Uncertainty tactic

{{logicnav}}
{{Sources needed}}
The '''uncertainty tactic''' is a strategy frequently used by purveyors of all forms of [[woo]]. This tactic involves taking a widely-accepted [[scientific theory]] — such as [[evolution]], [[anthropogenic global warming]], [[peak oil]], or the dangers of [[Tobacco smoking|secondhand smoke]] — and contrasting the [[scientific consensus|consensus]] view with a number of critics. Then the proposition is made that the [[truth]] is "uncertain" to a large degree, and so "[[Balance fallacy|both sides]]" should be [[Teach the controversy|taught]].

==There are always critics==
It is a sad truth that you can always find someone in a lab coat to disagree with the majority on any given issue.  There are serious people who disagree with the consensus view on evolution, global warming, smoking, and so on.  But there are actually also serious people who disagree about [[gravity]], a constant [[speed of light]], or [[continental drift]]. The crazier the idea, the fewer who believe. But when you throw in inducements like [[money]],{{efn|A lot of studies refuting [[peak oil]] happen to be funded by [[oil]] companies.}} fame,{{efn|No one knew who [[William Dembski]] was until he got on his soapbox.}} or [[religion]]{{efn|A belief in evolution is godless and [[sin]]ful, you fool.}} …the list of people willing to speak out gets a lot longer.

==The tactic in use==
Expressing doubt — often feigned doubt — classed as ''aporia'' in the [[rhetorical]] tool-box of the ancient Greeks, and [[philosopher]]s like [[René Descartes|Descartes]] and [[David Hume|Hume]] demonstrated a useful exploitation of uncertainty — such [[skepticism]] contributed to the development of  [[scientific method|scientific methodologies]]. But while the uncertainty tactic was first notably used in a deliberate [[public relations|PR]] fashion by [[Big Tobacco]] to protest that the "[[science]] was still out" on the dangers of [[smoking]] during the 1950s and 1960s, the truly magnificent deployment of the scam flowered in the "[[Teach the Controversy]]" push against evolution in American [[public school]]s by the [[Discovery Institute]]. As part of a [[Wedge Document|broader plan]], the Discovery Institute dredged up a variety of [[Christianity]]-inspired [[creationists]] with vaguely scientific underpinnings — and a few surprisingly capable and notable scientists — and carefully set about organizing their insurgency against evolution, intent on replacing it with "[[intelligent design]]".  

By launching their own [[pseudojournal]]s, writing books, and being as vocal as possible about intelligent design, the minions of the Discovery Institute attempted to project an [[aura]] of being more numerous than they really were.  Petitions and demonstrations, joined in later years with such items as the film ''[[Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed]]'' (2008), drummed up the notion that there was serious scientific disagreement about evolution… and accordingly that creationism should be taught in [[public schools]] as well.

As is usually the case, the antidote was a serious, patient, and continual refutation. Tireless bloggers, columnists, and the good people at the [[National Center for Science Education]] have consistently continued to defeat the Discovery Institute's gambit of the uncertainty tactic.

==See also==
*[[Anti-environmentalism]]
*[[Fear, uncertainty, and doubt]]
*[[Science was wrong before]]
*[[Balance fallacy]]
*[[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]]

==Bibliography==
*Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway. [http://pubs.acs.org/cen/books/89/8903books.html ''Merchants of Doubt''.] Bloomsbury Press, 2011. ISBN 1-608-19394-2

==Notes==
{{reflist|group=note}}

{{logfal}}

[[Category:Fallacious arguments]]
[[Category:Denialism]]
[[Category:Informal fallacies]]

Categories: Fallacious arguments, Denialism, Informal fallacies