On Alan Jones (and other pathetic flat Earthers)

So Alan Jones thinks that climate change is just a superstition? 99% of the world's scientists actually working in the field are clearly not enough for him, although I doubt that extra 1% would sway the likes of him either.

The Canberra Times' Crispin Hull sums it up well:

Superstitious Jones falls for the ad hominen fallacy

THIS week broadcaster Alan Jones called the proposition of human-induced climate change “superstition” and he launched an abrasive personal attack on Prime Minister Julia Gillard. It was hardly surprising.

The two things were just another example of the human aversion to science and logical argument.

It took more than a thousand years for humankind to generally accept that the earth is round. Aristotle proclaimed it, with evidence, in 330BC. A century later, the Greeks even calculated the earth’s circumference with some accuracy.

But it was only after Columbus did not fall off the edge of the earth that the bulk of humankind accepted it.


It took several hundred years for humankind to generally accept that the earth goes around the sun.

Copernicus published his theory to a narrow audience in the 1530s. A hundred years after that, Galileo was condemned by the church for publicising further proof of the theory and his belief in it. But it was perhaps a couple of centuries later before it was generally accepted.

The theory of evolution was broadly propounded 150 years ago. Even with the advantage of print and widespread education, US polling shows an astonishing 60 per cent of the people do not accept the theory. In Australia, probably more than 30 per cent of people do not accept the basic science which explains their existence on the planet — 150 years after the convincing case was first put.

So, can we seriously expect the bulk of people to understand and accept the principles of climate change and the evidence that backs it after a mere 30 years?

The anti-science forces remain untrammelled by public education. Just as Pope Urban VIII sent Galileo to the Inquisition, Cardinal George Pell has spoken against the conclusions of climate science.

It is because science threatens authority and power. Believe what I tell you to believe; don’t come to conclusions based on evidence and logic.

Alan Jones’s superstition comment is like that.

Climate science is not superstition. It is precisely the opposite. “Superstition” is a religious belief or other tenet based on fear or ignorance, whereas climate science is based on evidence, not ignorance. Jones’s irrational belief that climate change is not happening or if it is it is not caused by human action is superstition – an irrational tenet based on ignorance.

The ghastly shouting match over the past two weeks over climate change resembles the past disputes (I hesitate to use the word debates) over the spherical earth, the heliocentric solar system and evolution, even unto the death threats to Galileo and Independent MP Tony Windsor. Indeed, the threat of death for heresy threatened upon Galileo was couched in more temperate language than that sent to Windsor’s voice mail.

The opponents of climate science descend into a plethora of logical fallacies, the most prominent of which is the ad hominen argument – descent to personal attack, as illustrated by the attacks on Julia Gillard by Jones an Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and his followers.

Pell, Abbott and Jones belittle climate change science and reject doing anything effective about its findings for pure selfish reasons: to protect their status or power.

In some ways the discoveries of climate change are more profound than the discoveries that the earth is round, goes around the sun and the life on it evolved.

In the days when the bulk of humans believed that the earth was flat, orbited by the sun and was produced in a flash by divine intervention, the beliefs did not threaten human existence. Then the earth and environment threatened humans; now humans threaten the earth.

What is to be done about this seemingly intransigent human capacity to deny science – intransigent because it defies the advances in universal education?

A lot of educators, particularly conservative ones, preach the value of the three Rs: reading, ‘riting and ‘rithmetic. And they are right to do so. But we need more than literary and numeracy because they are only two of the building blocks of understanding. We should also be teaching Critical Thinking, as a formal subject, in our high schools. It would encompass logic and the scientific method.

High school literacy and numeracy without critical thinking has left a swathe of our population potential victims of populists, sloganists and spin doctors.

Mathematics is wonderful, but it deals a lot with proofs of theorems. The proof uses deductive logic and is conclusive. But these sorts of proofs, usually with a limited number of variables, do not translate to the real world – of science, nature, human behaviour and economics — where the variables are almost infinite and many are unknown.

In that world, conclusive proof is impossible, but people whose education did not include critical thinking often demand that level of proof for things that run against their upbringing or are inconvenient.

So they can reject science and theories that are not proven conclusively but are accepted by rational people because they fit known facts and whatever new evidence comes to light does not contradict them. That is inductive logic, based on evidence, example, analogy, experiment and testing. Not conclusive, but to the rational mind accepted until disproved or a better theory takes its place.

The mind uneducated by critical thinking can find it easy to believe the earth was created in seven days 4444 years ago. Worse, the absence of understanding of the scientific method means that such a mind does not grasp that so much evidence militates against the seven-day creation that it should be easily dismissed.

It would not matter too much if those without faculties of critical thinking or an understanding of the scientific method did not occupy positions of power and influence, or if some warped people in positions in positions of power and influence with critical thinking powers did not nonetheless exploit the ignorance of others. But it is not so, as the events of the past week clearly illustrate. And how easy it is when the science and policies are complex.

Worse, without high-school education in critical thinking, too many uncritical thinkers will tune into talk-back radio; get exploited by churchmen; be misled by politicians; and, alas, vote.
CRISPIN HULL
This article first appeared in The Canberra Times on 5 March 2011