|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 17 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
You are creating hypotheticals that don't relate at all to what I'm talking about.
My point is: When 98% agree, it is for a good reason and it can be believed. And are 98% of people correct 100% of the time? As I said, and I don't think we disagree: they are most likely correct, but it's not bad to be skeptical. History is littered with scientific consensuses that have been proven wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that manmade global warming climate skeptics are correct, but the rote dismissal of their positions is uncalled for. And the real issue is the McCarthyist attitude of the current climate change consensus. This apparently isn't an issue where reasonable disagreement or critique is allowed. Oh no, the skeptics all wind up on blacklists of various types, in addition to random threats of imprisonment for heresy. There we go. That's the issue. Other than that we're basically talking around in circles and using the "label and dismiss" method that I have previously talked a lot about.
I think the McCarthyist attitude xDaunt is describing only came about because big oil, car manufacturers etc are pushing advertisements on behalf of "climate skeptics" just as they did in the 70s for lead being used in fuel and thereby deceiving a large portion of the American public. It's this thing with digging in and taking a hard stance vs objections....
Of course, now I'm basically arguing on the side of censorship...
|
On December 17 2016 04:17 xDaunt wrote:
So why exactly didn't that US Navy ship blow up the Chinese ship that stole their drone? That's a pretty clear case where firing upon a foreign vessel should be authorized.
IIRC it wasn't a fighting vessel from the US Navy, just a science one.
|
On December 17 2016 04:22 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
You are creating hypotheticals that don't relate at all to what I'm talking about.
My point is: When 98% agree, it is for a good reason and it can be believed. And are 98% of people correct 100% of the time? As I said, and I don't think we disagree: they are most likely correct, but it's not bad to be skeptical. History is littered with scientific consensuses that have been proven wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that manmade global warming climate skeptics are correct, but the rote dismissal of their positions is uncalled for. And the real issue is the McCarthyist attitude of the current climate change consensus. This apparently isn't an issue where reasonable disagreement or critique is allowed. Oh no, the skeptics all wind up on blacklists of various types, in addition to random threats of imprisonment for heresy. There we go. That's the issue. Other than that we're basically talking around in circles and using the "label and dismiss" method that I have previously talked a lot about. I think the McCarthyist attitude you are describing only came about because big oil, car manufacturers etc are pushing advertisements on behalf of "climate skeptics" just as they did in the 70s for lead being used in fuel and thereby deceiving a large portion of the American public. Of course, now I'm basically arguing on the side of censorship...
This is probably why "who is funding this research" is one of the first questions that scientists are expected to ask when evaluating the validity of any given study.
Obtuseness isn't best countered with obtuseness though. "Climate change skeptic idiots" aren't best countered by "climate change hardliners" but by an understanding that sometimes climate change skepticism has its place.
|
On December 17 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:
Obtuseness isn't best countered with obtuseness though.
As far as Washington is concerned, it often seems that obtuseness is the only counter to obtuseness.
|
On December 17 2016 04:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:13 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:
LegalLord, while I think the problems you raise are valid and apply to skepticism of individual publications, the problem with applying that mindset to skepticism toward the scientific consensus on climate change is that it doesn't really scale to such a large body of research over a long period of time.
Do scientists act in a bad-faith way to maintain their funding? Yes. It happens. But "scientific consensus" isn't built on individual publications. It's built on a large body of work over a long period of time. While the likelihood of a particular publication being biased in some way based on the individual situation of the publishing scientist is moderately likely, the probability of many publications being so biased over a large period of time in a way that remains internally consistent among all of them without someone in the community being able to smell the bullshit before a "consensus" is developed is actually pretty damn small.
