Submission + - mechanics of the rejection of science (theguardian.com) 2
Layzej writes: Science strives for coherence. For example, the findings from climate science form a highly coherent body of knowledge that is supported by many independent lines of evidence. Those who reject climate science often rely on several mutually contradictory ideas. Hence, claims that the globe “is cooling” can coexist with claims that the “observed warming is natural” and that “the human influence does not matter because warming is good for us.” A recent study examines this behavior at the aggregate level, but gives many examples where contradictory ideas are held by the same individual, and sometimes are presented within a single publication.
The common denominator among contrarian positions is the conviction that climate change either does not exist or is not human caused, and that either way it does not present a risk (or if it does, then adaptation will deal with the problem). In a nutshell, the opposition to GHG emission cuts is the unifying and coherent position underlying all manifestations of climate science denial. Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.
The common denominator among contrarian positions is the conviction that climate change either does not exist or is not human caused, and that either way it does not present a risk (or if it does, then adaptation will deal with the problem). In a nutshell, the opposition to GHG emission cuts is the unifying and coherent position underlying all manifestations of climate science denial. Climate science denial is therefore perhaps best understood as a rational activity that replaces a coherent body of science with an incoherent and conspiracist body of pseudo-science for political reasons and with considerable political coherence and effectiveness.
completely wrong (Score:2)
This is completely wrong. Opponents of global warming find their basis here:
1. A single counter-example disproves a theory.
2. Improper abstraction of limited experimental data. The experiments, where sound, are used to draw broader conclusions than the parameters of the experiment support.
3. Misuse of statistics massage the collected data to the researchers' desired conclusions.
4. The "what's your theory?" fallacy. Opponents of a theory are not required to offer a coherent alternative to demonstrate errors
How contrarians reconcile incompatible views. (Score:2)
Opponents of a theory are not required to offer a coherent alternative to demonstrate errors and fallacies in the one proposed.
What they end up doing is offering several contradictory theories in an attempt to undermine the consilience of evidence. This is a result of attacking the theory piecemeal rather than addressing the cohesive theory. A contrarian will say "Not A because Y and not B because Z" even though Y and Z are incompatible. This study examines the mechanism that allows contrarians to hold these impossible views.
The paper gives numerous examples of high profile contrarians holding several incompatible views. There a