Читать книгу Global Warming and Other Bollocks - Stanley Feldman - Страница 9

Beliefs are authoritative statements that have not been subjected to testing or are incapable of being tested. They rely on anecdotal evidence and the power of authority.

Hypotheses are tentative beliefs that are subject to proof or disproof and consequently a step beyond ‘belief’.

Facts are measurable and reproducible events. There is no known or current evidence that casts doubt upon their truthfulness. They are therefore ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, although new evidence may emerge to question their accuracy in the future. Such is the nature of progress.

To illustrate the importance of separating these three categories let us consider some examples.

Before the 16th century it was universally believed that the sun orbited the Earth. This was a consensus opinion. Not to accept this idea was regarded as heresy. It was an authoritative dogma promulgated by the Church and could not be questioned. The authority of the Bible was invoked as evidence to support the claim – if, indeed, evidence was required, since it was ‘self-evident’ from everyone’s personal daily experience. The idea that the Earth spun at an incredible speed as it orbited the sun seemed as improbable as it was blasphemous. Unlike many beliefs, this one was subject to scientific evaluation. Nevertheless, it was some time after Copernicus and Galileo had produced convincing evidence that the Earth orbited the sun, rather than the more facile explanation, that the heliocentric view of the world became universally accepted.

Today, many people buy ‘organic food’ in spite of the extra expense because they believe it is ‘better’ for them than food grown or produced ‘conventionally’. There is no evidence to support this belief. Its supporters have been persuaded by unsubstantiated propaganda, repeated by what they see as authoritative sources, such as Prince Charles, the Soil Association, many retailers, celebrity chefs and some self-serving nutritionists. They ignore the evidence and remain unconvinced by conclusions reached by bodies they would normally be expected to respect, such as Food Standards Agency, the Advertising Standards Authority and highly regarded nutritionists who have contributed to and examined the evidence. This has consistently failed to show any advantage in ‘organic produce’, which is in effect a trademark rather than a genuine entity. Insistence on buying organic food is based on belief, not on evidence, and is as irrational as the belief that the world is flat.