Next time some idiot global climate change denier comes along...

Unreasonable Faith Forum » General » Science / Education / Technology

Next time some idiot global climate change denier comes along...

(63 posts) (16 voices)

Started 1 year ago by LRA
Latest reply from JonJon

Tags:

hublot watches fake

« Previous 123 Next »

LRA
Member

C5--

Science leads to conclusions *regardless* of what those conclusions mean to the larger group. The climate science here wasn't done to help out one political group or another... it was done to gather information about what's going on with our global climate system.

Your skepticism may not directly state that you question climate change, but your skepticism seems to imply that you think that the scientific process is corrupt to a point of becoming just another way for politicians to tax people. That is the problem I have with your skepticism. Whatever the political fallout of this science may be, I'm asking that if you question the *science* of the matter, that you state which facts you find objectionable. If you do not question the *science*, but only what we should do about the *fact*-- the indisputable *fact*-- that CO2 from industrialized nations (and in the future from nations that want to industrialize) is causing problems by rapidly (relatively speaking) altering ecosystems, then fine. What we should do is a political question--- that it is happening is not.

Further, we don't "predict" the climate because climate is *not* weather... those are two very different concepts. The climate is an average (if you will) of conditions in an area that can be local or global. The damage is *already* measurable. We aren't talking about doom and gloom with no factual basis. When science offers up scenarios, they model these scenarios *on current rates* of damage!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21449967

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640499

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19097482

However, such models are difficult to construct and don't come with any certainty because science is not an endeavor for certainty, but for best guesses based on the data. The point is, the debate is over... rapid rates of climate change *is* negatively impacting the environment and disturbing the ecological niches of the food web on the planet *will* impact us because we are a part of that food web!

I don't think I'm being narrow here to insist that any criticism levied at the *science* needs to be backed up with *hard facts* and cite *specific studies*, which you have not done, C5.

Whatever criticisms you levy at politicians and economists is fine. But don't say that we shouldn't consider solutions to global climate change because the *science* is faulty... the *science* is NOT faulty. The *science* is not doom and gloom-- it offers models based on current data. If the models are scary, so be it.

I think that an entire industry of clean energy and carbon sequestering could be a *GOOD* thing for businesses. If Exxon and other oil companies are making record profits, then why not use some of that money in Research and Development to actually develop new technologies that don't produce CO2 as a byproduct or that balance CO2 capture with CO2 release? (Full disclosure: my mother worked for Exxon for 27 years. She claims that such R&D is in the works, but I have yet to see any such thing from Exxon).

The bottom line is that energy producing companies don't want to see their profit margin affected from quarter to quarter *regardless* of the environmental damage they are doing. It is they who have waged a campaign of misinformation against the science because their only real concern is quarterly profits, and that is unacceptable. They have used the right-wing, pro-business groups in our government to help with this campaign of misinformation and lies. That's why global climate change deniers are right-wing.

Whatever the politics, the science is sound. Period. End of story. The rest of it is rhetoric.

Posted 1 year ago #
Yoav
Member

On the contrary, in many ways there have been debatable improvements. Air quality has been improving in some ways for over 40 years.

That's because regulations were placed that forced industry to reduce pollution, the same way that regulations will force it to reduce CO2 emission. If, like the teacups want, you will "get the EPA of our backs" rivers will be catching fire again within a year. As for the economic cost, the longer we wait to act the higher it will get.

Posted 1 year ago #
arrakis
Member

@LRA - I think C5 is a troll who commonly posts on Ed Brayton's blog (Dispatches from the Culture Wars), praising Newt Gingrich, opposing abortion, and posting such nuggets as these:

"You want to know something, liberals? Today, another aftershock shook Japan - roughly 7.4 magnitude. These unprecedented acts of Nature are a warning against secular society - of which Japan is a major international hotbed - and a warning for the world's powers, whether they hail from the East or the West, to take a stand against the adversaries of God."

and:

"I would rather trust the learned professors of theology that have devoted years of their life to studying the Bible than an atheist whose only makes his own interpretations - equating God to 'childhood myths' is laughable and reveals the shallow pool that is the atheist's understanding of religion."

