Nosmo King
Gold Member
- Aug 31, 2009
- 26,381
- 7,270
Back in the early days of the tobacco fight, industry mavens considered the threat from accidental fire. The tobacco industry spokesmen determined that matches and lit cigarettes did not cause fires, couches and sofas did. So we got flame retardant fabrics as a result. But, that flame retardant turned out to be hazardous to humans. c'est l'gare!All of the denialist arguments (anti-evolution, anti-global warming, etc.=anti-science) have similar fallacious arguments, and all use the same arguments that were used by the tobacco industry to deny the fact that cigarette smoking causes disease. Coincidence?
Science denialism The problem that just won t go away EARTH Magazine
Often in our culture, science is rendered disposable if it stomps on a cherished claim; faith trumps reality. This attitude is internally inconsistent: Atomic theory is OK when we use it to X-ray our teeth or build a nuclear power station, but invalid when it comes to assessing the age of the planet. Evolutionary insight is OK when it guides the production of our annual flu shot, but deniers refuse to let it tell them from whence they came. Science is the way forward, but not for people who don’t want to go forward.
More at the link.
Can deny science to their heart's content. Great thing about science is if it's wrong it gets changed. If it isn't, it doesn't.
Climate deniers though are worse than just denying science in how they misrepresent facts as with claiming GW isn't happening because Antarctic sea ice is increasing. Which it is. But "sea ice" is seasonal and not contributing to sea level rise. "Land ice" however is. But they don't mention that.