because Maher's whole schtick is to present himself as a rational skeptic. Another example is global warming. Obviously, almost all the deniers are on the right. Why? At the risk of sounding disingenuous, the answer is not obvious to me.

Quoting Wonderment: ...
Another example is global warming. Obviously, almost all the deniers are on the right. Why? At the risk of sounding disingenuous, the answer is not obvious to me.

I think because the original source of the denials was AEI and CEI (and Exxon/Mobil) - right wing sources feeding into right wing media, accepted as authoritative by people predisposed to believe what originates there. Also the association of the idea of AGW with Al Gore, and therefore the left, (to say nothing of the perception of a link to "green" ideas.)

Quoting piscivorous: I freely acknowledge the problems inherent in petitions of this kind ...

Well, you do after you got called on it. I sure didn't see any caveats in your original post.

Quoting piscivorous: ... but the leap of faith that there is no distention with in the scientific community is disingenuous ...

You know what's disingenuous? Your pretending that I or anyone who bothers to rebut your nonsense believes there is no dissent within the scientific community. This is called a straw man argument, pisc. You should look it up. You keep trying to use these, and it just makes you look worse.

Quoting piscivorous: ... and to write them all off as "cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists" is not exactly consistent with the tenants of scientific practice, ...

You've quoted my phrase twice now. Glad you like it, and thanks for the compliment. Now you might like to revisit where I originally posted it, and try reading for context:

And no, I don't have a "limited list of experts." I accept the consensus view of thousands of scientists, and I reject the nonsense of cranks, shills, and wishful-thinking denialists.

This does not say that I view every person who has a dissenting view about AGW, especially when considering those with good credentials, as

Quoting Wonderment: No, I'm just fascinated with the subject of how political views line up with a scientific world view.

Okay. I don't know what to tell you except that I think that the "lining up" is not as automatic as you seem to be suggesting. On certain issues, like AGW, sure, but this has largely to do with the vested interests who for decades financed one side of the debate. I think if you can draw a connection, it often has to do with which side big business is on -- the right is more inclined to support this side, the left to oppose. Hence, for example, the left is more prone to distrust Big Energy telling them the climate is fine, Big Pharma telling them medications are safe, and Big Ag saying GM food is just as healthy as non-GM food. However, I wouldn't be surprised that there are a lot of conservatives among the anti-vaxxer crowd, too.

It's somewhat related to that psychologist -- I forget his name -- who did a couple of Bhead talks on correlating values (purity, respect for authority, etc.) with politics.

Jonathan Haidt.

I was surprised, for example, to find out that Maher had weird non-mainstream views on vaccines. How did he acquire

Quoting bjkeefe: Further, there is more of a likelihood that environmental concerns, in general, carry more resonance with the left.

Illustrative I think of my point about the negative effects of buying into a left/right model of the world. If you consider a classical definition of conservatism, it denotes caution about change, particularly about change that is disruptive or destructive of things of value. There are few things more classically conservative than environmentalism. Now that the word has come to mean nothing more than being on one side of a line, automatically opposed to those on the other side, conservatism often means being rabidly opposed to anything considered environmentalism.

Indeed. In some places "conservative" parties seem to really believe in green goals.

I have no persecution complex . I am not the one that argues in absolutes here so once again I ask you to stop projecting.

Quoting cragger: Illustrative I think of my point about the negative effects of buying into a left/right model of the world. If you consider a classical definition of conservatism, it denotes caution about change, particularly about change that is disruptive or destructive of things of value. There are few things more classically conservative than environmentalism. Now that the word has come to mean nothing more than being on one side of a line, automatically opposed to those on the other side, conservatism often means being rabidly opposed to anything considered environmentalism.

If you follow conservatism back over the centuries you mostly just find a lot of apologists for the rich and powerful, until you go back far enough that conservatives are really too different from modern times to call 'em conservative anymore (I'm thinking of Burke in particular). Even the A-list conservatives from the mid 1900s look bad. The sainted Oakeshott scorned voting rights for women and minorities. I'd love to be even-handed about this, but aside from the totalitarian revolutions (France, Russia) conservatives have been wrong about everything. They're always a few generations behind the times. Wasn't that long

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Indeed. In some places "conservative" parties seem to really believe in green goals.

