2 ms·

So if I just say that whatever I believe is the 'reality of _", the conversation should switch to the potential ramifications of the ideas I believe? It seems l

by nickff 10y ago

So if I just say that whatever I believe is the 'reality of _", the conversation should switch to the potential ramifications of the ideas I believe? It seems like you are just saying that we should discuss the issues you (or some arbitrarily selected group of your choice) believe to be contentious issues. If you have some non-viewpoint-based standard for what is a legitimate topic of debate, I would be happy to see it.

hnhg 10y ago
He's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."
- nickff 10y ago
  What type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory? Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1] My basic issue is that it seems mikeash is trying to impose their arbitrary standard on others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    Ultimately it doesn't matter because equating opinions to actions is like debating the difference between a recipe and a steaming plate of risotto. If you want to help prevent climate change, put up solar panels, get an electric car and hook it up to a renewable grid, eat less meat, fly less, whatever, just do something, because arguing with strangers over the Internet changes nothing at all. My comment has no effect on climate change either.
  - hnhg 10y ago
    I guess more than just saying "this is bunkum" - I'm talking about examining the evidence and analytical techniques on both sides and engaging in debate rather than shutting the other side down, etc. Just citing stuff is a superficial level of debate, but for non-experts like us maybe that's all we can muster. In that case, we have to acknowledge that.
mikeash 10y ago
I'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics. The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is, well, that's a problem.
- nickff 10y ago
  I look around HN and see that the same people who believe a majority of climate scientists do not believe a majority of economists. Do they then parse it down to 'labor economists', or just look at surveys of all economists? Should you trust anonymous surveys, or those of non-prestigious researchers, or those conducted by organizations with an interest in the result? It seems to me that all of these decisions are arbitrary, and often practiced inconsistently.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'd say there's a major difference in that believing a majority of economists is usually mathematically impossible, since there's almost never consensus on anything in that field. Edit: as proof, I will soon have at least two replies telling me that I'm wrong and that all proper economists agree on idea X, where each comment's X is incompatible with the other's.
    - nickff 10y ago
      Seems like there is a consensus among economists who do research on gun violence, and they agree that guns make people safer.[1] I am certain that you have now been persuaded by this evidence, and believe concealed carry should be permitted worldwide... Or maybe you dismissed the result because you dislike the conclusions and conveniently believe John Lott is untrustworthy? I picked this example because I suspect it's an issue you will be extremely reluctant to change your mind on. [1] http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-of-Economists_Final.pdf http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-o...
sethrin 10y ago
Empirical topics should be debated with empirical evidence. To the degree to which an objective reality exists, we consider scientific facts to be objective. At this point the empirical evidence for climate change and AGW is beyond debate; we have ruled out alternative theories. Similarly, gravity and the germ theory of disease are settled science; they are not going to ever be overturned in any meaningful way. If you are not willing to concede that objective facts exist, that must be your own business, but otherwise I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that AGW has been conclusively proven.

by nickff 10y ago

hnhg 10y ago

He's saying that discussing a scientific theory requires more than just "my opinion is that it's all bunkum."

nickff 10y ago
What type of refutation is expected when debating the validity of a theory? What is the standard for a qualifying theory? Even if you have a high standard in the first case, and a low standard in the second, I can find a citation for almost any proposition, but there's usually no point to doing so because the people you argue against will just find a different paper to support their prior beliefs.[1] My basic issue is that it seems mikeash is trying to impose their arbitrary standard on others. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  Ultimately it doesn't matter because equating opinions to actions is like debating the difference between a recipe and a steaming plate of risotto. If you want to help prevent climate change, put up solar panels, get an electric car and hook it up to a renewable grid, eat less meat, fly less, whatever, just do something, because arguing with strangers over the Internet changes nothing at all. My comment has no effect on climate change either.
- hnhg 10y ago
  I guess more than just saying "this is bunkum" - I'm talking about examining the evidence and analytical techniques on both sides and engaging in debate rather than shutting the other side down, etc. Just citing stuff is a superficial level of debate, but for non-experts like us maybe that's all we can muster. In that case, we have to acknowledge that.

mikeash 10y ago

I'd like to see more acceptance of the science, and discussion within that framework, rather than jumping straight to "all those stupid scientists are frauds, I know better than they do" every time climate change comes up. It's weird because that doesn't happen for other scientific topics. The group of scientists who spend their careers studying this stuff is not "some arbitrarily selected group." If you think it is, well, that's a problem.

nickff 10y ago
I look around HN and see that the same people who believe a majority of climate scientists do not believe a majority of economists. Do they then parse it down to 'labor economists', or just look at surveys of all economists? Should you trust anonymous surveys, or those of non-prestigious researchers, or those conducted by organizations with an interest in the result? It seems to me that all of these decisions are arbitrary, and often practiced inconsistently.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'd say there's a major difference in that believing a majority of economists is usually mathematically impossible, since there's almost never consensus on anything in that field. Edit: as proof, I will soon have at least two replies telling me that I'm wrong and that all proper economists agree on idea X, where each comment's X is incompatible with the other's.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Seems like there is a consensus among economists who do research on gun violence, and they agree that guns make people safer.[1] I am certain that you have now been persuaded by this evidence, and believe concealed carry should be permitted worldwide... Or maybe you dismissed the result because you dislike the conclusions and conveniently believe John Lott is untrustworthy? I picked this example because I suspect it's an issue you will be extremely reluctant to change your mind on. [1] http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-of-Economists_Final.pdf http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Survey-o...

sethrin 10y ago

Empirical topics should be debated with empirical evidence. To the degree to which an objective reality exists, we consider scientific facts to be objective. At this point the empirical evidence for climate change and AGW is beyond debate; we have ruled out alternative theories. Similarly, gravity and the germ theory of disease are settled science; they are not going to ever be overturned in any meaningful way. If you are not willing to concede that objective facts exist, that must be your own business, but otherwise I'm afraid you're going to have to accept that AGW has been conclusively proven.