4 ms·

If it was, does that make his points any less valid?

by viggity 17y ago

DaniFong 17y ago
No, but in light of that knowledge you'd be a fool not to look more skeptically upon his claims.
joe_the_user 17y ago
IF this person is pushing one side of an argument without revealing the large stake he has in that side winning, then he loses credibility. He wasn't honest about something one would expect him to be honest about and so one needs to look more closely at other things he says. Journalist disclose their interests and their companies interests to avoid losing credibility this way.
- anamax 17y ago
  > IF this person is pushing one side of an argument without revealing the large stake he has in that side winning, then he loses credibility. You mean like researchers who get money to "confirm" AGW? > Journalist disclose their interests Oh really? Do you know how many NYT reporters are married to or involved with folks they cover? (Hint - the answer is not 0. The NYT's response when asked is that they've cleared things with their editor....)
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    Uh, You're mistakenly assuming I'm taking a position on this particular topic. If it's true that someone else has a stake in this or some other debate, then indeed they also have an obligation to reveal it. The only thing I'm arguing is that anyone who has stake in a debate has an obligation to make that stake clear. That's it.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > The only thing I'm arguing is that anyone who has stake in a debate has an obligation to make that stake clear. That's a nice goal, but it's not going to happen. Which reminds me - it's not clear that "a stake" has a useful definition. One would like it to correlate with bias, but most biases have nothing to do with money. In fact, it's the true believers who are the most dangerous in this respect.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) Note 1: saying "climategate" doesn't constitute presenting evidence; pointing to something in the pilfered emails that says (e.g.) "Of course I have to fudge this because otherwise I'll lose my job" and that isn't clearly a joke would constitute presenting evidence. Note 2: observing that very few people who get paid to do climate science are denying AGW doesn't constitute presenting evidence either. Very few people who get paid to do biology are denying evolution, but that isn't because they're paid to confirm evolution; it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science.
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) What do you think that rigging the peer-review process accomplished? > it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science. Are you asserting that AGW is as "settled" as evolution? If not, the analogy doesn't hold and neither does the conclusion that you'd like to impose. Climate researchers outside of CRU are acknowledging that the thumb was on the scale. Is denying that really the hill that you want to defend? In science, being a "good person" doesn't count as evidence. Neither does "the folks who disagree are bad people". AGW may turn out to be real (although that's looking unlikely), but it will take us much longer to find that out because "good people" behaved badly and did cargo cult science. Which reminds me - why do we consider them good people? In addition to rigging peer review and trying to stack grant committees, it's pretty much SOP to add some blather about "consistent with AGW" to almost anything these days, in part because that's how the money flows. Of course, this isn't new. We saw the same thing with AI and "computers".
  - joe_the_user 17y ago
    It is unfortunate (and telling) when the retort for criticizing one person's behavior is ... to attack another whole group of people as being just as bad. Is this civil discourse? Uh, I actually wasn't particular inclined against the line of argument present by the original post but this gets ugly...

If it was, does that make his points any less valid?

by viggity 17y ago

If it was, does that make his points any less valid?

DaniFong 17y ago

No, but in light of that knowledge you'd be a fool not to look more skeptically upon his claims.

joe_the_user 17y ago

IF this person is pushing one side of an argument without revealing the large stake he has in that side winning, then he loses credibility. He wasn't honest about something one would expect him to be honest about and so one needs to look more closely at other things he says. Journalist disclose their interests and their companies interests to avoid losing credibility this way.

anamax 17y ago
> IF this person is pushing one side of an argument without revealing the large stake he has in that side winning, then he loses credibility. You mean like researchers who get money to "confirm" AGW? > Journalist disclose their interests Oh really? Do you know how many NYT reporters are married to or involved with folks they cover? (Hint - the answer is not 0. The NYT's response when asked is that they've cleared things with their editor....)
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  Uh, You're mistakenly assuming I'm taking a position on this particular topic. If it's true that someone else has a stake in this or some other debate, then indeed they also have an obligation to reveal it. The only thing I'm arguing is that anyone who has stake in a debate has an obligation to make that stake clear. That's it.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > The only thing I'm arguing is that anyone who has stake in a debate has an obligation to make that stake clear. That's a nice goal, but it's not going to happen. Which reminds me - it's not clear that "a stake" has a useful definition. One would like it to correlate with bias, but most biases have nothing to do with money. In fact, it's the true believers who are the most dangerous in this respect.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) Note 1: saying "climategate" doesn't constitute presenting evidence; pointing to something in the pilfered emails that says (e.g.) "Of course I have to fudge this because otherwise I'll lose my job" and that isn't clearly a joke would constitute presenting evidence. Note 2: observing that very few people who get paid to do climate science are denying AGW doesn't constitute presenting evidence either. Very few people who get paid to do biology are denying evolution, but that isn't because they're paid to confirm evolution; it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science.
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Do you have any actual evidence that climate researchers are paid "to confirm AGW"? (I take it that by that you mean that if they published work, of equal quality to what they actually publish, that cast doubt on AGW then they would get paid less or fired.) What do you think that rigging the peer-review process accomplished? > it's because evolution is, in fact, correct, and studying enough biology to get paid for doing it usually leads people to realise this. So you'd need to rule out that sort of explanation in the case of climate science. Are you asserting that AGW is as "settled" as evolution? If not, the analogy doesn't hold and neither does the conclusion that you'd like to impose. Climate researchers outside of CRU are acknowledging that the thumb was on the scale. Is denying that really the hill that you want to defend? In science, being a "good person" doesn't count as evidence. Neither does "the folks who disagree are bad people". AGW may turn out to be real (although that's looking unlikely), but it will take us much longer to find that out because "good people" behaved badly and did cargo cult science. Which reminds me - why do we consider them good people? In addition to rigging peer review and trying to stack grant committees, it's pretty much SOP to add some blather about "consistent with AGW" to almost anything these days, in part because that's how the money flows. Of course, this isn't new. We saw the same thing with AI and "computers".
- joe_the_user 17y ago
  It is unfortunate (and telling) when the retort for criticizing one person's behavior is ... to attack another whole group of people as being just as bad. Is this civil discourse? Uh, I actually wasn't particular inclined against the line of argument present by the original post but this gets ugly...