Awesome post. He did a good job of outlining the difference. I'd add one piece -- it goes both ways. On the other side of the skeptic is the true believer, which knows that the current consensus or opinion is correct and is just looking for reasons to confirm his belief. This is the scientific malpractice the leaked emails reveal. Both of these positions suffer from the same problem: they already know the answer befo…
Right, but the term "climate change skeptic" ought not to exist, because following the evidence where it leads ought to be default position of everyone. Also it's interesting that in that particular debate, there are "deniers" but no "zealots". It's only one side that feels the need to label the others. That ought to set the alarm bells ringing.
Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
11–20 of 81 posts
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#12"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate."
If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you have to say on politics (or anything else). I'm trying to find a more charitable way to read this, but there really is none. Presumably, if he supported some tax policy, being shown a dozen nations that subsequently implement the policy and face unmitigated economic disaster would do nothing to shake his faith in it.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#13Summary: some people pretend to be thoughtfully considering, but really they're just mean old baddies. The list of mean-old-baddies is below. don't let them trick you! You'll go to hell!
We are the goodies. We believe. Follow us and be saved.
[See article for list of Satan's minions.]
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#14"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you…
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example:
I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks.
Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistribution, the welfare state, etc (i.e., "tax is an immoral act of theft, regardless of economic benefits", or "the welfare state is a moral imperative, regardless of economic harms").
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#15"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you…
What should be the goal of a tax policy or a government? Maximal total economic output? Equal opportunity for everyone? A low Gini coeffecient?
I think his main point in talking about taxation and government is that there are philosophical assumptions at their roots that affect how you would interpret and use some of the data. As such whether a certain policy is a failure or not is open to debate based on our goals.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#16"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you…
What should be the goal of a tax policy or a government? Maximal total economic output? Equal opportunity for everyone? A low Gini coeffecient? I think his main point in talking about taxation and government is that there are philosophical assumptions at their roots that affect how you would interpret and use some of the data. As such whether a certain policy is a failure or not is open to debate based on our goals.
The goals should/would be separated from the tax policy. But you need the science to understand what the likely outcomes of the individual policies are.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#17"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you…
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistributio…
There's a difference between being able to conjure up a few examples of things you think are immoral in any situation, and the conviction that evidence cannot, in principle, have any impact on what policies one should enact.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#18"Either evolution and the big bang happened or they did not; both matters can, in principle, be solved with more data and better theory. But the right form of taxation or government cannot be answered with more data and better theory. They are ideological positions that are established by subjective debate." If you don't adjust your views of taxation and government based on data, nobody should ever listen to what you…
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistributio…
I find that hard to believe. Surely there is some limit that would change your mind? Maybe if it would save 1000 lives per month? Or one million lives per month?
I suspect you don't have any hard data on the impact of torture. Not saying that torture is good, just saying that even in your example, science might change your mind.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
One's policy views might be based on morality, in which case one might not change them based on facts. An example: I oppose torture. You can show me 100 nations which ban torture and then suffer from preventable terrorist attacks, and it won't change my view. I would choose to ban torture even if it stops law enforcement from preventing some terrorist attacks. Some people hold similar views on taxation, redistributio…
There's a difference between being able to conjure up a few examples of things you think are immoral in any situation, and the conviction that evidence cannot, in principle, have any impact on what policies one should enact.
[deleted]
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#20There's a pretty strong impulse to call somebody a "denier" in order to categorically denounce what he's saying, as well as everybody similarly skeptical. It's important, when doing this, to paint the person in the simplest "nutshell" terms. Those awful climate "denialists" for instance:
In a nutshell: Global warming either (1) isn't real (2) isn't caused by humans or (3) doesn't matter
Well, #2 is certainly within the bounds of possibility. Evidence: The entire history of the earth. And, as for #3, you could actually make the argument that global warming would be a net positive. (Contrast warming with a new ice age.) Not say that it's true, but it's a possibility, and shouldn't result in intellectual exile.
He, of course, misses #4:
(4) Global warming is real; but it is #1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital, and otherwise generate billions/trillions for the well-connected and #2 is hopeless because China and India aren't getting suckered into it, ever.
That is something they don't want to address, because, as far as I've seen, it is the correct assessment. "Follow the money" almost always is. And if you keep following the money, you will likely find that even the most committed climate changists are not expending their own resources to short Florida coastal real estate on the weight of their beliefs.