In a comment on a previous post, Sybil sent this link to “The George Will Affair,” published in the Columbia Journalism Review. I thought it was worthy of a full post.
If you have wandered onto this blog and don’t want to click the link, then here’s the URL:
http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/the_george_will_affair.php
Read this article. Please, please, please. This is IMPORTANT, folks
I believe in climate change BECAUSE I believe in argument. I don’t have an agenda. I WANT to find peer-reviewed articles that refute climate change. So far I haven’t found them. So, as of today, I believe in climate chance because the weight of evidence is on that side.
That’s why Will’s articles terrify me. He offers easily refuted factual errors. More dangerous yet, Will, talented writer that he is, uses his skills to produce incorrect inferences in readers without knowledge of science.
Since I fully agree with the Post‘s stated position that it’s best to argue about issues, I’m doubly upset about their attitude toward facts and inferences. A major part of my job is teaching people HOW to argue and Will’s use, misuse, and twisting of facts would earn any college student of mine a lengthy lecture on propaganda techniques and evaluation of sources.
In other words, I expected more careful* use of sources from Will. On matters of science, science journals and scientific organizations always trump the popular press.
Why? Because academic journals have standards and a peer-review process to catch the sort of errors that popular sources can cheerfully ignore because they aren’t in danger of a peer-review, the dreaded process in which one’s work is marched past a panel of OTHER experts in the field, a hoard with magnifying glasses and hammers, a throng waiting to pounce on and smash the slightest inaccuracy or unsupported tweak.
Uh oh. I just had a horrifying thought. You don’t suppose–
Could the eminent George Will be like most of my college students? Could he cite popular sources because he gives them the same weight as academic journals?
Does he, like many, think that articles published by Heartland Institute or the Sierra Club are the equal of work published in the Journal of Climate?
Too often I see Americans assume that all opinions are EQUAL.
I agree that everyone’s entitled to an opinion, but, like people, those opinions are merely CREATED equal. After that, it’s magnifying glass and hammer time. Unworthy opinions deserve to be shattered by evidence and logic, and even worthy opinions often have some dents to be hammered out. That’s the scientific method.
Cite your sources, and be ready to revise–that’s my motto. I wonder what George Will’s is.
Cassandra
*Sybil just suggested he was “careful” and that I should use “honest” instead.