4 ms·

Except a lot of the "ideas" aren't subjective. The most obvious case would be climate change. Regularly, climate skeptics are given the same amount of airtime

by hug 8y ago

Except a lot of the "ideas" aren't subjective. The most obvious case would be climate change. Regularly, climate skeptics are given the same amount of airtime as climate scientists, despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem. A realistic panel would be 98 climate scientists on one side, and two climate skeptics on the other. By giving someone with far less evidence equal airtime and respect, it lends credence to that point of view despite it being so poorly supported by facts. This is most definitely not a good thing.

x220 8y ago
I had a wonderful chemistry teacher once. Someone asked him what he thought about climate change, and he gave a fantastic response. "The atmosphere is a lot like a fish tank full of water. If you put food coloring in that fish tank, it turns slightly red. The more food coloring you put in that tank, the more red it gets. If you take a flashlight and try and shine light through one side of the fishtank and out the other side, the food coloring blocks some of the light. The more food coloring you put in, the more light it blocks... and turns to heat. Try it. You'll make the water warmer. "That water is like our atmosphere. That food coloring is like CO2. And that flashlight is like our sun." It's not difficult to convincingly and simply explain the evidence for man-made climate change. Evenly matched debaters would predictably win and lose if they were told to argue for or against climate change. The reason why climate scientists fail to convince TV viewers about climate change is that they are scientists: they spend more time practicing science than practicing persuading laypeople in terms that they will understand. Going up against demagogues, they have zero chance. The game isn't bad. It works incredibly well most of the time for most of the problems we have encountered. It doesn't work so well when one side is incredibly bad at convincing common people and is not willing to change argument tactics, or when both sides are making completely subjective arguments.
- mattnewton 8y ago
  I wish it was a matter of outreach, but I I fear people won’t remember your wonderful analogy unless they identify as a member of your tribe. Instead, putting skeptics on TV who are a member of their tribe, and who assured them it is nothing to worry about, allows them to carry on mining coal and driving their SUVs where they need to go and not updating any of their beliefs. All those things are expensive and painful for adults, but weren’t problems for you as a child.
  - x220 8y ago
    I heard that story in college. It stuck out because it was pithy and convincing. If you think people don't listen to new ideas or change their minds, do you think people should only be allowed to hear what you think is true, so that they don't hear wrong ideas to begin with?
    - mattnewton 8y ago
      Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached. I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important. I’m not saying let’s throw up our hands, but people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach, and it isn’t because they are bad at articulating ideas that this is still a problem.
      - masonic 8y ago
        people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach Which becomes part of the problem. When your role model is a guy who flies private jets from conference to conference and had a $17,000+ per year utility bill for his home (and not so much as one solar panel when in office), it doesn't convey urgency very well.
        AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
        Gores energy expenses were high because he was purchasing green energy sources. Further his home uses geothermal energy and solar energy, so while those make great right wing talking points to dismiss climate change as being serious his home has a smaller carbon footprint than most homes.
        mattnewton 8y ago
        No one can pass the purity test for skeptics because it isn’t about that. I’m convinced it’s about saving face for their tribe. I can’t think of a spokesperson skeptics would believe. Maybe Donald Trump saying he was wrong and something needs to be done on National TV would work?
- 08-15 8y ago
  > "That water is like our atmosphere. That food coloring is like CO2. And that flashlight is like our sun." What an idiot. If this is supposed to be a model for the greenhouse effect, it needs to end with "And that flashlight is like our earth." The water is also completely red already (blue light doesn't pass at all). > It's not difficult to convincingly and simply explain the evidence for man-made climate change. Try it. Please. Use all the food coloring you need, but try to get it right, at least approximately. > The reason why climate scientists fail to convince TV viewers about climate change is that they try to convince them of catastrophic climate change. You don't get that from simple models. The fish tank with food dye (more properly called radiation balance) gives you a fraction of a degree warming over the next century, which is by no means a disaster. If you want to turn it into a disaster, the fish tank model is insufficient, even if you aren't an illiterate chemistry teacher.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem I still can’t convince many of my left leaning friends we should be using nuclear power despite the clear risks we face from climate change.
AnthonyMouse 8y ago
> The most obvious case would be climate change. Regularly, climate skeptics are given the same amount of airtime as climate scientists, despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem. Is this actually a thing? As far as I can tell what actually happens is that outlets like Fox News just pretend climate change doesn't exist. They don't host a panel on it with climate skeptics, they just avoid discussing it at all, or center discussions around ad hominem attacks on the character or financial/political incentives of anyone who proposes doing anything about it. Granted it's hard for them to discuss anything at all now that cable news airtime is 89% commercials.
vectorEQ 8y ago
if this person with less evidence refutes the evidence of the other, who has more evidence? Who is to decide who's evidence is valid before the debate? if it's already invalidated, why even have the debate in the first place? If you want a debate all participants should have a chance to voice their views, regardless of what the other participants hold as opinions about these views. if something is poorly supprted or not is to be decided after the debate. so basing the voiced opinions on preconceived conclusions is actually not a good thing which is what you seem to be suggesting.

