21st Apr 2008
I don’t disagree; I’m just disagreeable
Reasonable people can disagree reasonably, and I firmly support the right of a minority to have views that differ from that of the majority.
It smacks of intellectual dishonesty, though, when the overwhelming majority of experts in a field view the evidence a certain way, and the only argument the detractors can make is to accuse said experts of conspiracy, suppression, and disregard for the facts.
We all have ideological presuppositions that cause us to favor one explanation over another, believe one expert over another, but it becomes ironic and self-parodying when a group purports to stand for Absolute Truth, but is unwilling to acknowledge the academic integrity of thousands of brilliant and well-researched scholars.
I guess it depends on whose bias you trust more. Which is more likely, for “all or nearly all national and international science academies and professional societies” (wp) to be so ideologically entrenched as to not see what is clearly in front of their face; or for what is essentially a single, small lobby group, consisting of scientists whose religious tradition depends on an a priori understanding of the way things came into existence?