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

Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#21

Post by Agent101 »

mynameishere wrote: post #20

There'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 t…

Is there a market for long time scale shorts on EFTs? I know long term oil futures go for 7-8 years generally.

I wouldn't place bets except on the time scale of 20-40 years and even then I'm not sure it is worth it in terms of likely pay off and time taken to research.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#22

Post by [deleted] »

[deleted] wrote: post #19
goodside wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

[deleted]

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#23

Post by yummyfajitas »

goodside wrote: post #17
yummyfajitas wrote: post #14

Earlier 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.

I did not claim that evidence should never change views. I gave an example illustrating that some views should not be changed by evidence.

Evidence tells you how to maximize your objective function. It does not tell you what your objective function should be.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#24

Post by weego »

mynameishere wrote: post #20

There'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 t…

There's also the possibility that it is a social engineering effort to get people to switch away from fossil fuels in a positive way ("I've switched to hydrogen cells to save the planet!" rather than "Goddamn fuel prices are so high I can't even drive to work anymore! And what the hell are the politicians doing about it?") in a timescale that allows a transition without impending widescale economic meltdown.

"Things have to change within 100 years" is not something that will get shareholders signing checks for R&D and wholesale changes to business practices unless there is considerable pressure from the overall consumer population.

That does assume that benevolence has a higher priority in the world than profit of course. I'm not sure.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#25

Post by numeromancer »

Tichy wrote: post #6
gaius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Bot sides accuse the other side of all sorts of things. Your statement is simply false. In fact, doesn't a denier automatically, by his mere existence, claim that "the others" are "zealots"?

No.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#26

Post by goodside »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #23
goodside wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did not claim that evidence should never change views. I gave an example illustrating that some views should not be changed by evidence. Evidence tells you how to maximize your objective function. It does not tell you what your objective function should be.

You didn't. Shermer did. That's what I was complaining about initially. If you meant your comment as an interesting side note rather than a rebuttal, that's fine and I misread you. Maybe I should be less defensive.

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#28

Post by msg »

Tichy wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #14

Earlier 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…

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.

This is a bullshit argument. Torture does not save shit and it is good for nothing.

What if destroying the earth would save the universe?

What if Batman wanted you to torture someone?

What if cutting off the eyelids of a brown person meant that unicorns would walk the earth?

What if I snuck into suburban households and cut up humans for body parts so my nanobots could learn regeneration techniques? What if the nanobots could reanimate all the dead humans after I cut them up?

The reason it is bullshit is because you can put anything in the place of torture and justify it by saying it "saves lives". But for some reason, the arguments that we want to justify this way always boil down to freeing ourselves from the shackles of morality. It is the will to power dressed up in the clothing of public policy.

What kind of life are we saving? Is there anything we value more than life?

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#29

Post by [deleted] »

Tichy wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #14

Earlier 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…

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.

[deleted]

Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic

#30

Post by rortian »

mynameishere wrote: post #20

There'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 t…

It's sad that this is being up-voted as it is incredibly misleading and a conspiracy theory to boot:

>#1 mainly intended to achieve a long-standing but tactically-shifting goal of governments to control capital

No, global warming is not a government plan. It is an area of scientific consensus that has emerged from the work of thousands of individuals in many countries. Most mainstream solutions to dealing with global warming have absolutely nothing to do with controlling capital. In the US, we constantly bend over backwards to makes sure private enterprise controls lots of stuff (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production).

>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.

This statement is at best tremendously disingenuous and at worst an amazing attempt at self-delusion. There is no good way to short houses. (Getting CDSs on mortgage backed securities is possible but there are no houses on the coast securities. Shorting those wouldn't even help, as mortgages will be paid off before the sea rises enough). Also, all the global warming sea rise predictions are on the order of decades and centuries. What highly knowledgeable scientist in there late 30s or 40s will make at bet that will be resolved when they are dead?

I'll bet you any amount of money that we will have a Korean president by 2150. Don't believe me? Unless you do, you'd better make a bet with me.

Post reply on HN