Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would urge you to give me examples in politics which can't have two different political outcomes both potentially true. Climate change.
What about it?
[deleted]
Calling bullshit
231–240 of 287 posts
Re: Calling bullshit
#232Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is exactly where you are going wrong and I believe not really understand what politics is all about. People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills. They voted on trump for all the things that Politifacts didn't measure but which matter to people a…
> No I am claiming the opposite. That people care as much today as they did back in the 90s. > People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills. I have not mentioned "well argued" nor talked about rhetoric. I've talked about speaking the truth or lying. Y…
Yes you have talked about the truth or lying but you have not yet made any argument pointing to where that have changed compared to before. Still waiting for that.
Re: Calling bullshit
#233Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think critically; most of us simply choose not to. The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the…
Even though I have some training, skills in mathematical logic, probabilities and in mathematics in general being very good for spotting bullshit, I still need help. The only thing that actually protects me is this little voice in my head telling me " this guy could be full of bullshit, I'd better check ". But then fact checking is too time consuming, many times I do it, but not often enough. And you can't just wipe…
I agree with all your reasoning, except I'm unsure what you mean to say with the link.
Are you saying we bought the bullshit when Oracle claimed they wouldn't monetize it? If that's the case, that was never a verifiable statement, or better yet, was never an immutable state either way. I don't think anyone convinced themselves they knew anything from that claim.
That's not the same thing as accepting that someone claims that man landed on the moon. While still hard to verify (really), it still either happened or not. Monetizing Java could change at any time, what was the case yesterday might be changed today, and could be back again tomorrow.
Re: Calling bullshit
#234Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No I am claiming the opposite. That people care as much today as they did back in the 90s. > People didn't vote on Trump because of those things that politfact measured. There weren't watching the debates to figure out who was the most well argued person based on some basic idea of their rhetorical skills. I have not mentioned "well argued" nor talked about rhetoric. I've talked about speaking the truth or lying. Y…
Yes you have talked about the truth or lying but you have not yet made any argument pointing to where that have changed compared to before. Still waiting for that.
[deleted]
Re: Calling bullshit
#235I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to promote, but its target audience likely considers themselves to be "critical thinkers" already and feel its everybody else who needs this kind of course.
That said, why does it have to be set up like a college course? Not only did looking at the site bring back memories of freshman year crit analysis courses, the way in which their proposed structure is laid out is completely out of sync with the way in which people absorb information today.
Fake news is shared widely because it's easy and doesn't require much mental exertion of the sharer/reader. The people most likely to share this kind of provocative "viral" content do not even have a working common-sense bullshit meter. Yet the well-meaning people behind the course think they're ready move from 200 word blog posts with a black-and-white view of the world to college-level reading?
I'd suggest looking at the UX/UI of an app like Google Primer (bite sized lessons on digital marketing) and see if that model can be applied here. Probably not Primer is designed to provide on-the-go info while this is designed as an actual college course.
Re: Calling bullshit
#236For better or for worse, the term bullshit has no exact synonym in the English language; we use the term because it precisely describes the phenomena we are studying.
Interestingly enough, the claim about bullshit lacking an exact synonym is false. Not only does bull by itself mean precisely the same thing, but in fact its use predates the compound formation by three centuries. The use of shit in bullshit is an intensifier, as in shitstorm or shitfit, though presumably the rather evocative image of bovine excrement was also a factor.
From the Google dictionary:
bull (3)
bo͝ol/
noun informal
noun: bull
stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
"much of what he says is sheer bull"
Origin
early 17th century: of unknown origin.
bull·shit
ˈbo͝olˌSHit/
vulgar slang
noun
noun: bullshit
1. stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
Origin
early 20th century: from bull (3) + shit.Re: Calling bullshit
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
You still didn't define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and you didn't list any more names.
Re: Calling bullshit
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 publication…
Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify where it is we disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas within the scientific community? Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed. The idea that dis…
Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are "not allowed to speak".
Re: Calling bullshit
#239Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
Well you could define what you mean by "not allowed to speak", and list the names of more scientists who you claim were bullied and "not allowed to speak". Science is evidence based: give us some evidence.