For those who are intimidated by long scientific papers, have a simple chart with a point-by-point breakdown of climate change - Climate Change Deniers vs The Scientific Consensus:

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/climate-change-deniers-vs-the-consensus/

My opinion on working to lower greenhouse gas emissions and going green is that it is worth it...better to make all efforts to preserve the planet than to have done nothing at all (perhaps my only acceptable variation on Pascal's Wager).

Posted 1 year ago #
Custador
Moderator

C5 has been quite strident, but that's not unusual here. I wouldn't go so far as to say he/she has been trolling us.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

Well, *stridency* as such doesn't really make someone a troll. Just look at LRA, or you. Y'all are about as strident as you can possibly be, but very sincere. It's lack of sincerity that makes a troll. I don't find C5 particularly strident or insincere. My political and religious views seem different from his, but again, that's not enough to make someone a troll.

Edit:

@ LRA

"Whatever the politics, the science is sound. Period. End of story. The rest of it is rhetoric."

But that simply isn't the end of the story and you know it. You aren't just saying "Fact: MMCC is happening." You are implying that some responses to that fact are desirable and others aren't. (Or maybe I'm reading that in, unfairly...) You're suggesting that the business world or the political world could benefit from having to deal with scientific facts in particular ways. This isn't science; it's politics--and politics is never as cut and dried as we'd like it to be. (Either that or it's ethics--I'm torn.) Sometimes knowing all the facts doesn't make your decision for you. Bundling up political ideas with scientific facts doesn't do science a favor: it's rhetoric. Nevertheless, sometimes the politics is more important than the science. (NB: I don't actually think that's true in the case of climate change, but it is true in a lot of other areas.)

Posted 1 year ago #
LRA
Member

I mean that the science that has lead to the conclusion that-- (1) global climate change is happening and (2) people are contributing greatly to it by burning fossil fuels-- is sound.

What people do with those facts is a matter of politics. When people say that global climate change isn't happening or that people aren't contributing to it, they are either being ignorant, disingenuous, or lying. That's what I'm getting at.

Posted 1 year ago #
arrakis
Member

@Custador

C5 is not out of the ordinary here, but the other C5 (who is male) is considered to be a troll at Dispatches from the Culture Wars. In fact, interacting with him is kind of a sport over there. No worries...there is still plenty of time for C5 to distinguish himself here.

Whatever it is, keep killing it with fire...hot, methodical, scientific fire.

Posted 1 year ago #
Nzo
Member

I saw the court case about this a while back. Don't remember much, but here's the short, herp-derp version:

Scientist - "here's the chart showing what this truckload of evidence behind me says"

Denier - "nah, the chart is more like, *turns page 10 degrees* this!"

Scientist -(something like this) "I have stacks of scientific studies here showing that this chart is correct, and all you have is a 10 degree turn of a page? Where are the studies showing that your argument carries any weight?"

Denier - "derp"

I don't remember their names, but I DO remember that the denier was basically the big-money figurehead for the deniers, and completely unable to come up with any data whatsoever.

Posted 1 year ago #
Custador
Moderator

Christopher Monckton testified before congress about it a while back. I'm curious as to whether he can be arrested next time he's in the US because he lied before congress about quite a lot of things:

1) Said he was Margaret Thatcher's advisor on climate change - FALSE. He wasn't even an advisor to her in any capacity, and besides that, she wasn't a climate change sceptic.

2) Said he was a member of the House of Lords - FALSE. He's a hereditary peer, but he's NOT a member of the House.

3) Gave data and graphs which he has previously admitted were false and outright fabrications.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

We only get grumpy with athletes who lie to congress.

Posted 1 year ago #
Jabster
Member

@JonJon

The problem with many climate deniers is that they act not in a scientific but in a political way. The collection of 1000 scientists is a classic example, that's not science that just trying to inject controversy in an area that there is none. Does this all sound familiar - it does to me and it's the same bunch of tactics that are used in attempts to have creationism taught in schools.

If people what to debate about how we should deal with climate change that that's what they should do. If people want to challenge the science then that's what they should do. I don't see much of either in climate deniers exchanges but I do see a lot of either stupidity, ignorance or plain lying.

