8 ms·

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major su

by zeteo 13y ago

You may be too emotionally committed to listen to any skepticism, but for whatever it's worth: 1. Your language ("sin", "evil", "believe") indicates a major subjective component in what you're saying. As with everything subjective, you're probably aware that it's not provable with cold facts and logic, and it might justifiably be rejected by others' own subjectivity and take on facts. 2. A pervading feeling that the world is going to hell in a handbasket has proven seductive many times in history. Does any of this sound familiar: "[They] claim that the current society and its rulers are corrupt, unjust, or otherwise wrong. They therefore believe they will be destroyed soon by a powerful force. The harmful nature of the status quo is considered intractable without the anticipated dramatic change" Such world views have occurred often enough that there's a consecrated term for them: [1]. Sure, the different groups that held such beliefs differed from you in how they thought it would come to pass. But they differed from each other as well. 3. There's nothing necessarily theistic about millenarian beliefs. ("Official" churches have more often than not fought against them [3].) E.g. a lot of people in the 60s thought the apocalypse was due within two decades due to overpopulation. 4. Climate models have a simple, persuasive logic behind them. But that doesn't make them necessarily right. Malthusianism also had a seemingly bulletproof logic, yet the facts did not keep pace with it [4]. When the climate models turn out lacking precision [5], they also lose the force of scientific certainty. All we're left with is "the world is warming, we can't say how fast"; which is, of course, not a falsifiable belief [6]. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism#Theology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millenarianism#Theology [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bomb [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Reformation_and_beyond http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennialism#Reformation_and_b... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager [5] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/08/28/la-nina-behind-gentler-global-warming-study-finds/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

graeme 13y ago
Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individually. We can't be certain about the future, but it seems like a fallacy to say that therefore worry is unjustified and Manichean. From my read of the evidence we've never faced a situation so objectively dire.
- indefatigable 13y ago
  What situation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic ocean acidification?
  - snowwrestler 13y ago
    Those are not two theories; they are more like complimentary consequences. The ocean absorbs excess CO2 from the atmosphere. If it absorbs it as fast as we produce it, there will not be any warming, but a lot of acidification. If it absorbs it much more slowly, then there will be a lot of warming but little acidification. The truth is somewhere in between.
    - waps 13y ago
      What I don't get is the other part of this statement. Acids, by definition, contain chemical energy that can be harvested by life. What is the basis for the assumption that any ocean acidification won't suddenly disappear, because some algae species decided it is now sufficiently widespread and easy to acquire to use it for lunch ?
      - plorkyeran 13y ago
        That is not necessarily any less catastrophic.
        waps 13y ago
        The whole reason to do anything about the acidification is that it's "not natural". Nature adapting to changing circumstances is the very definition of what nature is. You can't have it both ways. Plus it won't be catastrophic at all. Some very low-level species, like algae, will adapt by changing their internal chemistry. And because we eat them (through intermediaries) we will have effectively adapted too. And don't you believe in evolution ? If this doesn't happen, then we die, and in that case we should die. The whole point of creation is that it adapts to these sort of things. Adapt or die. Works on a large scale as well as a small one.
patcon 13y ago
I find it unfortunate that rationalists are not really allowed to get as angry and emotional as their "opponents". Those on the other side of the debate get to, in their ignorance, harp about the human side of their view on economics, or the spiritual side of certain societal decisions. Rationalists are allowed to get emotional, and it's not a detriment to their cause when they do. While not every rationalist will, we need emotional people to make emotional responses, or we lose ground in these debates. We don't need to be calculated about it, but we shouldn't scorn it -- that's all. Not picking on you, OP -- just expressing a gripe that I have.
- zeteo 13y ago
  Rationalism is more about mental hygiene than any specific beliefs. I don't think it precludes emotion, but it definitely involves being aware of how undisciplined emotion can drive you away from actual truth: confirmation bias, tribalism etc. You can have rationalists on both sides of a debate, and I actually think society benefits a lot from such discussion. After all, each side is usually wrong about some things.
  - RodericDay 13y ago
    this is just too much http://plover.net/~bonds/positivism.html http://plover.net/~bonds/positivism.html take this not as gospel, but as a starting point
    - waps 13y ago
      Positivism does not allow one to take statistical evidence as proof (because it's not, mathematically speaking). From wikipedia's definition: Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge. Verified data received from the senses are known as empirical evidence. Does global warming evidence satisfy the absolute standard of "empirical evidence" ? Well empirical evidence requires that data be produced according to the following process : 1) hypothesize 2) produce an experiment 3) accept/reject hypothesis (and goto 1, if possible) Obviously experiments verifying global warming, or any significant part of climate theory are not possible, since we only have one earth and we can't quite produce another one with different levels. Nor are we allowed to assume that past data sufficiently isolates the factor being experimented with. Even if that were true, it is not possible to directly observe global warming without introducing potentially incorrect (or known incorrect) assumptions, like the central limit theorem. A positivist would reject global warming, insisting only that we don't know, and that we can't know, because it's impossible to produce empirical evidence indicating either way. Since we don't even have direct measurements of the world getting warmer, only statistical proof, a positivist wouldn't even agree the world is warmer now than 100 years ago. This sort of thing is why positivism was rejected as a viable philosophy. As your article described, this happened in programming, by the rejection of pure functional programming. But it also happened in science. The only remaining sciences that use positivism as a test of truth is first-order logic. Even second-order logic requires a less stringent standard.
cscurmudgeon 13y ago
So is being subjective objectively bad? Or is subjectiveness being bad just subjectively bad. If it is the latter, then your first point can be thrown away. If it is the former, your first point can be throw away, as there seem to be objective things which are bad.

