4 ms·

"When large masses of humans seem to start thinking the same, without really thinking" So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this ext

"When large masses of humans seem to start thinking the same, without really thinking" So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking? And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done? What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"?

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
I agree with you. However, tell me how you are not making the the appeal to authority argument, and/or confirmation bias.
- kaybe 7y ago
  The problem is that if you want to understand the issue fully you'll have to at least read and understand a couple of physics books. Ain't nobody got time for that, so these kind of arguments are all that's left. Unless you want some recommendations? But basically, increasing CO2 will increase the energy input into the system, that is teenager level science. Where the energy goes and what the consequences are are increasingly more complicated and less understood the more processes are involved.
- whatisthiseven 7y ago
  What is wrong with appeal to authority? Fallacies don't mean your argument is instantly wrong. It just means your argument isn't perfectly sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority, as opposed to giving an example of a "large mass of humans who believe the same thing". You haven't discredited them, you have only mocked me for choosing to believe in an expert body. That is fine, and we should always question authorities and their methods. But flippantly saying "How is this not making an appeal to authority" is frustrating. Yea, so what? Are the authorities wrong? Unless you can answer that essential question your needling on this point is irrelevant.
  - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
    >What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? >And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority I mean.... yes? I'm sorry you find the question frustrating to answer. But your post revolves around trusting the IPCC because they are an authority. I think that's a weak argument because if a guy doesn't know what the letters IPCC mean, you're not going to win them over. I think it's more effective to be open to the idea that maybe we're all wrong, and work from that instead of the opposite. You know, healthy skepticism, science. If you approach it like that, you can still work towards all the same goals without being divisive. The way we're all just supposed to never question the authorities or sacred texts is how this has become a wedge issue.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      You're free to read the original papers, collect your own data and write a refutation. I'm pretty sure you can get it published with high impact if your data is sound. There are billions of people who would like to hear that they don't have to change their way of life.
    - whatisthiseven 7y ago
      I didn't say to blindly trust the authorities. I read some of the reports myself. You can, too. If you mean you only want to trust primary research you do yourself, then this discussion is impossible.
    - whatisthiseven 7y ago
      We are discussing climate science. If the person I was trying to convince was so ignorant of the subject to not even know what IPCC was, I would point them to the body, its website, and NASA for summarized data. If someone who wants to drag out useless arguments online without addressing real datapoints wants to pretend like "IPCC Is so foreign", then you are just wasting time. You know what the IPCC is. You can find reports from NASA. You know the body of research out there. Why aren't you engaging with it? You decry the lack of discussion, but you won't even engage with the highest quality of research available on the topic. Calling out a fallacy without substantiating further is just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either engage usefully or stop question begging.
mistermann 7y ago
> So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking? No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs. > And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done? No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs. > What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? I've said nothing to criticize the IPCC. > Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"? Your comment is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Observe how significant of a role your imagination (heuristics) played in your interpretation of what I was saying. Here I will daringly speculate a bit.....observe, right now, if there is an emotional reaction in your body right now as you are reading these words. Also observe if the magnitude of that reaction intensified while reading that last sentence. Observe the downvotes (as of the time of writing) on my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482841 Offers of advice to learn from forum discussion like this and improve the delivery and persuasive value of the "pro" message is literally downvoted! Is this thinking, or is something more complex going on here? Based on all of the conversations I've read on this topic, I perceive an authoritarian streak in this movement (the science is settled, the discussion is over - assimilate or gtfo) that puts a bad taste in my mouth. But that's fine, all of this is nothing more than my personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) - I'm not demanding you behave a certain way or not. You and your teammates will reap what you sow, I consider myself mostly just an outspoken observer - my interest is not so much in climate change itself, I am interested in the psychology of the discussion. To me, this is the interesting part, and I also speculate that this is where the solution to the current impasse lies (and not just wrt to climate change). But, this idea seems to an extremely unpopular, worthy of nothing other than scorn, and certainly not of consideration. Although.....I do now see there are others showing up in this thread that recognize the very same problem I see. Might others be waking up and seeing what is right in front of their eyes? I shall leave you to your current approach. There's an extremely strong sense of self-confidence in your team, maybe completely ignoring psychology and merely repeating "the science" over and over, while insulting and downvoting anyone who dares disagree in any way (or offer sincere advice from a different perspective), is the optimal approach after all. Time will tell if the "chosen" tactics will bear fruit, for the sake of all of us let's hope you guessed correctly. Another way of stating this is: it may be in your best interests to consider the possibility that your dispute is not with me, but with reality itself, and if you find that idea offensive, be careful that you have your heuristics on a short leash. EDIT: Well how about that, a quick downvote. I certainly didn't expect that.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago

I agree with you. However, tell me how you are not making the the appeal to authority argument, and/or confirmation bias.

