Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by Tamerlin » Tue, May 18, 2010, 5:39 PM UTC

arohner wrote: post #60

Tamerlin wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"hugely expensive government programs" That phrase is redundant. Edit: grammar

Not entirely. It's a scale, that goes from "expensive" to "mind boggling expensive". There's just plain expensive (The V-22 Osprey program), and then there's really expensive (The total expenditure of the Social Security program, from inception to 2050).

I know... I was making fun of government contracting. I worked for various government contractors for around six years, so I feel like I'm morally obligated to make fun of the whole thing whenever I can.

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

#62

Post by tome » Tue, May 18, 2010, 5:42 PM UTC

mseebach wrote: post #32

rortian wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> No, global warming is not a government plan. The proposed solutions to GW are. Politicians will play a significant part in distributing carbon credits. And you said it yourself: > (even the alternative energy technologies that are being heavily subsidized in R&D and production). Subsidized by whom? Private companies that only exist because of government money really aren't private. I disagree with the OP that it's…

The proposed solutions to GW are [government plans]

Supposing that AGW is real and a problem. It is then a global collective-action problem. What options are there to solve something of that scale that doesn't involve governments? I'm genuinely curious.

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

#63

Post by rortian » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:00 PM UTC

randallsquared wrote: post #43

rortian wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LOL? Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? Nutrition is not at all easy to do as science because doing research with humans is not considered ethical by society. I think it's something we need to address, and it seems short sighted to me. Your example is not at all convincing evidence for you rather sweeping thesis.

Yes, virtually all basic research is federally funded. Does it distort science? It would be pretty extraordinary if it somehow didn't, wouldn't it?

I'd just be interested in knowing what sort of bias would it have. How would the government like new science to look? Would it be at all productive to fake experiments?

The government has its issues, but funding science is a great thing. Sure, I'd like for less money to be controlled by the pentagon. But I'd love to see even money spent on basic research.

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

#64

Post by ErrantX » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:00 PM UTC

rortian wrote: post #30

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…

While you're right the GP has a strong smack of "conspiracy" to it I think it is equally naive to believe that GW is not a political arena as well.

I'd even go as far to say some of the science has been biased by politicians - or at the very least misused.

The hard truth is that there is no real consensus. Enough for us to start adapting and weight options certainly (and who can argue that a greener future is a bad idea!). But not enough for scientific certainty either way

We are still at the evidence gathering/observations stage and will likely be there for a while yet. :)

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

#65

Post by ErrantX » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:07 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #54

dpatru wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course federal funding distorts science. How could it not? It's naive to think otherwise. Politics pervades all the other areas of government spending. Are you saying that scientists and their funders are somehow superior to everyone else? That they have a special gene that makes them bias-free? I see the bias most clearly in the science and studies that are not being funded and the changes that are not being prom…

It can't directly distort science because a) people are applying for grants to conduct research. They don't yet know what the results are going to be , unless you accuse the scientific community of massive fraud. And, b) because research grants, at least the ones I know of which are given out by NSF and NASA, are not awarded based on what the government thinks but on how the proposal is rated by an independent panel…

> They don't yet know what the results are going to be

I think one of the points this article makes is that it is possible to look unconsciously for the results/proof you want. Science, especially this science, is rarely black/white. And if you are set on a specific shade of grey there is a natural positive bias towards that.

The argument is, I guess, that Federal funding is likely to favour scientists that support the shade of grey govt. wants to see. (again, a natural bias - though perhaps not so ethical...)

Not a conspiracy certainly; just a combination of slight bias and belief ending in a slightly off center result.

The problem with climate science is that to disagree with the GW theory right now means being branded a denier and a loon. So the bias shift is a emphasised.

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

#66

Post by ErrantX » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:15 PM UTC

You know, my position is that I'm unconvinced that climate change is being affected by Humans quite as much (it seems rational we affect it a bit) as some people say.

(straight up; I'm not here to argue that out. This isn't the right forum, it's just setting the story).

I usually get branded a climate denier (and sometimes a loon :)) even in relatively high brow discussion. Which is amusing because you get real idiot deniers sucking up to you and sensible people you want to have a discussion with ignoring you.

This raises two points.

Firstly a poor assumption has been made; because every time I start trying to compare which papers I have read with others in the discussion they either a) point me to a magazine/paper article or b) don't know what I am waffling about. It's annoying because you quickly realise that the most well read [non climatologist] on the subject are almost exclusively in the "bit of both camps" category - and, sadly, we are all still branded deniers.

