6 ms·

I think Adams is very wrong here. I'm sympathetic to his reasoning, since I have followed nutrition closely for the last twenty years, and believe the scientif

I think Adams is very wrong here. I'm sympathetic to his reasoning, since I have followed nutrition closely for the last twenty years, and believe the scientific/media consensus to be much as he described, and even worse than that occasionally, where people who should know better (a PhD teaching a class on nutrition in a community college) claim things that are both factually and obviously wrong ("Low carb diets are bad because the brain can only metabolize glucose" which has been known false for at least 50 years and probably more.) Cynicism, in some cases, is warranted. That said, I think Adams is letting people off _way_ too easily. You will notice that when people refuse to believe a scientific position they are always (surprise!) advocating a different position more advantageous to themselves, that will not inconvenience them and that does not reflect badly on them or on those with whom they affiliate. They deny climate science not because the poor wounded souls have had their hearts broken too many times, but because the implication is that their lifestyle decisions are having adverse effects on the world, and addressing those adverse effects will be costly; and because (this is important) because the idea of faggy liberal scientists telling them they're living wrong is too much to take. It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the mirror and see a possible problem there. (And the aforementioned affiliatory thing about faggy liberals.)

msandford 12y ago
>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the mirror and see a possible problem there. Way to character assassinate man! Bravo! This "If you don't agree with me you must be an idiot" kind of mentality does little to address the reality of the world, and rather than advancing science, hinders it. I'm a bit skeptical of global warming, anthropogenic climate change, etc not because I want to bury my head in the sand, but because from my point of view there's a HUGE echo chamber. I've read tons of papers which all basically confirm the theory but precious little which tries to look for alternative explanations. That feels awfully similar to the whole "fat is bad for you" advice from the medical community and thus, I think Adams isn't too far off base. For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-hea... That's a substantial part of the theory to be missing and yet still proclaim that the original theory was totally great and not problematic at all. Like you said: Cynicism, in some cases, is warranted.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why <<<< The fact that you can't write down a model that predicts an extraordinarily complicated system down to the last detail is a very poor standard of evidence to require. It's the same flavor of argument that Big Tobacco used for all those years to squirm through legal loopholes about whether or not they knew that smoking killed people. I don't follow this literature but I'm not surprised that nobody can explain the handful of 100 year old ladies who smoked their whole lives and are as healthy as horses. The 'can you explain _this_ then???' defense isn't much of a defense when viewed in context.
  - msandford 12y ago
    I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theories; not all of them are right. By your logic that should eliminate all argumentation strategies from all pursuits because all have been used in service of incorrect ideas. Since this is an obviously ridiculous conclusion I would instead assume that your maxim isn't valid. Experts have been wrong in the past and will be again in the future. Economists -- whose sole job it is to understand the economy -- do no better than chance at predicting what will happen to GDP. You're making an appeal to authority and it's not terribly convincing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-better-than-a-random-walk/4499098 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-... The science is largely settled on gravity and we've got an equation that tells us how it works in excruciating detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_o... When climate science reaches that level of predictive ability then it won't be terribly contentious to say that the science is settled. Until then, it may well be.
dragontamer 12y ago
I work with these "creationist idiots" you talk about. And let me tell you something... A creationist engineer codes just as well as a Darwinist engineer. Young Earth creationist nonetheless! He's one of the best students in my class that I've ever seen, extremely good at coding, great at running meetings and organizing people. The fact of the matter is, global warming, pollution, and even creationism / whatever does not affect the typical day-to-day life of many Americans. Similarly, another one of my coworkers doesn't believe in Global Warming. But I wouldn't dare challenge his ability to code. I've debated both of these individuals, and they're far more informed about the debate than the typical evolutionist / pro-global warming sheeple out there as well. They're just IMO, on the wrong side of the argument. I used to think like you, that "these idiots who disagree with me" are dumb, ignorant or something. But if there's anything I learned in life, every viewpoint has their intelligent supporters. I don't think it is right to judge someone else's intelligence based on political views that are well outside of their field of study. The creationist engineer, and the anti-global warming engineer are just two examples of how these issues honestly don't contribute to any of these people's daily lives. They're not dumb. They're just... erm... wrong, or something. Adams takes the correct approach in trying to understand their viewpoint, and realizing that they're just as rational as us. To the Creationists and anti-Global Warming people out there: hey, I still disagree with you. So yeah, I'm gonna call you wrong every time. But I'm not going to insult your intelligence or question your rationality. Hopefully, this disagreement won't prevent us from working together some time in the future.
- shanusmagnus 12y ago
  I wouldn't deny that there are lots of smart people who disagree with me on certain foundational issues. I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. And if smart people are acting in an idiotic manner, the fact that they have mental horsepower to do better is actually worse.
  - dragontamer 12y ago
    I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. Of course, the typical person is dumb. Similarly, the typical evolutionist and typical global-warming guy or pro-vaccines is also dumb. They just happen to be correct on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything #%$#. 90% of creationists are dumb, for the same reason that 90% of the population in general (including evolutionists) are dumb. Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. Carbon Dating has a maximum effectivity of a few thousand years, not really long enough to be on the scale of evolutionary changes. Simple geological facts, for depth of fossils and such can also be contested, and the typical pro-evolution person out there will be lost in the argument. Despite being on the correct side of the debate, pro-evolutionists typically can't argue their way out of a paper-bag. But this is true in general, very few people have decent debate skills. And thats what makes "intelligent people with wrong worldviews" so dangerous. They win every argument in colloquial settings, because they're pretty smart and can win debates even when the facts are tilted against their favor. The realization that I myself might be one such person is not lost upon me of course. I generally win debates online, in person and such. But after years of experience, I've learned that this isn't because I'm correct... its because I am a decent debater. And everyone who posts in online discussions tends to be an above-average debater. We constantly debate each other and organize our own (and each other's) thoughts.
shanusmagnus 12y ago
To anyone who may visit from the future: I feel bad about this post but can no longer edit it. I believe in the content (that a lot of anti-science beliefs and political positions are due to a combination of self-interest, cowardice, and laziness.) Those are confrontational things to say, but there's a difference between confrontational and being a jerk. It felt briefly good to be a jerk, but that's worn off now. This lapse is especially annoying since another thing I believe in is civility [1]. Anyway, sorry. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851206

