25 ms·

"We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract." Don't you think there are already enough books out ther

by splawn 10y ago

"We don't shut down those folks by calling them anti-science. Hell, give these people a book contract." Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? "What I'm seeing a lot of lately is taking anything with the label "science" on it and telling laymen that they have no business bullshitting in this area." What if they don't even realize that they are bullshitting in the first place? The other day I was debating AGW (as I do) and my opponent, in response to my constant citing of work and my constant demand that he do the same, actually asked me why I didn't have any "facts from my head". I do see your point, but when I see people unable to tell the difference between empirical data and an opinion, I think it might give "magical thinkers" or the "anti-science crowd" or whatever label they should have too much credit.

DanielBMarkham 10y ago
That topic is especially tough because of the highly-politicized nature of the topic. Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? No, I do not. Although I completely understand and agree with you that it creates a very bad environment for reasoned discussion. We've reached the point where anybody with any opinion at all can google around a bit and come up with pieces of data and nit-picks which lets them construct their own narrative -- regardless of whether it holds water or is self-consistent or not. There are a lot of "Google geniuses" out there, sadly. AGW is not just one debate, but several. That's because it's not an argument around a closed system where one variable changes and we see clear causation. It's a series of arguments about many changes, the results of those changes, and the economic/future impact of those results over several decades. Dude. That's a ton of stuff to try to pin down no matter who is in the debate. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of complex systems involved. It's far too easy to pick and choose which of these you'd like to argue. It's probably the most complex (and whacked) public debate we have. I don't see physicists and the general public arguing about WIMPs, but everybody feels that they can take part equally in this discussion because some part of it may touch on their experiences, expertise, or political opinion. The only good news I have is that there are only a few topics like that.
- splawn 10y ago
  Valid points. IMO, pushing critical thinking is the best way to combat those issues. It wouldn't end silly ideological debates of course, but at least the discussions would perhaps be a little less "mindless". As far as my AGW debate anecdote, all I did was ask for his sources (he claimed the planet had not warmed since 98...a position I didn't know anyone actually took) and he never did come up with anything. (besides telling me to "do my own research" on youtube...if that counts as a source, lol) I know that the AGW debate has a ton of facets, but this guy was just some low hanging fruit I guess. :)
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Things have fallen off a bit since the late 90's... not that I'm AGW, I would posit that man may not be a huge influence and that it's likely not as big of an emergency in general as overall pollution and even population control probably are. Alarmist, reactionary legislation rarely does what it is intended to do, and to be honest, I think it detracts from the issue overall. I happen to feel it's been globally warming since the last ice age, and that it seems to be a cyclical event, are we speeding up the next ice age, and what will seeing another 3-4 degree rise in temperatures in the next dozen or more decades change. And how much of that is actually of human/unnatural cause.
    - splawn 10y ago
      The opposition you are expressing is already way more rational than the Billy Bob redneck youtube conspiracy expert I was debating on facebook. Which is to be expected, because HN. You of course are correct about the cyclical event stuff... however, there is a ton of evidence that the current rate of co2 output[1] and heating[2] is unprecedented in human existence[3]. All that I ask from anyone on either side of this debate is that you check your sources and make sure your info isn't coming from some partisan think tank. [1]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ [2]https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends-an-exceptional-string-of-recordwarm-global-months https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends... [3]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page...

by splawn 10y ago

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

That topic is especially tough because of the highly-politicized nature of the topic. Don't you think there are already enough books out there based on pseudo-science that confuse and take advantage of the general public? No, I do not. Although I completely understand and agree with you that it creates a very bad environment for reasoned discussion. We've reached the point where anybody with any opinion at all can google around a bit and come up with pieces of data and nit-picks which lets them construct their own narrative -- regardless of whether it holds water or is self-consistent or not. There are a lot of "Google geniuses" out there, sadly. AGW is not just one debate, but several. That's because it's not an argument around a closed system where one variable changes and we see clear causation. It's a series of arguments about many changes, the results of those changes, and the economic/future impact of those results over several decades. Dude. That's a ton of stuff to try to pin down no matter who is in the debate. There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of complex systems involved. It's far too easy to pick and choose which of these you'd like to argue. It's probably the most complex (and whacked) public debate we have. I don't see physicists and the general public arguing about WIMPs, but everybody feels that they can take part equally in this discussion because some part of it may touch on their experiences, expertise, or political opinion. The only good news I have is that there are only a few topics like that.

splawn 10y ago
Valid points. IMO, pushing critical thinking is the best way to combat those issues. It wouldn't end silly ideological debates of course, but at least the discussions would perhaps be a little less "mindless". As far as my AGW debate anecdote, all I did was ask for his sources (he claimed the planet had not warmed since 98...a position I didn't know anyone actually took) and he never did come up with anything. (besides telling me to "do my own research" on youtube...if that counts as a source, lol) I know that the AGW debate has a ton of facets, but this guy was just some low hanging fruit I guess. :)
- tracker1 10y ago
  Things have fallen off a bit since the late 90's... not that I'm AGW, I would posit that man may not be a huge influence and that it's likely not as big of an emergency in general as overall pollution and even population control probably are. Alarmist, reactionary legislation rarely does what it is intended to do, and to be honest, I think it detracts from the issue overall. I happen to feel it's been globally warming since the last ice age, and that it seems to be a cyclical event, are we speeding up the next ice age, and what will seeing another 3-4 degree rise in temperatures in the next dozen or more decades change. And how much of that is actually of human/unnatural cause.
  - splawn 10y ago
    The opposition you are expressing is already way more rational than the Billy Bob redneck youtube conspiracy expert I was debating on facebook. Which is to be expected, because HN. You of course are correct about the cyclical event stuff... however, there is a ton of evidence that the current rate of co2 output[1] and heating[2] is unprecedented in human existence[3]. All that I ask from anyone on either side of this debate is that you check your sources and make sure your info isn't coming from some partisan think tank. [1]http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ [2]https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends-an-exceptional-string-of-recordwarm-global-months https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/august-extends... [3]http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page...