If you feel the need to relive my session you can watch it again here,
I read articles I disagree with because a) people send them to me b) I don’t want to be wrong.
Global warming deniers and creationists have gotten more sophisticated in their arguments. I have a fairly wide range of understanding of science, but arguments about a specific graph in an IPCC report or halos in rocks containing uranium can rapidly become more technical than I can answer off the top of my head.
The evidence for global warming and evolution is diverse, and one piece of evidence can’t knock down either theory. But until I understand the argument (and almost always find out that the data has been misrepresented), there’s the thought “What if I’m wrong?” It bugs me.
BTW: One of the arguments against evolution was a question about the thermodynamics of protein/RNA/DNA evolution (I don’t remember the exact question–it’s been a while). The answer at the time was clearly inadequate, and the creationists had a point. A lot of people handwaved the argument away, but, as I remember it, some researchers delved into the problem and found a solution that answered the creationists’ questions and improved our understanding of evolution.
It’s one thing to find yet another argument claiming that evolution is impossible because the writer doesn’t understand thermodynamics at all (folks often forget that entropy can be reversed with energy input and that the sun provides the Earth with energy). It’s another to find a well-written argument that needs consideration.]]>
Thanks also for commenting!
I’m puzzled at my own reluctance to accept the psychological science about science communication. It’s disturbing to see myself not accepting in the same manner as other’s don’t accept, but on a different topic.
I am determined to remain flexible, but there are times I fear change gets more difficult as I age.]]>