by zeteo 13y ago

graeme 13y ago

Why do you say it's not falsifiable to say the world is warming? We can measure temperature over time, as well as factors such as net energy entering the atmosphere. (I can't find the source for the last one, but remember James Hanson mentioning it. Anyone know what I'm referring to) Similarly, a factor such as carbonization of the oceans is very falsifiable. And experiments can measure the impacts on species individually. We can't be certain about the future, but it seems like a fallacy to say that therefore worry is unjustified and Manichean. From my read of the evidence we've never faced a situation so objectively dire.

indefatigable 13y ago
What situation would falsify the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming? Or the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic ocean acidification?
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  Those are not two theories; they are more like complimentary consequences. The ocean absorbs excess CO2 from the atmosphere. If it absorbs it as fast as we produce it, there will not be any warming, but a lot of acidification. If it absorbs it much more slowly, then there will be a lot of warming but little acidification. The truth is somewhere in between.
  - waps 13y ago
    What I don't get is the other part of this statement. Acids, by definition, contain chemical energy that can be harvested by life. What is the basis for the assumption that any ocean acidification won't suddenly disappear, because some algae species decided it is now sufficiently widespread and easy to acquire to use it for lunch ?
    - plorkyeran 13y ago
      That is not necessarily any less catastrophic.
      - waps 13y ago
        The whole reason to do anything about the acidification is that it's "not natural". Nature adapting to changing circumstances is the very definition of what nature is. You can't have it both ways. Plus it won't be catastrophic at all. Some very low-level species, like algae, will adapt by changing their internal chemistry. And because we eat them (through intermediaries) we will have effectively adapted too. And don't you believe in evolution ? If this doesn't happen, then we die, and in that case we should die. The whole point of creation is that it adapts to these sort of things. Adapt or die. Works on a large scale as well as a small one.

patcon 13y ago

I find it unfortunate that rationalists are not really allowed to get as angry and emotional as their "opponents". Those on the other side of the debate get to, in their ignorance, harp about the human side of their view on economics, or the spiritual side of certain societal decisions. Rationalists are allowed to get emotional, and it's not a detriment to their cause when they do. While not every rationalist will, we need emotional people to make emotional responses, or we lose ground in these debates. We don't need to be calculated about it, but we shouldn't scorn it -- that's all. Not picking on you, OP -- just expressing a gripe that I have.

zeteo 13y ago
Rationalism is more about mental hygiene than any specific beliefs. I don't think it precludes emotion, but it definitely involves being aware of how undisciplined emotion can drive you away from actual truth: confirmation bias, tribalism etc. You can have rationalists on both sides of a debate, and I actually think society benefits a lot from such discussion. After all, each side is usually wrong about some things.
- RodericDay 13y ago
  this is just too much http://plover.net/~bonds/positivism.html http://plover.net/~bonds/positivism.html take this not as gospel, but as a starting point
  - waps 13y ago
    Positivism does not allow one to take statistical evidence as proof (because it's not, mathematically speaking). From wikipedia's definition: Positivism is a philosophy of science based on the view that information derived from logical and mathematical treatments and reports of sensory experience is the exclusive source of all authoritative knowledge, and that there is valid knowledge (truth) only in scientific knowledge. Verified data received from the senses are known as empirical evidence. Does global warming evidence satisfy the absolute standard of "empirical evidence" ? Well empirical evidence requires that data be produced according to the following process : 1) hypothesize 2) produce an experiment 3) accept/reject hypothesis (and goto 1, if possible) Obviously experiments verifying global warming, or any significant part of climate theory are not possible, since we only have one earth and we can't quite produce another one with different levels. Nor are we allowed to assume that past data sufficiently isolates the factor being experimented with. Even if that were true, it is not possible to directly observe global warming without introducing potentially incorrect (or known incorrect) assumptions, like the central limit theorem. A positivist would reject global warming, insisting only that we don't know, and that we can't know, because it's impossible to produce empirical evidence indicating either way. Since we don't even have direct measurements of the world getting warmer, only statistical proof, a positivist wouldn't even agree the world is warmer now than 100 years ago. This sort of thing is why positivism was rejected as a viable philosophy. As your article described, this happened in programming, by the rejection of pure functional programming. But it also happened in science. The only remaining sciences that use positivism as a test of truth is first-order logic. Even second-order logic requires a less stringent standard.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

So is being subjective objectively bad? Or is subjectiveness being bad just subjectively bad. If it is the latter, then your first point can be thrown away. If it is the former, your first point can be throw away, as there seem to be objective things which are bad.