How To Attack a Public Scientist

Last edited Fri Sep 11, 2015, 03:09 PM - Edit history (1)

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/how-to-attack-a-public-scientist/

"I have long held that one of the best ways to gauge the intellectual integrity of an individual or a group is to note how they deal with bad information or a bad argument that seems to support their position. You get points for rejecting an unsound argument or unreliable data even when it could be used to defend your side.

The flip side of this is acknowledging valid points that are on the other side of the argument. I will sometimes present what I feel is a rock-solid point for one side to an opponent, just to see how they will deal with it.

Of course it is far easier to point such behavior out in others, more difficult to police it in yourself. This is why constant reminders to value process, integrity, and fairness over any particular position is critical to skeptical inquiry.

Further, there is a range of bad responses to invalid points that can be exploited to support your position. In extreme cases ideologues will take the bad argument as total vindication. They will do a virtual victory dance, spike their fact in the end-zone, and turn up their self-righteousness to 11. Then you know you are dealing with someone with effectively zero intellectual integrity.

..."


Novella's coverage of this really gets to the heart of what is so disturbing about the anti-science posters at DU. The astounding lack of ethics and honesty piles itself into a snowball that just won't quit steamrolling.

Most of those who can see through the white out won't bother to explain what they see. The trouble they get in return is not worth it.

Yeah, I know. Blah. Blah. Blah.