Crooks and Liars embedded a video with Neil deGrasse Tyson on the place of science in our society. It’s a good interview.
I mention it here because he talks about the taxicab fallacy. He does not use that term, but I think he expresses the basic idea.
The Immoral Minority had a post with another good NdT quote. There is a difference between scientific claims and political claims.
Just yesterday I listened to an episode of the Green News Report in which they covered the climate change “debate” between Bill Nye and Marsha Blackburn. Blackburn kept saying there is no scientific consensus on climate change. There is.
98% of climate scientists say it is happening and caused by humans. It is not a scientific controversy. A scientific controversy is when a sizable proportion of scientists in a field have not been able to make a determination. I do not know what the threshold is to stop saying a thesis is under debate, but I am guessing that it is lower than 98%.
A thesis might conflict with your political ideology. Or your religion. It might hurt your profit margin. It might inconvenience you. But all of those are different than scientific controversies.
Not everyone in this world believes in any sort of god or spirit. And not all who do are christian. And since there are so many denominations, obviously there is a lot of disagreement within christianity. So why don’t conservatives apply the same “there is no agreement” logic to their religion?
Originally posted on Everyday Freethought