4 ms·

> They'd rather just ban the people who disagree with them than address them in debate. The anti-vaccine crowd doesn't engage in a fair debate, because they do

> They'd rather just ban the people who disagree with them than address them in debate. The anti-vaccine crowd doesn't engage in a fair debate, because they don't understand the rules/parameters of a debate or in some cases because they're not interested in a fair debate.

commandlinefan 5y ago
Climate change skeptics will talk your ear off about why climate change is a hoax - you literally can't get them to stop telling why you should make no change whatsoever to your life. Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. That observation alone makes the skeptics look more compelling.
- JadeNB 5y ago
  > Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. I think this simply isn't true. Am I, personally, out there evangelizing for a greener life style? Absolutely not. But are there people out there doing so? Well, yes, to the extent that it becomes a comic trope among climate-change denialists (who are having a harder and harder time in the face of the increasingly evident reality of climate change). Think, for example, of all the hate for Greta Thunberg. I think it's just easier to remember vocal denialism—one can always shout "no" louder—than to remember the quieter and, frankly, boring recital of the same evidence.
  - mistermann 5y ago
    > I think this simply isn't true. It isn't, of course, something that is easily realizable through simple logic. And yet, so many genuinely smart people make this mistake - what could be going on? Of course, it is "a logical fallacy" of some kind, and most people seem more than content to point out their favorite and leave it at that. But a problem is: people keep doing it. In this case, what I think is going on is (for lack of a better term) "subconscious tautological categorization". They start by committing a standard logical fallacy (I'm not sure which one his would be), but when their attention is drawn to that fact (not all people behave like that), they ~pivot to something like "yes of course, I know that, I was just speaking loosely, you know what I mean don't be pedantic, etc etc etc". But what they are ultimately relying upon (once their conscious, logical mind has had its attention focuses on their error), is tautological, or by definition categorization: the people that they are referring to is limited to only the people that do those things - which is, of course, correct. But what they don't notice is, it kind of takes the wind out of their argument, as they are essentially saying "some people (they will not say specifically who, or how many (in percentage terms), or describe a predictive model of any kind) do bad things". While this observation is literally true, it doesn't seem to be very important/useful to know, presumably less important than they had in mind when initially making the comment. I often wonder what the world would be like if people were as concerned with meta-cognition as they were with (for example) their physical appearance. My intuition suggests the world would be a very different place, considering that the world largely runs on top of human cognition. And this is just one example of the various funny ways in which people think, there are many others (like the percentage of even intelligent people's perception of reality that is based on their imagination). I think the reason no one notices is that it's just a constant in the environment, it's completely normal, it is The Water that we live in, similar to how we typically do not have conscious awareness of our breathing, or the background noise of a city, or the millions of other things going on around us that is filtered out by our consciousness. But a problem is: some things that the consciousness filters out might actually be very important, and the only way I can think of to deal with this problem is try to bring some people's conscious attention to the phenomenon/idea (although, it would be nice if there was a way to scale it up beyond making individual forum comments here and there - if anyone has any ideas on that or related ideas, please let me know).
- watwut 5y ago
  > Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. Oddly, I heard ton about those. I heard about climate change over 20 years ago and did not stopped periodically hearing about it. They haven't talked about electric cars and straws back then tho. The big topic used to be industrial pollution and opposition to those regulation is serious source of climate change skepticism. But as of now electric cars are subject of talk quite a lot, so are consumer lifestyle changes. There was mania around straws, tho I found that one unconvincing.
- tzs 5y ago
  https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-eviden... https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/weather-shows-evidence-of-climate-change-every-single-day-since-2012 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/weather-s... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/... https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-cha... https://www.myclimate.org/information/faq/faq-detail/what-are-the-effects-of-climate-change/ https://www.myclimate.org/information/faq/faq-detail/what-ar... https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/implications-climate-change https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/implications-climate-change https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change
  - commandlinefan 5y ago
    This is much more helpful and constructive than a downvote or a ban. Going through it now.

commandlinefan 5y ago

Climate change skeptics will talk your ear off about why climate change is a hoax - you literally can't get them to stop telling why you should make no change whatsoever to your life. Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. That observation alone makes the skeptics look more compelling.