msandford 12y ago

>It is not an accident that the vocal opponents of things like climate change, global warming, animals welfare, pollution, etc., are the same folks who are 100% convinced that they sometimes get personal messages from angels. Their idiotic worldviews do not arise as a result of Bayesian discounting based on having received bad advice, but from intellectual laziness and an inability (or unwillingness) to look in the mirror and see a possible problem there. Way to character assassinate man! Bravo! This "If you don't agree with me you must be an idiot" kind of mentality does little to address the reality of the world, and rather than advancing science, hinders it. I'm a bit skeptical of global warming, anthropogenic climate change, etc not because I want to bury my head in the sand, but because from my point of view there's a HUGE echo chamber. I've read tons of papers which all basically confirm the theory but precious little which tries to look for alternative explanations. That feels awfully similar to the whole "fat is bad for you" advice from the medical community and thus, I think Adams isn't too far off base. For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-heat-and-slowed-pace-of-global-warming/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/oceans-hid-the-hea... That's a substantial part of the theory to be missing and yet still proclaim that the original theory was totally great and not problematic at all. Like you said: Cynicism, in some cases, is warranted.

shanusmagnus 12y ago
First, I'd never say that not agreeing with me makes anyone an idiot. Not agreeing with thousands of people from around the world whose entire professional lives revolve around investigating these very issues, though, requires a higher standard of evidence than your steely gaze and good old horse sense. But speaking of standards of evidence: >>>> For example, there was a significant hiatus from warming for the last 10 years or so when there "shouldn't have been" (whatever that means) and it's only recently that some scientists have proven why <<<< The fact that you can't write down a model that predicts an extraordinarily complicated system down to the last detail is a very poor standard of evidence to require. It's the same flavor of argument that Big Tobacco used for all those years to squirm through legal loopholes about whether or not they knew that smoking killed people. I don't follow this literature but I'm not surprised that nobody can explain the handful of 100 year old ladies who smoked their whole lives and are as healthy as horses. The 'can you explain _this_ then???' defense isn't much of a defense when viewed in context.
- msandford 12y ago
  I've heard phrases like "the science is settled" on global warming. If you can't write down a VERY detailed model on global warming, then it seems to me pretty arrogant to suggest that in fact "the science is settled." The fact that "Big Tobacco" hid behind that argument doesn't make it wrong! That kind of thinking isn't terribly sound, all kinds of folks use various argumentation strategies to advance various theories; not all of them are right. By your logic that should eliminate all argumentation strategies from all pursuits because all have been used in service of incorrect ideas. Since this is an obviously ridiculous conclusion I would instead assume that your maxim isn't valid. Experts have been wrong in the past and will be again in the future. Economists -- whose sole job it is to understand the economy -- do no better than chance at predicting what will happen to GDP. You're making an appeal to authority and it's not terribly convincing. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-better-than-a-random-walk/4499098 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-04/economic-forecasts-no-... The science is largely settled on gravity and we've got an equation that tells us how it works in excruciating detail. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_o... When climate science reaches that level of predictive ability then it won't be terribly contentious to say that the science is settled. Until then, it may well be.