[Edit: The stupid arguments that people come up with don't help either - I've had to listen to someone smugly scoff at the work of a lot of talented people on the grounds that the UK has had a couple of cold winters. This of course doesn't mean that their aren't idiots on both sides but the balance definitely seems to be weighed in one direction.]

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

Right, well the USAmerican right has the (retarded) strategy of challenging science merely by contradicting it while yelling loudly. This is a political tactic that won't work well, long term.

At the same time, just because intelligent people are scientists and stupid people are politicians (and that characterization is absurdly broad, but bear with me) doesn't mean that it is within bounds for scientists to dictate terms to politicians. I'm of the opinion that that wouldn't be all bad, but it would need to be pretty strongly justified.

What I mean is, the scientific establishment doesn't (as far as I know) have binding, far-reaching standards about the way that the knowledge that it produces should be used. Hell, even in a culture with very specific expectations upon scientists making use of knowledge (which I would characterize as, at best, "arguable") those expectations likely won't apply to non-scientists. DARPA doesn't dictate terms to the internet. Alfred Nobel can't say "don't blow each other up with my TNT" as a scientist--only as a humanitarian. But see, at that point anyone else can say the same thing.

Would scientists actually be justified in saying "we have determined this to be true, so you all must/should take it to be true. If you don't, at the very least don't try to convince people of the opposite--you'll only harm yourself and others." Believe it or not, I very much doubt this is within bounds. This sounds like something only a governing body can do. To put it more crudely, just because group A is producing knowledge doesn't mean that group B can't, or even shouldn't, lie about it--and it definitely doesn't mean that group A can flat out dictate terms to group B. It isn't a problem that *non-scientists* don't behave like good scientists. In fact, we should pretty much expect it to be the case.

It's all well and good to say that there are unacceptable ways to respond to scientific knowledge. There are certainly unscrupulous, dishonest, disrespectful, idiotic, pandering, and deliberately obstructionist ways to respond to scientific knowledge, or anything else for that matter.

But this is the way the world works. When I tell my fiancee that green is not her color, she can do several things, all of which are well within her rights. She can loudly proclaim that green is exactly her color and wear a lot of green, or she can face up to the knowledge I've provided, grapple with the ways that I've backed up my assertions (pulling out old St. Paddy's day photos), and finally decide for herself based on the justifications I've provided. One is probably a better response than the other. But neither response is unacceptable. Especially for non-scientists. And I certainly don't get to dictate to her that only one of those choices is acceptable. I've informed her, which was my role, and now it's up to her to hate me, ignore me, laugh off that knowledge uncomfortably, or deal with it. But I (and the metaphorical scientist) have already done what we set out to do at this point. Our job is complete: provide useful knowledge to the people around us. What other people choose to do with knowledge is and always has been out of our control.

In fact, I think it is naive to assume that other people should agree with you just because you're right. (And I think this is supported by science.) In the real world, being right only gets you so far. And sometimes it doesn't get you far at all.

Posted 1 year ago #
Nzo
Member

In fact, I think it is naive to assume that other people should agree with you just because you're right.

Naive to assume, for instance, that the best way out of a skyscraper is the elevator and not the window?

Or maybe everyone should just get to think whatever the hell they want about evolution, math, astronomy, or geology, and nobody should naively assume that people should actually know, learn, and accept, what is right, to the best of our ability?

Edit: clarification - maybe I'm having a bad night too.

In the real world, being right only gets you so far. And sometimes it doesn't get you far at all.

Being wrong gets you farther? Like being wrong about the nature of electricity, or being wrong about the ingredients of medicines, or timing of a combustion engine? Or closer to home, being wrong about evolution where viruses and bacteria are concerned?

Did I miss something, or are you having a bad night?

Posted 1 year ago #
blotonthelandscape
Member

I don't follow ya JonJon... are you making a normative claim that politicians should be allowed to ignore/distort facts when making political decisions? That we shouldn't hold them accountable to making the best use of knowledge available to humanity?

Or are you simply making the rather uncontroversial positive statement that politicians ignore facts on a regular basis?

