On Dealing With Science Deniers
John Loftus: When it comes to the objective world of matters of fact, science is the only game in town.
Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?
John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?
Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.
--------------------------
Okay, I'll answer your question, but first let's reflect on why you didn't answer mine. It's because you can't. The reason you can't is because, well, you can't. Until you do my point is established, irrespective of me answering your question.
How do we know science is the only game in town when it comes to matters of fact like the nature and workings of the universe? No scientific experiment alone establishes this conclusion. Rather, it's the conclusion of hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments that have told us the truth about nature and its workings, many of which went contrary to our proclivities. To see these results check out The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference. Take a moment to look inside the pages especially at the chapter headings.
Now you can insist I produce one scientific experiment all you want to, but that is arguing in "bad faith" (look that up).
Let me explain why. Holocaust deniers, just like science deniers, play by a similar rule-book. Holocaust deniers demand one piece of hard evidence to show them wrong. The thing is, no single piece of evidence says "Holocaust" on it. But when taken together the evidence shows conclusively that the Holocaust happened. Michael Shermer wrote a few chapters on this issue and said: "when the denier demands that each piece of evidence independently prove the Holocaust he is ignoring the fact that no historian ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves the Holocaust, or anything else." (Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 216). Cumulatively speaking though, eighteen lines of evidence show it happened.
The same thing can be said when it comes to science. Let me help you: "when the science denier demands that each piece of scientific evidence independently prove science is the only game in town he is ignoring the fact that no scientist ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves science is the only game in town, or anything else."
Let's look at it this way for clarity purposes. If science is the only game in town when it comes to matters of fact, then we wouldn't expect a scientific experiment to prove it. Why? For then you would be demanding a meta-justification for science with meta-evidence, that is, some evidence above and beyond the mere evidence of science itself that proves science. But, if science is indeed the only game in town there couldn't be a meta-evidence for it since science is the only game in town, not meta-science.
Hoping this helps. If not I'm out.
In any case, you might try answering my question now.
Cheers.
Mr. Green: Hm, interesting. Can you describe the experiment you performed to arrive at that conclusion, so I can reproduce it?
John Loftus: Would you tell us what the alternative is to science?, and/or, What else in addition to science is as good of an alternative?
Mr. Green: I'd rather focus on the question that was actually asked, despite your attempt to dodge it like a seasoned politician.
--------------------------
Okay, I'll answer your question, but first let's reflect on why you didn't answer mine. It's because you can't. The reason you can't is because, well, you can't. Until you do my point is established, irrespective of me answering your question.
How do we know science is the only game in town when it comes to matters of fact like the nature and workings of the universe? No scientific experiment alone establishes this conclusion. Rather, it's the conclusion of hundreds of thousands of scientific experiments that have told us the truth about nature and its workings, many of which went contrary to our proclivities. To see these results check out The New York Public Library Science Desk Reference. Take a moment to look inside the pages especially at the chapter headings.
Now you can insist I produce one scientific experiment all you want to, but that is arguing in "bad faith" (look that up).
Let me explain why. Holocaust deniers, just like science deniers, play by a similar rule-book. Holocaust deniers demand one piece of hard evidence to show them wrong. The thing is, no single piece of evidence says "Holocaust" on it. But when taken together the evidence shows conclusively that the Holocaust happened. Michael Shermer wrote a few chapters on this issue and said: "when the denier demands that each piece of evidence independently prove the Holocaust he is ignoring the fact that no historian ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves the Holocaust, or anything else." (Why People Believe Weird Things, p. 216). Cumulatively speaking though, eighteen lines of evidence show it happened.
The same thing can be said when it comes to science. Let me help you: "when the science denier demands that each piece of scientific evidence independently prove science is the only game in town he is ignoring the fact that no scientist ever claimed that one piece of evidence proves science is the only game in town, or anything else."
Let's look at it this way for clarity purposes. If science is the only game in town when it comes to matters of fact, then we wouldn't expect a scientific experiment to prove it. Why? For then you would be demanding a meta-justification for science with meta-evidence, that is, some evidence above and beyond the mere evidence of science itself that proves science. But, if science is indeed the only game in town there couldn't be a meta-evidence for it since science is the only game in town, not meta-science.
Hoping this helps. If not I'm out.
In any case, you might try answering my question now.
Cheers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment