9 ms·

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? I do not harbor this same suspicion, ho

by moosey 7y ago

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it. Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me, but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today. In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course: https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming Or something like it, especially some atmospheric chemistry courses. I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if all you are going to do otherwise is attack them with conspiracy theory (which should be easily provable - there will be documented cases of people lying to get their data published... just look at Andrew Wakefield) or using ad-hominem ('they are just trying to make money'). > I will confess, referring to climate models that are literally estimated projections of future temperatures as "facts", very much rubs me the wrong way. There are also classes that teach you how to climate model and the science behind them. In order to do most statistics classes, they recommend completing multivariable calculus. All of these courses are available for free. Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but you haven't taken the work to do so yourself. Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge. I myself am currently taking several classes to understand this and the challenges in ML/AI at a deeper level.... OR you can note that 95%+ (and probably well higher than that) of climate scientists recognize that human cause climate science is fact, and appeal to expertise, which is distinct from appeal to authority. Climate change is real, it's going to be awful, it's changing our ocean chemistry already, and there are more pollution related ecological events to come that will reduce the carrying capacity of our home drastically. If you disagree, do the science, but definitely realize that _you_ are the one speculating.

mistermann 7y ago
Disclaimer: the style in which I write this reply is highly likely to be considered highly antagonistic, provocative, and non-constructive. Indeed, it may very well be this in many ways. But please consider the possibility that the actual underlying intent is other than what you might presume it to be...that there may be a method to my madness. > I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it. Let's find out. > Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me... I doubt we differ much in actual epistemological beliefs, but rather my epistemological beliefs are much more pedantically stringent than yours, and that my stance on climate change is much less ~identity-related (for lack of a better term) than yours. But, I'm very pleased that you introduced epistemology into the discussion, as I believe it is one of the more important issues in play. > ...but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today. Here we are in strong agreement. > In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course: > https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming Here is where our respective analyses of the problem diverge, although I didn't happen to touch too terribly strongly on this aspect of my beliefs in the comment to which you are replying, but I will do so now (and, see my other comments in this thread). Essentially, my belief is that "the" problem of climate change is not one of science, but one of psychology. It seems to me that the manner in which the issue is being framed/discussed, is roughly: 1. figure out the "the science" 2. figure out the technical solutions 3. implementation This seems generally logical/reasonable to me, and is typically an effective approach in the field of engineering - well, if you don't look too closely that is. I believe that 1 and 2 are complete (or more accurately, complete enough), and we should now as a society be moving on to step 3. But this is where the wheels are coming off the wagon, is it not? Implementation, in the real world, has the following dependencies: [Public Consensus] --> [Politics] --> [Human Psychology] (note: I wrote this in a different order in a prior comment, but I think this order is more correct). Public Consensus is (largely) achieved via Politics, and Politics requires interacting with and persuading people - as they are, not as they "should" be (Human Psychology). So let's look at some examples of human psychology in action.... > I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if [all you are going to do otherwise] is [attack them with conspiracy theory] > Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but [you haven't taken the work to do so yourself]. > Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above [for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge]. Here I will urge you to consider this in the most open-minded, least self-defensive manner possible. Please try to be acutely aware of System-1 vs System-2 thinking [0], and do your best to disable System-1. In order to assist you in that endeavor, I will openly admit that my line of reasoning has the appearance of arguing in bad faith, gas lighting, non-constructive pedantry, you name it. My behavior is clearly suspicious. 1. Remember this discussion is taking place within a context of epistemic humility (what we know is true, as opposed to what we "reasonably think" is true, but do not actually know for sure) 2. Note that I have added [brackets] to several phrases So here is my challenge to you: re-read what I actually wrote, and answer the question: From where did the ideas come from, that: a) I am going to act in a particular manner b) my beliefs (or, rhetorical techniques) are (or will be) based on conspiracy theories c) I accuse others of speculation, but imply I am not doing the same d) what I am doing is "challenging scientific points of view" Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements? I hope you can realize and acknowledge this, because it is the essence of my entire theory. And to assist you in this endeavor, I will explicitly note that this behavior isn't "stupid" or unusual - this behavior exists, and is so highly tuned that it takes place entirely without our conscious knowledge, because it evolved this way. It is an extremely useful capability of the human mind, but while it delivers tremendous advantages under most conditions, it also brings dangerous disadvantages in certain situations, such as when 100% pure, disciplined, rational thinking