It is because of individuals like Matt Berkowitz- scientific con-artist and advocate for religious, unquestioning worship of the Cult of Science- that I was not interested in TZM. It seems that hes now taken himself out of the equation. I will never be interested in group therapy of any kind, not even when it comes to Future Possibility Creating. From Jason Industry fueled scientific con-artistry One of the greatest ironies in recent science “con-artistry” is the emergence of individuals who purport to debunk “junk science” even as they promote commercial and political interests. They pretend to champion good science. Here, their primary goal is typically not to gain scientific status for some ill-founded claim, but to erode confidence in sound science. They challenge findings about harmful chemicals or environmental dangers. All under the rubric of defending scientific rigor. Since no proof is absolute, it’s easy to find and exaggerate holes in any study. Steve Milloy’s Junk Science Judo (2001), for example, has all the trappings of fun lessons for high school teachers to use in the class- room. But his targets are selective, reflecting an anti-regulation agenda (embodied by the ultra-libertarian Cato Institute, where he works). He defends DDT and junk food in schools, and tries to discredit the EPA and climate change research. All in the name of “good” science – but note: not balanced or fully informed. It is a fascinating, albeit disturbing masquerade. -Doug Allchin has taught both high school and college biology and now teaches history and philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota, Berkowitz letter to Peter Joseph. ***Expression of concern about TZM’s infrastructure and public image: pseudoscience and grand conspiracy thinking abound** There has been growing concern within a significant portion of The Zeitgeist Movement’s (TZM) membership about the lack of adherence to and understanding of the scientific process amongst many of the more vocal members within the organization. This includes the founder, Peter Joseph, himself. While TZM proclaims to be about “the application of the scientific method for social concern”, there is a significant prevalence of pseudoscientific views and conspiratorial thinking that are displayed by such prominent spokesmen for the movement. While this problem has existed for some time within TZM – in no small part catalyzed by the first “Zeitgeist” film of the documentary trilogy, as well as similar but more muted problems with “Zeitgeist: Addendum” – the problem has become most apparent after now-former global lecture team member, Matt Berkowitz, released a lecture called “How to Know What’s True: Assessing Scientific Research” (https://youtube/watch?v=yUnaEec35ik). The comments section of the video displays the general misunderstandings and projections of science of many TZM supporters. Recent events have forced Matt Berkowitz to stop his activism under the TZM umbrella. It is clear that a rigorous standard of scientific evidence and understanding of the scientific process is not embraced by the administrative body of TZM. And despite constant efforts to improve and reconcile this situation both privately and publicly, no resolution has been reached. This letter is simply being published to express the extreme concern that many current and now-formerly active TZM members share. The signatories below indicate such people who are no longer capable of or will have great difficulty in associating with TZM, not because of the general content it puts forward, but due to the infrastructural, administrative, and PR problems expressed here. We warn that if the administrative body of TZM continues to operate with such pseudoscientific / anti-scientific / conspiratorial overtones and associations that the movement will continue to not be taken seriously by any reputable person or organization. There is additionally the problem of alienating the more scientifically literate members and overall decreasing the quality of the membership base as a whole, which has already occurred. What we recommend for TZM to reform itself (even though many of us feel this unlikely at this point): 1) There needs to be more quality control: both within the administrative body of TZM (for example, the Global Chapters Administration) and within public speakers for TZM. This may be accomplished by enforcing some sort of science competency / critical thinking test as a prerequisite for participation. 2) When supporting the “Natural Law Resource-Based Economy” (NLRBE), rely on the most robust, high-quality peer-reviewed evidence possible, embracing scientific consensus wherever it exists, and not avoiding issues that are socially contentious but not scientifically contentious, especially when they relate to the sustainability goals of an NLRBE.
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 01:14:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015