Also, lets be real here: if you think most scientific skeptics are actually putting that much thought into their skepticism, you're giving them way too much fucking credit. I'm not one of the climate skeptics here. I have, multiple times, expressed that I see the Paris Accords as a valuable step forward and we should enforce them in full. Nor do I disagree with the general consensus of the fact that climate change is real, significant, and human-induced. What I am opposing, however, is the idea that just because "scientists" say it is so that it must be so. And frankly, when it comes to matters of policy, scientists are often remarkably short-sighted and self-interested. Not all of them, but it's enough to be a valid stereotype. Yes, there are plenty of idiots who are opposing climate change for ultimately invalid reasons, people seem to have a problem with the idea of opposing climate change regulation as anti-science and any form of skepticism of scientists as anti-science. That is completely invalid and in fact contrary to what the scientific method asks for, which is definitely not "blind faith in science." The question of "climate change policy" is one that has to answer questions of when do we need to act, how much do we need to do, and what should we do about those who are harmed by climate change policy? Citing scientists as unbiased arbiters of the truth is simply short-sighted for that purpose. Their opinion is valuable there, but far from infallible. Science =/= Scientists. You don't make policy based on what a scientist tells you. You base it on the papers on the topic or published works on the topic. Science works through people. People have their biases and might, perhaps, express them in their recommendations of policy, for example. To ignore that is to ignore reality. This topic was started by you on the topic of science being discussed in news media. But if you want to bring in policy it is simply. Have policy makers read science journals and let the science journals talk for the scientists.
That suggestion is obtuse and you know it. Policy makers are not and cannot be experts on all matters.
|
You exaggerating XDaunt. You like to drive the narrative that everyone on the opposite side of you is some oppressive force that needs to be stopped. McCarthyist attitude? That is quite the exaggeration there.
There is a line between skepticism and denial. I think its perfectly reasonable to say that climate change has been over sold to make the issue seem more impending so that people take it more seriously. However, at some point as a non expert you need to accept a consensus of those experts as being the most likely conclusion. But what do we get? Flat out deniers and conspiracy theorists. Many of those in the extreme denial camp are in our government and even sitting on the congressional committee on science and technology.
Academia always has refuges for those with contrary ideas and theories to what is accepted at the time. Scientists don't generally lash out at skeptics outside of maybe some shouting matches at professional conferences. No they have their eyes more so on that extreme section that is very much in the "don't trust science unless it conforms to my beliefs" camp. They undermine the credibility of all science being done. The US already has a bit of a problem of ignoring experts because everyone thinks that they are for everyone else but they are smart enough to decide what is good/bad science.
|
On December 17 2016 04:31 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:
Obtuseness isn't best countered with obtuseness though. As far as Washington is concerned, it often seems that obtuseness is the only counter to obtuseness.
And that right there is how we get the kind of political climate we have today.
|
On December 17 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
You are creating hypotheticals that don't relate at all to what I'm talking about.
My point is: When 98% agree, it is for a good reason and it can be believed. And are 98% of people correct 100% of the time? As I said, and I don't think we disagree: they are most likely correct, but it's not bad to be skeptical. History is littered with scientific consensuses that have been proven wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that manmade global warming climate skeptics are correct, but the rote dismissal of their positions is uncalled for. And the real issue is the McCarthyist attitude of the current climate change consensus. This apparently isn't an issue where reasonable disagreement or critique is allowed. Oh no, the skeptics all wind up on blacklists of various types, in addition to random threats of imprisonment for heresy. There we go. That's the issue. Other than that we're basically talking around in circles and using the "label and dismiss" method that I have previously talked a lot about. I think the McCarthyist attitude you are describing only came about because big oil, car manufacturers etc are pushing advertisements on behalf of "climate skeptics" just as they did in the 70s for lead being used in fuel and thereby deceiving a large portion of the American public. Of course, now I'm basically arguing on the side of censorship... This is probably why "who is funding this research" is one of the first questions that scientists are expected to ask when evaluating the validity of any given study. Obtuseness isn't best countered with obtuseness though. "Climate change skeptic idiots" aren't best countered by "climate change hardliners" but by an understanding that sometimes climate change skepticism has its place.
the problem comes from deniers that misuse skepticism to manufacture false doubt, as a result of some necessary sociological mechanisms.
and the deniers have been given actual thorough counters, but they don't care about them since they're not actually interested in facts, but in pushing a narrative.