and analysis is required to solve a problem (say, analyzing and predicting human behavior with respect to a specific complicated situation). So, it "shouldn't" be too hard to recognize that this is true in an individual scenario such as this conversation. But consider this: what if the entire public discussion on climate change is failing due to a mass manifestation of this well-known human behavior (combined with bad actors in politics and industry, general human stupidity, etc). What if this whole thing is little more than one big misunderstanding? I think this is an extremely interesting and novel way of looking at this problem. The issue is, how might one get a feel for how true this is? I have a few ideas (but not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I could use some help): - observe the nature of discussions/arguments on climate change - We very much like to think we are discussing "pure facts" (after all, to our mind is appears in crystal clear resolution that this is what we're doing, doesn't it!), but is this really the case? For each statement in a discussion, does it have any epistemic flaws? (And, if you present these flaws to the author of the comment, observe the response - not only of the author, but also of moderators of the platform you are on!) - how many of the "facts" we use aren't actually facts, but rather factoids (ie: "97% of scientists agree....") - do humans sometimes literally say things that they don't literally actually believe (something you can determine by engaging in controlled, deep collaborative discussions) - do humans sometimes behave in obviously illogical, counter-productive ways, "cutting off their nose to spite their face", "scorching the earth", voting "against their interests" (that one could actually go in the factoid category as well) So what's the point of this long, schizophrenic rant? My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1]. I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we? Nonetheless, I personally believe that this is actually the problem, so I will continue to beat this dead horse in hopes that eventually someone will actually consider the idea. Under the circumstances, this seems like the right thing to do, although I highly doubt my approach is optimal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summar... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error
- moosey 7y ago
  > Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements? This appears to be the only important statement in everything that you wrote requiring some kind of response. I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing. You made a statement about the following: > > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. > FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof. Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn. However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma... > As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.” > The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement. Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change? Offered evidence, will you change that opinion? This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous. If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity. It's not an emotional statement, just a statement of fact. You might suggest that I am reaching my conclusion illogically. It might even be true. It doesn't change the fact that our epistemologies differ. IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was, not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think. I simply made a reply based on what you wrote. I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change. That actually exists, and is a statement of fact, unless you differ from me in epistemology. Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition: > I also happen to harbor this suspicion In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others. Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
adventskalender 7y ago
"OR you can note that 95%+ (and probably well higher than that) of climate scientists recognize that human cause climate science is fact" You realize that those "x% of scientists agree" claims are yet again based on models that are sometimes questionable? I've looked into the 97% claim (I think by "Cook"), which is based on manual estimates of summaries of papers. One problem is, how are the papers selected. Another problem is the human bias in categorizing the summaries (where does the human doing the categorizing draw the line for "supports man made global warming"). The biggest issue, however, in my opinion, is that even if most papers consent that humans affect the climate, that doesn't mean they all agree to the same level of influence. Meaning assuming it is true, the study found 97% of papers/scientists agree that humans affect the climate. That doesn't imply 97% agree with the dramatic doomsday scenarios. I can say that I sympathized with your approach, like taking the Coursera course. Although I fear it won't really help, because you can not be sure that they will teach you all the facts you need to know. It may be just a course designed to convince you that global warming exists. But anyway - trying to understand the science is obviously a good idea, if you have the spare time. But then you lost me completely with the 95% consensus claim. It's just a flag that goes up that says "you are one of those people", making me tend to ignore all your further arguments, or at least assign them a low likelihood of truth.
- svara 7y ago
  The "X% of scientists agree" point is of course not a scientific argument, and I understand how it could be taken the wrong way, either as an appeal to authority or as a cheap regurgitation of canned talking points. But go ahead and read the full discussion here. I think a lack of patience with the dishonest discussion tactics used by poorly informed people arguing against the scientific state of the art is totally understandable. On an emotional level I can totally understand why you would like to just say "shut up and listen to 97% of the scientists". I've been told repeatedly in this discussion section to listen properly to people holding alternative points of view, instead of just assuming that they're uninformed. Yet as soon as you dig, the "scientific arguments" evaporate. For a beautiful example of this, see the comment I just wrote at <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189>.