kaybe 7y ago
The problem is that if you want to understand the issue fully you'll have to at least read and understand a couple of physics books. Ain't nobody got time for that, so these kind of arguments are all that's left. Unless you want some recommendations? But basically, increasing CO2 will increase the energy input into the system, that is teenager level science. Where the energy goes and what the consequences are are increasingly more complicated and less understood the more processes are involved.
whatisthiseven 7y ago
What is wrong with appeal to authority? Fallacies don't mean your argument is instantly wrong. It just means your argument isn't perfectly sound: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority, as opposed to giving an example of a "large mass of humans who believe the same thing". You haven't discredited them, you have only mocked me for choosing to believe in an expert body. That is fine, and we should always question authorities and their methods. But flippantly saying "How is this not making an appeal to authority" is frustrating. Yea, so what? Are the authorities wrong? Unless you can answer that essential question your needling on this point is irrelevant.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? >And you presume that I am arguing on behalf of authority I mean.... yes? I'm sorry you find the question frustrating to answer. But your post revolves around trusting the IPCC because they are an authority. I think that's a weak argument because if a guy doesn't know what the letters IPCC mean, you're not going to win them over. I think it's more effective to be open to the idea that maybe we're all wrong, and work from that instead of the opposite. You know, healthy skepticism, science. If you approach it like that, you can still work towards all the same goals without being divisive. The way we're all just supposed to never question the authorities or sacred texts is how this has become a wedge issue.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    You're free to read the original papers, collect your own data and write a refutation. I'm pretty sure you can get it published with high impact if your data is sound. There are billions of people who would like to hear that they don't have to change their way of life.
  - whatisthiseven 7y ago
    I didn't say to blindly trust the authorities. I read some of the reports myself. You can, too. If you mean you only want to trust primary research you do yourself, then this discussion is impossible.
  - whatisthiseven 7y ago
    We are discussing climate science. If the person I was trying to convince was so ignorant of the subject to not even know what IPCC was, I would point them to the body, its website, and NASA for summarized data. If someone who wants to drag out useless arguments online without addressing real datapoints wants to pretend like "IPCC Is so foreign", then you are just wasting time. You know what the IPCC is. You can find reports from NASA. You know the body of research out there. Why aren't you engaging with it? You decry the lack of discussion, but you won't even engage with the highest quality of research available on the topic. Calling out a fallacy without substantiating further is just arguing for the sake of arguing. Either engage usefully or stop question begging.

mistermann 7y ago

> So, the thousands of scientists the world over who have studied this extensively and produced some of the largest bodies of research for a field on a specific topic aren't really thinking? No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs. > And when they communicate that to the public, the public should what, doubt literally everything this relatively unempowered group has to say while oil companies spend far more money and influence keeping this argument alive to ensure nothing is done? No. You have formed an incorrect conclusion of my beliefs. > What degree of confidence are you looking for, and is the IPCC not good enough for you? I've said nothing to criticize the IPCC. > Why do you feel like all the people you disagree with "aren't thinking"? Your comment is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. Observe how significant of a role your imagination (heuristics) played in your interpretation of what I was saying. Here I will daringly speculate a bit.....observe, right now, if there is an emotional reaction in your body right now as you are reading these words. Also observe if the magnitude of that reaction intensified while reading that last sentence. Observe the downvotes (as of the time of writing) on my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482841 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21482841 Offers of advice to learn from forum discussion like this and improve the delivery and persuasive value of the "pro" message is literally downvoted! Is this thinking, or is something more complex going on here? Based on all of the conversations I've read on this topic, I perceive an authoritarian streak in this movement (the science is settled, the discussion is over - assimilate or gtfo) that puts a bad taste in my mouth. But that's fine, all of this is nothing more than my personal opinion (and you know what they say about opinions) - I'm not demanding you behave a certain way or not. You and your teammates will reap what you sow, I consider myself mostly just an outspoken observer - my interest is not so much in climate change itself, I am interested in the psychology of the discussion. To me, this is the interesting part, and I also speculate that this is where the solution to the current impasse lies (and not just wrt to climate change). But, this idea seems to an extremely unpopular, worthy of nothing other than scorn, and certainly not of consideration. Although.....I do now see there are others showing up in this thread that recognize the very same problem I see. Might others be waking up and seeing what is right in front of their eyes? I shall leave you to your current approach. There's an extremely strong sense of self-confidence in your team, maybe completely ignoring psychology and merely repeating "the science" over and over, while insulting and downvoting anyone who dares disagree in any way (or offer sincere advice from a different perspective), is the optimal approach after all. Time will tell if the "chosen" tactics will bear fruit, for the sake of all of us let's hope you guessed correctly. Another way of stating this is: it may be in your best interests to consider the possibility that your dispute is not with me, but with reality itself, and if you find that idea offensive, be careful that you have your heuristics on a short leash. EDIT: Well how about that, a quick downvote. I certainly didn't expect that.