I thought this video and website to be interesting in showing how to
deconstruct false information.
Here, the scientists show that the arguments against human causes of
climate change are based on false reasoning.
They then take apart that reasoning via a logical examination of the
false information's premises. They ask whether the conclusions
reached actually follow from those premises. (As a Brooklynite, I
found the Australian accents hard to take! I kept thinking that this
was a Monty Python skit, but it's not.)
There is really nothing new here to those of us who've spent decades
challenging official rationalizations for all sorts of destructive
policies, but the scientists do a good job (within a limited frame)
of showing how to analyze the construction of an argument to see if
it holds water.
That said, the scientists should turn their analysis onto their own
premises -- a meta-critique of their critique, if you will -- to keep
the scientific process from being misapplied, as the arguments get
more complicated and politicized.
At the very end and in an attempt to be funny, they refer (in a
throw-away line) to the arguments against vaccinations. Okay, I say
"Bring it on", because the argument there will not be about the
rationality of the argument against some vaccines, but about ethical,
moral and political judgments around the concept of "herd immunity"
vs. the rights of the individual and the trustworthiness of the
official bodies and pharmaceutical corporations making certain
claims. But later for that.
Your thoughts on this website's information?