In Which I Confess to the Onset of a Sudden Man Crush on Steven Novella, MD
Barbara Tomlinson pointed out to me that Phil Plait (of the Bad Astronomy blog) linked to me today in Two posts about denialism, climate change and otherwise. That was pretty cool, given how much I like the Bad Astronomy blog. The post reads a bit like Plait is crediting me with having come up with the O.J. Simpson/climate-change denialism metaphor, when of course it was Bill McKibbon who did that; I just quoted from and linked to him. But I’m not proud; I’ll take the traffic, and will secretly cherish the thought that Phil Plait linked to Lies.com! Yay!
Even better: By linking to me he made sure I’d pay extra-close attention to the post in which he did so, thereby bringing my attention to someone I’ve inexplicably never read before: Steven Novella, MD, of the NeuroLogica Blog.
Wow. Just wow. This is serious pay dirt.
Here’s the NeuroLogica post that Plait thought my McKibbon theft was worth sharing a post with: Scientific consensus, climate change, and vaccines. After quoting Robert Kennedy Jr. on the strength of the scientific consensus on global warming, Novella continues like this:
But Robert Kennedy is not always a fan of the scientific consensus – for example he rejects the scientific consensus on vaccines, choosing to believe that the consensus is a deliberate fraud (exactly what global warming dissidents say about the climate change consensus). This makes Robert Kennedy a hypocrite – he accepts the scientific consensus and cites its authority when it suits his politics, and then blithely rejects it (spinning absurd conspiracy theories that would make Jesse Ventura blush) when it is inconvenient to his politics.
But Kennedy is not alone – this seems to be what most people do most of the time. In fact I would argue that we need to be especially suspicious of our scientific opinions on controversial topics when they conform to our personal ideology (whether political, social, or religious). That is when we need to step back and ask hard questions that challenge the views we want to hold. We also need to make sure that our process is consistent across questions – are we citing the scientific consensus on one issue and rejecting it on another? Are we citing conflicts of interest for researchers whose conclusions we don’t like, and ignoring them for researchers whose conclusions confirm our beliefs?
Did I already say wow?
Here’s another item from Novella: Letters from a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. I’m going to let you go read that yourself. And I think you know who I mean by you. :-)
Finally, Novella is the host and producer of a weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, that is currently on its 240th episode. Looks like my commute just got booked solid.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:22 am
I share your enthusiasm, especially:
Re:Letters… I be brief. The 1st in italics was amateur, made points but didn’t do a very good job of explaining background and in what way the points were relevant.
Novella’s response reg font up to fifith paragraph misunderstood ciu bono as if it was meant to indicate proof of guilt, rather than simply being the indicator as in any criminal trial one must prove means, motive and opportunity.
That the MIC et al benefitted is simply one motive, (e.g. another motive you could attribute to “W” is based in psychological aspects, others based on power, etc.) my point is that it can be established there was ample motive which obviously is not proof as Steve Novella mistakingly says (or misrepresents) that the first writer is asserting. Novella is wrong to say it is an “an argument from final consequences and a false premise” because the argument is not saying the proof is that they would benefit from it, but rather that the myriad aspects of evidence that suggests they did it is also backed up by multiple motives for doing it (not to mention ample means, e.g Cheney put in charge of air defence, remote piloting, access to buildings for “fireproofing”, paint on thermite, etc. ad nauseum.)
Presumably Novella would not be so stupid as to accuse O.J.’s prosecutors of constructing an “argument from final consequences” in establishing that O.J had motive for killing his wife, so it is disturbing that he’d be so stupid in this letter exchange to do exactly the same thing with the Swede. In fact, it’s a bit pathetic that Novella would pick an opponent with a self admitted poor command of English in which to engage in a correspondence debate. Novella would be torn to shreds by a Dr. Griffin.
I could go through the rest point by point but no-one here has patience for that. I’d just point out that Novella makes a lot of assertions and dismissive comments, which do not carry any weight with people familiar with the failings of the official version.
February 28th, 2010 at 3:58 am
It’s also bothersome that Novella would state that had there been a conspiracy about 911 then the likes of Michael Moore would have been all over it. I’d say that Moore and political opponents just know how to fight their wars by picking the right battles (Sicko, Capitalism a Love Story, etc.) ; and making accusations about 911 is one helluva political gaff, more like political suicide. But at times we can see what these people really thing. E.g. Michael Moore, fast forard to the 5:50 minute mark: http://www.ideo.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8399599446820879166&ei=4leKS5W_L52iqAPbzOWWBw&q=michael+moore+9+11+truth&hl=en#
Also, I think Novella might have forgotten about Fahrenehit 9/11…
February 28th, 2010 at 3:59 am
link seems bad above, try this at 5:50 mark: http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=8399599446820879166&ei=4leKS5W_L52iqAPbzOWWBw&q=michael+moore+9+11+truth&hl=en#
March 8th, 2010 at 12:33 am
Bingo! Novella’s statement:
is confirmed by the American Behavioral Scientist:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Entire-February-2010-Issue-by-Elizabeth-Woodwort-100304-129.html