But that assumes that there is the ability to judge something untrue and move on, and I think the point Oselle is making is that right now there isn't. That's why things that should have been judged untrue and dropped are instead presented as just "the other side" of a debate. If one side can be proved wrong with facts, they don't want the facts to count.
For instance, look at something like Intelligent Design and Creationism. The whole idea is to present Intelligent Design as an alternate scientific theory when it isn't. In order to make it an alternate theory you have to (as ID people do) claim that all science is just people acting on faith, whether they "choose to believe" evolution or ID or creationism.
I remember people complaining about a Daily Show "debate" with a scientist, an ID person and a Creationist. I didn't even like the idea of this being a debate since only one person was dealing with scientific facts, but other people were angry at it not being "balanced" enough because they felt the ID guy was made to look bad because the scientist supporting evolution got to speak last, and also they also had on a creationist guy which they thought suggested ID was the same as creationism (which is basically is).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 02:59 pm (UTC)For instance, look at something like Intelligent Design and Creationism. The whole idea is to present Intelligent Design as an alternate scientific theory when it isn't. In order to make it an alternate theory you have to (as ID people do) claim that all science is just people acting on faith, whether they "choose to believe" evolution or ID or creationism.
I remember people complaining about a Daily Show "debate" with a scientist, an ID person and a Creationist. I didn't even like the idea of this being a debate since only one person was dealing with scientific facts, but other people were angry at it not being "balanced" enough because they felt the ID guy was made to look bad because the scientist supporting evolution got to speak last, and also they also had on a creationist guy which they thought suggested ID was the same as creationism (which is basically is).