Full frontal lobotomy?

Has AN Wilson had a full frontal lobotomy, or perhaps his recent article in the Daily Mail is more a case of a full bottle in front of me?

You really should (attempt to) read this article if you wish to witness the absurdity of the anti-scientific right wing mind in full flow, it should be used as a case study of religiously inspired cognitive dissonance.

Let's take a look at some of the stupidity on display

"The trouble with a 'scientific' argument, of course, is that it is not made in the real world, but in a laboratory by an unimaginative academic relying solely on empirical facts."

One wonders which "world" Mr Wilson thinks scientists do actually work in, Legoland perhaps? and I strain my tiny scientific brain thinking about what (other than empirical facts) he would like to base his arguments on, can Mr Wilson be seriously suggesting that he would prefer to base his arguments on instinct and blind prejudice?

Clearly what this scientifically illiterate hack is trying to say is that there are additional societal considerations involved in making decisions about things like drugs over and above the scientific data; you don't need to be a scientist to understand this and if he'd bothered to read the actual report he would realise that Prof. Nutt was fully aware of that fact also. However, Mr Wilson takes this argument a step further by suggesting that there are types of "knowledge" unavailable to scientists; in a typically theological style he does not elaborate what or where this knowledge comes from or indeed how one acquires it, but with a nudge and a wink makes it clear that he knows something about the universe that the rest of us don't.  He goes on to say,

"But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that science is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that scientists must be listened to at all times."

I don't know a single scientist who considers themselves to be "infallible", in fact the scientific method assumes the opposite from the outset, nothing in science is ever "proven". Religion is the only discipline in our lives that assumes itself infallible, the Pope for example publicly states as much, and you have to be pretty sure you are right about something in order to strap explosives to your chest and pull the trigger in the name of that belief.

Then there is a little dig at Biology (no doubt inspired by new atheists like Richard Dawkins), he says,

"The point here is not whether he was right or wrong - it was the way in which the scientific establishment closed ranks in order to assassinate him. There was a blanket denunciation of his heresy, just as there is if anyone dares to point out some of the mistakes made by that very fallible genius Charles Darwin."

Sorry Mr Wilson, you exhibit an epic failure of understanding of both the scientific method you criticise and the motivation of scientists; firstly you will not find a reputable scientist on the planet who would deny that Darwin was wrong about some things (amazingly few as it happens) in the last 150 years we have advanced evolutionary science beyond recognition, especially in areas concerning genetics and the cellular mechanisms of inheritance and development, palaeontology, zoology and behavioural science, Darwin's original theory has been re-visited, revised and added to over and over again. However the important fact here is that reality contradicts Wilson's view entirely. If science really was this intransigent then we wouldn't have modern medicine at all, we would be like Mr Wilson's religion, clinging onto a 2000 year old myth for all his solipsistic white knuckled pseudo-intellectual grip can afford him.

Perhaps Mr Wilson is a young earth creationist, does he think the Flintstones was actually a documentary?

Then we get the classic religious bait and switch trick, discredit your enemy by accusing him of your own kind of delusion, he says,

"Science rules - and it does so with just as much energy as the old Spanish Inquisition that refused to allow any creed other than Catholicism, and with the Inquisition's need to distort arguments and control the brains of men and women who might otherwise think for themselves."

This little missive screams "straw-man" fallacy, no one is distorting arguments, no one is suppressing anyone else's viewpoint and we certainly aren't burning people alive who don't agree with a particular piece of research. The data is there in the paper, it is clear and transparent as are the methods used to get it, if anyone can provide better data or a better method then they are perfectly at liberty to do so. Apologists like Wilson detest this fact of course, they are lazy and would prefer to base policy on knowledge derived from their own imagination which is opaque to everyone else, requires no justification and should be "respected"; even when it clearly contradicts reality.