4 ms·
We often exhort the public to “follow the science” — but provide no tools to distinguish between good science and bad science. Heck, it looks like even journals
by ssivark 5y ago
We often exhort the public to “follow the science” — but provide no tools to distinguish between good science and bad science. Heck, it looks like even journals and expert reviewers can’t differentiate any more!
The average person is as likely to be convinced by this as any IPCC report. Since the “science” seems “equally strong” on “both sides”, people will just end up picking whatever resonates with their tribe.
See https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learned-helplessness/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/03/repost-epistemic-learn...
Is there a way forward, other than telling people to trust certain experts and distrust others? That fundamentally reduces all debate to a mud fight.
PS: I think this is an important issue worth addressing directly -- with concrete examples -- rather than flagging the link to "sanitize" the front page.
- garmaine 5y agoWhat he’s saying largely doesn’t contradict the IPCC report. He’s fighting climate alarmism, not the idea of climate change itself.
- polotics 5y agoI disagree. This is full of very oriented stuff. The new climate denialism is climate adaptationism. Focus on carrying on with business as usual; until New Zealand's full I guess.
- garmaine 5y agoMichael Shellenberger is not a "business as usual" do-nothing denier. This guy's mission has been to push for clean energy solutions (renewable with nuclear base load) and GMO crops to get higher-density, more nutritious food sources. He wants to solve environmental challenges without sacrificing quality of life or condemning the poorest billions to perpetual poverty. This is not the do-nothing "burn coal and export corn" denialism of the Koch brothers et al.