Scotland is large and diverse, but not infinite

Last updated on: February 17, 2012 at 4:54 pm by Fred Clark

Scotland is large and diverse, but not infinite 2012-02-17T16:54:43-05:00 Fred Clark

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Scientists say global warming isn’t happening. Scientists say human activities are unrelated to climate change.

We hear that all the time, but we push back against it because it’s bad science. Yet it is also true, at least nominally.

Scientists do say these things. Actual terminal-degree scientists. They may be scientists whose field of study has nothing to do with climate, and who thus aren’t any more qualified to discuss the topic than someone with a Ph.D. in literature, but they are still scientists. They may be hacks for hire, prostituting themselves for payoffs from the Heartland Institute, but they are still scientists.

Those scientists are aware that they are a minority voice — that they are reading the science differently than the majority of their peers. But rather than seeing that as a sign that perhaps they might want to recheck the data, they wear it as a badge of honor, portraying themselves as brave and bold dissenters, noble Cassandras defending the true faith of true science.

I am not inclined to share their view. I will concede that, yes, technically, they are in fact “scientists.” But I also find it necessary to distinguish them from more responsible scientists who, by virtue of that responsibility, have a more legitimate claim to that title. I find that necessary for the sake of accuracy and honesty. And I find that necessary as a non-scientist who thinks it prudent to defer to actual, responsible scientists when it comes to matters of science.

One way of making and of stating that distinction is to question and to challenge the good standing of the irresponsible scientists. I do not trust a scientist on the payroll of the Heartland Institute to tell me the truth about climate change any more than I would trust a scientist on the payroll of the Tobacco Institute to tell me the truth about the health risks of smoking. I do not trust them because I have reason to believe that they have another agenda — an agenda other than the pure pursuit of scientific truth, an agenda which has surpassed and supplanted the pure pursuit of scientific truth.

The existence of that non-science agenda leads me to deny them the dignity that accompanies the title “scientist.” Their diplomas, business cards, parking spaces, author bios and W-2 forms may all affirm that these folks are “scientists,” but I would argue that no true scientist allows a paycheck or partisan political preferences to prejudice their findings. I would argue that these hacks are no true scientists.

And yes, I use exactly those words: No true scientist.

Anyone who has been on the Web in the past few years will note that this phrase is similar to the phrase “No true Scotsman,” and thus may suspect I am guilty here of the logical fallacy that bears that name. But let’s not stretch that concept beyond where it is meant to go. There are some seven billion people here on Earth, and the vast majority of us are not true Scotsman. (Nor are we scientists.)

If a woman is born in Santiago, Chile, and she lives there her whole life just as her parents and her grandparents did before her, then we can surely say that she was “No true Scotsman.” Saying as much is not a logical fallacy, simply an accurate statement. It is an accurate statement because the word “Scotsman” means something and it does not mean other things that are not that something.

There are, in other words, criteria for what does and does not constitute a Scotsman. There are specific, objective rules defining the category. I’m using words there taken from Wikipedia’s convenient description of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

So let’s apply this to those whom I’m criticizing above as “no true scientists.” Let’s start with the universal claim I wish to make: “Scientists believe that human activity is changing the climate.” The objection presents counterexamples — numerous scientists do not believe this. Such counterexamples are easy to find on the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal or wherever else the PR-machine of the Heartland Institute can get them published.

The existence of such prominent-but-rare counterexamples means that to be more accurate I ought to qualify my original universal statement. I ought to say, “Most scientists believe that human activity is changing the climate.”

But I also want to say more than that. My original universal statement was not merely meant as descriptive, but as normative and prescriptive. It is meant to convey something about the criteria, the “specific objective rules” that apply to the term “scientists.” The specific objective rule I suggest above is that a scientist is, by definition, one who puts scientific truth ahead of predetermined financial or partisan preference. That rule suggests that those who are not willing to follow the science wherever it leads may be nominally “scientists,” but they are not true scientists.

That qualifier true here is not merely rhetorical. It appeals to an objective and specific standard. It means something.

That qualifier is necessary if we are to acknowledge an important distinction — a distinction that’s so important that places like the Heartland Institute are spending millions of dollars to try to keep us from making it. It doesn’t matter if we are attaching the positive qualifier true to those who are practicing legitimate, responsible, unbiased science, or if we choose instead to attach a negative qualifier to those who are promoting junk science. Either way the distinction is made and the distinction is necessary. Junk science is still, nominally, “science,” but it’s not true science.

True science is diverse and vast, but it is not infinitely pliable. Science means something and it does not mean other things that are not that something. It can be defined with specific, objective criteria. We can say it is this and it is not that. And thus when we encounter this we can say, yes, this is science. And when we encounter that we can say, no, that is not science.

We can argue over what the criteria should be, over the rules that define our definition. But to say that there are such criteria and such rules, and then to apply them, is not a fallacy.

And, no, this isn’t really mainly about either science or Scotsmen.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

February 17, 2012

Equating religion with misogyny is bad for women and bad for religion

Next Post

February 17, 2012 Anthony Shadid (1968-2012)

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category class warfare evangelicals Iraq Left Behind Mammon music Uncategorized

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which disciple was exiled to the island of Patmos?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Peter John Thomas Paul