Eisenhower and Nixon are probably two of the better examples of what conservatives have done for the environment.

Perhaps my use of the term classical was poor. My intent was not to refer to a historical descriptions of a "side" in a bipolar political model, but to constrast the limiting aspects of that political world view in which one pole is described as conservative with the other definitions of the word conservative in the context of the prevalent modern American "conservative" antipathy to environmentalism. Such definitions including.: Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate. Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources. disposed to preserve existing conditions

First let us take a little look at the numbers from the SA side bar. I am not sure that 30 is a statistically valid sample size given the population size, however there are some here that could answer that question if they so desired, but I digress. They were actually able to locate 26 of the 30 randomly selected “signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science” that means that 86.6% of the individuals were what they said they were and if we were to accept that the 4 they couldn’t locate were fraudulent for a rate of 13.4% . To the details “, 11 said they still agreed with the petition…—” So 42% said they would resign the petition. Followed by this nice subtle piece of innuendo “one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. “ Yet “Six said they would not sign the petition today…” a rejection rate of 23%. I guess one could include these in the fraudulent category “, three did not remember any such petition” bringing the fraud rate up to 26.9% but one never can tell about those deniers. That leaves the

Well let me debase myself and crawl down to your level. You send a Media in Democracy link and a link to an article that has this in the first paragraph

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the American Geophysical Union are the "good guys"--the widely-respected scientists who opposed the petition and who believe that the Kyoto protocol will help to slow global climate problems

Yep fair and balanced that's our BJ.

Quoting piscivorous: I have no persecution complex . I am not the one that argues in absolutes here so once again I ask you to stop projecting.

Quoted for the comedic value.

Quoting piscivorous: Well let me debase myself and crawl down to your level. You send a Media in Democracy link and a link to an article that has this in the first paragraph Yep fair and balanced that's our BJ.

You do love to pick those cherries, don't you, pisc? And you do love, especially, to search for things to feed your perpetual state of bitterness, don't you? I give you a comprehensive response, containing no fewer than five links, and the best you can do is whine about one sentence in one of them? You're making yourself into a laughingstock. Please, continue.

Quoting piscivorous: First let us take a little look at the numbers from the SA side bar. I am not sure that 30 is a statistically valid sample size given the population size, however there are some here that could answer that question if they so desired, but I digress. They were actually able to locate 26 of the 30 randomly selected “signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science” that means that 86.6% of the individuals were what they said they were and if we were to accept that the 4 they couldn’t locate were fraudulent for a rate of 13.4% .

To the details “, 11 said they still agreed with the petition…—” So 42% said they would resign the petition. Followed by this nice subtle piece of innuendo “one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. “ Yet “Six said they would not sign the petition today…” a rejection rate of 23%. I guess one could include these in the fraudulent category “, three did not remember any such petition” bringing the fraud rate up to 26.9% but one never can tell about those deniers. That leaves the

And who is the judge of relevant?

Quoting piscivorous: And who is the judge of relevant?

Count the number of published, peer reviewed papers on directly related topics by people with the same background - you can use that as a simple index.

And you have arrived at that through what information contained in the sidebar? There is nothing in the sidebar that supports your supposition so one could just as rightly suppose that it is pulled from thin air.

Quoting piscivorous: And you have arrived at that through what information contained in the sidebar? There is nothing in the sidebar that supports your supposition so one could just as rightly suppose that it is pulled from thin air.

I'm sorry Pisc, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Quoting AemJeff: I'm sorry Pisc, but I don't understand what you're trying to say.

Wait... I get it. All I did was to give a heuristic for determining the "relevance" of somebody's background. I made no claim that it was used by SciAm's writers when they made their calculations. Do you think they'd disagree with its usefulness, or that had they used it as a formal definition, they would have arrived at a different substantive conclusion? I doubt either of those is true.

Quoting AemJeff: Wait... I get it. All I did was to give a heuristic for determining the "relevance" of somebody's background. I made no claim that it was used by SciAm's writers when they made their calculations. Do you think they'd disagree with its usefulness, or that had they used it as a formal definition, they would have arrived at a different substantive conclusion? I doubt either of those is true.

I'll buy that. But I have no idea of the criteria they used and hence have no basis for forming an opinion as to weather a different criteria would have provide different results.