Your fiancee wearing a colour that doesn't suit her is hardly analogous to economic decisions. I agree that the economic and policy implications of climate science are far from cut-n-dried, but this is a far cry from the science denialism that takes place in (notably) US political circles. The problems are to do with social discounting, i.e. the actuarial models that weigh the future benefits against the current costs, but these models need to presume the scientific consensus, and until politicians and economists stop playing the science-denial game, the conversation can't really move forward in that direction. And it needs to move on quickly. As Yoav said above "As for the economic cost, the longer we wait to act the higher it will get"; I would add that the longer we wait, the more difficult the political decision gets.

For me, most of the progress on climate change is in alt. energy source research and education (i.e. teaching people how to reduce their impact, live "greener"); neither of these are strictly political, but research depends on government for funding, and education is impeded when figure-heads spout lies and misinformation.

Posted 1 year ago #
Elemenope
Moderator

I could be wrong, but I'm reading JonJon as saying simply that no scientific fact determines its own "correct" application, because what we do with that knowledge depends primarily on what we value, which is a subjective exercise. Knowing that anthropogenic global climate change is a real phenomenon, for example, does not indicate what should be done about it (or even whether anything should be done about it), nor what costs are appropriate to bear to do so, nor upon whom those costs should fall. Those are political choices about priorities and values.

I think he's right about that, and it's an easy point to overlook or forget.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

Nzo

"Did I miss something, or are you having a bad night?"

Well, I feel like you're deliberately ignoring what I said, but other than that I'm doing great. (Then again, blot seems confused too. Hmm.)

It *is* naive to think that everyone always does what is in their best interest. It *is* naive to think that everyone listens to people who know better than them. It *is* naive to think that everyone cares about the way the world actually is. It is *especially* naive to think that everyone will subscribe to the same basic set of priorities, values, and philosophical standards that you, or I, or LRA, or the religious right, or Hitler, or anyone else espouses. Some people literally do not care what the best way out of a skyscraper is. Some people think the best way out is through a window.

When you use a *rhetorical device* to illustrate the senseless idiocy of my position and the eminent sensibility of yours (i.e. skyscraper egress) you are not generating knowledge. You are not engaged in finding out the truth of things. What you are engaged in is an attempt to persuade someone of something. Do you think it is morally wrong to persuade someone in opposition to some kind of factual reality? Persuade me. Do you think it is a poor decision to spend this much time online engaged in forum discussions? Persuade me. Do you think that an environmental crisis has already started and demands action? Persuade me!

This is why it doesn't make sense for Joe Scientist to say "gravity pulls massy objects towards each other" and simply expect me to believe him. It doesn't matter that that is *true*. It is unreasonable to expect policy makers to get together the next day and say: "Well, Joe says X, so let's get legislating" anymore than it makes sense for soccer moms to say: "Well, Joe says X, so let's all carpool." There must be an attempt to persuade attached.

It is very persuasive for a scientist to read Joe's paper, reproduce some experiments, and replicate Joe's experimental findings. It is substantially less persuasive for our soccer moms to read Joe's paper. They can't reproduce the experiment or the findings, and they might not even be able to understand the paper, much less the subtleties of Joe's experimental design. Does it make sense for legislators to be persuaded? Not in a legislative system which has no education requirements, no peer review, and a popular vote.

We do not influence the behavior of others by presenting them with the truth (or rather, presenting someone with the truth is not sufficient to influence their behavior.) We influence the behavior of others either through compulsion or persuasion (or rather, compulsion and/or persuasion are sufficient to influence their behavior.) I will continue to maintain that it is naive to maintain otherwise. If it were true that presenting someone with truth was enough to influence their behavior *we wouldn't be having this discussion*.

@ blot

It *is* uncontroversial that people ignore facts, although I am in part saying that. I am not saying that people should be allowed to ignore facts. What I am saying is that scientists, insofar as they are merely scientists, can generate all the true knowledge that they want to-- that will not make other people accept or act upon that knowledge. Further, it is not within the purview of science to persuade Joe Sixpack--as soon as science attempts such persuasion, it is no longer generating knowledge, but educating; you'll notice that pedagogy isn't a part of the scientific method.

My fiancee wearing a color that doesn't suit her, and me pointing out that fact, is entirely analogous to the fact that man-made climate change appears to be happening, and someone making the following proposition: "man-made climate change is occurring." Me explaining that I don't think she should wear that color is entirely analogous to someone saying "I don't think we want our ecosystem harmed by man-made climate change." Her list of potential responses are entirely analogous to the kinds of responses we see in the public forum all the time. In short, I don't see the problem.

