
There Is No Theory of Everything - cpete
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/there-is-no-theory-of-everything/
======
nerd_stuff
> One huge problem with scientism is that it invites, as an almost allergic
> reaction, the total rejection of science. As we know to our cost, we witness
> this every day with climate change deniers...

Just a few paragraphs later he celebrates how irritating philosophy is while
sidestepping how much its pompous pedanticism encourages anti-intellectualism.
If it's a "huge problem with scientism" then it should also be a huge problem
with philosophism.

It's also unclear how exactly "scientism" is responsible for climate change
deniers. Somebody says "I believe someday science will explain everything!"
and so somebody else says "Oh yeah? Climate change is a hoax by the government
to get money!" Perhaps the author uses the word to describe being arrogant
about science but you can be plenty arrogant about it without adopting a view
of "scientism".

------
vixen99
"As we know to our cost, we witness this every day with climate change
deniers".

Denial? No one will deny there's an asteroid bearing down on us, if there is.
No one will deny that an appalling virus released from a research lab can kill
us all, if in fact it was released and can do that. Denial is reserved for
deviation from a faith. Such deviants are called heretics. The religious
terminology says it all. Why talk about denial if the evidence is screaming at
us. Please point to it; that's all you have to do. The heretics will recant
immediately. Is CAGW a 'faith'? I guess so.

~~~
nerd_stuff
A quick Google search gives these top links for starters:

NASA: Climate Change Evidence -
[http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:
[https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/)

Union of Concerned Scientists: [http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-
warming/science-and-im...](http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-
warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-science)

Weather Underground: Evidence of Climate Change:
[http://www.wunderground.com/climate/evidence.asp](http://www.wunderground.com/climate/evidence.asp)

~~~
EliRivers
None of that evidence counts. It's all falsified. Or the people producing it
are stooges. Or they're so stupid they get it wrong. Some of it is a
conspiracy. Some of it is misinterpreted. And it's a good thing anyway. And
even if it's real (which it isn't) it's not caused by anything humans do.

I can come up with a million of these. When an axiomatic starting point is
fixed (hello religion and other cultural beliefs), you can come up with post-
hoc rationalisations that not only mean you get to be right, but you get to
feel smart and special (and with this one, you get to make people who have no
idea what they're talking about feel that their street-smarts or some bullshit
"common sense" is superior to actually knowing things, like those scientists
who think they're so much better than everyone else). Trying to reason anyone
out of a position they did not reach through reason is a wasted effort. You'll
just go insane if you try :)

~~~
cholantesh
You forgot, "whatever humans have contributed is minuscule compared to how
much the sun has affected things."

~~~
EliRivers
Now that's a clever one. It's true in that the energy being dumped on the
planet every day by the sun is huge compared to what we burn, so at first
glance people will think it's a decisive argument. It's easily understood, so
people with little understanding of the situation can think they've seen right
through all the conspiracy etc. I'll add that one; if you can make your
audience feel clever doing it, they'll believe anything you want.

~~~
cholantesh
Hence the common refrain in a lot of the denialist screeds of, "This is just
common sense", "we already know this", "it's simple science", "THINK,
PEOPLE!!!!', etc.