dragontamer 12y ago

I work with these "creationist idiots" you talk about. And let me tell you something... A creationist engineer codes just as well as a Darwinist engineer. Young Earth creationist nonetheless! He's one of the best students in my class that I've ever seen, extremely good at coding, great at running meetings and organizing people. The fact of the matter is, global warming, pollution, and even creationism / whatever does not affect the typical day-to-day life of many Americans. Similarly, another one of my coworkers doesn't believe in Global Warming. But I wouldn't dare challenge his ability to code. I've debated both of these individuals, and they're far more informed about the debate than the typical evolutionist / pro-global warming sheeple out there as well. They're just IMO, on the wrong side of the argument. I used to think like you, that "these idiots who disagree with me" are dumb, ignorant or something. But if there's anything I learned in life, every viewpoint has their intelligent supporters. I don't think it is right to judge someone else's intelligence based on political views that are well outside of their field of study. The creationist engineer, and the anti-global warming engineer are just two examples of how these issues honestly don't contribute to any of these people's daily lives. They're not dumb. They're just... erm... wrong, or something. Adams takes the correct approach in trying to understand their viewpoint, and realizing that they're just as rational as us. To the Creationists and anti-Global Warming people out there: hey, I still disagree with you. So yeah, I'm gonna call you wrong every time. But I'm not going to insult your intelligence or question your rationality. Hopefully, this disagreement won't prevent us from working together some time in the future.

shanusmagnus 12y ago
I wouldn't deny that there are lots of smart people who disagree with me on certain foundational issues. I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. And if smart people are acting in an idiotic manner, the fact that they have mental horsepower to do better is actually worse.
- dragontamer 12y ago
  I absolutely deny that the majority of those who do are the 'intelligent supporters' you describe. Of course, the typical person is dumb. Similarly, the typical evolutionist and typical global-warming guy or pro-vaccines is also dumb. They just happen to be correct on the issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law Sturgeon's Law. 90% of everything #%$#. 90% of creationists are dumb, for the same reason that 90% of the population in general (including evolutionists) are dumb. Have you ever argued with your own supporters? Playing the devil's advocate is pretty fun. The typical evolutionist can't even counter-argue against criticisms against Carbon Dating... or other simple fallacious arguments with regards to evolution. Carbon Dating has a maximum effectivity of a few thousand years, not really long enough to be on the scale of evolutionary changes. Simple geological facts, for depth of fossils and such can also be contested, and the typical pro-evolution person out there will be lost in the argument. Despite being on the correct side of the debate, pro-evolutionists typically can't argue their way out of a paper-bag. But this is true in general, very few people have decent debate skills. And thats what makes "intelligent people with wrong worldviews" so dangerous. They win every argument in colloquial settings, because they're pretty smart and can win debates even when the facts are tilted against their favor. The realization that I myself might be one such person is not lost upon me of course. I generally win debates online, in person and such. But after years of experience, I've learned that this isn't because I'm correct... its because I am a decent debater. And everyone who posts in online discussions tends to be an above-average debater. We constantly debate each other and organize our own (and each other's) thoughts.

shanusmagnus 12y ago

To anyone who may visit from the future: I feel bad about this post but can no longer edit it. I believe in the content (that a lot of anti-science beliefs and political positions are due to a combination of self-interest, cowardice, and laziness.) Those are confrontational things to say, but there's a difference between confrontational and being a jerk. It felt briefly good to be a jerk, but that's worn off now. This lapse is especially annoying since another thing I believe in is civility [1]. Anyway, sorry. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851206 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8851206