This is strange, but we’ve grown accustomed to that sort of thing. The authors of what we’re about to discuss probably don’t have the first clue how much they’re revealing to us.
Let us consider, dear reader, At Last, a Consensus on Consensus, which is found on the blog of the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
One of the peculiarities of this Discoveroid article is that it’s authored by “Evolution News & Views.” That is, it’s the work of no one in particular. Looking at it another way, they all like it so much that it’s been given the status of official Discoveroid dogma to which they collectively adhere. That alone makes it worth our attention.
Okay, so what is this thing we’ve found? It’s their joint reaction to an article from Science Daily, Why ‘Scientific Consensus’ Fails to Persuade. Upon seeing that title, the Discoveroids were probably imagining that they knew the answer: It’s because some people — like the Discoveroids — are too smart to fall for the “consensus,” and they’re the true geniuses on the cutting edge of science.
If that’s what they were hoping for, the Discoveroids were disappointed. The article is about a study that says whether members of the public regard a scientist as being a trustworthy expert:
… is likely to depend on whether the position the scientist takes is consistent with the one believed by most people who share your cultural values.
It’s an interesting article. Here’s a bit more from it:
“We know from previous research,” said Dan Kahan, “that people with individualistic values, who have a strong attachment to commerce and industry, tend to be skeptical of claimed environmental risks, while people with egalitarian values, who resent economic inequality, tend to believe that commerce and industry harms the environment.”
It’s worth reading, but let’s turn to the Discoveroid blog to see their reaction. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Researchers have finally figured out why those of us in the public who are skeptics on scientific orthodoxies like Darwinism and human-induced global warming choose not to align our views with the scientific “consensus.”
Observe, dear reader, the conjunction of two different areas of popular skepticism. We’ve written about this phenomenon before. See: Discovery Institute Praises Global Warming Deniers. There we discussed a blog article by Casey about what he claims are the “virtues” of challenging the “consensus.” This is obviously a continuing theme with the Discoveroids — as well it should be. One can’t really do pseudo-science without occasionally praising the denialism of other fringe groups.
After a few small quotes from the Science Daily article, the Discoveroids say:
Isn’t that special? So if you’re a Darwin doubter it’s not because you’ve thought through the issue for yourself and come to a heterodox conclusion. You’re just a sheep, following what your hick friends and neighbors say.
It would seem that the Discoveroids’ feelings are hurt. Let’s read on:
The implication is that if people were rational, they would simply go with whatever has been officially pronounced as the scientific consensus on an issue. If they were rational, that is, they would dispense with thinking for themselves.
What? Rationality means unthinking acceptance of authority? The Discoveroids are confusing reason with faith. That’s not surprising, as they most definitely are creatures of faith who fiercely oppose reason — with which they have little acquaintance. Here’s the end of their article:
Isn’t it just this sort of naïveté and undisclosed bias on the part of scientists (and especially science organizations) that makes people doubt claims of consensus in the first place.
Hey — you may think it’s crazy, but that’s the joint position of all the Discoveroids. Make of it what you will.
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Hey, somebody has to stand up to the experts!!
A better idea — based on evidence, why don’t we question blind faith instead?
The DI doesn’t care what it squawks about, or with whom. So long as it is anti-science the DI is cool with it. Of course, the DI couches their “critiques” as being scientific, but we know that to be false. The DI is opposed to both methodological naturalism, that is, nature can only be described in terms of what can be measured and observed, and philosophical naturalism which is a belief that nature is all there is and that there is no supernatural “realm.”
Note, however, that scientists to not claim there are no demons, nymphs (oh, I wish!) gods, etc. What scientists say is that there is no EVIDENCE for such entities. Should I be able to conjure up the Nymph Olivia this very moment, I would be donning my smoking jacket and silk pajamas faster than you could say Hugh Hefner Blonde Triplets.
However, I digress.
And who better than their opposites, hordes of ignorant clods?
Consensus.
I do not think that word means what they think it means.
It means that enough people in enough places have repeated an experiment to say, “Did you find what I found?” with a lot of “Yup. Sure did.” It involves INDIVIDUALS checking to see if other INDIVIDUALS came up with the same results given the same experimental protocol. It validates a protocol as reliable.
It is NOT a bunch of scientists sitting around saying… “Gee, evolution sounds like a cool theory.” “I’ll support it.” “I’ll second that.” “Count me in.” Nope. That’s what the fellas over at the DI do. “Gee, having a creator sure does sound cool.” “Yup.” “I’ll second that.”
They don’t understand science because they don’t do science.
😡
I would like to add that when the IDiots over at the Disco’tute complain that people think “You’re just a sheep, following what your hick friends and neighbors say.”
I say yes, we do. Because it’s ignorant pastors and other religious types who spread all of this misinformation and lies, led by folks whose ignorance and willful ignoring of the facts shapes the misinformation and lies.
Rational people study the evidence– ALL of the evidence in DETAIL. Rational people realize that the evidence may not support their biases, and rational people let go of ideas proven as silly, misinformed, superstitious, and false.
Sheep/hicks insist that they are smarter than the smartest people in the world because they think they are the ones clued into the One Real Truth (TM). They have not looked at ALL of the evidence in DETAIL, yet dismiss the claims that the detailed evidence supports. They are ignorant and lazy. They want certainty from simple answers because they are too simple to understand that uncertainty is a fact of our complicated universe. They WANT to be pastored– that’s why they call their leader a pastor! They talk about “God” separating the sheep from the goats in the end times. Their holy book contains endless imagery of shepherds and lambs. DUH!!!!!
