Evolution deniers do this too. You have to be careful what you call "settled science." In evolution, for instance, is settled science that the diversity of life and speciation are a result of science by natural selection and other mechanisms. 1/https://twitter.com/terrysimpson/status/1114922012034490368 …
-
Show this thread
-
It's at the margins, closer to the cutting edge, where there is disagreement, such as over the relative contributions of different mechanisms of evolution, genomic aspects of evolution, etc. 2/
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Evolution deniers are very good at seizing on controversies at the cutting edge of evolutionary biology to misrepresent them as casting doubt on the core theory of evolution. 3/
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likesShow this thread -
Indeed, science deniers in general are good at misrepresenting controversies on the cutting edge of the science they deny as somehow caring doubt on the well-supported core theory when they don't. 4/
1 reply 2 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Climate science deniers do the same thing. While the science is settled that human-produced CO2 is warming the planet, there's still, for example, debate over how much and how fast these changes in our climate are occurring. 5/
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
Climate science deniers, predictably, seize on these debates to claim that the "science isn't settled" that human-produced CO2 is causing catastrophic warming, when, in fact, it is. 6/
1 reply 0 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
This is why I rarely use the term "settled science" any more. Instead I say something like "scientific conclusions supported by mountains of evidence." 7/7
2 replies 0 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @gorskon
They live in a world filled with misinformation and feel emboldened that they have an answer that scientists don’t.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @terrysimpson
I also sometimes use this analogy. If you're going to call into question longstanding scientific theory/conclusion, you need either a bulletproof observation that calls the whole theory into question or observations backed by a similar level of evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon @terrysimpson
Not surprisingly, quacks, antivaxers, and pseudoscientists never have either of these two sorts of observation and evidence.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Also, what quacks and pseudoscientists often fail to understand is that any new theory must build on the old. It has to encompass the old; i.e., the theory of relativity reduces to Newtonian physics at velocities much lower than the speed of light, which is where we live.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.