The second point is it worries me that this is a Scientific field that is based on the idea that not-believing in man made GW is akin to being heathen sin and crazy talk. I hate that, it seems so irrational given the fact we are still developing the theory!

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

#67

Post by limist » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:15 PM UTC

numeromancer wrote: post #13

Summary: 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.]

There was a common smugness to the tone of the article - borne of the comfort of parroting conventional/majority opinions - which your summary/comment makes explicit. Thanks.

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

#68

Post by jsmcgd » Tue, May 18, 2010, 6:34 PM UTC

msg wrote: post #28

Tichy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nanobo…

In my opinion quality of life takes precedence over life itself.

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

#69

Post by msg » Tue, May 18, 2010, 7:43 PM UTC

Tichy wrote: post #50

msg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 nanobo…

Learn to read. I didn't say that torture is good. In fact, I don't have any data on it at all. Just saying that data might still affect one's opinion. What if you family was abducted and locked into an air sealed room, and the culprit was caught by the police. Your family has 1 hour left before air supply runs out. Would you still be against torture. Again, I can't stress this enough: please read carefully. I am not…

I know how to read. The concept I am criticizing in your argument is "data". And I am saying that taking a statistical approach to these questions is misguided.

"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."

I didn't say you were advocating torture either. I am trying to show by example that this decision calculus can be used to justify all kinds of evil nonsense, torture being one example. You can always generate counterfactuals of this form to justify anything... so this method of justification is meaningless.

I don't know why you believe that we are not talking about torture. Maybe you don't know that you are presenting a family-based reformulation of the exact same ticking time bomb scenario used by Alan Dershowitz to justify torture. You are reusing these arguments, so maybe you should think about exactly what these arguments have justified in the last ten years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

It's true, though, that you are not talking about torture per se. What you are talking about is weighing some count of human lives against a moral imperative not to do some evil thing. Torture usually stands in for that evil thing because up until very recently, everyone agreed that it was so evil that the kind of weighing you are talking about would not be countenanced.

Let me tell a story that may explain what I am getting at. In 1984 (the year), a feminist named Carol Cohn went to a military school to learn about strategic nuclear concepts like mutually assured destruction, first strike, credible second strike, counterforce weapons, etc. What she found was that as she became immersed in that world, she learned to make similar kinds of artificial weighings of the destruction of cities against the loss of second strike capability. The decision calculus she learned to use allowed her to think about nuclear weapons in terms of numbers and geography rather than in terms of human life ("collateral damage").

"If I was unable to speak my concerns in the language, more disturbing still was that I also began to find it harder even to keep them in my own head. No matter how firm my commitment to staying aware of the bloody reality behind the words, over and over, I found that I could not keep human lives as my reference point. I found that I could go for days speaking about nuclear weapons, without once thinking about the people who would be incinerated by them."

http://www.buildfreedom.com/tl/tl07aa.shtml (the whole article)

I suggest you should not be acquiring "data" at all on this question. The only things the data could tell you would be artificial and dehumanized.

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

#70

Post by william-newman » Tue, May 18, 2010, 8:03 PM UTC

I have no particular sympathy with any anti-vaccine activism that I know of. But I wonder how, other than by not being an important faction in the appropriate big political tent, "anti-vaccine denial" ended up on this article's excrement list along with Holocaust deniers, while "nuclear power denial" and "genetic engineering denial" didn't.

My impression is that political opposition to nuclear power plants, to nuclear waste facilities, and to GM crops have had at least as much economic impact as political opposition to vaccines. Thus, it seems to me that they shouldn't be left off this list because they're unimportant.

Perhaps the columnist thinks that the anti-nuke and anti-GM-crops political movements should be spared because they have achieved their political impact primarily by honestly making valid technical points? Granting for the sake of argument that that is a tenable position, then why ignore them? Wouldn't the anti-nuke and anti-GM movements make useful examples to clarify his position by comparing and contrasting? Wouldn't describing what is healthy and good about the thinking of the anti-GM and anti-nuke coalitions help us understand better what is so characteristically diseased and vile about anti-vaccine folk to justify grouping them with Holocaust deniers?

(I extended this comment, writing on an analogy to criticism of left-wingers as "politically correct," at http://naturalspiritofgoodcompany.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-ha... .)