4 ms·

Luckily he doesn't need to. We can see the data for ourselves and draw our own conclusions about what it means. Unless... you believe that only certain experts

Luckily he doesn't need to. We can see the data for ourselves and draw our own conclusions about what it means. Unless... you believe that only certain experts are able to understand what a chart about extreme weather events means?

synetic 3y ago
I’ve taught mathematics at the college level for over 20 years. The vast majority of the people can not draw proper conclusions from the charts without some coursework. Most people, including myself, don’t know enough statistics to know whether or not the data presented is statistically significant. This is particularly true since I’m not well enough versed in the field of climate science to know if the data has been cherry picked or if the presentation is in some other way deceptive. A person with training in climate science could easily write an essay that sounds plausible to me that is entirely deceptive and easily debunked by experts. I wouldn’t know because I don’t know enough about climate science. Long ago Freakonimics wrote that arctic ice had grown the past few years. They didn’t let their readers know about time series statistics and this information was completely deceptive. People are easily duped. Just look at all the morons who are now anti-vax. Yes, I need to rely on the consensus expert opinion in areas I have no training in.
- bitshiftfaced 3y ago
  It's one thing to value intellectual humility and be able to say "I don't know enough about this." I believe we should listen to the content of what an expert has found and think about the evidence and reasoning that they provide. But what you're describing sounds incompatible with the spirit of human curiosity. No one is saying that the average Joe will have a better understanding of the truth than a PhD researcher, but there's nothing wrong with Joe trying to understand the evidence for himself. Denying people the right to think for themselves, even if they come to the wrong conclusion, is paternalistic and anti-science in my view.
  - synetic 3y ago
    You read into what I wrote what isn’t there. I just pointed out, in my original comment, that the person who wrote the article may not be a qualified source of information. Everyone should be curious and also be discerning on who it is they get their information from. We have a lot of people in the U.S. who know nothing about microbiology, virology, medicine thinking they did the research because they read articles from quacks. They think that by reading enough words that this constitutes doing the research. My retort to you was, in essence, to say that most of us aren’t qualified to decide for ourselves simply because a bunch of charts were given in the article.

synetic 3y ago

I’ve taught mathematics at the college level for over 20 years. The vast majority of the people can not draw proper conclusions from the charts without some coursework. Most people, including myself, don’t know enough statistics to know whether or not the data presented is statistically significant. This is particularly true since I’m not well enough versed in the field of climate science to know if the data has been cherry picked or if the presentation is in some other way deceptive. A person with training in climate science could easily write an essay that sounds plausible to me that is entirely deceptive and easily debunked by experts. I wouldn’t know because I don’t know enough about climate science. Long ago Freakonimics wrote that arctic ice had grown the past few years. They didn’t let their readers know about time series statistics and this information was completely deceptive. People are easily duped. Just look at all the morons who are now anti-vax. Yes, I need to rely on the consensus expert opinion in areas I have no training in.

bitshiftfaced 3y ago
It's one thing to value intellectual humility and be able to say "I don't know enough about this." I believe we should listen to the content of what an expert has found and think about the evidence and reasoning that they provide. But what you're describing sounds incompatible with the spirit of human curiosity. No one is saying that the average Joe will have a better understanding of the truth than a PhD researcher, but there's nothing wrong with Joe trying to understand the evidence for himself. Denying people the right to think for themselves, even if they come to the wrong conclusion, is paternalistic and anti-science in my view.
- synetic 3y ago
  You read into what I wrote what isn’t there. I just pointed out, in my original comment, that the person who wrote the article may not be a qualified source of information. Everyone should be curious and also be discerning on who it is they get their information from. We have a lot of people in the U.S. who know nothing about microbiology, virology, medicine thinking they did the research because they read articles from quacks. They think that by reading enough words that this constitutes doing the research. My retort to you was, in essence, to say that most of us aren’t qualified to decide for ourselves simply because a bunch of charts were given in the article.