Or are you refusing to define your terms and provide any evidence, because you claim without any evidence that these theoretical silent scientists actually exist, but cannot be measured or counted, like undetectable dark matter in white lab coats?
That's not very scientific of you. (Or of Judith Curry, whose words you claim to quote. If she really promotes unscientific "silent scientist" conspiracy theories like that, then no wonder her colleagues are so critical of her! Calling bullshit isn't censorship, and she's anything but silent herself. So please link to your source where Judith Curry actually said those words that you quote.)
As un-silent, outspoken, widely published and nationally televised as Judith Curry is, she's said "I don’t feel like my professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever" [1]. So Judith Curry's case is actually evidence that dissenting scientists (and even ones who "literally say" ridiculous things like you quoted her saying) are NOT bullied into silence.
"Judith A. Curry is chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She runs a climate blog and has been invited by Republicans on several occasions to testify at climate hearings about uncertainties in climate understanding and predictions. Climate scientists criticize her uncertainty-focused climate outreach communication for containing elementary mistakes and inflammatory assertions unsupported by evidence. Curry is a regular at Anthony Watts' denier blog, as well as Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit, another denier site. She has further embarrassed herself (and her university) by using refuted denier talking points and defending the Wegman Report, eventually admitting she hadn't even read it in the first place." [2]
"Curry receives ongoing funding from the fossil fuel industry. In an interview with Curry for a October 2010 Scientific American profile, Michael Lemonick reports (pers. comm.) that he asked Curry about potential conflicts of interest, and she responded,
"I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company...does hurricane forecasting...for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements."
"Criticisms of outreach communication: Laundry list: Curry's contrarian-leaning "public outreach" public communication is criticized by prominent climate scientists and other science-aligned climate bloggers for a propensity toward "inflammatory language and over-the-top accusations ...with the...absence of any concrete evidence and [with] errors in matters of simple fact.".
"...Examples of the unreliability of Curry's blog publications are illustrated by Michael Tobis and James Annan, who both showed basic flaws in her understanding of uncertainty and probability, or at least an irresponsible level of sloppiness in expressing herself. Arthur Smith pointed out an under-grad level misunderstanding in her own field's basic terminology," said Coby Beck. Climate scientist James Annan has provided examples (with rebuttals) of assertions made by Curry on topics like no-feedback climate sensitivity, aerosols, climate change detection&attribution, and the IPCC tolerance of challengers; he finds there's a pattern of "throwing up vague or demonstrably wrong claims, then running away when shown to be wrong",
"Willingness to criticize based on second-hand info from contrarian, inexpert sources: "In a 2010 comment she called blogger Deep Climate's detailed and well-documented investigation into the Wegman Report "one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen" even as she revealed in her incorrect synopsis of the charges that she had not even read it for herself. ... [i.e.] she shows herself ready to publicly criticise someone else in the strongest terms based entirely on second hand information gleaned from places like Climate Audit and Watts Up With That."
"Offering off-the-cuff, uninformed criticism of mainstream climate science: Gavin Schmidt has criticised Curry for "not knowing enough about what she has chosen to talk about, for not thinking clearly about the claims she has made with respect to the IPCC, and for flinging serious accusations at other scientists without just cause.". (It goes on and on... see [2].)
"We've seen a lot of strawmen from Judy lately," [Stanford University's Stephen H.] Schneider [3] said. "It is frankly shocking to see such a good scientist take that kind of a turn to sloppy thinking. I have no explanation for it." [1]
So do you have any examples better than Judith Curry?