JadeNB 5y ago
> Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. I think this simply isn't true. Am I, personally, out there evangelizing for a greener life style? Absolutely not. But are there people out there doing so? Well, yes, to the extent that it becomes a comic trope among climate-change denialists (who are having a harder and harder time in the face of the increasingly evident reality of climate change). Think, for example, of all the hate for Greta Thunberg. I think it's just easier to remember vocal denialism—one can always shout "no" louder—than to remember the quieter and, frankly, boring recital of the same evidence.
- mistermann 5y ago
  > I think this simply isn't true. It isn't, of course, something that is easily realizable through simple logic. And yet, so many genuinely smart people make this mistake - what could be going on? Of course, it is "a logical fallacy" of some kind, and most people seem more than content to point out their favorite and leave it at that. But a problem is: people keep doing it. In this case, what I think is going on is (for lack of a better term) "subconscious tautological categorization". They start by committing a standard logical fallacy (I'm not sure which one his would be), but when their attention is drawn to that fact (not all people behave like that), they ~pivot to something like "yes of course, I know that, I was just speaking loosely, you know what I mean don't be pedantic, etc etc etc". But what they are ultimately relying upon (once their conscious, logical mind has had its attention focuses on their error), is tautological, or by definition categorization: the people that they are referring to is limited to only the people that do those things - which is, of course, correct. But what they don't notice is, it kind of takes the wind out of their argument, as they are essentially saying "some people (they will not say specifically who, or how many (in percentage terms), or describe a predictive model of any kind) do bad things". While this observation is literally true, it doesn't seem to be very important/useful to know, presumably less important than they had in mind when initially making the comment. I often wonder what the world would be like if people were as concerned with meta-cognition as they were with (for example) their physical appearance. My intuition suggests the world would be a very different place, considering that the world largely runs on top of human cognition. And this is just one example of the various funny ways in which people think, there are many others (like the percentage of even intelligent people's perception of reality that is based on their imagination). I think the reason no one notices is that it's just a constant in the environment, it's completely normal, it is The Water that we live in, similar to how we typically do not have conscious awareness of our breathing, or the background noise of a city, or the millions of other things going on around us that is filtered out by our consciousness. But a problem is: some things that the consciousness filters out might actually be very important, and the only way I can think of to deal with this problem is try to bring some people's conscious attention to the phenomenon/idea (although, it would be nice if there was a way to scale it up beyond making individual forum comments here and there - if anyone has any ideas on that or related ideas, please let me know).
watwut 5y ago
> Climate change true believers, on the other hand, refuse to waste even one single word convincing the rest of us as to why we should all drive electric cars, stop using straws, and not run our air conditioners in the summers - things which, if they're serious, are necessary to ensure the survival of the species. Oddly, I heard ton about those. I heard about climate change over 20 years ago and did not stopped periodically hearing about it. They haven't talked about electric cars and straws back then tho. The big topic used to be industrial pollution and opposition to those regulation is serious source of climate change skepticism. But as of now electric cars are subject of talk quite a lot, so are consumer lifestyle changes. There was mania around straws, tho I found that one unconvincing.
tzs 5y ago
https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/basics-of-climate-change/ https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-chan... https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-evidence-exists-earth-warming-and-humans-are-main-cause https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/what-eviden... https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warming-faq.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/climate-change-global-warmin... https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/weather-shows-evidence-of-climate-change-every-single-day-since-2012 https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/weather-s... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995507/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/ https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en https://ec.europa.eu/clima/change/consequences_en https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/climate-change-impacts https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/climate/... https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-change https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/effects-of-climate-cha... https://www.myclimate.org/information/faq/faq-detail/what-are-the-effects-of-climate-change/ https://www.myclimate.org/information/faq/faq-detail/what-ar... https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts https://www.ucsusa.org/climate/impacts https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/implications-climate-change https://www.epa.gov/arc-x/implications-climate-change https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change https://www.wwf.org.uk/learn/effects-of/climate-change
- commandlinefan 5y ago
  This is much more helpful and constructive than a downvote or a ban. Going through it now.