Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
by thu2111 on Monday July 13, 2020 @09:06AM
(#23820323)
Can you actually cite someone who is both a climate change skeptic and believes tobacco isn't harmful? Or is that a strawman you invented?
Your definition of "denialism" is botched. Of course skeptics don't provide their own theories. They are pointing out bad science. It is not a requirement to present an alternative paper to point out that a paper is flawed. Many skeptics are people who believe the state of the art is inadequate to understand or simulate whatever some 'expert' is claiming they can simulate, so obviously those people aren't going to present some alternative 'expertise'. That would be in defiance of their own beliefs.
Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
by telchar on Monday July 13, 2020 @01:25PM
(#23823209)
As an aside, you're using the word 'populism' like it is the same thing as demagoguery. Populism isn't always dishonest and anti-intellectual, just like elitism (its antipode) isn't always honest and benign. I think using populism that way is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Populism can cleave to rational well-researched ideas in the face of an elite establishment that is opposed to them, although since it is often used dishonestly it's something to be wary of, it shouldn't be rejected on its face in all cases.
Re:Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
by antepodius on Monday July 13, 2020 @07:24AM
(#23819533)
Does this apply to blue-tribe denialists, too?
So when an expert makes accurate predictions about climate change, they're not believable because they're in a political category called "expert".
They're believable because they've done what they've claimed they could do. And your opinion is less relevant than their opinion, because you literally don't know enough about the details to even start doing what they've done.
If you look into the pseudoscience of denialism, you'll find that not only are the same "experts" rolled out to challenge climate change, tobacco dangers, and so on - but it's incredibly rare to find one with a credible paper trail of accurate and useful predictions about the topic they're holding forth on.
But populists aren't interested in the science, they're interested in pandering to public narcissism. No one has a problem believing dentists know more about teeth than they do, or that mechanics know about cars.
But populists like to use sideswipes - like claiming climate science is all about funding - which are personal smears and not about the facts. And they add a strain of anti-intellectual pandering by suggesting these domeheads are looking down at regular honest Americans, and how dare they be so insulting?
This is like honey to narcissists, and the debate stops being about reality and becomes about feelings and identity - which is exactly what the denier farms want.
The mechanics are thinly varnished bullying, similar to some of the drivers of misogyny and homophobia - "How dare you be different, and how dare you even have an opinion? Shut up and stay in your place. See - all these good folk here agree."