5 ms·

> Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… T

> Which do you think we have more robust data about, Earth or other planets in the solar system? The amount of data has a large impact on Bayesian inference… This is not a question of robustness of data. This is a question of commonalities. If there is significant climate change occurring on other planets, one can infer that there are influences outside of the planet. > What, in your opinion, would be the correct way to measure direct human impact on climate? Well, we can measure water pollution due to run-offs of industrial waste. These measures are well established, obvious, & there is a history of direct evidence & scientific consensus that mercury and pesticide run-off causes problems to the ecosystem & human health. CO2 in the atmosphere & it's direct effects, not so much. There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition. The problem is there is too much money riding on the opinion that CO2 is the #1 existential problem facing humanity so the credible voices in opposition are drowned out on an institutional level. > we didn’t have direct measurement of the Higgs particle and yet we were able to do wonderful things inferring the strength of gravity by other means What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles. This is an atomist bias. Fields are another way of looking at physical reality. For example, our electrical equations are based on fields & can be applied to unify different phenomona. > being, I’m not yet convinced your bar for knowledge is appropriate. If I had $Trillions of wealth, I could easily hire people & even peer groups who have a reasonable "bar of knowledge" & incentivize them to have the "appropriate" opinion; meanwhile push out the non-believers, I mean those who have the "inappropriate" opinion, from key roles while filling those roles with people of "appropriate" opinion. In the meantime, a series of propaganda, I mean PR, campaigns through the various organs that $Trillions could influence would convince you to think "appropriately" as well. My offer still stands... > And my comment is not meant to distract from your point about central government but rather to question the strength of the basis of the claim. On the contrary, I felt your comment was a classic misinformation tactic but I was trying to employ the tack that every downvote deserves a response According to your view, which is biased, any opposition & questioning of Epistemology is considered "misinformation". Yes, do not think outside the narrow confines of your worldview, or it's "misinformation". I bet if you took my offer, gave me $Trillions, you would not think what I say is "misinformation" within at most a couple of years. But. Just. Tax. It. Very credible. Begging the question is "not appropriate", only the tax money is flowing my way...

bumby 5y ago
>This is not a question of robustness of data. Hard disagree. Especially when you double down on the Bayesian part. Robustness of data is directly proportional to the strength of a belief in Bayesian inference. Your point here reads as someone looking for confirmation bias. After finding one “commonality” of data, one can exclaim “Eureka” and not have to confront uncomfortable and conflicting data. That’s not good science. >There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition. A strong claim that should probably be backed up with citations. And balanced against the credibly of data against the claim. Because, after all, science is almost never in 100% agreement. There are still credible scientists who disavow the link between HIV and AIDs; would that be enough for you to roll the dice on that issue? >What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles. Who said I am? Or, for that matter, that I believe fields and particles are mutually exclusive? This is another one of those seemingly purposeful digressions from the actual point of inference and precisely why I thought you were treading the well-worn tracks of misinformation tactics. In a similar vein, you never actually said what your bar for changing your mind is, you just redirected into attempts sowing doubt. So I’ll ask again, more directly: what information would you need to change your mind? My experience is that when people are unable to clearly articulate their position here, it’s because they are overly dogmatic and it almost becomes a faith issue rather than a reasoned one. >In the meantime, a series of propaganda... There's a certain amount of skepticism that is healthy but there is also a tipping point where one becomes so skeptical of everything that it just becomes more convenient to wear a tin-foil hat because one can never be 100% certain. To circle back, I think it's wise to go with the preponderance of data when in doubt and try as hard as we can to resist irrational bias. >According to your view, which is biased... Yes, every human view is biased to a certain extent. That's part of being human. Which is more to the point that it's better to err on the side of the data. Even if it flies in the face of what you want the conclusion to be. I'd encourage anyone to think outside the confines of one's worldview, but that maverick-i-ness doesn't absolve one from needing data to back it up. >But. Just. Tax. Very credible. This was read as a pragmatic argument and I don't find pragmatism to lack credibility. I’m not sure your point here; is your stance that taxes are immoral or illegal? >Begging the question is "not appropriate" (Not really begging the question in the literal sense of the phrase unless I'm failing to see the circular argument related to taxation) Bringing up a question is fine, but it came across more as making a statement without any actual convincing argument or data is not

bumby 5y ago

>This is not a question of robustness of data. Hard disagree. Especially when you double down on the Bayesian part. Robustness of data is directly proportional to the strength of a belief in Bayesian inference. Your point here reads as someone looking for confirmation bias. After finding one “commonality” of data, one can exclaim “Eureka” and not have to confront uncomfortable and conflicting data. That’s not good science. >There has been plenty of credible scientific opposition. A strong claim that should probably be backed up with citations. And balanced against the credibly of data against the claim. Because, after all, science is almost never in 100% agreement. There are still credible scientists who disavow the link between HIV and AIDs; would that be enough for you to roll the dice on that issue? >What makes you so sure that physical reality is composed of particles. Who said I am? Or, for that matter, that I believe fields and particles are mutually exclusive? This is another one of those seemingly purposeful digressions from the actual point of inference and precisely why I thought you were treading the well-worn tracks of misinformation tactics. In a similar vein, you never actually said what your bar for changing your mind is, you just redirected into attempts sowing doubt. So I’ll ask again, more directly: what information would you need to change your mind? My experience is that when people are unable to clearly articulate their position here, it’s because they are overly dogmatic and it almost becomes a faith issue rather than a reasoned one. >In the meantime, a series of propaganda... There's a certain amount of skepticism that is healthy but there is also a tipping point where one becomes so skeptical of everything that it just becomes more convenient to wear a tin-foil hat because one can never be 100% certain. To circle back, I think it's wise to go with the preponderance of data when in doubt and try as hard as we can to resist irrational bias. >According to your view, which is biased... Yes, every human view is biased to a certain extent. That's part of being human. Which is more to the point that it's better to err on the side of the data. Even if it flies in the face of what you want the conclusion to be. I'd encourage anyone to think outside the confines of one's worldview, but that maverick-i-ness doesn't absolve one from needing data to back it up. >But. Just. Tax. Very credible. This was read as a pragmatic argument and I don't find pragmatism to lack credibility. I’m not sure your point here; is your stance that taxes are immoral or illegal? >Begging the question is "not appropriate" (Not really begging the question in the literal sense of the phrase unless I'm failing to see the circular argument related to taxation) Bringing up a question is fine, but it came across more as making a statement without any actual convincing argument or data is not