A lot of people get tired of dealing with stuff that's been disproven over and over, that's just repackaged in a new but still bad form.
I wouldn't call it mccarthy-ist.
tricky issues to handle.
re: what you said above;
I'd say the counter is to make it harder for politicians ot be obtuse, by penalizing ones who are.
sadly, it's hard to do that through voting, since, well, people don't actually vote in favor of honesty all that much, and part of politics necessitates a certain amount of smoothing things over, and most people can't measure truth all that well anyways.
and you respond to me before I finish my edit! 
|
On December 17 2016 04:33 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:22 a_flayer wrote:On December 17 2016 04:11 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:08 xDaunt wrote:On December 17 2016 03:51 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:48 Mohdoo wrote:
You are creating hypotheticals that don't relate at all to what I'm talking about.
My point is: When 98% agree, it is for a good reason and it can be believed. And are 98% of people correct 100% of the time? As I said, and I don't think we disagree: they are most likely correct, but it's not bad to be skeptical. History is littered with scientific consensuses that have been proven wrong. I'm not necessarily saying that manmade global warming climate skeptics are correct, but the rote dismissal of their positions is uncalled for. And the real issue is the McCarthyist attitude of the current climate change consensus. This apparently isn't an issue where reasonable disagreement or critique is allowed. Oh no, the skeptics all wind up on blacklists of various types, in addition to random threats of imprisonment for heresy. There we go. That's the issue. Other than that we're basically talking around in circles and using the "label and dismiss" method that I have previously talked a lot about. I think the McCarthyist attitude you are describing only came about because big oil, car manufacturers etc are pushing advertisements on behalf of "climate skeptics" just as they did in the 70s for lead being used in fuel and thereby deceiving a large portion of the American public. Of course, now I'm basically arguing on the side of censorship... This is probably why "who is funding this research" is one of the first questions that scientists are expected to ask when evaluating the validity of any given study. Obtuseness isn't best countered with obtuseness though. "Climate change skeptic idiots" aren't best countered by "climate change hardliners" but by an understanding that sometimes climate change skepticism has its place. the problem comes from deniers that misuse skepticism to manufacture false doubt, as a result of some necessary sociological mechanisms. and the deniers have been given actual thorough counters, but they don't care about them since they're not actually interested in facts, but in pushing a narrative. A lot of people get tired of dealing with stuff that's been disproven over and over, that's just repackaged in a new but still bad form. I wouldn't call it mccarthy-ist. tricky issues to handle.
Denial isn't really skepticism, yes.
The problem though is that "combating fake news" is sometimes just censorship by any other name.
|
Agreed that sometimes it is; and sometimes it isn't.
And judging between the two is hard.
but we shouldn't let that it's hard prevent us from addressing it.
|
It does mean that "why can't we just ban fake news" un-nuanced suggestions are wrong, though.
|
On December 17 2016 04:17 xDaunt wrote:
So why exactly didn't that US Navy ship blow up the Chinese ship that stole their drone? That's a pretty clear case where firing upon a foreign vessel should be authorized.
jesus christ, it's a good thing we have people in charge more level headed than you.
|
On December 17 2016 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
It does mean that "why can't we just ban fake news" un-nuanced suggestions are wrong, though.
Banning any news is bad. Always.
Having an oversight committee requiring stricter laws on evidence validity is not banning news though.
|
On December 17 2016 04:31 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:19 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 04:13 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 04:07 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 04:02 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 03:54 TheYango wrote:
LegalLord, while I think the problems you raise are valid and apply to skepticism of individual publications, the problem with applying that mindset to skepticism toward the scientific consensus on climate change is that it doesn't really scale to such a large body of research over a long period of time.