[1] The Judith Curry Phenomenon: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101101/full/news.2010.577.ht... Discussion: http://www.keithkloor.com/?p=3734
Re: Calling bullshit
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You really think Kim Jong-un is going to listen to reason when he has nukes? This statement, my friends, is how most persuasion works in the world. No facts, just statements like: "You really think...?" If the person responds with "It's plausible - why not?", then you say: "I mean, Come On!" While it may be hard for some to believe, I write this comment with full seriousness and not as a joke. This really is how mos…
> I've seen this in action in the engineering world. You can have your data, as well as your error-free mathematics (no calculus, I promise! Just a few lines of algebra) to back your argument up. And the other person (PhD, no less) only needs to look at someone who shares his view of how the system under examination works to reject my mathematics. It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination wor…
>It can be that the PhD's "view of how the system under examination works" indicates that your mathematics doesn't actually apply to the system. At that point, it doesn't matter how error-free your mathematics is.
If they pointed out that it doesn't apply, sure.
However, this is how it usually happened (meant to put in the original post but forgot):
He looks at his colleague and asks "Have you ever heard of this?" The other person shakes his head. Hence, rejected.
That's why the chapter is called social proof.
No commentary about my mathematics, or how applicable it is.
I'm not talking really complex stuff. We had a model of a physical process (equations) that they had put into their software. The equations were in a reference document we all had access to. Occasionally they would say something like "This cannot be modeled because the equation in our model is not monotonic". At which point I take the equation, compute the derivative (sorry, this example did have calculus), and show that it is monotonic.
Response: "Look, everyone knows such a system is not monotonic!" (note again the socialness of their proof)
I'll give you a reverse example.
(Details varied to simplify the example).
We had a circuit (netlist) whose output (e.g. current) we were interested in. I was tasked with tweaking some of the components such that we hit a target current. I did it, but did not modify any components' capacitance. However, some of the frequency output was impacted, which we normally control by varying the capacitances in the circuit.
Their response: You screwed up - we told you not to change the capacitance!
Me: The capacitances are all the same. They are unchanged. You can verify for yourself.
Them: Impossible. I've been doing this for 15 years, and have never heard of the frequency changing for reasons other than capacitance.
Me: Here are the actual equations for the frequency measurement that you're worried has changed (I know them because I coded them into the system!). Capacitance is not an explicit input, but can creep in indirectly. It's not obvious to me from the equations what role capacitance even plays here (linear, quadratic, exponential, lognormal, etc). Can you point out to me why you're so certain?
Them: Look. The frequency never changes unless you change the capacitance. Everyone who has done this for years knows that (and he was right - everyone did say that). Go redo all this work.
So I redid it with the exact same result (wasn't really hard - I version controlled my work).
Them: Unacceptable. I will not accept this work unless you can explain to me why the frequency is changing when it shouldn't.
Me: It's a complex circuit. I didn't design it. I'm not a circuits guy. I don't know the intricacies.
Them: You're going to have to figure it out.
Me: I'll go to the circuit designer (in another team).
(Walk to his cube - he's out for a week on vacation).
Them: Sorry, we cannot continue this work unless this is resolved.
(Twiddle my thumbs for a week till the designer returns. Then ask him).
Circuit Designer: Of course it can change even if the capacitances don't change. Why are they saying it only changes with capacitance? Based on what?
Me: Based on (making the quotes symbol with hands) "everyone knows". (Yes, I really did respond that way - the absurdity was getting to me by then).
Designer: Let me talk to them.
Overall, 2 weeks wasted because "everyone knows". I think in the whole team, I was the only one who questioned the tribal wisdom. Whenever someone joined the team, they were taught this incorrect tribal wisdom. I was in the (un)fortunate position to have done some work that just happened to go against the tribal wisdom. I had to defend myself, and that forced me to question the wisdom (once I determined I had done all the steps correctly).
But they did not have to explain why they believed what they did. I had to explain why I did not believe what they did. They were the ones making an assertion about the relationship between capacitance and frequency. However, it was my job to disprove it - not their job to prove it. Essentially, I was put in a position to prove a negative, because they already had their proof (social proof). My proof was very clear: I had a clear counterexample to their theory, but it didn't hold up to their proof. They were not willing to examine my counterexample.
The guy grilling me who wasted 2 weeks wasn't just anyone. He was one of the most senior engineers in the company. Very sharp guy who deserved his post. Not an idiot.
But even they fall prey to social proof.