Denialism

Category: Cranks

  • Cranks cry persecution, Nisbet listens

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in ,

    Ever since we began writing here about denialism we’ve emphasized a few critical points about dealing with anti-science. For one, denialists aren’t interested in legitimate debate – they are not honest brokers and the tactics they use exist to artificially extend discussion of settled scientific issues. Second, one of the most time-honored traditions of cranks…

  • Crankish Signs from the Tree Sitters

    —

    by

    Chris
    in

    All, I’m sorry for abusing you with posts concerning the Berkeley Tree Sitters. For those of us at UC, this has been an enduring pain. And it’s been embarrassing. Why? In part, because this is the type of rhetoric common to the debate: And of course… I promise, this is the last posting on the…

  • Galileo, Semmelweis, and YOU!

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in , , , , , , ,

    To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right. –Robert Park I used to spend a lot of time on the websites of Joe Mercola and Gary Null, the most influential medical cranks of the internets (to call them “quacks” would imply that they are real…

  • A blog recommendation

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in , ,

    Everyone this morning should check out a new favorite website of mine the International Journal of Inactivism. Frank Bi has created a wonderful little catalog of global warming conspiracy theories that nicely illustrate the fundamental defects of reasoning used by the denialists. In particular, I enjoyed his genealogy of climate conspiracy theories. When we first…

  • Medical Hypotheses—“just make shit up; we’ll publish it”

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in ,

    Orac was kind enough to pollute my inbox with the latest idiocy from the journal that has never met a crank it didn’t like. As Orac says, “Medical Hypotheses [is] the journal where the editors encourage the authors to make shit up.” Before I tell you about the latest “hypothesis”, let me give you an…

  • Denialist award—Andrew Schlafly, Esq.

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in , , ,

    I am giving out a previously non-existent award today to a truly great denialist. Andrew Schlafly, spawn of anti-feminist Phyllis Schlafly and some long-forgotten sperm-donor (ironic, eh?), was not content just being the legal counsel to the uber-crank Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. No, he had to take it one step further, and clog…

  • About that crank

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in

    So on the blog birthday we asked our dear readers what they’ve learned over the last year, and as a test we gave them this crank who attacks the bisphosphonate anti-osteoporosis drugs in his article “the delusion of bone drugs”. I think the reader with the best grade is LanceR or Martin, but SurgPA would…

  • Vox Day’s Crazy Dad Threatens Judge’s Life

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in ,

    Dude. If you thought Vox Day (the guy with the minge haircut) was crazy, check out what his crazy dad has been up too since he fast captured last year: The trial of millionaire tax protester Robert Beale turned bizarre even before jury selection began Monday as the prosecutor announced the arrest of four of…

  • Slate parses some crankery

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in , ,

    Slate has a series of three articles on what editor Daniel Engber refers to as “the paranoid style”. Starting with A crank’s progress, sliding into a review of Doubt is their product, and finishing with a spot-on review of Expelled he runs the guantlet of modern denialism. He also happens to hit upon the major…

  • The inconsistency of cranks

    —

    by

    MarkH
    in ,

    One of the most salient features of cranks is their inconsistency. A major difference between someone who is trying to reason scientifically and someone who has a fixed belief they are trying to defend against rational inquiry is the scientific thinker is looking for synthesis. They want things to fit together nicely, to make sense,…