Why Arguing the Facts Doesn't Work
PZ Myers shares a table comparing the scientific method to the creationist method:
Scientific thinking
- An observation: vertebrate embryos show striking resemblances to one another.
- An explanation: the similarities are a consequence of shared ancestry.
- Ongoing confirmation: Examine more embryos and look more deeply at the molecules involved.
Creationist thinking
- A premise: all life was created by a designer.
- An implication: vertebrate embryos do not share a common ancestor.
- A conclusion: therefore, vertebrate embryos do not show striking resemblances to one another.
Wish I'd known about this back in high school; it would have saved me a shitload of time in biology class.
Of course, this circular logic applies to arguments well outside creationism. PZ's table works for politics, too.
Liberal thinking
- An observation: In this economic recession, people and businesses do not spend money.
- An explanation: The economy suffers from a lack of demand.
- Ongoing confirmation: Stimulate demand through government spending and monitor the results.
Conservative thinking
- A premise: Everything liberals, Democrats and non-conservatives want to do is wrong.
- An implication: government spending that does not benefit only large corporations and religious organizations is always bad.
- A conclusion: therefore, government spending that does not benefit only large corporations and religious organizations is always bad.
It's argument by false premise. Wingnut freakazoids don't have to be stupid or evil or insane to use this method, although I'm sure stupidity, evil and insanity helps.
Cross-posted at They Gave Us A Republic ....
Posts
2 comments:
Crationists and conservatives were perfectly described here. Their absolutist thinking is what does them in. For it permits no other valid information or explanation and is subject to the arbitrary confines of their limited belief system. People once believed the earth was flat, and that all things revolved around ittoo. But empirical data, FACT, proved themn wrong. Fact and truth will always prevail, but sometimes it takes a while...
Myers is describing one sort of creationist-- either because he likes picking on his weakest opponents or out of ignorance.
Myers' example of scientific method is assertion and story, not "explanation". And explanation "explains" how it happened. He didn't explain jack with that example.
That said, liberal and common Republican thinking are well-characterized here. Liberals often focus on demand and ignore supply-- and they assume that government spends money that falls like manna from Heaven. Republicans are typically pro-business rather than pro-market. Liberals and Republicans are both fond of taking your money and giving it to interest groups.
Post a Comment