I sort of glossed over a point in this post (the distinction between consensus and unanimity) that bears a little more scrutiny, because it's essential to how scientific 'contrarians' like Singer operate. Consider this bit:
"Well, which is it?" Singer asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers.And apply it to, say, the Holocaust:
"Well, which is it?" David Irving asked. If there is a consensus, there should be no deniers.Under the Singer/Saunders standard, there is no consensus that the Holocaust occurred; after all, if there is a consensus, there should be no deniers. There is no consensus that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, for that matter--not as long as a single person asserts that it is flat.
And so, knowing that many reporters unconsciously apply this standard, people like Singer are able to manufacture 'controversy' simply by asserting something contrary to the (genuine) consensus. (It's not just corporate shills, either; this is exactly what the creationists do as well.) It doesn't work so well with the Holocaust, probably because most journalists are better versed in history than in science, but it is maddeningly effective in matters requiring a modicum of knowledge in any area of science.
[That's all, folks]
|