4 ms·

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? It's probably good to have some baselin

by svara 7y ago

> FWIW, I also happen to harbor this suspicion. How might one actually know whether there is an element of truth to it? It's probably good to have some baseline level of cynicism, since individual people do often act in egotistical ways. However, what you're proposing seems to imply that either (1) there is a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, who are engaging in that conspiracy for ultimately very little gain or (2) climate scientists are incredibly stupid, and keep repeating incorrect things as fact to each other while being blind to other evidence. I'm a working scientist myself (in a totally different field), and my own cynical view of science is quite incompatible with these possibilities: There's nothing scientists love more than attacking each other's interpretations of data, to prove that they're smarter than the next guy.

mistermann 7y ago
> However, what you're proposing seems to imply that either (1) there is a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, who are engaging in that conspiracy for ultimately very little gain or (2) climate scientists are incredibly stupid, and keep repeating incorrect things as fact to each other while being blind to other evidence. It may seem this way to you, but you have formed an incorrect conclusion (a behavior which I argue is the very core of the problem). Please see my other comments in this thread for clarification. > There's nothing scientists love more than attacking each other's interpretations of data, to prove that they're smarter than the next guy. Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that this competitive behavior takes place within an overall "overton window" of acceptable discourse and study. To be clear, I am not asserting that this is in fact what is happening, but I am very much asserting that if you are saying something along the lines of "this is not happening, at all, and I know it", then my reaction is suspicion due to an obvious lack of epistemic humility. I am also not recommending my beliefs to others, I am simply trying to provide some insight into how I think, and that the underlying reasons for my non-compliance are other than those you and others presume. What I will recommend though, is to observe how willing yourself and others are to even consider the possibility that us "deniers" (yet another comically simplistic belief) are not actually motivated by sheer stupidity. Disagreement with the proposal isn't even attempted, but rather the response will almost always be silence. I proclaim that something very interesting is going here.
- svara 7y ago
  You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. I am honestly not entirely sure what you are trying to say with things like > Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...] I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward? What we need to see is evidence one way or the other. I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog.
  - mistermann 7y ago
    > You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. "While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts. I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.) >> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...] > I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward? Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that: a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false > What we need to see is evidence one way or the other. I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting. > I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog. My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen. I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time: Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are: - Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)? - What if you're wrong?
lopmotr 7y ago
An Australian scientist was fired for saying controversial things about the health of the Great Barrier Reef which he'd been studying for decades. There was also a case in psychology where a researcher admitted writing the wrong conclusion to his paper out of fear of negative reaction from his peers. Now imagine all the researchers who are clinging onto their jobs by their fingernails and what kinds of career-ending risks they're prepared to take. It's not going to be an organized conspiracy, but there certainly are pressures pushing scientists into conformity with any politically sensitive topics.

by svara 7y ago

mistermann 7y ago

> However, what you're proposing seems to imply that either (1) there is a vast conspiracy of climate scientists, who are engaging in that conspiracy for ultimately very little gain or (2) climate scientists are incredibly stupid, and keep repeating incorrect things as fact to each other while being blind to other evidence. It may seem this way to you, but you have formed an incorrect conclusion (a behavior which I argue is the very core of the problem). Please see my other comments in this thread for clarification. > There's nothing scientists love more than attacking each other's interpretations of data, to prove that they're smarter than the next guy. Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that this competitive behavior takes place within an overall "overton window" of acceptable discourse and study. To be clear, I am not asserting that this is in fact what is happening, but I am very much asserting that if you are saying something along the lines of "this is not happening, at all, and I know it", then my reaction is suspicion due to an obvious lack of epistemic humility. I am also not recommending my beliefs to others, I am simply trying to provide some insight into how I think, and that the underlying reasons for my non-compliance are other than those you and others presume. What I will recommend though, is to observe how willing yourself and others are to even consider the possibility that us "deniers" (yet another comically simplistic belief) are not actually motivated by sheer stupidity. Disagreement with the proposal isn't even attempted, but rather the response will almost always be silence. I proclaim that something very interesting is going here.

svara 7y ago
You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. I am honestly not entirely sure what you are trying to say with things like > Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...] I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward? What we need to see is evidence one way or the other. I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog.
- mistermann 7y ago
  > You are saying a lot of different, seemingly subtle things, while heavily hedging everything, which makes it super hard to have a meaningful discussion. "While heavily hedging everything", I suspect, is my unusual writing style, where I explicitly qualify that which is speculative, as being speculative, as opposed to the more common practice of presenting estimates and speculation as cold hard facts. It's a bit concerning that the precise use of language seems to be (here I am speculating, and open to correction) considered somehow inappropriate in a discussion where people are complaining about the discussion not being based on facts. I would counter that having a meaningful discussion is difficult when people claim to be arguing in good faith, and accuse others of not doing so, but then proceed to completely ignore the core arguments the supposedly poor-faith person makes. (To be clear, you are not one of those people.) >> Agreed, but this does not logically preclude my concerns that it is possible that [...] > I mean, if you're talking philosophy here, I obviously agree that this is a logical possibility, but how does that move the conversation forward? Well, I would say it moves the conversation forward in that: a) I seem to have been successful in clearing up your speculation that my beliefs are grounded not in conspiracy theory, but in sound logic and epistemology: reality as it actually is, which includes things that are unknown, as opposed to how people like to pretend it is, where there are no unknowns b) Perhaps now you may be open to consider that "deniers" are not all conspiracy theorists, but may rather be reacting with suspicion to an incredibly complex situation, which then might facilitate you opening up to my larger core idea, that it may be possible that the current gridlock in forming consensus that we are experiencing may be caused not entirely by people misunderstanding or not believing "the science", but due to complex, unseen psychological behaviors (tribalism, revenge, etc) that we all know exist, but seem amazingly reluctant to admit to acknowledging within the context of this and similar discussions c) I may have been successful for the first time in getting someone to acknowledge that what I say is not false > What we need to see is evidence one way or the other. I hope you now see what I am saying: that perhaps this is not true. That a lack of scientific evidence is not what we need (we have overwhelming amounts already), but rather, we need to stop fighting. > I would suggest to focus on specific points of contention and cite sources. This forces everyone in the discussion to actually go researching those sources in the first place, which should improve the level of dialog. My point of contention is that people are unwilling to acknowledge the possibility that the core problem is not a misunderstanding of climate science, but a misunderstanding of human psychology, and how to get along. As evidence, I offer interactions in this and prior threads: repeated evidence of no one (prior to you) being willing to address what I actually say, usually via refusal to have a discussion, but when they do reply, addressing not what I say, but instead manufactured strawmen. I'll post one of my favorite videos of all time: Why Trump Will Win - Michael Moore Explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMm5HfxNXY4 Can you see any possible parallels between the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people voting for Trump ("against their interests") and the seemingly illogical behavior displayed by people opposing climate change initiatives (also against their interests)? I have a strong feeling that there might be something important here we're missing, but I am not sure. You're welcome to your own opinion on the matter, but the key points I'd like to draw your attention toward are: - Are you sure? How would you even know (particularly considering no one has studied the matter)? - What if you're wrong?

lopmotr 7y ago

An Australian scientist was fired for saying controversial things about the health of the Great Barrier Reef which he'd been studying for decades. There was also a case in psychology where a researcher admitted writing the wrong conclusion to his paper out of fear of negative reaction from his peers. Now imagine all the researchers who are clinging onto their jobs by their fingernails and what kinds of career-ending risks they're prepared to take. It's not going to be an organized conspiracy, but there certainly are pressures pushing scientists into conformity with any politically sensitive topics.