5 ms·

What we need not better debate, but better dogma. It shouldn't be necessary to argue that climate change is real every time the topic comes up. Just like we dog

by qntty 10y ago

What we need not better debate, but better dogma. It shouldn't be necessary to argue that climate change is real every time the topic comes up. Just like we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer, we should dogmatically accept that climate change is happening and it's caused by us. The science that establishes this fact is far beyond anything that the general public should be expected to understand. I don't understand the first thing about lung cancer, yet it doesn't bother me to accept that cigarettes cause cancer. The general public needs to be comfortable accepting this fact without proof. The world is too complex for everyone to understand every issue.

nonbel 10y ago
>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogens at high doses; the MTD may not be reached (101) or the chemical may be toxic without causing cell killing or mitogenesis." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/ There is value in having a nuanced understanding. For example, just as a kind of random additional fact, did you realize lung cancer is a pretty common diagnosis even amongst non-smokers? "if lung cancer in non-smokers had its own separate category, it would rank among the top 10 fatal cancers in the United States." http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-cancer-strikes-nonsmokers http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-cancer-s... What about the reports that the most common time for smokers to be diagnosed with lung cancer is right after quitting: "Several reports indicate that the risk of lung cancer increases slightly for a short period of time after cessation of smoking while the risk of adverse cardiovascular events drops immediately." http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%2900170-2/abstract http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%29...
- intended 10y ago
  How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse. I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today. The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication problem - because science has been DESPERATELY trying to do that in whatever fair and logical manner they can. It's been met by concerted efforts to confuse, muddle, emotionalize, subvert, defund, ridicule, and physically attack people on what used to be "boring nerd territory". This is a political/emotional problem, and for that, isn't dogma a horrid but simplistic solution.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    >"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse." You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still know about the book 1984?
    - intended 10y ago
      No I don't. I am well aware of 1984, and I am also keenly aware that many people seem to be applying it like a manual as opposed to a warning. Its easy to tell me, a random person who mentions that he thinks its a horrid solution, "remember 1984". I am already on this site, and already disposed to that vein of thought. Its not that effective at countering, or dealing with people who are not here, some of whom are coders who have never read those books, or think the books are over hyped.
- qntty 10y ago
  >There is value in having a nuanced understanding No doubt. People should try to understand the nuance of things. But there's a difference between understanding nuance and actually trying to refute expert opinion using specious and simplistic arguments. Non-experts will never be able to understand all the science needed to establish a judgement such as "humans are causing climate change". It requires training in atmospheric science and years of experience as a scientist. There's a different between better understanding the conclusions of medical researchers and questioning the validity of their opinion. Sure, there is no doubt areas where there is disagreement and more research is needed, but it's useless for an amateur to judge those issues. The only information that the general public really needs about climate change is the opinion of experts. Sure, they can learn more if they are inclined, I hope they do. But when amateurs start questioning the validity of experts' opinion, we are hopelessly lost. An amateur will never be able to judge the validity of an experts opinion on an issue that requires expertise. Never. Even Martin Luther wasn't some random lay person when he questioned the doctrines of the church. He had specialized knowledge of theology and used it to engage in the discussion the same way a member of the church would.
  - nonbel 10y ago
    >"Even Martin Luther..." I think this is a good point to bring up. Consider the centuries upon centuries when the intellectual aspects of Western Civ spent most of their time thinking and arguing about things today we would find rather pointless (eg was Jesus begotten by the father or not). Not only that, the result of these (pointless) arguments drove political activity. Nowadays we say "go think or argue all you want about that type of stuff, but no particular sect should be supported by our government." I hope the same will be achieved for other intellectual pursuits at some point. You seem to be arguing for the opposite.

by qntty 10y ago

nonbel 10y ago

>"we dogmatically accept that cigarettes cause cancer" The truth is that using the colloquial definition of "cause", everything seems to "cause" cancer: >"These considerations of mechanism suggest that at chronic doses close to the toxic dose, any chemical, whether synthetic or natural, and whether genotoxic or nongenotoxic, is a likely rodent and human carcinogen. Not all chemicals would be expected to be carcinogens at high doses; the MTD may not be reached (101) or the chemical may be toxic without causing cell killing or mitogenesis." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC54830/ There is value in having a nuanced understanding. For example, just as a kind of random additional fact, did you realize lung cancer is a pretty common diagnosis even amongst non-smokers? "if lung cancer in non-smokers had its own separate category, it would rank among the top 10 fatal cancers in the United States." http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-cancer-strikes-nonsmokers http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/features/why-lung-cancer-s... What about the reports that the most common time for smokers to be diagnosed with lung cancer is right after quitting: "Several reports indicate that the risk of lung cancer increases slightly for a short period of time after cessation of smoking while the risk of adverse cardiovascular events drops immediately." http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%2900170-2/abstract http://www.medical-hypotheses.com/article/S0306-9877%2805%29...

intended 10y ago
How does that build/refute the position that dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse. I ask because while I think its an awful conclusion, I've seen and experimented enough for more than 2 decades, to recognize this same appeal from the days people first started spreading climate FUD which has metastized to what we see today. The conclusion is that this is NOT a scientific communication problem - because science has been DESPERATELY trying to do that in whatever fair and logical manner they can. It's been met by concerted efforts to confuse, muddle, emotionalize, subvert, defund, ridicule, and physically attack people on what used to be "boring nerd territory". This is a political/emotional problem, and for that, isn't dogma a horrid but simplistic solution.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"dogma is required to deal with anti-science in public discourse." You want a ministry of science devoted to spreading dogma? Do people still know about the book 1984?
  - intended 10y ago
    No I don't. I am well aware of 1984, and I am also keenly aware that many people seem to be applying it like a manual as opposed to a warning. Its easy to tell me, a random person who mentions that he thinks its a horrid solution, "remember 1984". I am already on this site, and already disposed to that vein of thought. Its not that effective at countering, or dealing with people who are not here, some of whom are coders who have never read those books, or think the books are over hyped.
qntty 10y ago
>There is value in having a nuanced understanding No doubt. People should try to understand the nuance of things. But there's a difference between understanding nuance and actually trying to refute expert opinion using specious and simplistic arguments. Non-experts will never be able to understand all the science needed to establish a judgement such as "humans are causing climate change". It requires training in atmospheric science and years of experience as a scientist. There's a different between better understanding the conclusions of medical researchers and questioning the validity of their opinion. Sure, there is no doubt areas where there is disagreement and more research is needed, but it's useless for an amateur to judge those issues. The only information that the general public really needs about climate change is the opinion of experts. Sure, they can learn more if they are inclined, I hope they do. But when amateurs start questioning the validity of experts' opinion, we are hopelessly lost. An amateur will never be able to judge the validity of an experts opinion on an issue that requires expertise. Never. Even Martin Luther wasn't some random lay person when he questioned the doctrines of the church. He had specialized knowledge of theology and used it to engage in the discussion the same way a member of the church would.
- nonbel 10y ago
  >"Even Martin Luther..." I think this is a good point to bring up. Consider the centuries upon centuries when the intellectual aspects of Western Civ spent most of their time thinking and arguing about things today we would find rather pointless (eg was Jesus begotten by the father or not). Not only that, the result of these (pointless) arguments drove political activity. Nowadays we say "go think or argue all you want about that type of stuff, but no particular sect should be supported by our government." I hope the same will be achieved for other intellectual pursuits at some point. You seem to be arguing for the opposite.