7 ms·

This is ego, politics and career ambitions undermining modern science. Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectua

This is ego, politics and career ambitions undermining modern science. Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. This is a systemic failure of basic ethics that will hurt us all. The success-at-all-cost career mindset is toxic in all tracks, but this is one of the most dangerous for it to take hold in.

mistermann 10y ago
> will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts Case in point: the very first thing I thought of is, does this have any relevance to the field of climate science! So....does it? Because we're told the reason we have to get on board with the program is because the people telling us the facts are scientists, and scientists are smart and trustworthy. However, we know this is not always true, don't we. So what is a deliberately skeptical person to think?
- sambe 10y ago
  Is this an intentional straw man? No, you're not told to trust the people because they have a certain job title and trustworthiness. You're told to look at the data, which is overwhelming and consistent across multiple years and teams. It is the exact opposite of lack of reproducibility.
  - codr4life 10y ago
    The only thing that is consistent and overwhelming about that data is the amount of energy put into falsifying and massaging it to support the chosen narrative.
    - tunap 10y ago
      If you can still, edit/remove the presumption of falsification and your argument has merit. I too percieve group think in climate change narratives, while not necessarily disbelieving the data. We are wrecking our environment, exact detrimental effects are still uncertain.
      - codr4life 10y ago
        I'm sorry, but given that we're gold fish looking out of the bowl from the inside; trying to predict the future from vague memories of the immediate past; we have no clue what's causing what in this mess. Any one who claims otherwise is an ignorant prostitute, doesn't matter if they're aware or not. There are huge monetary incentives to pushing this agenda, and plenty of bullying to get people to walk in line. Have a look around today, and most scientists seem to agree that we're rather heading into the next ice age.
        edblarney 10y ago
        I see your skepticism - at the same time - I take the data as 'crudely directional'. 'On the whole', it would rather seem we are doing some damage. We don't need perfect predictions to get that. Second - is the issue of 'risk'. If there were a 1% chance that your child would be kidnapped if you let them play at the park past 11pm, would you let them do it? No. Given the level of existential risk inherent in climate change, even if there is a small chance that the climate-alarmists are correct, we basically have to confront the challenge. Rationally - we should have a very low risk threshold for activities that constitute existential problems for us all. I'm hugely skeptical of so many specific statements about climate change, especially the politicization and obvious 'group think' - it drives me nuts. But at the end of the day - 'it looks like in general' there is a problem, and 'even if there is a small risk of it' - we have to do something about it. Which is how I manage to swallow it all. So we should take it 'with a grain of salt' but we have to take it, kind of thing.
        tunap 10y ago
        "There are huge monetary incentives to pushing this agenda" I couldn't agree with you more. I also do not buy into the "it's all your/my fault" marketing, b/c it is using guilt and fear to distract focus from the financially incentivized policy makers to the easily swayed mob... one group has the power to effect change, the other has been deluded to believe it can(rare exceptions occur, often over-embellished by Hollywood). Follow the money. I also see the brown cloud every day over the city I live near. I know from education and experience the only unchecked growth of an organism/group in the natural order is cancerous and parasitoidal in nature; ie: it ultimately kills the host element. The world is full of Thomas Midgely Jr's who would have me believe the exact opposite of what they also know is true, how to find the truth? I don't. I edify myself, I take personal responsibility for my actions and I try to stay away from these MSM and online discussions... try being the operative word.
  - mistermann 10y ago