Here is a better argument from the GW will doom us all crowd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
He does not make the direct doomsday argument (at least not at the start). And provides a simplified framework to judge the best action and weigh the risks. He even comes out on your side.
Here is an extended interview from fellow believers with him on point of inquiry http://www.pointofinquiry.org/greg_c..._could_happen/ At the end of the day I still have different risk analysis results than he does, but if he is right or wrong, at least he got there for the right reasons. He was not working with a flawed model like that guy who was asked about 10 different ways if there was ANY price beyond which the cost of action would be too great. Never answered.
I have an event where no cost would be too great. An extinction level event. That is the ONLY scenario that moves me to take any action at any price. But the chances of that are in the killer asteroid class for me. The lesser claims about climate instability and stronger storms induce within me lesser financial resources to address the

Spector is able to acknowledge that America's distrust of technology may be connected to our distrust of corporations. But he won't go the step further. Why are the predominant technologies so predominant? Does he really think it is because they are necessarily the "best" technologies? He challenges Americans to distinguish between technologies and their use. This is quite a poorly examined prescription when the marketplace has long driven technology, and science has long been used to leverage a product. I propose that the responsibility to separate the noble project of science from the greed and self interest of the marketplace should not be dumped so cavalierly on the public. The distrust of institutions across the board in this society is largely merited. And turning around and blaming people for that distrust just shows the narrowness of the author's perspective.

Quoting jolieg: Spector is able to acknowledge that America's distrust of technology may be connected to our distrust of corporations. But he won't go the step further. Why are the predominant technologies so predominant? Does he really think it is because they are necessarily the "best" technologies?

He challenges Americans to distinguish between technologies and their use. This is quite a poorly examined prescription when the marketplace has long driven technology, and science has long been used to leverage a product.

I propose that the responsibility to separate the noble project of science from the greed and self interest of the marketplace should not be dumped so cavalierly on the public.

The distrust of institutions across the board in this society is largely merited. And turning around and blaming people for that distrust just shows the narrowness of the author's perspective.

?? We have budgets that include funding for basic research precisely so there is a place for research not always tied to industry. But industry will always wish to fund product research to make more money. That the "best" technology does not always win out has more

Quoting jolieg: [...] I propose that the responsibility to separate the noble project of science from the greed and self interest of the marketplace should not be dumped so cavalierly on the public.

The distrust of institutions across the board in this society is largely merited. And turning around and blaming people for that distrust just shows the narrowness of the author's perspective.

Just curious ... Seems to me if you don't let science and the technology that develops from it be directed (at least in part) by market forces, then the only other option is to have some sort of board or commission that sets policy. What, therefore, would you suggest to implement your proposal to remove "the marketplace" and "the public" from decisions to be made about science, if we stipulate that there is at the same time a "distrust of institutions?"

Quoting JonIrenicus: I have an event where no cost would be too great. An extinction level event. That is the ONLY scenario that moves me to take any action at any price. But the chances of that are in the killer asteroid class for me. The lesser claims about climate instability and stronger storms induce within me lesser financial resources to address the task. Not nothing, just not an anything goes approach some radicals seem to condone, either directly, or indirectly by staying silent when the mad fellow travelers start spewing crazy spittle.

Generally, I agree. The hard part is deciding just how much to spend, but the notion that there is no possible limit to what we should do seems wrong to me. I've forgotten the specifics of Specter's suggestions, but my overall memory was that his recommendations were excessive and that he does not help us get moving by speaking in such apocalyptic terms.

Quoting Wonderment: Putting aside religious views (the soul is created at conception, evolution is false, etc.), which end of the political spectrum is more prone to pseudo-science?

This just in: an interesting reaction by Ace of Spades (2007 CPAC Blogger of the Year) to recent news that a major anti-vaxxer has been discredited ...

And they ["the left"] also hate the idea that vaccine avoidance is a much bigger phenomenon on the right than the left.

... which caused me to have the same reaction as DougJ:

Is it true that anti-vax stuff is bigger on the right than on the left? I wasn’t aware of this.

Some interesting anecdotes in the comments. Conclusion: Maybe? One frequently shared impression is that people who know anti-vaxxers think of them as being generally anti-government and anti-(lots of other things), and not that interested in politics.