6 ms·

Consensus as Religion

12 points by _ttg 6y ago

db48x 6y ago
I definitely agree with that. If you can't tolerate other ideas, then you aren't doing science.
Gollapalli 6y ago
Any other argument other than "The data shows x", or "inferring from the data" is probably not science. The author makes solid points, and gives good reasons to doubt the the climate change consensus, even if those reasons are primarily sociological. EDIT: Seeing a lot of comments going grey in this thread, but not a lot of arguments.
voldacar 6y ago
It is so true that the internal mental/ideological structure of most "skepticism" is very similar to religious fundamentalism. This short article got linked here a few days ago and it's been at the forefront of my mind since then: http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html
- twiceaday 6y ago
  I feel like you can say this about pretty much anything. When the system being thought about gets to a certain size, most people default to 'I think how the people who I trust think.' And most people do not vet this chain of trust because they don't want to or are simply unable to. After a while, they end up with convictions they cannot defend rationally.
chrisco255 6y ago
I fundamentally agree with chaos theory. When I come across predictions based on non-linear, highly dynamic, multivariate systems, I know that uncertainty is an exponential function of time in those systems, even if we have a perfect understanding of how that system works (often not true). This is why I'm a skeptic of most studies affirming the ideal diet or ones that seek to flatten psychological profiles to predict behavior or ones that have simple answers for economic problems or studies attributing all climate change to anthropogenic CO2 and ones that argue that catastrophic warming will occur in the 21st century. When it comes to predicting chaos, there can be no consensus. The only rational position to take is to prepare for the maximum range of outcomes with given economic constraints. For example, if we over-corrected for global warming, investing all of our limited resources into that, and we instead find ourselves plunged into a 100K-year glacial period by the end of the 21st century (perhaps caused by supervolcano), will we have saved humanity or nature from decline or mass extinctions?
- hellisothers 6y ago
  Seems like you gotta pick something and commit to it though, otherwise it seems like you’ll suffer from decision paralysis and possibly nihilism :)

12 points by _ttg 6y ago

I definitely agree with that. If you can't tolerate other ideas, then you aren't doing science.

Any other argument other than "The data shows x", or "inferring from the data" is probably not science. The author makes solid points, and gives good reasons to doubt the the climate change consensus, even if those reasons are primarily sociological. EDIT: Seeing a lot of comments going grey in this thread, but not a lot of arguments.

voldacar 6y ago

It is so true that the internal mental/ideological structure of most "skepticism" is very similar to religious fundamentalism. This short article got linked here a few days ago and it's been at the forefront of my mind since then: http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html http://amasci.com/weird/pyrrhon.html

twiceaday 6y ago
I feel like you can say this about pretty much anything. When the system being thought about gets to a certain size, most people default to 'I think how the people who I trust think.' And most people do not vet this chain of trust because they don't want to or are simply unable to. After a while, they end up with convictions they cannot defend rationally.

chrisco255 6y ago

I fundamentally agree with chaos theory. When I come across predictions based on non-linear, highly dynamic, multivariate systems, I know that uncertainty is an exponential function of time in those systems, even if we have a perfect understanding of how that system works (often not true). This is why I'm a skeptic of most studies affirming the ideal diet or ones that seek to flatten psychological profiles to predict behavior or ones that have simple answers for economic problems or studies attributing all climate change to anthropogenic CO2 and ones that argue that catastrophic warming will occur in the 21st century. When it comes to predicting chaos, there can be no consensus. The only rational position to take is to prepare for the maximum range of outcomes with given economic constraints. For example, if we over-corrected for global warming, investing all of our limited resources into that, and we instead find ourselves plunged into a 100K-year glacial period by the end of the 21st century (perhaps caused by supervolcano), will we have saved humanity or nature from decline or mass extinctions?

hellisothers 6y ago
Seems like you gotta pick something and commit to it though, otherwise it seems like you’ll suffer from decision paralysis and possibly nihilism :)