I’m also wondering if Dorries sneaks up behind Harris when he’s questioning those giving evidence and makes rabbit-ears behind him, or similar gestures. Because that seems to be about the same level of logic as shown in her newspaper letters.

Pick an issue from crime, abortion, global warming^, homeopathy, education and look at who is willing to look at statistical evidence and who isn’t.

[^ On global warming you can even use this rule of thumb to distinguish the political denialists from those with valid non-mainstream objections]

Portray an issue as a crisis and appeal to common sense
Portray an issue as being far more subjective than the statistics would suggest
Cherry pick evidence and portray those that produce counter evidence The Enemy
Create the appearance of public debate by leveraging internet groups and pressure groups
Attempt to shift the context of the debate into a favourable context
Accusations of prejudice against personal belief rather than opposition to policy based upon belief
Homogenisation of The Enemy (e.g. It’s better to put all atheists in the same category as Dawkins, or all moderate Christians in the same boat as the Archbishop of Canterbury)
Ridicule The Enemy as being ‘politically motivated’ without any sense of irony
Appeal to common sense “stastics/science don’t tell you everything”
Ad-hominem attack on The Enemy

In the newsletter of the Christian Medical Fellowship, Chris Richards (a paediatrician and honorary clinical lecturer at Newcastle University) considers evidence on whether abstinence-only sex education works or not, and concludes that: “Proof of efficacy is not the predominant issue for the Christian as it is for the utilitarian secularist. We teach something because we understand it is right to do so. God often calls his children to proclaim his ways without expecting a favourable response or outcome. That said, if God’s ways are heeded, we can be sure that they ‘work’ because living according to our maker’s instructions generally brings health and blessing.” (Nucleus, July 2005, pp 15-23).

the response to Evan Harris’s Giardian letter from the Tory MP is quite terrifying misfire on her part.

Anyone want to use me as a statistic? Or are all my friends who know me well now assuming following the issuing of this abortion/breast cancer link now thinking that I have kept something from them all these years. Sigh.

Hello everyone.

This abortion debate has raised my hackles. Concur utterly with the idea that it is not actually about the science and medical advances but it is about people using these things (spuriously) to determine the future of women and their bodies. And that this can go on in select committees and so forth without measure is appalling. It’s a long time since I marched against the Alton bill back in the early nineties (or was it late 80s?). Then the arguments were very ‘humanities graduate’. Thank you for the ammo here though for the 21st century version of the same old same old..

Keep the faith. Oops I mean keep the rational analysis of the facts coming. Cos as one contributor said on another thread, the opposite of access to legal, safe abortion is far less palatable.

x