Lets say we wanted to determine if it was a good idea to wash ones hands after taking a dump if one wish to cook food. We can imagine two ways to determine it:
1) Evidence-based reasoning
- Does the evidence suggest that not washing ones hand after taking a dump just prior to cooking make it more likely poo will end up in the food?
2) The Al-Gore heuristic
- Does Al-Gore say it is a good idea to wash ones hands after a dump prior to cooking and..
- does Al-Gore in fact not wash his hands after taking a dump prior to cooking
- in this case it is reasonable to believe one should not wash ones hands after taking a shit and before cooking
Most people would go with 1, especially if 95+% of the relevant scientists believed it was the case.
There is, however, a certain crowd on this site who seem to advocate for reasoning along the lines of (2) over and over again, at least in the context of climate change. Specifically the heuristic seem to go as:
- Does al gore say the climate is changing due to human activity and this is bad
- Does al gore fly a private jet despite this
- then there is good reasons to believe the climate is not changing
This is particularly interesting, since the same crowd seems to think al-gore is some kind of boogyman who shouldnt be trusted. One do have to wonder if they really believe the argument is solid in general, or it is just the best they can come up with to ignore the evidence which is pretty clear in this case.