[PREV - MERCHANTS_OF_DOUBT] [TOP]
SPECTER_OF_DENIALISM
February 19, 2011
Michael Specter, "Denialism" (2009)
A book about various areas where many
people have choosen to ignore the
scientific evidence where it conflicts
with their beliefs, where the beliefs
in question are things such as:
o vaccinating children is bad for them
o organic food is good for your health
o genetically modified food is evil
o nutritional supplements work
o race is a social construct (The last is a
bit of an odd
man out, eh?)
Specter claims that he is an
equal-opportunity, non-partisian
critic of irrationality; but This makes this a good
with a few exceptions, I think companion piece for a
this book focuses on delusion a book like "Merchants
systems more common on the of Doubt", which is
left than the right. about a species of
"denialism" that comes
from the right.
MERCHANTS_OF_DOUBT
A good book, but not a great one: this is a
plea for rationality and intellectual rigor;
but he skips the bother of supporting the
text with actual footnotes, making it a
polemic full of intentionally controversial Michael Specter himself
statments that are *sometimes* grounded in is not a man with any
references to the scientific studies, but technical qualifications,
are sometimes left dangling. his assertions certainly
can not stand on his own
He claims a reverence for scientific studies reputation.
that's not quite reflected in his writing
style. Perhaps he's used to
writing for "The New
Yorker" where one can
rest on the magazine's
reputation for
fact-checking.
For someone like myself who is already
in sympathy with most of his positions, And when you get
this is a book of some interest, but away from Specters
it's not very helpful for convincing the main subjects, I
unconverted. think he has a
tendency to say some
Consider this quote, which very dubious things.
if correct is a stunning
indictment of "free range"
meat:
"Water scarcity may be the most visible problem
caused by our addiction to meat, but it is not
the only one: to make a pound of beef requires
nearly a gallon of fuel. To put that into
perspective, producing one kilogram of the
grass-fed beef so revered by organic devotees
and high-end restaurants causes the same amount
of greenhouse gas emissions as driving a small
car 70.4 miles. Even for beef raised less
luxuriously (fed by grain on industrial farms)
the figure is nearly forty-five miles. Eating
meat is ecologically ruinous: according to a
2008 study by researchers at Carnegie Mellon
University, if we all skipped meat and dairy
just one day each week it would do more to lower
our collective carbon footprint than if the
entire population of the United States ate
locally produced food every day of the year."
-- p. 115
Where did he get those precise figures
for the fuel used to raise cattle in
different ways? Did it all come out And perhaps worse, it's not
of the 2008 CMU study? It's not at at all clear what the
all clear from the way it's written. assumptions are behind the
figures. What about locally
raised grass-fed cattle?
Are we talking about grass
raised "organically" or with
artificial fertilizers? Etc.
Specter has some scathing criticism of
"alternative medicine" practitioners such
as Andrew Weil who claims that you can
live your life both by his
"alternative" and according to science.
Specter is adamant that knowledge from large
scale, randomized clinical trials trumps all,
and is impatient with the notion that
"intuition" or "experience" (i.e. anecdote)
deserves an equal footing.
I have to say it's certainly refreshing
to run into a scientific fundamentalist,
and if you're going to go in for an
extreme, that's a good way to bet. As a great man has put it:
But it really isn't as simple as that... "Science: it
works, bitches."
You can't live your life by scientific
studies alone, because all the studies
haven't been done, and they can't be The study that shows that
done, there are too many variables to chemcial X is safe may
examine. have neglected a
synergetic effect with
exposure to chemical Y.
Then you need to start
worrying about
chemicals A, B, C...
The phrase is
"combinatoric
explosion".
And further, practicing scientists
don't actually believe every study
they read--
The Data is one member of the
pantheon, but it alone is not
sacred... sometimes you suspect I'm one of the biggest
the data because it contradicts fans of "scientific
a beloved theory, and sometimes materialism" it's
guesses like that are vindicated. likely you've ever
encountered, and yet
even for me I don't
immediately adopt every
report of experimental
evidence I hear.
For example, I have my
doubts that "twin studies"
are really all that good
for settling nature-nurture
issues.
NATURE_OF_THE_WALLS
And I remain skeptical of
the claims that moderate
drinking is good for you.
(Dec 31, 2023)
Specter documents a real problem:
people in general have trouble Actually that was
evaluating scientific data, and borne out as of 2008:
throw out the baby with the Vioxx.
NO_SAFE_LEVEL
Specter's solution appears to be to
simply insist that we need to return But more recent data
to trusting the experts, even though might undermine even
we know that the experts are wrong that study.
on occasion, and on rare occasions
disastrously so.
Specter is no doubt correct that
in a duel between folk wisdom and
science, the odds favor science...
But this seems like a very
unpersuasive philosophy, A thought I come back
even to someone like me who to every other week:
essentially agrees with him.
Doesn't it seem like
we're in need of a new
social institution, a new
mechanism for evaluating
complex data?
--------
[NEXT - WHATS_GOOD_FOR_GM]