4 ms·

"is trust a big deal? And the answer is: we do not know" Trust is a very big deal. The biggest deal. As long as you are not a specialist on climate science you

"is trust a big deal? And the answer is: we do not know" Trust is a very big deal. The biggest deal. As long as you are not a specialist on climate science yourself, all you can do is trust. That is true for all scientific endeavors. We pick people we trust and more or less believe in their stance on things.

mistermann 7y ago
> Trust is a very big deal. The biggest deal. 100% agree. And yet, observe the lack of concern in the "pro" camp (some of it on display here) where there is clear evidence for reasonable lack of trust. I'm not asking that you adopt my beliefs, but if you stop and think about this discrete (lack of concern over at least partially justified distrust) point, does it not seem to be potentially a big deal as well (in that it might actually be driving human behavior)? > As long as you are not a specialist on climate science yourself, all you can do is trust. I disagree. Just two of many alternative actions: - do your own research, to try to get a feel for how trustworthy the message is (for example, are there any clear mistruths being peddled) - do not assume the message is necessarily correct, and repeat it as if it is absolute fact. History has taught us this lesson. > We pick people we trust and more or less believe in their stance on things. Some people do, others do not. Considering a political consensus needs to be reached, it seems to me that it might be worthwhile expending some additional mental horsepower on the lower level details of why we seem to be incapable of achieving this, rather than just guessing at why people won't get on board. It's rather disappointing that this notion seems to be considered dumb in a normally rational community such as HN, and that it does seem to be considered dumb among the intelligent is to me an extremely interesting and counter-intuitive phenomenon in itself, that also may warrant some investigation.

mistermann 7y ago

> Trust is a very big deal. The biggest deal. 100% agree. And yet, observe the lack of concern in the "pro" camp (some of it on display here) where there is clear evidence for reasonable lack of trust. I'm not asking that you adopt my beliefs, but if you stop and think about this discrete (lack of concern over at least partially justified distrust) point, does it not seem to be potentially a big deal as well (in that it might actually be driving human behavior)? > As long as you are not a specialist on climate science yourself, all you can do is trust. I disagree. Just two of many alternative actions: - do your own research, to try to get a feel for how trustworthy the message is (for example, are there any clear mistruths being peddled) - do not assume the message is necessarily correct, and repeat it as if it is absolute fact. History has taught us this lesson. > We pick people we trust and more or less believe in their stance on things. Some people do, others do not. Considering a political consensus needs to be reached, it seems to me that it might be worthwhile expending some additional mental horsepower on the lower level details of why we seem to be incapable of achieving this, rather than just guessing at why people won't get on board. It's rather disappointing that this notion seems to be considered dumb in a normally rational community such as HN, and that it does seem to be considered dumb among the intelligent is to me an extremely interesting and counter-intuitive phenomenon in itself, that also may warrant some investigation.