4 ms·
Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that con
by civility 7y ago
Because there isn't any reason for me to jump to a conclusion. For other reasons, I already have a carbon footprint and voting record almost anyone in that consensus would approve of. Is it really important that I "believe" all the things people are afraid of? I'm pretty content to leave some topics unresolved until I get more information.
- Gupie 7y agoI am not a fan of "believe" or dogma of any kind myself. I tend to go on likelihood. I ask myself is it more likely that the 97% are correct or the 3%?
- civility 7y agoI think Bayes theorem might be worthwhile here. Besides, going with the majority or authority as a principal is almost the definition of dogma. That's not likelihood in any rigorous sense.
- Gupie 7y agoWhen weighing up the likelihood of something it is valid to consider the opinions of experts. Dogma is believing what an authority says is incontrovertibly true. I am not saying that man made climate change is incontrovertibly true, only incontrovertibly highly likely. It is true that the view of the great majority of the experts in a field has authority, particularly in regards to science, but it is an justifiable authority, not one for example one built solely on tradition.
- dfilppi 7y agoFortunately Galileo didn't follow that strategy
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoWell sure, he did original research. If you are suggesting most people should do original climate research, you are going to be disappointed. If I get cancer, I assume that consensus medical science is going to give me the best treatments.
- wizlord 7y agohttps://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ftwt1/iama_scientist_who_wrote_the_study_finding_97/ckcveo6/ https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2ftwt1/iama_scientist...