Search This Blog

Sunday, July 14, 2013

"Not Much Scientific Background" To LNT

So says physicist (and thorium reactor marketeer) David LeBlanc (starts at about 14:20 and goes to about 19:00) from a few months ago:



And yet he calls it a theory (even a "flawed" theory).

Does he know that a scientific theory represents our highest level of understanding based on the evidence (ie, scientific background)?

He says it "primes" your system!


Hey, LeBlanc maybe you'd be interested in the July special!

6 comments:

  1. Amazing... I see this kind of denialism a lot among nuclear proponents... but the most amazing thing I've come across is folks who are happy to condemn climatology denialism, nevertheless within the same sentence engage in LNT denialism!

    Don't these folks have any self-awareness? And don't they grasp that trust is the main ingredient lacking from their nuclear renaissance? Lying through your teeth is great way to inspire trust, right?

    And actually the irony is that accepting LNT doesn't at all change the argument of nuclear vs. fossil fuels. But of course it does have some relevance to the nuclear vs. renewables argument, so perhaps that's why... can't let those greenies have their way, now can we?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, it's a bit like a religious person seeing how absurd all the other religions are, but not his own. It's a mental blind spot.

    Of course the nuclear proponents feel the public has been misled for decades by the fear mongers, and their desire to stop that misinformation campaign can take them down the path of their own denial. Doubt mongering vs fear mongering.

    Someone with a PhD (doctorate in the philosophy of science) in physics should know to support the scientific consensus, because that's how the scientific method works.

    It's very unethical and narcissistic for anyone, but particularly someone with a graduate science degree, to promote their personal opinion above that of the consensus.

    And like you state, LNT plays virtually no role in the nuclear vs fossil fuel argument, though more so against renewables. But the consequences of something being true, shouldn't distract from what is true (the fallacy of the appeal to consequences).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Someone with a PhD (doctorate in the philosophy of science) in physics should know to support the scientific consensus

    Toward the public, yes. But someone active in relevant research may have a different opinion, if he has the goods to back it up -- in the professional literature, not the Wall Street Journal or Forbes ;-/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yup, but he won't know if he has the goods until after publication and after a sound meta-analysis is done. At that point that opinion will either be the consensus or not.

      So, even in arguing within the scientific literature, the ethical thing is to support the consensus both when addressing the public and within the scientific literature.

      It's like supporting the judgement in a legal system or a sport's umpire's ruling.

      Until those are overturned, they stand...even while someone is making the case to overturn them. The person making the case isn't the arbiter in those scenarios, neither is the scientist publishing in the arena (HA!) of science.

      The consensus is the arbiter.

      Delete
    2. I don't think so... even judges can have minority opinions.

      Delete
    3. Right, but the majority rules and society follows the rules set by the majority. The minority opinion judges should proclaim that the majority has not been convinced by their arguments and the majority is to be followed.

      The case is settled.

      Delete