Posted 1 year ago #
C5
Member

The assumptive (non-scientific) speculation over me is hilarious.
I am NOT the C5 referred to by arrakis. Until now, I never heard of Ed Brayton. I laughed at the quotes attributed to me. I am a pro-choice atheist, and view the Newt Gingrich association as attempted character assassination! Ha.
The C5 handle I use is a simple reference to one of our cars: a fifth generation Corvette. (Insert carbon footprint snipes here, many can be debunked.)
The UF member who told me about this site warned me to use caution while postulating, and to provide hard evidence for all statements. Damn, they were serious! That is a good thing, you people make this a challenging and enlightening site. Please consider me properly chastised, and I aspire to uphold the high standards present here.
All in all, this thread has caused an opinionated curmudgeon to reconsider a thing or two. An accomplishment in itself.
I'm in the process of starting a new business and have spent more time on this issue than I should have. I'll continue to contribute from time to time, and look forward to topics yet to come.

Posted 1 year ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

@JonJon

You said:

Further, it is not within the purview of science to persuade Joe Sixpack--as soon as science attempts such persuasion, it is no longer generating knowledge, but educating; you'll notice that pedagogy isn't a part of the scientific method.

I agree with you this far, but in an earlier post you seemed to go a step further:

Would scientists actually be justified in saying "we have determined this to be true, so you all must/should take it to be true. If you don't, at the very least don't try to convince people of the opposite--you'll only harm yourself and others." Believe it or not, I very much doubt this is within bounds.

I think they would absolutely be justified in saying that. Particularly relevant here is the vaccine conspiracy bullshit. A bunch of people perpetuate this terrible idea that vaccines lead to all sorts of horrible side effects without any empirical data for these findings. They are in fact ACTIVELY causing harm by going against empirical evidence that we have.

Do they have a legal right to do this? Sure. Do they suffer enough cultural scrutiny by voicing these opinions? Absolutely not. Scientists and rational people should come down with a hammer on these people and condemn this bullshit for what it is. Although it may seem radical, I wouldn't mind hearing a case by which spouting these untruths has legal ramifications. If the tobacco companies got in trouble for fudging science and not releasing all of the facts, why shouldn't the vaccine conspiracy theorist get in trouble for ignoring them?

Posted 1 year ago #
arrakis
Member

@C5 -

My uncle owns a fourth-generation Corvette...but he only uses it for racing. I like to think of myself as green, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who wouldn't like to drive a Corvette, if only once.

It's good to know you share little in common with your evil twin, but as DFTCW is within the atheist blogosphere and many people post on multiple sites I just thought I'd put the information out there. I presented my hypothesis and supporting evidence, and in light of new-found evidence I have come to the conclusion that I was wrong.

You mentioned earlier that your wife is a multi-degreed scientist. Out of curiosity, what is her field (or fields)?

We are many different people with many differing opinions here, but if you're going to challenge the scientific or medical fields on here be warned that the claws will come out. (Though surely you have noticed this by now)

On a very belated note, welcome to UF. At the very least you have helped keep some of us sharp.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

"I think they would absolutely be justified in saying that. Particularly relevant here is the vaccine conspiracy bullshit. A bunch of people perpetuate this terrible idea that vaccines lead to all sorts of horrible side effects without any empirical data for these findings. They are in fact ACTIVELY causing harm by going against empirical evidence that we have."

And as responsible *people* scientists should protest that harm, and attempt to counteract it. Insofar as they do so, however, they are not acting in their capacity as scientists. At least, not according to any definition of science I ever heard. I'd just point out something else you say, to further clarify:

"Do [vaccine conspiracy theorists] suffer enough cultural scrutiny by voicing these opinions? Absolutely not."

I agree with you. However, since when does science function as our primary method of *cultural scrutiny*?! It doesn't. It shouldn't.

"If the tobacco companies got in trouble for fudging science and not releasing all of the facts, why shouldn't the vaccine conspiracy theorist get in trouble for ignoring them?"

Because, while intentionally defrauding people is a crime, ignorance isn't. A tragedy, sure. But not a crime.

