More evidence that denialists can not read

Disco Strikes Out Again: Casey Luskin, Kitzmiller, and New Information
[Via Good Math, Bad Math]

For a lot of people, I seem to have become the go-to blogger for information theory stuff. I really don’t deserve it: Jeff Shallit at Recursivity knows a whole lot more than I do. But I do my best.

Anyway, several people pointed out that over at the Disco Institute, resident Legal Eagle Casey Luskin has started posting an eight-part series on how the Kitzmiller case (the legal case concerning the teaching of intelligent design in Dover PA) was decided wrong. In Kitzmiller, the intelligent design folks didn’t just lose; they utterly humiliated themselves. But Casey has taken it on himself to demonstrate why, not only did they not make themselves look like a bunch of dumb-asses, but they in fact should have won, had the judge not been horribly biased against them.

[More]

Denialists so often follow similar paths, no matter what they are denying. Usually it requires them to simply not understand English. Good math, Bad Math does a nice job demonstrating this fact.

As the law saying “When the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both are against you, attack the plaintiff.”

If scientists do not have the facts, they stop arguing. Lawyers keep on going, using all sorts of rhetorical tricks to try and win. Because for them, the facts have nothing to do with winning. Destruction of the plaintiff’s reputation can work just as well.

Often you can tell which side is full of denialists because they follow the legal model, often attacking the plaintiff when they have nothing else.

In this case, they attack the judge and anyone connected with the winning side of the case by not apparently knowing what a word means.. Remember, the side that argues like lawyers is usually the side denialists favor.