by moosey 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

Disclaimer: the style in which I write this reply is highly likely to be considered highly antagonistic, provocative, and non-constructive. Indeed, it may very well be this in many ways. But please consider the possibility that the actual underlying intent is other than what you might presume it to be...that there may be a method to my madness. > I do not harbor this same suspicion, however, I'm determined to learn whatever is necessary to understand it. Let's find out. > Not because I can argue a point to completion for someone who doesn't share epistemological solidarity with me... I doubt we differ much in actual epistemological beliefs, but rather my epistemological beliefs are much more pedantically stringent than yours, and that my stance on climate change is much less ~identity-related (for lack of a better term) than yours. But, I'm very pleased that you introduced epistemology into the discussion, as I believe it is one of the more important issues in play. > ...but because it might allow me to aid in whatever needs posterity has in solving the problems we are creating today. Here we are in strong agreement. > In that interest, I will eventually complete the following course: > https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming Here is where our respective analyses of the problem diverge, although I didn't happen to touch too terribly strongly on this aspect of my beliefs in the comment to which you are replying, but I will do so now (and, see my other comments in this thread). Essentially, my belief is that "the" problem of climate change is not one of science, but one of psychology. It seems to me that the manner in which the issue is being framed/discussed, is roughly: 1. figure out the "the science" 2. figure out the technical solutions 3. implementation This seems generally logical/reasonable to me, and is typically an effective approach in the field of engineering - well, if you don't look too closely that is. I believe that 1 and 2 are complete (or more accurately, complete enough), and we should now as a society be moving on to step 3. But this is where the wheels are coming off the wagon, is it not? Implementation, in the real world, has the following dependencies: [Public Consensus] --> [Politics] --> [Human Psychology] (note: I wrote this in a different order in a prior comment, but I think this order is more correct). Public Consensus is (largely) achieved via Politics, and Politics requires interacting with and persuading people - as they are, not as they "should" be (Human Psychology). So let's look at some examples of human psychology in action.... > I feel as if you should do so as well, as it's the only way to understand the scientific position, if [all you are going to do otherwise] is [attack them with conspiracy theory] > Further, you want to disabuse others of speculation, but [you haven't taken the work to do so yourself]. > Now, you could go ahead and do all the work above [for every scientific point of view that you want to challenge]. Here I will urge you to consider this in the most open-minded, least self-defensive manner possible. Please try to be acutely aware of System-1 vs System-2 thinking [0], and do your best to disable System-1. In order to assist you in that endeavor, I will openly admit that my line of reasoning has the appearance of arguing in bad faith, gas lighting, non-constructive pedantry, you name it. My behavior is clearly suspicious. 1. Remember this discussion is taking place within a context of epistemic humility (what we know is true, as opposed to what we "reasonably think" is true, but do not actually know for sure) 2. Note that I have added [brackets] to several phrases So here is my challenge to you: re-read what I actually wrote, and answer the question: From where did the ideas come from, that: a) I am going to act in a particular manner b) my beliefs (or, rhetorical techniques) are (or will be) based on conspiracy theories c) I accuse others of speculation, but imply I am not doing the same d) what I am doing is "challenging scientific points of view" Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements? I hope you can realize and acknowledge this, because it is the essence of my entire theory. And to assist you in this endeavor, I will explicitly note that this behavior isn't "stupid" or unusual - this behavior exists, and is so highly tuned that it takes place entirely without our conscious knowledge, because it evolved this way. It is an extremely useful capability of the human mind, but while it delivers tremendous advantages under most conditions, it also brings dangerous disadvantages in certain situations, such as when 100% pure, disciplined, rational thinking and analysis is required to solve a problem (say, analyzing and predicting human behavior with respect to a specific complicated situation). So, it "shouldn't" be too hard to recognize that this is true in an individual scenario such as this conversation. But consider this: what if the entire public discussion on climate change is failing due to a mass manifestation of this well-known human behavior (combined with bad actors in politics and industry, general human stupidity, etc). What if this whole thing is little more than one big misunderstanding? I think this is an extremely interesting and novel way of looking at this problem. The issue is, how might one get a feel for how true this is? I have a few ideas (but not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, I could use some help): - observe the nature of discussions/arguments on climate change - We very much like to think we are discussing "pure facts" (after all, to our mind is appears in crystal clear resolution that this is what we're doing, doesn't it!), but is this really the case? For each statement in a discussion, does it have any epistemic flaws? (And, if you present these flaws to the author of the comment, observe the response - not only of the author, but also of moderators of the platform you are on!) - how many of the "facts" we use aren't actually facts, but rather factoids (ie: "97% of scientists agree....") - do humans sometimes literally say things that they don't literally actually believe (something you can determine by engaging in controlled, deep collaborative discussions) - do humans sometimes behave in obviously illogical, counter-productive ways, "cutting off their nose to spite their face", "scorching the earth", voting "against their interests" (that one could actually go in the factoid category as well) So what's the point of this long, schizophrenic rant? My point is, I think a perfectly plausible, evidence-based case can be made that what is primarily preventing us from moving forward on this problem is not a misunderstanding of the science (which there definitely is, on both sides), but a misunderstanding of the importance of human psychology. And, I will provocatively (but speculatively) assert that a recurring refusal to even acknowledge this as a valid possibility, is in fact evidence that supports the very theory. My suspicion on why this behavior exists, is that on ~identity-related issues, it is simply human nature to blame one's opponent while absolving oneself of all guilt [1]. I am worried that once again, my effort at articulating this theory will be completely not understood, or completely ignored (again, behavior that I would assert is suggestive of the very theory), as if my comment didn't even exist. But hey, as I provocatively challenged you at the very start when you claimed you were "determined to understand": "Let's find out.". So, let's, shall we? Nonetheless, I personally believe that this is actually the problem, so I will continue to beat this dead horse in hopes that eventually someone will actually consider the idea. Under the circumstances, this seems like the right thing to do, although I highly doubt my approach is optimal. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Summar... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

