Telling science and ideology apart: maybe it’s nuance

“I have something in common with climate change myself. When I read about myth masquerading as fact, I find that my own temperature starts rising.”

Michael Kirsch thinks medicine and climate change might have some common elements.

“I don’t think that creationism is science and it should not be disguised as such. Global warming, or climate change, however, is more nuanced. While it is inarguable that temperatures have been rising, it is not certain and to what extent human activities are responsible for this. Clearly, this issue has been contaminated by politically correct warriors and those who have an agenda against fossil fuel use. Science, like all scholarship, should be a pursuit of the truth, without a destination in sight. Believing or wanting to believe that man is turning the world’s heat up may sound plausible, but it may not be true.


Just because something sounds true and logical, doesn’t make it so. In addition, repeating an opinion like a mantra isn’t sufficient to confer legitimacy on a view. Zealots and partisans gainsay these inconvenient truths.

In the medical universe, much is presented as true, which may be either false or unproved. Consider how many established medical procedures and practices have no underlying science to buttress them. Consider the following examples and decide if you agree that each is a good idea that makes sense.  Do they sound right or are they truly sound?”

Too often, people go off on things that sound right but are not truly sound. They then proceed to rationalize what they think sounds right and that is where the problem comes in. The often miss things like the comparison Kirsch provides between creationism and climate change. That is noting the ‘weak analogy‘ logical fallacy. The use of such fallacies is not restricted to a particular topic but rather to a behavior where trying to figure out what is truly sound is not the goal.

Comments are closed.