Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Calling bullshit

callingbullshit.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 287 posts

Re: Calling bullshit

#211

Post by yongjik »

mistermann wrote: post #205
yongjik wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Doc, will I die of liver cancer if I keep drinking?" "Yes, science is very certain on that. You will die." "So, you know everything there is to know about livers or cancers, with complete precision?" "What? Of course not, why would anyone even think that?" "Hah, I thought so, now I won't trust you!"

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter. Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to .

That's like saying you decided to stop trusting doctors about cancers, because you saw a TV reporter talking about chemotherapy and it was clear he didn't know anything about cancer.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest", because I think the mainstream media's position is roughly "If we don't cut out fossil fuel we'll be in deep shit pretty soon (say, before 2100, probably sooner)", and it is a statement I think >90% of climate scientists would agree on.

(Actually, I think many would argue we're in deep shit now. E.g., massive reef death in Australia.)

Re: Calling bullshit

#212

Post by mistermann »

dragonwriter wrote: post #207
mistermann wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case? That unless it is generally accepted (regardless of whether or not it is true) that men are discriminated against based on gender in some situations , that the only other possibility is misogyny? On whether it matters....I had a long conversation on the phone with an old friend yesterday, he is going through a divorce and has so far been bankrupted,…

> You're likely correct, but isn't is a bit sad that this is the case? Are you suggesting: (1) That it is sad that people assess the likely motivations of actors based on their assessment of the facts of the context of those actor's actions in general, or (2) That it is sad in specific that people don't see men as factually being an oppressed group such that lobbying for greater rights for them than they currently is…

It's certainly not one because almost no one I know, even the highly educated, form opinions mostly on "assessing facts".

#2 is closer to it, but it's not completely clear what you mean so I can't say whether I agree or not.

Take for instance:

"Men are an oppressed group: True or False"

To me, that seems to be the question you are asking (pardon me if I'm wrong or putting words in your mouth). To me, that question is worse than useless.

Re: Calling bullshit

#213

Post by E6300 »

mistermann wrote: post #202
E6300 wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean? Does anyone believe that a given scientific theory explains exactly and totally a phenomenon? If they do, that's their problem. Science doesn't claim to have perfect answers. Until we find Laplace's demon, the best we can say is "theory A is better supported by evidence than theory B". If we have nothing better than A, is there any reason not to treat it as true?

The current popular mainstream politically correct stance is that "the science is in and the time for debate is over." That is a fact, and if scientists find it efficient to go about it that way (rather than correct that somewhat incorrect stance), then there will be a small portion of people who will dig their feet in against those sorts of dishonest tactics. And furthermore, some of these people will write convinci…

So a scientist's job is not just to do science, but to, as you put it, police the general public's view of his discipline?

Re: Calling bullshit

#214

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #210
DonHopkins wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat…

Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community? Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments? None of that counts as speech?

First, define "speech", then list the names of highly trained scientists who aren't allowed to speak because they don't fully support the party line.

Re: Calling bullshit

#215

Post by mistermann »

yongjik wrote: post #211
mistermann wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is, the vocal climate change advocates (who do not understand the science) assert that in fact there is no disagreement on the matter. Oh wait, that's not completely true, they say the scientific community is "98% in agreement", but they are dishonest about what exactly the 98% of scientists are agreeing to .

That's like saying you decided to stop trusting doctors about cancers, because you saw a TV reporter talking about chemotherapy and it was clear he didn't know anything about cancer. And I'm not sure what you mean by "dishonest", because I think the mainstream media's position is roughly "If we don't cut out fossil fuel we'll be in deep shit pretty soon (say, before 2100, probably sooner)", and it is a statement I th…

I disagree.

My observation is that the scientific community is making assertions of what is more or less the current understanding of the state of global warming to the best of their knowledge. Advocates and opportunists are taking this and converting it to something like "98% percent of scientists agree that global warming is 100% caused by man and we are absolutely doomed if we do not do something right now." (obviously I am being somewhat hyperbolic.)

So the scientists are observing this and thinking to themselves "What these people are saying is not technically true, but it seems like most likely an effective approach to invoke action amongst the general public, so we'll just keep our mouths shut." It may very well turn out that this is in fact the most pragmatic approach.