*Edit: I can tell I'm going to get called out on the cultural scrutiny thing. I should clarify that while some kinds of cultural scrutiny are within the purview of the soft sciences (e.g. demographic facts) I would regard that purview as a badly incomplete set of best practices for cultural scrutiny. There is a reason that politics, ethics, philosophy, and even the humanities are still around despite the epistemological juggernaut that is modern science. The bulk of cultural scrutiny, and certainly all of the cultural scrutiny I was thinking of when writing the above (the kind that leads to *making decisions* about culture) is outside of science's domain.

Posted 1 year ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

And as responsible *people* scientists should protest that harm, and attempt to counteract it. Insofar as they do so, however, they are not acting in their capacity as scientists.

Could you explain more about what it means to "act in their capacity as scientists"? I think I understand where you're going, but I want to clarify what that means exactly.

I can tell I'm going to get called out on the cultural scrutiny thing. I should clarify that while some kinds of cultural scrutiny are within the purview of the soft sciences (e.g. demographic facts) I would regard that purview as a badly incomplete set of best practices for cultural scrutiny.

I completely agree that it's an incomplete set of practices for cultural scrutiny, but this doesn't mean that each interpretation of scientific discovery is equally viable. There's only a certain number of valid interpretations given the empirical foundations. There's an important distinction there, and that's where the responsibility, IMO, of scientists comes in for engaging in cultural scrutiny.

Because, while intentionally defrauding people is a crime, ignorance isn't. A tragedy, sure. But not a crime.

I feel as though peddling bullshit like a causal link between autism-vaccinations despite all evidence pointing to the contrary could easily be considered "intentionally defrauding people", and doing so at the health of newborns.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

"Could you explain more about what it means to "act in their capacity as scientists"?"

I'll take a whack at it. It is possible for one person to be both an author and an electrical engineer; or a doctor and a parent; or a lawyer and a friend. I like doctor and parent best, so I'll go with that. You can think of these two roles as different hats which a person wears--that's overly simplistic, but it is a start toward what I mean.

It isn't just that our Doctor does doctor-y things while she's being a doctor and parent-y things while she's being a parent-- that's insufficient to explain the difference between the two. Likewise, it isn't enough to flip it around and say that *while* she does doctor-y things she's being a doctor and *while* she's doing parent-y things she's being a parent. Obviously, she is both. However, when her patients come to her for medical advice, they are not asking the parent of little Jeffrey for that advice, and when little Jeffrey skins his knee he doesn't want clinical expertise--he wants mom to kiss it.

So that's part of what I mean. People have entirely different expectations of those two different hats: when a coworker shows our doctor/parent pictures of his three-year-old, his expectations as to her role make a huge difference. He's either expecting her to be interested because she has a child of her own, and values the experience of child-raising, or he's expecting her to be interested because his child has cystic fibrosis and will die without her intervention. Interestingly, even though these cases overlap to a certain degree, they are wholly and totally separate from one another. Our coworker can appreciate sympathy for his child's medical difficulties from another parent, but he won't take that sympathy as medical advice. It works roughly the same way in reverse: he will not be thrilled if he expects parental interaction and receives a lecture about the proper things to feed his kid and average growth statistics for a child that age.

But the hat you are wearing affects more than what people expect of you. It also defines what kind of authority you have. This authority usually derives from experience (e.g. we respect our doctor's medical opinion because they have saved people's lives with that opinion) but in fact it doesn't really have to (think the milgram experiment, where we assign people more authority just for wearing a lab coat-- how much more will we respect the authority of someone with some initials after their name). The latter is something of a tangent, because the important thing here is that the authority we give to doctors is rightfully based upon their expertise as doctors. We can give all the medical respect in the world to our doctor/parent, and scrupulously follow their medical guidelines to the letter. But does that mean we should follow their parenting advice?

Well, we should follow their parenting advice if it is good, sound advice. We should not say to ourselves: "I trust absolutely this person's medical expertise. Therefore I trust absolutely this person's parenting expertise, or golfing expertise, or astronomy expertise." That's a logical fallacy. We can respect that golfing expertise if it *is* expertise, mind you, but we can't do it simply because of the initials MD.

