3 ms·
> Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.” Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with
by palata 2y ago
> Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb.”
Not at all, but that's the thing: it's very difficult to have a discussion with people who reason like you. Because you can believe something does not make it right. Saying "my sources are different" is just a way to justify your beliefs. "Well, I believe in some people, you believe in others, that makes us equal". That's how people like Trump get elected. He keeps saying everything and its contrary, and people just believe in him. Where all the facts suggest that he is a dangerous (yet charismatic) moron.
The scientific way to approach it is this: "There is a large consensus about X. I don't know much about X, so I could believe Y and Z. I want to get informed, so I need to read and understand X (not Y and Z, not yet). Once I do understand X, I can start to question it by reading about Y and Z". You'll find that usually, after you have some reasonable understanding of this large consensus, Y and Z usually are at least less consistent, usually vague, generally believed by people who don't have much knowledge about X.
I am not saying that you need to have 3 postdocs in X to give an opinion. But you have to make the difference between scientific consensus and beliefs. And if you want to change the scientific consensus, you have to be pretty damn well informed, you can't just repeat Y and Z because you read it on some social network.
Now I get your next answer: I'm just a nobody on the Internet, why would you believe me instead of Trump? But again, I don't need you to trust me. I need you to do your due diligence and read about the scientific consensus before you feel entitled to say "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". And now you say: "and why do you think you're right?". I studied environmental chemistry, and I can tell you that the consensus is goddamn consistent, whereas the climate denier claims are systematically uninformed.
- subjectsigma 2y agoWhy are you bringing up Trump and climate denial when I've already said that I think climate change, extinctions, and other environmental damage is caused by humans and that we need to take action to fix it? Who are you arguing with?
- palata 2y agoThis thread is following: > I really feel humans think they change way more than they do. Which was a response to me saying that humans make the conditions worse for all species. It is literally denial of our responsibility in the climate change and current mass extinction. The author of that comment also said: "Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior", which is explicit denial. You came to defend that point by saying "Ah, the classic “Anyone smart thinks exactly like I do, so you must be dumb"". So my answer is explaining to you how I don't think this is the classic "anyone smart thinks exactly like I do so you must be dumb". Maybe you are not clear with the position you were defending?
- subjectsigma 2y ago> Let me be clear: the climate IS changing, I just doubt that it's mostly caused, or potentially solved by, human behavior Oh, I didn’t see that comment, he made it lower down. I disagree with that. But I wasn’t defending that, I was replying to his original comment, which was completely reasonable
- palata 2y agoDenying that we make the conditions worse for other species, in a context where we explicitly talk about biodiversity loss and climate change, is not reasonable. It's denial.