tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post8997275407024573963..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: The AGW Denialist Mindset ExaminedScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-42487140339260026722009-12-01T22:49:51.071-06:002009-12-01T22:49:51.071-06:00Alex:
"In that case, Troublesome Frog, I woul...Alex:<br />"In that case, Troublesome Frog, I wouldn't hang out with too many religious Bible scholars."<br /><br />I'd also like to note that the likelihood of Bible scholars reaching anything resembling a broad consensus on... well... anything is pretty low.Troublesome Frognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-17910031898808634042009-12-01T17:29:11.682-06:002009-12-01T17:29:11.682-06:00Alex:
"In that case, Troublesome Frog, I woul...Alex:<br />"In that case, Troublesome Frog, I wouldn't hang out with too many religious Bible scholars."<br /><br />I usually don't, but I'll happily concede that they know far more about the Bible than I do. Whether that's of any applicability to the real world is a different question.<br /><br />Hector:<br />"In other words, those who blindly follow the statement "the science is settled" are making a big mistake, right?"<br /><br />Depends. Are they hearing that statement from some crank on the Internet, or are they hearing that statement from an overwhelming majority of legitimate experts? If the former, yes, they may be making a big mistake. Otherwise, I wouldn't say so. We blindly follow experts all the time. Ever ride in an airplane that you didn't design?<br /><br />Defaulting to the expert consensus when you don't know something isn't a bad idea. Deciding to do research and become an expert when you don't know something is also not a bad idea, especially when the expert consensus strikes you as wrong. <br /><br />Not learning about that thing and then assuming that your uninformed opinion is more likely to be right than the expert consensus? Probably not a winning strategy in the long run. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometimes, but he starves to death in the long run.Troublesome Frognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-41530374167224673792009-12-01T16:21:36.761-06:002009-12-01T16:21:36.761-06:00Those who blindly follow anything are making a big...Those who blindly follow anything are making a big mistake, but then that's hardly news. However, since the statement "the science is settled" with regard to the AGW hypothesis represents the consensus of every scientific organization in the world, the term "blindly" grossly misrepresents the position of those who support it. You make it sound as if someone just saw "The science is settled" scrawled on the bathroom wall and decided that's that. That's hardly honest.<br /><br />Further, if one <b>is</b> going to blindly follow something, the scientific consensus (ie the evidence gathered and studied by those who know the most about it) is easily the most rational course to take. Partisan political hacks and people opining outside their area of knowledge and expertise rate considerably further down the scale<br /><br />Finally, you miss the entire point of TFs comment, which is that the AGW deniers' first assumption is that anything emerging from academia which conflicts with their current views, intuition, or idle musings is probably wrong, and that it is they who have something to teach the experts.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-16706744156983024492009-12-01T12:40:55.934-06:002009-12-01T12:40:55.934-06:00"my first assumption is that I need to learn ..."my first assumption is that I need to learn more about that subject. "<br /><br />In other words, those who blindly follow the statement "the science is settled" are making a big mistake, right?Hectornoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-43019465105259334552009-12-01T12:07:00.412-06:002009-12-01T12:07:00.412-06:00In that case, Troublesome Frog, I wouldn't han...In that case, Troublesome Frog, I wouldn't hang out with too many religious Bible scholars.Alexnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-5243041697057311942009-11-30T22:43:21.167-06:002009-11-30T22:43:21.167-06:00I have a rule of thumb: If I find myself out of s...I have a rule of thumb: If I find myself out of step with the vast majority of experts in a subject, my first assumption is that I need to learn more about that subject. I have to learn *a lot* before I convince myself that there's an entire field of researchers that are simply wrong--especially when being wrong means that they're ALL failing to grasp the (usually trivial) objections that people post on the web.<br /><br />Usually, when your intuitive understanding of something differs from the expert consensus, there's something interesting to be learned. I think of it as an opportunity.Troublesome Frognoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-87136416232458263622009-11-28T20:41:48.096-06:002009-11-28T20:41:48.096-06:00If you prefer denialist arguments over the scienti...If you prefer denialist arguments over the scientific ones, then you're either a denialist, a scientific ignoramus, or a fool. Some lucky people like Kirk Cameron hit the trifecta.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-90449681402559962542009-11-28T20:26:16.094-06:002009-11-28T20:26:16.094-06:00What if you're simply a layman who likes the a...What if you're simply a layman who likes the arguments of this small minority of scientists, over those in the minority?Mirandanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-38131299112509612009-11-25T10:56:17.052-06:002009-11-25T10:56:17.052-06:00No, you might just be wrong. Being a denier entai...No, you might just be wrong. Being a denier entails use of specific rhetorical nonscientific techniques you can read about <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>: <br /><br />conspiracy, selectivity (cherry-picking), fake experts, impossible expectations (also known as moving goalposts), and general fallacies of logic.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-74193212352524384632009-11-25T10:52:36.241-06:002009-11-25T10:52:36.241-06:00"near unanimity of the world's scientific..."near unanimity of the world's scientific organizations support the AGW hypothesis"<br /><br />And if you're a scientist who's not part of that 'near unanimity,' that makes you a global warming denier, right?Mirandanoreply@blogger.com