What I am saying is, it may turn out that this isn't the most pragmatic approach. Addressing climate change costs money, and lots of it. People generally don't like spending money unless there is a very obvious and more or less immediate benefit. Now imagine a convincing leader comes along who validates this distrust, and can point to legitimate cracks in these assertions (actually, I don't think Trump even had to do this, but don't underestimate the power of YouTube propaganda videos)....you might just find yourself with a president that you never would have imagined could have been elected.

It's interesting in a thread where we're generally talking about the nature of public conversation, where I am actually mostly on the side of believing that man-made climate change is a real thing, but my sense is that most people think (or speak as if at least) I am completely incorrect in the things I say, that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on some of the specifics. It's really quite an extraordinary claim. (iirc, this is one of the big reasons Joel Spolsky quit blogging, he found that he had to qualify every single sentence with multiple sentences of disclaimers, as too many people refused to discuss in an intellectually honest way, always nitpicking individual statements while completely ignoring the spirit of the discussion. Likely putting words in his mouth somewhat, but you get the idea.)

Re: Calling bullshit

#216

Post by DonHopkins »

mistermann wrote: post #208
DonHopkins wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You failed to prove she was "not allowed to speak" by posting a link to a video of her literally SPEAKING in front of Congress. Did somebody interrupt her, and that's the best proof you can come up with of your assertion "There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak." Being highly criticized by your peers is not the same as not being allowed to speak. D…

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking. Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to beh…

You should have made an argument that was literally true in the first place, instead of preemptively disclaiming your argument in the next paragraph.

Don't move the goalposts. Explain and defend your original argument by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking", and listing the names of highly trained scientists who are not allowed to "speak" because they don't support the party line.

Re: Calling bullshit

#217

Post by mistermann »

E6300 wrote: post #213
mistermann wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current popular mainstream politically correct stance is that "the science is in and the time for debate is over." That is a fact, and if scientists find it efficient to go about it that way (rather than correct that somewhat incorrect stance), then there will be a small portion of people who will dig their feet in against those sorts of dishonest tactics. And furthermore, some of these people will write convinci…

So a scientist's job is not just to do science, but to, as you put it, police the general public's view of his discipline?

A scientist can do whatever he/she wants, whether they ok with various people twisting their statements into half truths while remaining silent on the sidelines.

Society as a whole can decide how they want to approach convincing their fellow citizens to act in a certain manner.

Look down your nose at me all you want, but we all have to live with the consequences of how the chosen path plays out. The way it has played out on planet Earth, 2017 A.D. is that Donald Trump has been elected President of the United States. I hope everyone enjoys the ride they helped create.

Re: Calling bullshit

#218

Post by mistermann »

DonHopkins wrote: post #216
mistermann wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that even though I wrote "I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in fact literally prevented from speaking", the main rebuttal to my post is that she isn't literally prevented from speaking. Here, let's try a different approach: would you be willing to admit that in human society there is this behavior where peer pressure is sometimes used to persuade people to beh…

You should have made an argument that was literally true in the first place, instead of preemptively disclaiming your argument in the next paragraph. Don't move the goalposts. Explain and defend your original argument by defining exactly what you mean by "speaking", if not literally "speaking", and listing the names of highly trained scientists who are not allowed to "speak" because they don't support the party line.

The mainstream assertion is that the scientific community is in 98% comprehensive (!) agreement on the matter of climate change, and the time for discussion is over.

My assertion is that this is an untrue statement.

PS: Why didn't you answer my question?

Re: Calling bullshit

#219

Post by mistermann »

yongjik wrote: post #191
mistermann wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Judith Curry https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/ Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist! I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially lying to people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that they know that some of what they are saying is s…

So, what you really mean is: > There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line, and they are invited to congressional hearings, publish books and papers, and keep a personal blog where they can discuss anything, and nobody can tell them to GTFO because they're tenured professors, but they may ultimately decide to resign, because working in an environment where everyone else think you're bei…

How do we know that there aren't plenty more dissenters who have been bullied into silence? (Judith's words, not mine.)

Re: Calling bullshit

#220

Post by swanson »

DonHopkins wrote: post #114

..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone." http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppe... Scott Adams, talking about…

I won't defend those actions. I just got a chuckle about this comment since it's an ad hominem -- not rational, but rather designed to appeal to emotion ("I'm mad about him doing that") or identify ("I'm an advocate for women").

Meanwhile, the rest of this thread devolves to pedantry about definitions and analogies.

Good persuasion :)

Post reply on HN