    > Is this an intentional straw man? No, you're not told to trust the people because they have a certain job title and trustworthiness. Are you joking? Are you seriously making the claim that one of the persuasive approaches used in the "public realm" (media, discussions, etc) isn't that we should fight climate change because scientists have almost unanimously decided it is a real thing and we must do something? If scientists are telling us something, we sure as hell should listen, at least two reasons being they are the experts on the subject (why wouldn't you listen to experts), and the subject is so immensely complicated that an average non-scientist person wouldn't have a chance of "looking at the data" and forming a reasonably correct opinion. But now you are telling me no one is suggesting I listen to scientists? I could easily google thousands of articles/papers/blog posts/internet discussions where people are doing just that, but you are telling me no, that content does not exist. What is it about this topic where otherwise reasonable people seem to go off the rails?
    - sambe 10y ago
      Your comment suggested that the title and reputation of a scientist was the fundamental reason you are "told" (in a somewhat conspiratorial big-brother fashion) to listen to them. And that - because sometimes mistakes are made - you can't trust an overwhelming consensus. That's obviously not true, and furthermore it's not the fundamental reason to listen: the fundamental reason is that it checks out. People have done gone and checked the papers/data. There have been multiple systematic reviews of other existing studies. It's not a single novel result. The massive consensus on this issue is the replication. If you're not an expert and don't want to invest in becoming one, it's totally rationale to trust a network of experts to - roughly speaking - do their work properly. I'm sure you can find plenty of people advocating that. But my default position would be not to trust a single novel result, regardless of how smart or prestiged the authors were. Strong claims require strong evidence. I rarely hear any scientist or advocate saying otherwise.
- neffy 10y ago
  A deliberately sceptical person goes and reads the climate literature, and forms their own opinion based on all the information available. ... and then they move to high ground.
  - marknutter 10y ago
    By reproducing the results? Because I'm quite certain most, if not all people do not do that.
orblivion 10y ago
> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. Shouldn't you be just as well happy that these "anti-intellectuals" are pointing out flaws in something you thought was true?
- MisterBastahrd 10y ago
  Broken clocks are still right twice a day.
alexw1 10y ago
> This is ego, politics and career ambitions undermining modern science. When has this never been the case?
- baxman22 10y ago
  I totally agree. The third constant of life, after Death and Taxes, is Bullshit. It is preciciely why the scientific method was conceived, as a way to filter out the progress hindering bullshit that laces all passed-on information due to emebelishments brought on by ambition.
DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. I agree with your point, but I suspect your choice of wording tells a little more of the story. You said "facts", but given your skepticism of their veracity, I think "claims" or "propositions" is more apropos. Consider the rhetorical difference of these two statements: "Anti-intellectuals don't accept the facts." vs. "Anti-intellectuals don't accept the claims." I would also question your use of the term "anti-intellectuals". I wonder if, at least for some of the persons to whom you apply that label, a better term is "skeptic".
- AlexB138 10y ago
  Very good points. My own bias is to believe the claims of the scientific community and is thoroughly revealed in my language. Perhaps I'm the one being bilked.
  - DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
    Thanks. I think the discussion gets a little tricky because the groups "scientific facts" and "anti-intellectuals" are pretty broad categories. I'm guessing that in a group of 1000 people that you would call "anti-intellectuals", some portion of them really do deserve that label. Similarly, in the group of propositions you'd call "scientific 'facts'", some really are beyond reasonable dispute (i.e., Newton's laws in everyday-life settings). But that there are some other propositions which the academic community and their mouthpieces (New York Times, etc.) hold with unjustified confidence.

