National Post’s Anti-Science Piffle Worsens
Unlike the Globe & Mail, which claims that science is legitimate but that it has no really significant implications (regarding climate change, for instance), the National Post claims that science isn’t really legitimate at all. They even have an annual Junk Science Week devoted to the promotion of fringe scientific hypotheses, like radiation hormesis and anti-global warming nonsense.
This week, though, they deepened their commitment to superstitious nonsense. They’ve given space to someone from a group called Real Clear Science, which from the looks of the article is anything but clear. Atheists are in the wrong, the article asserts, because you can’t really prove that God doesn’t exist. And therefore it’s very likely he does, and scientists should take that into account. It’s unreasonable for atheists to expect science to cast doubt on the existence of God.
Kind of beside the point, really, and the argument, as usual, is nonsense. It’s true that God’s existence can’t be disproven scientifically. There are lots of things that can’t be conclusively disproven scientifically. That doesn’t mean we should pay them much attention. Science can’t disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns, either. But I think you’d agree with me that we would look somewhat suspiciously at any scientist whose work was predicated on the assumption that such things probably existed, or even that there was a good chance they might exist.
Next thing I know, the Post will be telling me not to be so quick to rule out the existence of Bigfoot, or the Yeti.
Actually, I kid. That’s not the next thing the Post will tell me. That’s the last thing they told me, earlier this week, when they gave a rather undue amount of space to a geneticist who not only claims to have found conclusive genetic proof of Bigfoot’s existence but also says that it’s time to pass a law affirming that Bigfoot be given the full protection of human rights law and the full privileges of Native Americans.
Occasionally anonymous bloggers get criticized by Real Journalists™ who say that a story doesn’t have credibility unless there’s a recognizable name on the byline. I can’t help but notice that the Bigfoot Story was published anonymously, too, by “National Post Staff.” Whoever that is.
Tweet
Anon
“You can’t prove that God exists!” they accuse (correctly). Yet, hypocritically, strict atheists are guilty of the exact same crime: belief without evidence.MMyM
My proof is that you have no proof. Case closed.
Sam Gunsch
Wouldn’t it be a happy miracle if certain Real Journalists were regularly willing to call out articles/journalists in their own or fellow MSM newspapers in the way they happily target bloggers?
…not so easy to take on your own tribe according to your supposedly shared codes of practice for journalism.
re: “Occasionally anonymous bloggers get criticized by Real Journalists™ who say that a story doesn’t have credibility unless there’s a recognizable name on the byline. I can’t help but notice that the Bigfoot Story was published anonymously, too, by “National Post Staff.” Whoever that is.”
Purple Library Guy
Anon: Aaauuuugggghhhhh!!!!
Look, people who don’t understand how logic works should either study up or avoid playing with fire. Here’s the thing: Most positive claims you can imagine aren’t true. There’s an infinite number of possible universes and we only live in one. So for any given thing you want to claim exists or is true, people shouldn’t believe it unless you can show some solid evidence that it actually does exist/is true in the real world.
Take “rats exist”. Well, I’ve seen rats in pet shops and once or twice in the wild. I know people who have had pet rats, and even people who fed rats to large pet snakes. They leave little rat skeletons behind, there are lots of other animals that eat them, they’ve caused plagues and food shortages. I’m pretty sure rats exist. If I didn’t have any of that, they’d be a myth and I wouldn’t believe in them.
For “God exists” I don’t have any of that. It is not then unreasonable or exceptional for me to not believe in God. I have similar lack of evidence for Vishnu or Shiva, Odin, the celestial bureaucracy and so on. You may want to believe in God anyway, and that doesn’t particularly bother me, but sorry, my not doing so is not an example of hypocrisy, it is an example of normal reasoning. It’s not atheists’ fault if you don’t understand how to do that stuff.
Sixth Estate
In Anon’s defence, that was a quote from the Post article.
So you can direct your righteous atheistic claptrap in their general direction.
Sixth Estate
…not so easy to take on your own tribe according to your supposedly shared codes of practice for journalism.
Yes, well, in fairness, it’s easy to sympathize with whichever reporter(s) said they really weren’t eager to take credit for an article debating the existence of Bigfoot.
Anon
PLG: I will believe in god when I see a photograph of god (thanks Kurt).
And fancy paintings on ceilings are not proof of anything (except, maybe, life drawing skills).
Saskboy
I’m sure Akin will be leaving the NatPo comments too about this.
Peter
Re: The atheism thing.::There was a great episode of Charlie Rose with E.O. Wilson and James Watson. I can’t remember which one started it (so I may have my paraphrases mis-attributed) but the exchange was something like:
EOW: I can’t think of one serious scientist who believes in god.
JW: I can, but just one.
EOW: Who?
JW: You know …
EOW: Oh yeah, but he doesn’t really count.
Re; Bigfoot :: If I read that right, instead of one modern species for which there exists no confirmed information, the story implies that there is one modern species and one ancient-ish species for which no evidence exists plus one or both of these critters crossed from Asia to North America along with Homo sapiens. The proof is more outlandish than the hypothesis.
Sixth Estate
Peter,
Here, so far as I can tell, is the sequence of events, pared down with Ockham’s razor:
1.) A hominid species closely related to humans existed in either northeastern Asia or North America prior to 15,000 years ago.
2.) This species left no fossilized remains of its own.
3.) This species was sufficiently closely related to humans that they could interbreed, but its numbers were small enough that interbreeding happened only once or a small number of times, with human women.
4.) The original hominid species then died out entirely, again leaving no fossilized remains behind.
5.) The new hybrid species survived in sufficient numbers to maintain a breeding population, but not sufficient numbers to leave behind any bone or tool remains.
6.) By the late 20th century, this hybrid species still had a sufficiently large breeding population to remain at large in the North American wild, but again, still not large enough to be seen regularly or to leave behind any substantial and uncontested evidence of its existence.
Peter
Yep, that was more or less my take. That seems so much more likely than that somehow some modern human DNA got into their samples.
I’m pretty sure that Pierre Poutine is a bigfoot.
Sixth Estate
Interesting point. Yes, you’re probably right.
That would certainly explain why we’re having so much trouble finding him.