Posted by: egutoday | April 3, 2011

Andy Russell’s column

Sir John Beddington (Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government) stirred up some controversy during his recent address to a Government Science & Engineering conference:

“We are not […] grossly intolerant of pseudo-science, the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method.”
He then urged his audience to “go out and be much more intolerant.”

I’ve been thinking about how this applies to my area of interest – climate change – where the lines between scientist, sceptic, contrarian and denier have become blurred. In this arena, engaging with true scepticism can reinforce research findings but debating with deniers is often pointless. Maybe Beddington is proposing that certain arguments can be brushed aside with a simple put down: Pseudoscience! If so, how do we determine which arguments?
And, of course, there are two sides to this story – how energetically should we also challenge those who extrapolate the scientific evidence to an alarming level in an effort to accelerate political action?
In short, how can intolerance of pseudoscience be employed whilst maintaining a professional appearance and the principles of the scientific method?

By Andrew Russell, Brunel University, UK.

See also Andy’s blog Our Clouded Hills



  1. Good Stuff, Andy!

  2. Is this guy for real? Sir John is quite right with his comments.

  3. Pseudoscience isn’t the problem. It all comes down to communication, communication, communication!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: