Debunking Through Isolated Case

Robert G. Williscroft wrote an interesting little book, The Chicken Little Agenda.  In it he attempts to “take on” environmentalists and pro-government liberals.  His methodology is the simple isolated case. 

For instance, he takes on the “Green Revolution” by relating the mistakes,  exaggerations, and intentional sensationalisms made during the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill by environmentalists and by journalists.  Then he relates personal anecdotes from his experiences meeting or interacting with people he lumps together as “greens.”  Finally based on his personal examples and the Valdez he declares victory over all environmentalists claiming expertise on their motives, methods, and results.  Similarly he tackles the greenhouse effect on climate change, the ozone hole, and opponents of nuclear power. 

I understand that Williscroft had his own agenda to support and just like the opponents he presumably takes on, he had to cherry pick his research, but his book does a disservice by ignoring true scholarship and validity of research.  In order to make neat and clean conclusions, he pretended that all research and opinion was as invalid as his isolated examples.  Pretty sloppy if you ask me, which he didn't.

The rest of his book hinges on basic assumptions and isolated anecdotes eschewing scholarship in favor of agenda.  To say I was unimpressed would be correct. 

That isn't to say the whole of the text was offensive.  His experience and his stories are fun and competently written.  The book isn't a challenging read, and I was able to finish it in a couple hours.  It's just that his title was a bit too indicative – addressing an “agenda” with an “agenda” doesn't do service to the subject matter.

- CV Rick.

Comments

[Robert G. Williscroft]

I appreciare your reviewing my book, but I believe you have done your readers a disservice with your review of my book. For you to state that I am writing with an agenda is simply not correct. And for you to state that I "...pretended that all research and opinion was as invalid as [my] isolated examples..." is to miss entirely the central theme of my book.
I am not presenting a scholarly research document, but a statement that the sky is not falling, folks. There are a lot of agenda-driven people who use the public's gullibility, or simply its lack of knowledge, to scare and ultimately force action. I am trying, in a light-hearted way, to calm people down and give them a bit of insight into the facts - and I'm here to tell you that facts are never agenda-driven. I believe the average American is fully able to make up his or her own mind about what to do, IF that person has a full set of facts. Another theme of my book is simply that facts are verifiable. Don't believe something just because I or anyone else states it as fact. Verify, and THEN make up your mind.

[CV Rick]

I have to disagree, Mr. Williscroft. Your agenda was palpable in the book, for if not you would've taken on some of the more egregious "right wing" sky is falling panics, but you didn't do that. You decided specifically what annoys you, cherry picked arguments to specifically demonstrate invalidity, and reached conclusions. That is your right - it's your book - but argument to the isolated case is an egregious logical fallacy and you should know better.