3 ms·

So Thiel is is uncertain about Darwinian evolution and believes Global warming is too clouded by political correctness to be properly assessed. Discuss. And I

So Thiel is is uncertain about Darwinian evolution and believes Global warming is too clouded by political correctness to be properly assessed. Discuss. And I would extrapolate a third "disruptive" belief: that a quick discussion on a web forum by persons with a vague layman's understanding and absolutely no data beyond links to popular science articles (perhaps some of whom skipped college at Thiel's instigation) believe they can bring insight to these topics. I would imagine anyone knowledgeable enough to discus these issues has left the building, likely to watch the Fonz jump the shark.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago
It is precisely because I don't possess domain expertise about Darwinian evolution and global warming that I take my advice from the people who do have domain expertise, and thus believe in both.
- dnautics 11y ago
  How do you decide what expertise is? This sounds suspiciously like, "I'm not going to vote for candidate X because they don't have political experience" where political experience for the other candidate is basically lower-level government riddled with corruption, horse-chasing, and cronyism, because voters don't give a damn about who their votes go to in lower-level elections. In other words, if you aren't thinking about it, then you shouldn't abdicate your moral responsibility so facilely like that.
  - eli_gottlieb 11y ago
    >How do you decide what expertise is? I do have expertise in some small amount of things myself, so I can recognize it in others. An easy heuristic is: the ability to make detailed predictions, and to specify where and why one is able to make detailed predictions.
    - dnautics 11y ago
      ok, so how do the IPCC 1996 predictions stack up to how the climate has changed in the last 20 years?
      - whybroke 11y ago
        Are you referring to misinterpreted cherry picked notions promulgated briefly by fox news and a congressman from Oklahoma? Because decades of research by countless independent teams has not been invalidated by data and methods so poor they aren't extensively acknowledged in peer reviewed journals. If you think that process is corrupt, have you ever looked at the actual data and methods yourself? If we are dismissing peer review then show us that data and how you came to your conclusions. The story you refer to was created by those philosophically upset by climate change and is in the form "we can't tell if it warmer in this cherry picked area therefore climate change is false" then cloaked that story in jargon. It is identical to the argument used by less bright conservatives "there was snow on tv in Peoria therefore climate change is fake" The disappointing thing here is that people who could genuinely to look into climate change if they were honestly interested don't and instead choose to convince themselves of blatantly false views from biased media outlets for ideologically reasons. If there were knowledgeable people here, this has certainly chased them off in the same way there are no evolutionary biologists chatting on fundamentalists websites.
  - whybroke 11y ago
    There is a difference between opinion eg "taxation is theft" and well established facts eg natural selection. But maybe you are saying that papers on climate change in peer reviewed journals are only there due to cronyism and corruption. That the theory of evolution has come to prominence mainly do to that too. I imagine many have not heard the extent of this conspiracy. Perhaps there is a quote from Thiel about it. I also understand climate change posses the same threat to laissez-faire capitalism theories as Darwin did to bible literalists and that is why it is such a visceral topic.
- whybroke 11y ago
  The problem others have is that a successful business man is so fetishized that he is treated as an expert in every field (eg Elon Musk views on A.I.) particularly by those who already fetishize property. Add to that a dose of standard populist social conservatism and, for a certain group, we have a hero who's every word is worth listening to. If Thiel were homeless no-one would be suggesting we debate his "philosophy" I believe they genuinely can not tell the difference between a domain expert and a random post on the web. They will not have herd of peer review let alone read journals such as Nature.

eli_gottlieb 11y ago

It is precisely because I don't possess domain expertise about Darwinian evolution and global warming that I take my advice from the people who do have domain expertise, and thus believe in both.

dnautics 11y ago
How do you decide what expertise is? This sounds suspiciously like, "I'm not going to vote for candidate X because they don't have political experience" where political experience for the other candidate is basically lower-level government riddled with corruption, horse-chasing, and cronyism, because voters don't give a damn about who their votes go to in lower-level elections. In other words, if you aren't thinking about it, then you shouldn't abdicate your moral responsibility so facilely like that.
- eli_gottlieb 11y ago
  >How do you decide what expertise is? I do have expertise in some small amount of things myself, so I can recognize it in others. An easy heuristic is: the ability to make detailed predictions, and to specify where and why one is able to make detailed predictions.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    ok, so how do the IPCC 1996 predictions stack up to how the climate has changed in the last 20 years?
    - whybroke 11y ago
      Are you referring to misinterpreted cherry picked notions promulgated briefly by fox news and a congressman from Oklahoma? Because decades of research by countless independent teams has not been invalidated by data and methods so poor they aren't extensively acknowledged in peer reviewed journals. If you think that process is corrupt, have you ever looked at the actual data and methods yourself? If we are dismissing peer review then show us that data and how you came to your conclusions. The story you refer to was created by those philosophically upset by climate change and is in the form "we can't tell if it warmer in this cherry picked area therefore climate change is false" then cloaked that story in jargon. It is identical to the argument used by less bright conservatives "there was snow on tv in Peoria therefore climate change is fake" The disappointing thing here is that people who could genuinely to look into climate change if they were honestly interested don't and instead choose to convince themselves of blatantly false views from biased media outlets for ideologically reasons. If there were knowledgeable people here, this has certainly chased them off in the same way there are no evolutionary biologists chatting on fundamentalists websites.
- whybroke 11y ago
  There is a difference between opinion eg "taxation is theft" and well established facts eg natural selection. But maybe you are saying that papers on climate change in peer reviewed journals are only there due to cronyism and corruption. That the theory of evolution has come to prominence mainly do to that too. I imagine many have not heard the extent of this conspiracy. Perhaps there is a quote from Thiel about it. I also understand climate change posses the same threat to laissez-faire capitalism theories as Darwin did to bible literalists and that is why it is such a visceral topic.
whybroke 11y ago
The problem others have is that a successful business man is so fetishized that he is treated as an expert in every field (eg Elon Musk views on A.I.) particularly by those who already fetishize property. Add to that a dose of standard populist social conservatism and, for a certain group, we have a hero who's every word is worth listening to. If Thiel were homeless no-one would be suggesting we debate his "philosophy" I believe they genuinely can not tell the difference between a domain expert and a random post on the web. They will not have herd of peer review let alone read journals such as Nature.