Ben Carson's Gish Gallop

Here.I shall put this on the Awesome Primary Thread too, but I thought it deserves a separate discussion. Note the actual dishonesty as well as the stupidity.

So I got less than half way though that gish gallop before I had to take a bathroom break, one that required several flushes. A different kind of "gallop" I suppose but nevertheless ...Curiously one of the things I would like to see in the presidential "debates" (both parties) is a button with a loud horn blast for every falsehood and misrepresentation.And for stupidity personified questions from the audience. The GOP would take the prize for the most blasts.LTMSA (laughing til my sides ache)Enjoy

It's the last bit that interests me most, that weird meme of a silence which can only mean support. Nixon used it in 1969, trying to silence a national scream against the Vietnam War with silence.It's like saying, "The absence of strong support is strong evidence of support."We hear it also from Those Who Doubt Climate Change (in accordance with the new AP style guidelines which eschew "climate change deniers" in the name of balance). In the future, I'll return to saying "deniers" since those who truly doubt have reasons and reason.So scientists around the world conceal their doubts about evolution for fear of peer and employer vengeance? It's a beautiful thing--almost impossible to disprove without an exhaustive poll, a sort of hermetically sealed argument. Of course, any scientist with good evidence contradicting evolution would achieve historic status.On the one hand, they're right. Any scientific institution, admin and peers alike, would have qualms about a scientist who spouted such nonsense. On the other hand, there is a boatload of cash and political support waiting for any scientist willing to denounce good science.But I do understand why he retired from medicine before launching his political career. Hearing your brain surgeon babble nonsense would be off-putting.His political qualifications? He said it best:

quote:

---

"I believe it is a very good idea for physicians, scientists, engineers, and others trained to make decisions based on facts and empirical data to get involved in the political arena"

---

The link below is to an article that talks about doctors who reject evolution, that was inspired by Ben Carson's position.Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution? - Pacific Standard"Why Do Some Doctors Reject Evolution?"

quote:

---

Most physicians are not scientists. This is not a knock, but they're more akin to engineers," Gorski says. "They take science that's already known and they apply it to a problem, the problem being making patients better."

​

"Routine medical care doesn't require a whole lot of thinking about underlying biology or evolution," says Gilbert Omenn, a doctor and researcher at the University of Michigan. "The why and even the how is not essential, if you have good published evidence that something works and you've seen it work in some of your patients, then it's enough to try and help your patient as best you can."

​

...

​

One survey, published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 2005, found that American doctors are about as likely to be religious as the general populationwhich is to say, very likely. And religiosity, it's well-known, correlates with a rejection of evolution. This stands in contrast to scientists, who are much less likely than the average American adult to be religious.

​

....

​

Another potential culprit: the memorization-based nature of medical training, which may give a doctor-to-be the impression that biology is a made up list of facts to recall; not a process that has gathered evidence for concepts like evolution over generations of experimentation. Most medical schools offer their students the opportunity to do some research, to give them a taste of the other side, but it's clearly not enough to change their rates of acceptance of evolutionary theory.

---