So, yes, the IDiots are right that people point out their foolishness and call them unflattering (albeit true) names. We do so because these people are bleating for a theocracy. They want to destroy science in favor of myths and superstitions. They want to take away from the rational thinkers the most powerful tool we have ever had because it makes their so-called epistemological claims look silly in comparison to brute facts. We are a threat to their fantasy world. We make them uncomfortable because we refuse to believe their unsupported claims, thus refusing to give them the power to socially control us.
In short, the IDiots over at the Disco’tute whine and whine because they want to be the people calling the shots. They each want to be the big man who is respected for his immense brain power. They want to dazzle people with their scientifical-like language. They want to take down the whole of the scientific juggernaut with a single idea (whether it be “irreducible complexity” or “the law of conservation of information” or “evolution really IS social Darwinism… I swear!! Really!!!” or “Einstein’s relativity could be used to justify relativism by commie pinko joo atheist liberals”) They are arrogant and egomaniacial to the highest extreme, because they believe the biggest man of all is behind them, their “God”, and the worst insult imaginable to them is to be called a sheep.
So I say Baaahhh Baaaahhh to the Disco’tute. You come from sheep and no matter how you try, you’ll never rise above the sheep because you stubbornly stick do your dogma… a dogma that was invented for social control in the first place. Baaahhh baaahhhh.
My god! After writing all that out and reading it over, it all makes sense now!
The IDiots all suffer from massive inferiority complexes!
Yes, their self-esteems took a beating when that bully, Science, laughed them out of the room for their ridiculous ideas, so they went running back to the arms of Momma Church who patted them on the back and said, “Now, there, there… don’t worry. You’ll show them, now won’t you.”
So that’s what this is all about. Overcompensation for bruised egos.
Pathetic.
LRA says:
Yes, exactly. I had read their blog article a day or so earlier, and I knew it was all wucked up, but I didn’t realize at first what they were really saying, so I couldn’t figure out how to blog about it. But I kept going back to it because I had a feeling that it was important — being signed by the whole Discoveroid organization and all.
Then it hit me. The Article in “Science Daily” really crushed them and they were lashing out about it, but of course they didn’t really say why because they’re not sufficiently self-aware. It took me a couple of days to understand their blog article well enough to write about it.
And you’re right about their misconception of what a scientific “consensus” is. And you’re right about sheep. Hey, you’re having quite a day.
😀
Yes, and thank you for allowing me sufficient space in your blog here to work that out. I realize that I multi-posted and that it was a lot to say, but it was a real moment of thought crystallization for me!
LRA – you would be a hell of a lot of fun at happy hour… “bring her another drink, she’s on a roll!”…lol
Great post(s).
I think this ties in with something that’s bothered me for a long time. With respect to evangelical christianity, much of their preaching and writing is based on the premise that they are under attack by a larger, decadent, society, their freedoms are being taken away by godless government, etc. This is in complete contradiction with reality, which is that they are currently the dominant political force in the country – it would be political suicide for anyone running for a significant office to declare themselves to be an atheist, for example, and when pressed most will equivocate on issues like belief in evolution for fear of alienating “values voters”. Despite this dominance, christians continue to speak and write as if they are the oppressed minority. I believe that it’s not so much a blindness to the political reality as much as an understanding that taking the position of being oppressed is crucial to sustain their collective focus. If they ever accepted that they are the majority view, I believe the momentum would go out of the movement. Who do you evangelize to when everyone already believes the way you do?
Similarly, the DI maintains a self image of being rebellious thinkers against the godless establishment of natural evolution. Like evangelicals, they depend on having an opponent which is strong and powerful and oppressive. It feeds their sense of importance and drives their crusade. If a scientific study concludes that their way of thinking is correlated strongly with merely being immersed in a culture of people who are similar to them in their faith-based worldview, for example, it undermines their self-identity as rebels and free-thinkers.
The irony is, of course, that the opponent of the “free-thinking rebels” at DI are scientists, whose very job description (if they had one) would read “discover something new” – the polar opposite of “defend the establishment”. In fact, the idea of evolution by natural selection was probably one of the most heretical ideas ever proposed. The actual establishment is the DI itself, which is trying every means possible to defend the established christian creationist worldview against this heretical challenge of natural evolution. It’s a wonder their heads don’t explode from irony combustion.
Ed says:
Right. Remember that old Star Trek episode where there was a good Kirk and a bad Kirk? LRA is our anti-matter version of Christine O’Donnell.
And if they ever shake hands, they will explode.
LOL! Ka-powie!!!!!!!
ps. I am a lot of fun at happy hour! ;D
Please see my responses to the “event”, SMU Daily Campus articles by Meyer et al., and Sykes, as well as to the blog responses from the Discovery Institute.
http://faculty.smu.edu/jwise/big_problems_with_intelligent_design.htm
Good of you to visit us, John Wise. That’s a most impressive web page!
Everybody, check out Big Problems with Intelligent Design.
John,
You did an excellent job in your web site, and I admire your taking a public stance on the matter and call these IDers for their proper names and for their proper jobs (dishonest propagandists).
–Gabo
LRA: “Sheep/hicks insist that they are smarter than the smartest people in the world because they think they are the ones clued into the One Real Truth (TM). ”
Well, ya gotta admit it’s a helluva lot easier to profess faith in a religious belief than it is to actually LEARN something. Not only that, but you don’t even have to pay tuition!
Ed: “This is in complete contradiction with reality, which is that they are currently the dominant political force in the country – it would be political suicide for anyone running for a significant office to declare themselves to be an atheist, for example, and when pressed most will equivocate on issues like belief in evolution for fear of alienating “values voters”. Despite this dominance, christians continue to speak and write as if they are the oppressed minority.”
You have hit upon a great TRUTH.