mistermann 10y ago

> will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts Case in point: the very first thing I thought of is, does this have any relevance to the field of climate science! So....does it? Because we're told the reason we have to get on board with the program is because the people telling us the facts are scientists, and scientists are smart and trustworthy. However, we know this is not always true, don't we. So what is a deliberately skeptical person to think?

sambe 10y ago
Is this an intentional straw man? No, you're not told to trust the people because they have a certain job title and trustworthiness. You're told to look at the data, which is overwhelming and consistent across multiple years and teams. It is the exact opposite of lack of reproducibility.
- codr4life 10y ago
  The only thing that is consistent and overwhelming about that data is the amount of energy put into falsifying and massaging it to support the chosen narrative.
  - tunap 10y ago
    If you can still, edit/remove the presumption of falsification and your argument has merit. I too percieve group think in climate change narratives, while not necessarily disbelieving the data. We are wrecking our environment, exact detrimental effects are still uncertain.
    - codr4life 10y ago
      I'm sorry, but given that we're gold fish looking out of the bowl from the inside; trying to predict the future from vague memories of the immediate past; we have no clue what's causing what in this mess. Any one who claims otherwise is an ignorant prostitute, doesn't matter if they're aware or not. There are huge monetary incentives to pushing this agenda, and plenty of bullying to get people to walk in line. Have a look around today, and most scientists seem to agree that we're rather heading into the next ice age.
      - edblarney 10y ago
        I see your skepticism - at the same time - I take the data as 'crudely directional'. 'On the whole', it would rather seem we are doing some damage. We don't need perfect predictions to get that. Second - is the issue of 'risk'. If there were a 1% chance that your child would be kidnapped if you let them play at the park past 11pm, would you let them do it? No. Given the level of existential risk inherent in climate change, even if there is a small chance that the climate-alarmists are correct, we basically have to confront the challenge. Rationally - we should have a very low risk threshold for activities that constitute existential problems for us all. I'm hugely skeptical of so many specific statements about climate change, especially the politicization and obvious 'group think' - it drives me nuts. But at the end of the day - 'it looks like in general' there is a problem, and 'even if there is a small risk of it' - we have to do something about it. Which is how I manage to swallow it all. So we should take it 'with a grain of salt' but we have to take it, kind of thing.
      - tunap 10y ago
        "There are huge monetary incentives to pushing this agenda" I couldn't agree with you more. I also do not buy into the "it's all your/my fault" marketing, b/c it is using guilt and fear to distract focus from the financially incentivized policy makers to the easily swayed mob... one group has the power to effect change, the other has been deluded to believe it can(rare exceptions occur, often over-embellished by Hollywood). Follow the money. I also see the brown cloud every day over the city I live near. I know from education and experience the only unchecked growth of an organism/group in the natural order is cancerous and parasitoidal in nature; ie: it ultimately kills the host element. The world is full of Thomas Midgely Jr's who would have me believe the exact opposite of what they also know is true, how to find the truth? I don't. I edify myself, I take personal responsibility for my actions and I try to stay away from these MSM and online discussions... try being the operative word.
- mistermann 10y ago
  > Is this an intentional straw man? No, you're not told to trust the people because they have a certain job title and trustworthiness. Are you joking? Are you seriously making the claim that one of the persuasive approaches used in the "public realm" (media, discussions, etc) isn't that we should fight climate change because scientists have almost unanimously decided it is a real thing and we must do something? If scientists are telling us something, we sure as hell should listen, at least two reasons being they are the experts on the subject (why wouldn't you listen to experts), and the subject is so immensely complicated that an average non-scientist person wouldn't have a chance of "looking at the data" and forming a reasonably correct opinion. But now you are telling me no one is suggesting I listen to scientists? I could easily google thousands of articles/papers/blog posts/internet discussions where people are doing just that, but you are telling me no, that content does not exist. What is it about this topic where otherwise reasonable people seem to go off the rails?
  - sambe 10y ago
    Your comment suggested that the title and reputation of a scientist was the fundamental reason you are "told" (in a somewhat conspiratorial big-brother fashion) to listen to them. And that - because sometimes mistakes are made - you can't trust an overwhelming consensus. That's obviously not true, and furthermore it's not the fundamental reason to listen: the fundamental reason is that it checks out. People have done gone and checked the papers/data. There have been multiple systematic reviews of other existing studies. It's not a single novel result. The massive consensus on this issue is the replication. If you're not an expert and don't want to invest in becoming one, it's totally rationale to trust a network of experts to - roughly speaking - do their work properly. I'm sure you can find plenty of people advocating that. But my default position would be not to trust a single novel result, regardless of how smart or prestiged the authors were. Strong claims require strong evidence. I rarely hear any scientist or advocate saying otherwise.
neffy 10y ago
A deliberately sceptical person goes and reads the climate literature, and forms their own opinion based on all the information available. ... and then they move to high ground.
- marknutter 10y ago
  By reproducing the results? Because I'm quite certain most, if not all people do not do that.

orblivion 10y ago

> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. Shouldn't you be just as well happy that these "anti-intellectuals" are pointing out flaws in something you thought was true?

MisterBastahrd 10y ago
Broken clocks are still right twice a day.

alexw1 10y ago

> This is ego, politics and career ambitions undermining modern science. When has this never been the case?

baxman22 10y ago
I totally agree. The third constant of life, after Death and Taxes, is Bullshit. It is preciciely why the scientific method was conceived, as a way to filter out the progress hindering bullshit that laces all passed-on information due to emebelishments brought on by ambition.

DoofusOfDeath 10y ago

> Unfortunately, the fact that this is occurring so rampantly will bolster anti-intellectuals and give them a very potent argument to point to when presented with facts. I agree with your point, but I suspect your choice of wording tells a little more of the story. You said "facts", but given your skepticism of their veracity, I think "claims" or "propositions" is more apropos. Consider the rhetorical difference of these two statements: "Anti-intellectuals don't accept the facts." vs. "Anti-intellectuals don't accept the claims." I would also question your use of the term "anti-intellectuals". I wonder if, at least for some of the persons to whom you apply that label, a better term is "skeptic".

AlexB138 10y ago
Very good points. My own bias is to believe the claims of the scientific community and is thoroughly revealed in my language. Perhaps I'm the one being bilked.
- DoofusOfDeath 10y ago
  Thanks. I think the discussion gets a little tricky because the groups "scientific facts" and "anti-intellectuals" are pretty broad categories. I'm guessing that in a group of 1000 people that you would call "anti-intellectuals", some portion of them really do deserve that label. Similarly, in the group of propositions you'd call "scientific 'facts'", some really are beyond reasonable dispute (i.e., Newton's laws in everyday-life settings). But that there are some other propositions which the academic community and their mouthpieces (New York Times, etc.) hold with unjustified confidence.