4 ms·

> Coupled with the fact that dissent gets blurred with denialism This is what gives me the biggest headache. When discussing any politically motivated topic yo

> Coupled with the fact that dissent gets blurred with denialism This is what gives me the biggest headache. When discussing any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion of the day. I had a professor scold me for asking if there were any natural phenomenon that may also be contributing to rising CO2 levels

jfengel 6y ago
The professor has without doubt heard the question thousands of times, by those with dishonest intent. Because the answer is always no. There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tracks exactly the amount of fossil fuels being dug out of the ground. CO2 levels had been stable for millennia before that, and then they changed sharply. Nothing natural has gone on to change that. If the question were intended honestly, you wouldn't call it "disagreement". You'd be asking for information and would make your decision after you had it. If your description is correct, that's why your professor scolded you. The name for disagreeing without knowledge is "denial". The name for asking questions that you don't really intend to listen to the answers is "sea lioning", which is a tactic for wasting time and frustrating people. It's dishonest and rude. If the situation was as I understood it from your description, I'm not surprised that they spoke sharply to you.
- ianmcgowan 6y ago
  The trick is distinguishing naïve open-minded curiosity from the trolling. It doesn't hurt "science" in the abstract to have a bunch of people asking bad faith questions, but it must be pretty annoying/distracting to scientists.
- zepto 6y ago
  Nothing about the GP’s description sounds like ‘Sea-Lioning’ to me. ‘Disagreement’ was the word the GP used to describe how it seemed the professor was interpreting the question. Your explanation that the professor had experienced a bunch of sea-lioning before is likely correct. But it seems likely that it was the professor who was wrong and behaved inappropriately, because their past bad experiences have led them to be distrustful and categorize some honest people as dishonest. All the professor had to say was this: > There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. Which is a concise encapsulation of what an honest interlocutor would need to hear to answer the question. Sea-lioning is a real phenomenon, and so is misuse of authority.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The GP said "questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion". Sincere questions don't agree or disagree; they request information. Phrased that way it sounds very much like they were pre-supposing an answer. So does their use of "popular" (as if this is merely people agreeing with each other for fun, rather than their best judgment based on expertise) and "opinion" (as if this were merely a guess or an aesthetic preference". Even the capitalization of "Science" seems strange in this context. Plus, there's the way they went from "this professor acted inappropriately" to "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree" [emphasis mine]. It was intended as an example, but it's a big jump to make, and it just happened to be on a topic where people consistently engage in sea-lioning behavior. That's why I suggested that it sounded like sea-lioning to me. I may be wrong: as I said, I'm basing that judgment solely on what I read in that very short description. But there were a lot of red flags in that short description.
    - zepto 6y ago
      > "questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion" Yes, but we don’t know when they formed that view. Did they hold it before or after the professor scolded them? We accept that the professor scolded them, and that now they hold the view they are asserting. I think it’s just as likely that the professor caused their current view as the other way around. It’s very easy to go from being unfairly scolded by a professor who wrongly views you as dishonest, to then being influenced by the popular idea that "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree". If they didn’t think that before, the professor’s behavior would be a great way to make them think it now, and we simply don’t know how they thought about it before the professor’s action. Even if the poster was sea-lioning, which frankly you cannot know, the professor definitely acted inappropriately in such a way as to engender further distrust, thus failing in their role as a science educator and betraying the authority of their position. Even if the poster worded the question the way it seems - “with red flags”, it is a bad faith act to assume they have ill intent. It’s perfectly possible for someone to be using language they have picked up from popular culture that they haven’t refined, without themselves having bad faith. Plus I don’t accept your position “questions that disagree”, are always bad faith. It’s possible to ask a question that is based on a premise that differs from the assumptions of the person you are questioning. This would imply disagreement in view, but it doesn’t imply bad faith. E.g. “Are there any other sources of carbon emissions other than human industry?” Is there disagreement here? From your view, the answer would be ‘yes’, because the implication is that this is relevant to climate change, which you think it is not. The professor could have simply used the question as an opportunity to teach about scientific thinking. E.g. “It’s a valid question from a geological point of view, but it isn’t relevant to the issue of climate change because there are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution.”
- fatsdomino001 6y ago
  The answer actually isn't no in this case, because the question was whether any natural phenomemon may also be CONTRIBUTING to CO2 levels, which of course there are countless natural contributors to CO2 levels. So, just be careful because you just fell into the same trap the professor did.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    They asked if it was contributing to RISING carbon dioxide levels. To that, the answer is "no". The natural carbon sources and natural carbon sinks have not changed.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
  I disagree so strongly with you that it upsets me to see this. You’re assuming such bad faith here. It’s especially bad when the issue being complained about amounts to “people are so quick to assume bad faith from the most minor things.”
  - jfengel 6y ago
    I am not assuming bad faith. I am explaining why it was perceived as bad faith, based on its similarities to other people who have also acted in bad faith. (I go into more detail at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26317788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26317788.) The fact that there are so many people who act in bad faith means that you will need to be aware of that and take it into account. It has been used as a time-wasting tactic, and people are going to take shortcuts. That is a reality, and the OP must live with it.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    Humans are subject to time constraints in life, and sometimes, assuming bad faith is warranted.
- caseysoftware 6y ago
  While you may have a valid point, when you reinterpret the GP comment from: > if there were any natural phenomenon that may also be contributing to rising CO2 levels to answering a very different question with: > There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. You're rephrasing the question in your head, assuming intent, moving directly into ad hominem attacks and scolding, and then excusing the same bad behavior from the professor.

