XPost: soc.culture.usa, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, soc.culture.indian   
   XPost: alt.philosophy, alt.politics.trump, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh   
   XPost: alt.politics, alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.republican   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans, talk.environment, alt.politics.economics   
   XPost: talk.politics.misc   
   From: hannity_is_gay@fox.net   
      
   What are denialist conspiracy theories and why should people be   
   instantly distrustful of them? And what do they have to do with   
   denialism?   
      
   Almost every denialist argument will eventually devolve into a   
   conspiracy. This is because denialist theories that oppose   
   well-established science eventually need to assert deception on   
   the part of their opponents to explain things like why every   
   reputable scientist, journal, and opponent seems to be able to   
   operate from the same page. In the crank mind, it isn't because   
   their opponents are operating from the same set of facts, it's   
   that all their opponents are liars (or fools) who are using the   
   same false set of information.   
      
   But how could it be possible, for instance, for every nearly   
   every scientist in a field be working together to promote a   
   falsehood? People who believe this is possible simply have no   
   practical understanding of how science works as a discipline.   
   For one, scientists don't just publish articles that reaffirm a   
   consensus opinion. Articles that just rehash what is already   
   known or say "everything is the same" aren't interesting and   
   don't get into good journals. Scientific journals are only   
   interested in articles that extend knowledge, or challenge   
   consensus (using data of course). Articles getting published in   
   the big journals like Science or Nature are often revolutionary   
   (and not infrequently wrong), challenge the expectations of   
   scientists or represent some phenomenal experiment or hard work   
   (like the human genome project). The idea that scientists would   
   keep some kind of exceptional secret is absurd, or that, in the   
   instance of evolution deniers, we only believe in evolution   
   because we've been infiltrated by a cabal of "materialists" is   
   even more absurd. This is not to say that real conspiracies   
   never occur, but the assertion of a conspiracy in the absence   
   of evidence (or by tying together weakly correlated and   
   nonsensical data) is usually the sign of a crackpot. Belief in   
   the Illuminati, Zionist conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies,   
   holocaust denial conspiracies, materialist atheist evolution   
   conspiracies, global warming science conspiracies, UFO   
   government conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies suppressing   
   altie-med conspiracies, or what have you, it almost always   
   rests upon some unnatural suspension of disbelief in the   
   conspiracy theorist that is the sign of a truly weak mind.   
   Hence, our graphic to denote the presence of these arguments -   
   the tinfoil hat.   
      
   Another common conspiratorial attack on consensus science   
   (without data) is that science is just some old-boys club (not   
   saying it's entirely free of it but...) and we use peer-review   
   to silence dissent. This is a frequent refrain of HIV/AIDS   
   denialists like Dean Esmay or Global Warming denialists like   
   Richard Lindzen trying to explain why mainstream scientists   
   won't publish their BS. The fact is that good science speaks   
   for itself, and peer-reviewers are willing to publish things   
   that challenge accepted facts if the data are good. If you're   
   just a denialist cherry-picking data and nitpicking the work of   
   others, you're out of luck. Distribution of scientific funding   
   (another source of conspiracy from denialists) is similarly   
   based on novelty and is not about repeating some kind of party   
   line. Yes, it's based on study-sections and peer-review of   
   grants, but the idea that the only studies that get funded are   
   ones that affirm existing science is nuts, if anything it's the   
   opposite.   
      
   Lately, there's been a lot of criticism of the excess focus on   
   novelty in distribution of funding and in what gets accepted   
   into journals. I encourage all scientists and those interested   
   in science to watch this video of John Ioannidis giving grand   
   rounds at NIH on how science gets funded, published, and sadly,   
   often proven wrong. I put it up at google video. He is the   
   author of "Why most published research findings are false"   
   published in PLoS last year. It's proof that science is   
   perfectly willing to be critical of itself, more than happy to   
   publish exceptional things that often turn out wrong, but   
   ultimately, highly self-correcting.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)