Slashdot Mirror
The Limits To Skepticism
jamie found a long and painstaking piece up at The Economist asking and provisionally answering the question: "Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong?" The author, who is not named, spent several hours picking apart the arguments of one Willis Eschenbach, AGW denialist, who on Dec. 8 published what he called the "smoking gun" — it was supposed to prove that the adjustments climate scientists make to historical temperature records are arbitrary to the point of intentional manipulation. The conclusion: "[H]ere's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story. And then I'll probably go ahead and try to investigate the claim and write a blog post about it, because that's my job. Oh, and by the way: October was the hottest month on record in Darwin, Australia."
I thought I'd reply separately to your (non-"He's a Mormon") objections to OSC.
Strong supporter of George W. Bush, including the "War on Terror" and the PATRIOT act.
Actually he's a self-proclaimed Democrat. Yes, he supported Bush. Actually let's read his own comments on the subject in 2007:
We keep being warned about the hideous consequences of electing Bush or of enacting the laws he proposes. But I remember all those threats and warnings.
Bush was going to bring back Jim Crow. Well, seven years into his presidency, he still hasn't done it.
The Patriot Act was going to turn America into a fascist nation. Well, it hasn't happened -- despite the weird fantasies of the insane Left who talk as if it had.
We've had, for seven years, a President who has thought carefully and sought a balance between compelling opposites. We had to find a way to effectively find terrorists before they acted, without wrecking the Constitution. So President Bush asked for the tools he needed in the Patriot Act, and used other tools that other Presidents had used, including Democrats, and it worked. So far, anyway.
Yet he has been savaged by the insane Left, who ignore the fact that the President has sought a fair balance every step of the way.
Alright, so he's bashing on the Democrats. But what's his very next sentence?
The insane Right is just as bad.
You know what "insane Right" he's talking about? The ones you accuse him of supporting - the "asshole conservative types", as you so eloquently put it.
Did you know that Card initially supported Obama, but changed his mind when Obama's positions started coming to light? Imagine that. Someone decided their political position based on political issues!
On to your next complaint:
Is skeptical of Darwinistic evolution.
He's also skeptical of Intelligent Design (but for entirely different reasons). (He talks about both issues in the linked article.)
Believes homosexuality is caused by abuse and molestation during childhood.
Actually he only said that a significant number of homosexuals end up in that way of life due to abuse. Do you deny that?
In other words, he only said that abuse is one cause of homosexuality.
But don't take my word for it - let's read what he said. You'll find he mentions a whole range of causes:
Already any child with any kind of sexual attraction to the same sex is told that this is an irresistible destiny, despite the large number of heterosexuals who move through this adolescent phase and never look back.
Already any child with androgynous appearance or mannerisms -- effeminite boys and masculine girls -- are being nurtured and guided (or taunted and abused) into "accepting" what many of them never suspected they had -- a desire to permanently move into homosexual society.
In other words, society will bend all its efforts to seize upon any hint of homosexuality in our young people and encourage it.
Now, there is a myth that homosexuals are "born that way," and we are pounded with this idea so thoroughly that many people think that somebody, somewhere, must have proved it.
In fact what evidence there is suggests that if there is a genetic component to homosexuality, an entire range of environmental influences are also involved. While there is no scientific research whatsoever that indicates that there is no such thing as a borderline child who could go either way.
Those who claim that there is "no danger" and that homosexuals are born, not made, are simply stating their faith.
The dark secret of homosexual society -- the one that da