by hug 8y ago

x220 8y ago

I had a wonderful chemistry teacher once. Someone asked him what he thought about climate change, and he gave a fantastic response. "The atmosphere is a lot like a fish tank full of water. If you put food coloring in that fish tank, it turns slightly red. The more food coloring you put in that tank, the more red it gets. If you take a flashlight and try and shine light through one side of the fishtank and out the other side, the food coloring blocks some of the light. The more food coloring you put in, the more light it blocks... and turns to heat. Try it. You'll make the water warmer. "That water is like our atmosphere. That food coloring is like CO2. And that flashlight is like our sun." It's not difficult to convincingly and simply explain the evidence for man-made climate change. Evenly matched debaters would predictably win and lose if they were told to argue for or against climate change. The reason why climate scientists fail to convince TV viewers about climate change is that they are scientists: they spend more time practicing science than practicing persuading laypeople in terms that they will understand. Going up against demagogues, they have zero chance. The game isn't bad. It works incredibly well most of the time for most of the problems we have encountered. It doesn't work so well when one side is incredibly bad at convincing common people and is not willing to change argument tactics, or when both sides are making completely subjective arguments.

mattnewton 8y ago
I wish it was a matter of outreach, but I I fear people won’t remember your wonderful analogy unless they identify as a member of your tribe. Instead, putting skeptics on TV who are a member of their tribe, and who assured them it is nothing to worry about, allows them to carry on mining coal and driving their SUVs where they need to go and not updating any of their beliefs. All those things are expensive and painful for adults, but weren’t problems for you as a child.
- x220 8y ago
  I heard that story in college. It stuck out because it was pithy and convincing. If you think people don't listen to new ideas or change their minds, do you think people should only be allowed to hear what you think is true, so that they don't hear wrong ideas to begin with?
  - mattnewton 8y ago
    Nope, I’m just disillusioned that everyone is as open as college you to new ideas and that we can simply go reach the people who don’t want to be reached. I suspect that the fact that you were taking chemistry in college means you were already in a very different state to receive new ideas compared with your average TV news viewer who is currently skeptical of climate change, and that difference is really important. I’m not saying let’s throw up our hands, but people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach, and it isn’t because they are bad at articulating ideas that this is still a problem.
    - masonic 8y ago
      people like Gore and Billy Nye are trying outreach Which becomes part of the problem. When your role model is a guy who flies private jets from conference to conference and had a $17,000+ per year utility bill for his home (and not so much as one solar panel when in office), it doesn't convey urgency very well.
      - AnarchoYeasty 8y ago
        Gores energy expenses were high because he was purchasing green energy sources. Further his home uses geothermal energy and solar energy, so while those make great right wing talking points to dismiss climate change as being serious his home has a smaller carbon footprint than most homes.
      - mattnewton 8y ago
        No one can pass the purity test for skeptics because it isn’t about that. I’m convinced it’s about saving face for their tribe. I can’t think of a spokesperson skeptics would believe. Maybe Donald Trump saying he was wrong and something needs to be done on National TV would work?
08-15 8y ago
> "That water is like our atmosphere. That food coloring is like CO2. And that flashlight is like our sun." What an idiot. If this is supposed to be a model for the greenhouse effect, it needs to end with "And that flashlight is like our earth." The water is also completely red already (blue light doesn't pass at all). > It's not difficult to convincingly and simply explain the evidence for man-made climate change. Try it. Please. Use all the food coloring you need, but try to get it right, at least approximately. > The reason why climate scientists fail to convince TV viewers about climate change is that they try to convince them of catastrophic climate change. You don't get that from simple models. The fish tank with food dye (more properly called radiation balance) gives you a fraction of a degree warming over the next century, which is by no means a disaster. If you want to turn it into a disaster, the fish tank model is insufficient, even if you aren't an illiterate chemistry teacher.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem I still can’t convince many of my left leaning friends we should be using nuclear power despite the clear risks we face from climate change.

AnthonyMouse 8y ago

> The most obvious case would be climate change. Regularly, climate skeptics are given the same amount of airtime as climate scientists, despite the fact that the evidence and opinion is overwhelmingly in support of climate change being a real problem. Is this actually a thing? As far as I can tell what actually happens is that outlets like Fox News just pretend climate change doesn't exist. They don't host a panel on it with climate skeptics, they just avoid discussing it at all, or center discussions around ad hominem attacks on the character or financial/political incentives of anyone who proposes doing anything about it. Granted it's hard for them to discuss anything at all now that cable news airtime is 89% commercials.

vectorEQ 8y ago

if this person with less evidence refutes the evidence of the other, who has more evidence? Who is to decide who's evidence is valid before the debate? if it's already invalidated, why even have the debate in the first place? If you want a debate all participants should have a chance to voice their views, regardless of what the other participants hold as opinions about these views. if something is poorly supprted or not is to be decided after the debate. so basing the voiced opinions on preconceived conclusions is actually not a good thing which is what you seem to be suggesting.