All people have some degree of expertise at making moral judgments, of organizing or prioritizing social behaviors, or of interacting in a society. The authority that someone has in those fields can be of great account or no account at all. But it isn't based on the authority that we assign them in other areas. Bill the electrical engineer might be a terrific judge of character, a pool shark, and an amateur anti-philatelist--and when we ask him questions in those capacities we expect different things from him. And when he answers us, he does it based on the kind of authority he has within those capacities. But it isn't as though when he comes over to redo the wiring in my house I can assume he's capable of building matchstick models of famous landmarks. He would have to prove that authority, prove his expertise.

Same with scientists. When I ask Custador or LRA about their feelings on gun control or abortion I simply do not give a damn about Custador's medical expertise or LRA's knowledge of intimidating science-y stuff. I *may* care about Custador's residence in a country whose gun control policies are very different than mine. I *may* care about LRA's approach to reproductive rights as a women. But I don't actually care how good their cooking is, and I don't care what kind of car they drive. I care about what is relevant to the specific expectations I have, based on the hats they have on. Likewise, it simply does not matter how authoritative vorjack can be on historical matters, or how authoritative Daniel can be about web design, if I ask them a question about their past experiences with Christianity. The authority that they have access to in those domains is similar to the authority I have based on my own experiences with Christianity, even though I have only halfheartedly built one church website, and even though my interest in history stops precisely at English etymology. Expertise in one field conveys authority in that field. It does not convey authority in every field.

So when a climatologist recommends a political solution to an ecological problem with fiscal repercussions, what authority does he bring to the table? Well, he brings however much authority he has as a political strategist, an ecologist, an economist, and a climatologist. On at least two of those playing fields, he has an amount of experience, and therefore authority, that is comparable to my own. He might be a better economist or political strategist, but he is not likely to be worlds away from my own level of expertise in those matters. He may well be vastly more experienced in ecology, and orders of magnitude more experienced than I am in climatology, and have corresponding amounts of authority. But when he makes strong claims outside of those arenas, he isn't using that immense authority, but his authority in those other arenas.

This is something that is clearly acknowledged in many of the most stringent academic disciplines (and some less stringent ones.) Wernher von Braun was a Nazi, sure, but he could also build rockets. We didn't keep him around to set foreign policy, except insofar as having awesome rockets set foreign policy (which I'll admit it did to some extent.)

Posted 1 year ago #
C5
Member

arrakas,
Thanks for the welcome.

Yeah, the 'vette is a fun toy, although a black car with black leather interior and a transparent roof will raise global warming awareness! Thank goodness for A/C. It has been modified for speed but is still emissions legal and can get 30 MPG on the highway.

My wife has two BS degrees: Molecular genetics with a minor in biology, and clinical laboratory science. She graduated with honors in both. I'm just an old sales and marketing guy with street smarts and full of a different kind of BS. Amazingly, the wife tells people that I'm "the brains" of the family. Sure have her fooled! Not for long, though: I completed a 48 week regimen of Interferon and Ribavirin for hepatitis C this year and will go back on it soon. That stuff makes me pretty stupid, but will hopefully get rid of the hep C.

Posted 1 year ago #
WarbVIII
Member

Arrakis, you found one,I have no interest in driving a Corvette,ever. I happen to think they are ugly cars as well as way over hyped and priced. Give me an old Shelby Cobra 10 out of 10 times compared to any Corvette ever created, unless you are talking about a ship of that class,lol.

Posted 1 year ago #
LRA
Member

I like my RX8. :D

Posted 1 year ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

So when a climatologist recommends a political solution to an ecological problem with fiscal repercussions, what authority does he bring to the table? Well, he brings however much authority he has as a political strategist, an ecologist, an economist, and a climatologist. On at least two of those playing fields, he has an amount of experience, and therefore authority, that is comparable to my own. He might be a better economist or political strategist, but he is not likely to be worlds away from my own level of expertise in those matters. He may well be vastly more experienced in ecology, and orders of magnitude more experienced than I am in climatology, and have corresponding amounts of authority. But when he makes strong claims outside of those arenas, he isn't using that immense authority, but his authority in those other arenas.