Do scientists act in a bad-faith way to maintain their funding? Yes. It happens. But "scientific consensus" isn't built on individual publications. It's built on a large body of work over a long period of time. While the likelihood of a particular publication being biased in some way based on the individual situation of the publishing scientist is moderately likely, the probability of many publications being so biased over a large period of time in a way that remains internally consistent among all of them without someone in the community being able to smell the bullshit before a "consensus" is developed is actually pretty damn small.
Also, lets be real here: if you think most scientific skeptics are actually putting that much thought into their skepticism, you're giving them way too much fucking credit. I'm not one of the climate skeptics here. I have, multiple times, expressed that I see the Paris Accords as a valuable step forward and we should enforce them in full. Nor do I disagree with the general consensus of the fact that climate change is real, significant, and human-induced. What I am opposing, however, is the idea that just because "scientists" say it is so that it must be so. And frankly, when it comes to matters of policy, scientists are often remarkably short-sighted and self-interested. Not all of them, but it's enough to be a valid stereotype. Yes, there are plenty of idiots who are opposing climate change for ultimately invalid reasons, people seem to have a problem with the idea of opposing climate change regulation as anti-science and any form of skepticism of scientists as anti-science. That is completely invalid and in fact contrary to what the scientific method asks for, which is definitely not "blind faith in science." The question of "climate change policy" is one that has to answer questions of when do we need to act, how much do we need to do, and what should we do about those who are harmed by climate change policy? Citing scientists as unbiased arbiters of the truth is simply short-sighted for that purpose. Their opinion is valuable there, but far from infallible. Science =/= Scientists. You don't make policy based on what a scientist tells you. You base it on the papers on the topic or published works on the topic. Science works through people. People have their biases and might, perhaps, express them in their recommendations of policy, for example. To ignore that is to ignore reality. This topic was started by you on the topic of science being discussed in news media. But if you want to bring in policy it is simply. Have policy makers read science journals and let the science journals talk for the scientists. That suggestion is obtuse and you know it. Policy makers are not and cannot be experts on all matters.
They don't need to be experts. If they believe that a policy based on a science publication is wrong, they simply need to show what the publication did wrong and make policies to counteract it. If they don't know or can't see what's wrong with the publication, then they shouldn't make policy to refute it. Fairly simple.
|
On December 17 2016 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
It does mean that "why can't we just ban fake news" un-nuanced suggestions are wrong, though. Banning any news is bad. Always. Having an oversight committee requiring stricter laws on evidence validity is not banning news though.
Fair enough as long as the same thing goes for media folk libeling people they don't like.
|
On December 17 2016 05:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 05:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 04:41 LegalLord wrote:
It does mean that "why can't we just ban fake news" un-nuanced suggestions are wrong, though. Banning any news is bad. Always. Having an oversight committee requiring stricter laws on evidence validity is not banning news though. Fair enough as long as the same thing goes for media folk libeling people they don't like.
I 100% agree with this as well.
Both sides willing to quickly say something is good or bad is the worse form of news because it is so rarely that clean cut.
|
Comey now backing the CIA assessment that Russia intervened in part to help Trump.
|
On December 17 2016 05:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Comey now backing the CIA assessment that Russia intervened in part to help Trump.
I could believe it but proof is necessary. Did he provide a reason?
|
On December 17 2016 05:15 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 05:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Comey now backing the CIA assessment that Russia intervened in part to help Trump. I could believe it but proof is necessary. Did he provide a reason?
What kind of proof are you looking for exactly?
Does providing overly specific proof not in fact harm the FBI/CIA by showing how they know what they know?
|
On December 17 2016 05:21 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 05:15 LegalLord wrote:On December 17 2016 05:13 Doc.Rivers wrote:
Comey now backing the CIA assessment that Russia intervened in part to help Trump. I could believe it but proof is necessary. Did he provide a reason? What kind of proof are you looking for exactly? Does providing overly specific proof not in fact harm the FBI/CIA by showing how they know what they know?
He's saying Comey is on the shit list of people showing incompetence and hence is less easy to trust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
