Thursday, February 1, 2007
Rules of engagement
Posted by Harold Henderson on 02.01.07 at 03:10 PM
Alon Levy at Abstract Nonsense generalizes on what it takes to be rational: "A good rule of thumb about any scientific issue is that you’re not allowed to disagree with mainstream scientific opinion unless you’ve studied the field in sufficient depth to have a serious, intelligent conversation with an expert."
And then he gets specific:
"1. No matter what your views on fat acceptance or body image are, you must accept that obesity is a major medical problem.
"2. No matter what your views on smoking laws are, you must accept that first- and second-hand smoking both cause lung cancer.
"3. No matter what your views on race and class are, you must accept that IQ is heritable and measures intelligence fairly decently. At the same time, you must accept that the authors of The Bell Curve have no idea what they’re talking about.
"4. No matter what your views on gender roles are, you must accept that there’s a genetic or hormonal component, as well as a huge environmental one.
"5. No matter what your views on physics are, you must accept that string theory is a sound scientific theory.
"6. No matter what your views on the Kyoto Protocol are, you must accept that global warming is real and anthropogenic and will cause widespread ecological disruption if left unabated."
Shorter version: If you don't want to do the study time, don't do the crime.
Comments (3)
Showing 1-3 of 3
Harold you skipped one "No matter what your views on environmental regulations are, you must accept that DDT is harmful to the environment and encourages resistance to spraying among mosquitos" which is thoroughly trashed....when compared to the malarial effects of not using DDT in a tropical environment. JBP
like
dislike
Yeah, I like things short when possible. Scientific knowledge is not the same as a complete cost-benefit analysis of how to *act* on that knowledge. And some denialists have tried to claim that there was no harm, a much more radical claim than yours. (Again, I think the benign result is using DDT in ways that maximize its benefits and minimize its harms, which mainly means not just throwing it around like water.)
As arithmetic is a type of science, I think we should include basic math in scientific discussions. Sure banning DDT sells more books and gets donations to "environmental" orgnaizations. But, as far as harmful chemicals go, it is not even on the top 500 list of goop that we pour into the ground every day, with the added benefit that it efficiently kills mosquitos. JBP
