5 ms·
The author argues for skepticism but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single webpage. Should not one also be skeptical of the s
by codex 16y ago
The author argues for skepticism but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single webpage. Should not one also be skeptical of the skeptics, too?
- brc 16y agoYes, they should. All people making claims should be subject to scrutiny over vested interests, exaggerations, distortions and unwarranted attacks on other people in the same field. The same standards should be applied to all.
- Alex3917 16y agoThese days it seems like most self-described skeptics are morons. I'm not sure how we got to this point, but it's highly troubling.
- tensor 16y agoAbsolutely not true. For example, the folks from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast and related community are very objective.
- anamax 16y ago> but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single webpage Actually, he didn't. FWIW, he provided more evidence in support of his global warming skepticism than he did in support of his other skepticism, skepticism that you didn't question. But, I'll play along. How much support should he have given for each of his arguments to satisfy you?
- Kaya 16y agoThe author claims unequivocally that global warming is a hoax. Submitted as evidence is a page which one-sidedly discusses troubling, suspicious, and unseemly behavior by some climate scientists. That is bad, but not proof of a hoax--not by a long shot. Such a strong claim supported by such a weak source makes it appear (at least to the skeptical) that the author may not be equally skeptical of all sources or points of view. Confirmation bias is a known bug in the wetware which makes it hard to be truly objective about anything, try as we might. Had the author made a weaker claim I'd have read the rest of the article with much less skepticism!
- anamax 16y agoHuh? Telling us how he could have satisfied you wrt a different argument is interesting but he question was "How much support should he have given for each of his arguments to satisfy you?" Note that he suggested skepticism wrt multiple things, suggesting that general skepticism is a good idea, yet you're only discussing one of them. Suppose we conclude that skepticism wrt global warming is unwarranted. What, if anything, does that say about his general conclusion?
- codex 16y agoIt is not my intent to invalidate the author's thesis. I attempted to point out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply skepticism consistently to all sources in order to free oneself from unconscious cognitive bias. As evidence, I use the author's treatment of global warming, where the evidence supplied is far too poor to support the conclusion. It's not a matter of quantity--it's just a blog post, after all, and I would have been tolerant of zero support for his claims. But if the author does supply support, it shouldn't be so crappy to as to suggest that does not apply a skeptical viewpoint to his own sources.
- anamax 16y ago> I attempted to point out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply skepticism consistently to all sources in order to free oneself from unconscious cognitive bias. As evidence, I use the author's treatment of global warming Likewise, I use your treatment of his examples. As I pointed out, he provided better support for his global warming skepticism, which you rejected, than he did for his other skepticism, which you accepted.
- tsiki 16y agoIndeed. It baffles me how many people think being skeptic means believing the opposite of what's commonly believed.