Thanks for the thorough reply, I thought you might be going in that direction. But here's why I'm skeptical of this idea that scientists who advocate for policy are somehow not acting with their scientist hat. When scientists identify a problem, it seems to me that the best ones to answer how to solve it are the scientists themselves. So, a majority of scientists seem to say "Let's reduce fossil fuel use and move towards a more sustainable energy". In the same way, a scientist would also be within their right to say "there is no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism, and it's dishonest to perpetuate that idea".

While the exact nuances of legislation would better be left to individuals with political prowess, I think it only makes sense that when looking to solve a problem, we consult those who discovered it in the first place. I know you're not advocating that we don't, but I think I would just take the "scientist hat" a step further by saying it is fully within their jurisdiction to advocate policy publicly.

Posted 1 year ago #
C5
Member

Warb, to each their own. Check this out:
http://bbcicecream.com/blog/2010/08/31/1965-shelby-cobra-copper-bodied-roadster/
According to an article in this months Hot Rod Magazine, the Cobra's body was made from special oxygen-free copper sheets. New welding techniques were developed to ensure minimal filling of the seams. I'd trade the Corvette (and the rest of our small fleet) for that particular Cobra!
LRA, Yes, the RX8 is a way cool car. I bet it's a blast to drive.

Posted 1 year ago #
JonJon
Member

But here's why I'm skeptical of this idea that scientists who advocate for policy are somehow not acting with their scientist hat. When scientists identify a problem, it seems to me that the best ones to answer how to solve it are the scientists themselves. So, a majority of scientists seem to say "Let's reduce fossil fuel use and move towards a more sustainable energy". In the same way, a scientist would also be within their right to say "there is no evidence to support the idea that vaccines cause autism, and it's dishonest to perpetuate that idea".

One of those statements is factual. The other isn't. Saying something like "Climate change is a real phenomenon which will have serious consequences for most kinds of life on earth" is factual. Saying "Reducing fossil fuel use will have an ameliorating affect on this change, since it stems from fossil fuel use in the first place" is factual. Saying "Here are alternative energy sources" is factual. Saying "We should move toward alternative energy sources in order to ameliorate the consequences of climate change, which are undesirable" is not factual. That is an ethical claim.

In other news, the RX8 is a wonderful car.

Posted 1 year ago #
Eudaimonist
Member

Saying "Here are alternative energy sources" is factual. Saying "We should move toward alternative energy sources in order to ameliorate the consequences of climate change, which are undesirable" is not factual. That is an ethical claim.

When an ethical claim pertains to empirical evidence about the atmosphere and the effects that we have on it as a species, who better to make that claim than a scientist?

Posted 1 year ago #
arrakis
Member

@Warb

I would rather have a Chevelle SS, but that's me.

@C5

The reason I asked about your wife's degrees was to find out her concentrations. The problem with scientific disciplines is that they are highly specialized. For example, if I need brain surgery, I'm not going to go to a podiatrist. Or, to leave medicine, if I want to know the impact of invasive mussel species on freshwater shrimp, I'm not going to consult a volcanologist. Your wife may have graduated with honors in two scientific fields, but neither of them particularly qualify her to give expert commentary on climatology.

The "31,000 scientists who disagree with climate change" claim represents a very small percent of scientists, some of whom would fit in the same category as your wife: scientists who are not qualified for the climatology-related fields. Many others would lack even her qualifications as a scientist.

Here is a breakdown of the qualifications and numbers:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-oism-petition-project.html

About the Senate link:

I see a physicist, a geologist, a physical chemist, a geophysicist, a chemical engineer, a paleontologist...collect them all. A meteorologist pops up here and there, but again the great bulk of the scientists quoted are not specialists in the field they are commenting upon.

On the Science and Public Policy Institute:

Christopher Monckton runs this group. As has been pointed out, Monckton has a bit of a problem telling the truth, and I'm sure his journalism degree qualifies him as a climate scientist (/sarcasm). Here is a rebuttal of Monckton by scientist John Abraham:

http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/

The president of the SPPI is Robert Ferguson, who previously headed the Exxon-funded Center for Science and Public Policy.

That's more than three strikes...maybe your next batter will have more success.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 123 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

A Reasonable Forum on Religion, Science, Skepticism, and Atheism

Next time some idiot global climate change denier comes along...

Reply »