moosey 7y ago
> Is it possible that your mind has formed a highly detailed internal model of who I am and what I'm all about, based not entirely on factual observations, but rather based on subconscious heuristic judgements? This appears to be the only important statement in everything that you wrote requiring some kind of response. I can say, quite certainly, that this is not the case, but that it is slowly happening, based on other responses I'm seeing. You made a statement about the following: > > I have a bunch of coworkers that think scientists are making up this data and skewing results because their jobs depend on it and they want to continue to get funding. > FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? This is, quite literally, creating a conspiracy from thin air without proof. Climate science is so unnecessarily controversial at this point, that if any evidence existed that scientists were lying to make more money, business leaders would be touting it at every turn. However, there is plenty of evidence that scientists that deny climate change are in it for the money: https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action https://www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-ma... > As a Washington Post article explains, “in the 1990s, oil companies, fossil fuel industry trade groups and their respective PR firms began positioning contrarian scientists such as Willie Soon, William Happer and David Legates as experts whose opinions on climate change should be considered equal and opposite to that of climate scientists.” > The contrarian voice of these funded-skeptics hides the fact that basically the entire scientific community agrees the crisis is real and caused by humans, promoting the myth of disagreement. Do you hold the same opinion of scientists that deny climate change? Offered evidence, will you change that opinion? This article might not be definitive proof, but proof of these actions by the fossil fuel industry is widely available. With this information, my theory of epistemology can treat scientists who suggest that Climate Change is happening and human caused is fact, and that those that deny it are most likely disingenuous. If you don't agree, then it is likely that we cannot share epistimological solidarity. It's not an emotional statement, just a statement of fact. You might suggest that I am reaching my conclusion illogically. It might even be true. It doesn't change the fact that our epistemologies differ. IOW, I responded primarily to a statement that is a widespread conspiracy theory, and therefore propaganda, by calling it what it was, not by making assumptions about who you are, and how you think. I simply made a reply based on what you wrote. I, on the other hand, can present a real conspiracy (not propaganda) by pointing out how various industries have disingenuously used media (and thus human emotion and failing human intuition) to argue against human caused climate change. That actually exists, and is a statement of fact, unless you differ from me in epistemology. Further, you reference the book "Thinking Fast and Slow", while defending a statement of intuition: > I also happen to harbor this suspicion In response, I gave you the ultimate 'slow thinking' path that I follow myself: education. Until I have that education, then I must fall back on the expertise of others. Further, I'm extremely aware of the fact that we need the public to buy in, and that we need political will to deal with Climate Change. Extremely, frustratingly, aware.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

adventskalender 7y ago

"OR you can note that 95%+ (and probably well higher than that) of climate scientists recognize that human cause climate science is fact" You realize that those "x% of scientists agree" claims are yet again based on models that are sometimes questionable? I've looked into the 97% claim (I think by "Cook"), which is based on manual estimates of summaries of papers. One problem is, how are the papers selected. Another problem is the human bias in categorizing the summaries (where does the human doing the categorizing draw the line for "supports man made global warming"). The biggest issue, however, in my opinion, is that even if most papers consent that humans affect the climate, that doesn't mean they all agree to the same level of influence. Meaning assuming it is true, the study found 97% of papers/scientists agree that humans affect the climate. That doesn't imply 97% agree with the dramatic doomsday scenarios. I can say that I sympathized with your approach, like taking the Coursera course. Although I fear it won't really help, because you can not be sure that they will teach you all the facts you need to know. It may be just a course designed to convince you that global warming exists. But anyway - trying to understand the science is obviously a good idea, if you have the spare time. But then you lost me completely with the 95% consensus claim. It's just a flag that goes up that says "you are one of those people", making me tend to ignore all your further arguments, or at least assign them a low likelihood of truth.

svara 7y ago
The "X% of scientists agree" point is of course not a scientific argument, and I understand how it could be taken the wrong way, either as an appeal to authority or as a cheap regurgitation of canned talking points. But go ahead and read the full discussion here. I think a lack of patience with the dishonest discussion tactics used by poorly informed people arguing against the scientific state of the art is totally understandable. On an emotional level I can totally understand why you would like to just say "shut up and listen to 97% of the scientists". I've been told repeatedly in this discussion section to listen properly to people holding alternative points of view, instead of just assuming that they're uninformed. Yet as soon as you dig, the "scientific arguments" evaporate. For a beautiful example of this, see the comment I just wrote at <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21820189>.