4 ms·

But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical positio

by vivekd 10y ago

But how do you define extreme? Consider this, believing non-whites are morally and intellectually inferior would be considered an extreme and fanatical position. However this was not considered an extreme position in the 1800s because, unforutnately, it was the majority position. The problem you are having is you are defining extreme with reference to what you and the people around you believe to be extreme and fanatical rather than defining it based on what the majority consider extreme and fanatical, and the best evidence we have for the majority view in America is a very recent poll.

Jtsummers 10y ago
Most extremists do not consider their views extreme. It largely requires an outside view (literally as in another time or place, or figuratively as in the non-extremists colocated with them). In particular, though, that view is demonstrably false. Anyone holding it can be considered an "extremist" just on the grounds of holding onto false beliefs (though falsification still has to occur). A modern example is (not a majority view) the anti-vaxxer crowd. Another one which is closer to a majority view (certainly a significant minority), is the anti-climate change crowd. How about the anti-evolution crowd (which has a lot of overlap with the above two), a significant minority in the US as evidenced by our K-12 biology textbooks.
- vivekd 10y ago
  All you are saying here is "people who disagree with me about vaccination and climate change are extreme because they are blind to evidence" Obviously these people have a very different interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. To suggest they are crazy because they disagree with you or find your evidence unconvincing is the same kind of smugness that cost Ms. Clinton and the democratic party this election.
  - Jtsummers 10y ago
    I'm not running for office any time soon, so my smugness will cost me nothing but karma here. I'm not suggesting they're crazy, I'm suggesting they're holding views which, by all reasonable evidence, appear to be false. These are not "opinion" views. You can't opinion your way into autism from vaccines. You can't opinion your way out of climate change. People who believe vaccines cause autism (today) are fanatics. People who deny climate change is happening (today) are fanatics.
    - vivekd 10y ago
      I think you can with regard to climate change - no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer, what they are arguing is whether human released CO2 is the cause. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion on this website but there are some holes in climate science that points to humans as the major contributor. For example: 1 The climate record started in 1800 which was one of the coldest periods in history - 1816 is popularly called the year without a summer and there had been a little ice age that started in the 1600s and ended during the 1800s (of course it's been rapidly warming since then) 2. Recent NASA observations show glacial retreat and warming on Mars that happened exactly at the same time as global warming on earth suggesting possible solar origion of climate change rather than human caused. 3. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively links a warming climate with human released CO2. All we are told is that CO2 makes things warmer and that humans are releasing more CO2 than before. That's not enough, for climate change to be plausable they have to show that human released CO2 is enough to make a meaningful impact on atmospheric composition such that it makes the earth warmer. I don't think we have enough understanding of how atmosphere behaves or even of how much gases we are releasing to make those kinds of conclusions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer 2 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-un... now my purpose isn't to get into a debate on climate change here, all I want to demonstrate is that the people who deny man made climate change aren't crazy or fanatical, they are ordinary rational people that for whatever reason have reached a different conclusion and we should not be so quick to dismiss them. The hallmark of rationality is willing to inquire and debate for the validity of opinions, not dismiss opinions outright as fanatical or crazy without at least looking at the other side's evidence.
      - flukus 10y ago
        > no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer Many are, until recently the most common talking point was "it's cooled since 1998". 1. We have temperature data going back lot further than that, just not direct measurements. 2. Mars has an extremely different atmosphere than ours, Our only commonality is the sun which is actually in a cool period. 3. Can you propose a better explanation for the observed warming? It's a massive amount of energy that has to come from somewhere. When there is a theory that fits the data and you want to challenge that then you need a better theory. Galileo faced the same problem.
  - couchand 10y ago
    It would be a significant mischaracterization of the state of the evidence on both those issues to say there is all that much room for interpretation. A more likely reason for holding the extremist position of an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier is the usual cognitive biases against incorporating new information inconsistent with one's current mental model.
couchand 10y ago
I know it when I see it.

by vivekd 10y ago

Jtsummers 10y ago

Most extremists do not consider their views extreme. It largely requires an outside view (literally as in another time or place, or figuratively as in the non-extremists colocated with them). In particular, though, that view is demonstrably false. Anyone holding it can be considered an "extremist" just on the grounds of holding onto false beliefs (though falsification still has to occur). A modern example is (not a majority view) the anti-vaxxer crowd. Another one which is closer to a majority view (certainly a significant minority), is the anti-climate change crowd. How about the anti-evolution crowd (which has a lot of overlap with the above two), a significant minority in the US as evidenced by our K-12 biology textbooks.

vivekd 10y ago
All you are saying here is "people who disagree with me about vaccination and climate change are extreme because they are blind to evidence" Obviously these people have a very different interpretation of the evidence and the conclusions that can be drawn from it. To suggest they are crazy because they disagree with you or find your evidence unconvincing is the same kind of smugness that cost Ms. Clinton and the democratic party this election.
- Jtsummers 10y ago
  I'm not running for office any time soon, so my smugness will cost me nothing but karma here. I'm not suggesting they're crazy, I'm suggesting they're holding views which, by all reasonable evidence, appear to be false. These are not "opinion" views. You can't opinion your way into autism from vaccines. You can't opinion your way out of climate change. People who believe vaccines cause autism (today) are fanatics. People who deny climate change is happening (today) are fanatics.
  - vivekd 10y ago
    I think you can with regard to climate change - no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer, what they are arguing is whether human released CO2 is the cause. It's probably not going to be a popular opinion on this website but there are some holes in climate science that points to humans as the major contributor. For example: 1 The climate record started in 1800 which was one of the coldest periods in history - 1816 is popularly called the year without a summer and there had been a little ice age that started in the 1600s and ended during the 1800s (of course it's been rapidly warming since then) 2. Recent NASA observations show glacial retreat and warming on Mars that happened exactly at the same time as global warming on earth suggesting possible solar origion of climate change rather than human caused. 3. I have yet to see a single piece of evidence that conclusively links a warming climate with human released CO2. All we are told is that CO2 makes things warmer and that humans are releasing more CO2 than before. That's not enough, for climate change to be plausable they have to show that human released CO2 is enough to make a meaningful impact on atmospheric composition such that it makes the earth warmer. I don't think we have enough understanding of how atmosphere behaves or even of how much gases we are releasing to make those kinds of conclusions. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer 2 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/ http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-un... now my purpose isn't to get into a debate on climate change here, all I want to demonstrate is that the people who deny man made climate change aren't crazy or fanatical, they are ordinary rational people that for whatever reason have reached a different conclusion and we should not be so quick to dismiss them. The hallmark of rationality is willing to inquire and debate for the validity of opinions, not dismiss opinions outright as fanatical or crazy without at least looking at the other side's evidence.
    - flukus 10y ago
      > no one is saying that the termpreature isn't getting warmer Many are, until recently the most common talking point was "it's cooled since 1998". 1. We have temperature data going back lot further than that, just not direct measurements. 2. Mars has an extremely different atmosphere than ours, Our only commonality is the sun which is actually in a cool period. 3. Can you propose a better explanation for the observed warming? It's a massive amount of energy that has to come from somewhere. When there is a theory that fits the data and you want to challenge that then you need a better theory. Galileo faced the same problem.
- couchand 10y ago
  It would be a significant mischaracterization of the state of the evidence on both those issues to say there is all that much room for interpretation. A more likely reason for holding the extremist position of an anti-vaxxer or climate change denier is the usual cognitive biases against incorporating new information inconsistent with one's current mental model.

couchand 10y ago

I know it when I see it.