jfengel 6y ago

The professor has without doubt heard the question thousands of times, by those with dishonest intent. Because the answer is always no. There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tracks exactly the amount of fossil fuels being dug out of the ground. CO2 levels had been stable for millennia before that, and then they changed sharply. Nothing natural has gone on to change that. If the question were intended honestly, you wouldn't call it "disagreement". You'd be asking for information and would make your decision after you had it. If your description is correct, that's why your professor scolded you. The name for disagreeing without knowledge is "denial". The name for asking questions that you don't really intend to listen to the answers is "sea lioning", which is a tactic for wasting time and frustrating people. It's dishonest and rude. If the situation was as I understood it from your description, I'm not surprised that they spoke sharply to you.

ianmcgowan 6y ago
The trick is distinguishing naïve open-minded curiosity from the trolling. It doesn't hurt "science" in the abstract to have a bunch of people asking bad faith questions, but it must be pretty annoying/distracting to scientists.
zepto 6y ago
Nothing about the GP’s description sounds like ‘Sea-Lioning’ to me. ‘Disagreement’ was the word the GP used to describe how it seemed the professor was interpreting the question. Your explanation that the professor had experienced a bunch of sea-lioning before is likely correct. But it seems likely that it was the professor who was wrong and behaved inappropriately, because their past bad experiences have led them to be distrustful and categorize some honest people as dishonest. All the professor had to say was this: > There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. Which is a concise encapsulation of what an honest interlocutor would need to hear to answer the question. Sea-lioning is a real phenomenon, and so is misuse of authority.
- jfengel 6y ago
  The GP said "questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion". Sincere questions don't agree or disagree; they request information. Phrased that way it sounds very much like they were pre-supposing an answer. So does their use of "popular" (as if this is merely people agreeing with each other for fun, rather than their best judgment based on expertise) and "opinion" (as if this were merely a guess or an aesthetic preference". Even the capitalization of "Science" seems strange in this context. Plus, there's the way they went from "this professor acted inappropriately" to "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree" [emphasis mine]. It was intended as an example, but it's a big jump to make, and it just happened to be on a topic where people consistently engage in sea-lioning behavior. That's why I suggested that it sounded like sea-lioning to me. I may be wrong: as I said, I'm basing that judgment solely on what I read in that very short description. But there were a lot of red flags in that short description.
  - zepto 6y ago
    > "questions that even remotely disagree with the popular Science opinion" Yes, but we don’t know when they formed that view. Did they hold it before or after the professor scolded them? We accept that the professor scolded them, and that now they hold the view they are asserting. I think it’s just as likely that the professor caused their current view as the other way around. It’s very easy to go from being unfairly scolded by a professor who wrongly views you as dishonest, to then being influenced by the popular idea that "any politically motivated topic you can't ask questions that even remotely disagree". If they didn’t think that before, the professor’s behavior would be a great way to make them think it now, and we simply don’t know how they thought about it before the professor’s action. Even if the poster was sea-lioning, which frankly you cannot know, the professor definitely acted inappropriately in such a way as to engender further distrust, thus failing in their role as a science educator and betraying the authority of their position. Even if the poster worded the question the way it seems - “with red flags”, it is a bad faith act to assume they have ill intent. It’s perfectly possible for someone to be using language they have picked up from popular culture that they haven’t refined, without themselves having bad faith. Plus I don’t accept your position “questions that disagree”, are always bad faith. It’s possible to ask a question that is based on a premise that differs from the assumptions of the person you are questioning. This would imply disagreement in view, but it doesn’t imply bad faith. E.g. “Are there any other sources of carbon emissions other than human industry?” Is there disagreement here? From your view, the answer would be ‘yes’, because the implication is that this is relevant to climate change, which you think it is not. The professor could have simply used the question as an opportunity to teach about scientific thinking. E.g. “It’s a valid question from a geological point of view, but it isn’t relevant to the issue of climate change because there are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution.”
fatsdomino001 6y ago
The answer actually isn't no in this case, because the question was whether any natural phenomemon may also be CONTRIBUTING to CO2 levels, which of course there are countless natural contributors to CO2 levels. So, just be careful because you just fell into the same trap the professor did.
- jfengel 6y ago
  They asked if it was contributing to RISING carbon dioxide levels. To that, the answer is "no". The natural carbon sources and natural carbon sinks have not changed.
6gvONxR4sf7o 6y ago
I disagree so strongly with you that it upsets me to see this. You’re assuming such bad faith here. It’s especially bad when the issue being complained about amounts to “people are so quick to assume bad faith from the most minor things.”
- jfengel 6y ago
  I am not assuming bad faith. I am explaining why it was perceived as bad faith, based on its similarities to other people who have also acted in bad faith. (I go into more detail at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26317788 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26317788.) The fact that there are so many people who act in bad faith means that you will need to be aware of that and take it into account. It has been used as a time-wasting tactic, and people are going to take shortcuts. That is a reality, and the OP must live with it.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  Humans are subject to time constraints in life, and sometimes, assuming bad faith is warranted.
caseysoftware 6y ago
While you may have a valid point, when you reinterpret the GP comment from: > if there were any natural phenomenon that may also be contributing to rising CO2 levels to answering a very different question with: > There are no natural phenomena that coincide precisely with the industrial revolution. You're rephrasing the question in your head, assuming intent, moving directly into ad hominem attacks and scolding, and then excusing the same bad behavior from the professor.