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

Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#161

Post by loewenskind »

lzw wrote: post #81
lhnn wrote: post #3

Man-made global warming is a myth.

It is a myth. It is an ideology that rejects science. And the proof that hacker news is full of ignorant college students who choose ideology over science (and capitalism, for that matter) is the fact that any failure to blindly advocate the socialist position is automatically downvoted. EDIT: I take the downvotes this post is getting as proof that my hypothesis is correct. If my hypothesis were wrong, I would get ac…

>and capitalism, for that matter

Do you mean they choose Capitalism over Science (i.e. make money on the "green" wave) or ideology over Capitalism?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#162

Post by _b8r0 »

anthonyb wrote: post #160
_b8r0 wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To act as devil's advocate, this bit: > It's impossible to have any sort of reasonable discussion with people who claim to be scientifically informed, but dodge and evade as soon as you ask them simple, straightforward questions like, "where is the scientific evidence which supports your theory?", or "what is your explanation for this obvious hole in the logic of your argument?". Could apply to people from either sid…

It can and does apply to both sides. I have some "greenie" friends who are pathologically opposed to any sort of development, as well as a couple who are full-bore climate deniers. Neither group are particularly well informed on the issues. However, it does seem that in most issues like this, and with climate change and evolution in particular, the non-science side seems to be particularly stubborn and bloody minded…

In answer to your second point. There's scientific evidence to support both assertions. There's a really good infographic floating around that sums up the case for and against and what the scientists behind each side believe. However I can't find it.

If I remember correctly, much of the pro climate change case is based on core samples, tree rings and satellite recordings of air temperatures. The case against is centred on actual drops in temperature recorded and the absorption of CO2, so there's science for both sides and evidence for both sides.

For your final point and link I'm not sure what you're trying to show me. You seem like a pretty rational guy in our discussion, but come across as fairly irrational (perhaps unstructured would be better) in the other sub-thread. It's clear lzw responded because of your style of argument, I think in his first comment his first point leads to the last and he's pretty much spot on, but in his last point he falls into the very same trap you did.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#163

Post by anthonyb »

colomon wrote: post #158
ewjordan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing yourself with a chat bot is just like arguing in person, except that it doesn't try your patience or waste your time, only the other guy's, and it doesn't give you any opportunity to learn or be exposed to novel ideas. I don't see any problem with this, as long as you're actually right when you do it. It's never a waste of time to truthfully tell someone that they're wrong, as long as you give them the info…

Are you kidding?! I watched an anti-evolution video about a decade ago, and it was so creatively wrong it has been an endless source of mirth for me since. "You see, there was a giant ice shield around the Earth in the early days, and that messed up carbon dating. Then God melted it to create the flood!"

I can remember explaining evolution one Sunday morning to a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses who were very confused about how it all worked ("No, no, evolution isn't random. How it works is that you have this population of animals who are all slightly different..."). They lasted maybe half an hour or 45 minutes before they fled. I figured it was a public service - every minute they spend with me is one less minute that they're sinking their hooks into weaker prey :)

I think I still have their little blue book of "How life began" somewhere. They lent it to me, but never came back to collect it.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#164

Post by loewenskind »

buster wrote: post #156
loewenskind wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can attach urgency to any claim as a reason we don't have time to be sure and can't waste time with contrarian voices. In fact, it has been said that doing what some MMGW proponents suggest would keep e.g. India in poverty 100 years longer. People suffering and dying right now! We have to act fast to stop the MMGW movement and save them! See? Stop using this tactic to shut down discussion.

I don't know what MMGW is, and i don't know why people like to distract from the subject of matter here. It's not about indians or religion or whatever. It's about a problem that should be taken seriously, because it is _global_ and it will affect future generations! Shutting down discussion is equal to what the parent suggests (that is to shut up and not to react to those false claims). So, when you say "you can att…

MMGW: Man made Global Warming.

>It's about a problem that should be taken seriously, because it is _global_ and it will affect future generations!

And you do it again.

Look, when you run out here screaming "We have to do something now! No time to discuss it and the other side are spewing nonsense anyway" you have the opposite effect. If time really is of the essence then all efforts should be in (a) proving that we fully understand the nature/cause of the problem, (b) coming up with real solutions/timelines/etc. and (c) addressing all skeptics concerns (over and over, as much as is required).

It's not an easy battle but what MMGW proponents [1] are asking for isn't a simple flip of a switch.

[1] Just for completeness: I'm not purposely taking sides. I've seen both good arguments and scandalous rubbish from both sides. I personally believe that something is happening to the environment and am open to be convinced that we are the culprit. But for me personally, I don't need to be convinced of either of these things. I think green technology is a good thing and should be perused regardless. Even if we aren't causing a green house effect that will melt the world and kill everyone we are poisoning our oceans (and the yummy creatures that live in them), destroying our forests, ecosystems and wild life (some of which I want to be saved for the selfish reason that I want to continue eating them and can't if they don't exist anymore).

I also think we're moving in the right direction and have optimism that humanity will find a way like it always has so far.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#165

Post by Robin_Message »

rimantas wrote: post #157
Robin_Message wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be clear what you are talking about here: In section 10.6.2 of the 2007 "Impacts, Adaption and Vulnerability" IPCC report, someone put in an incorrect figure for glacier melting. That's one mistake, after years of scrutiny, in the IPCC report that talks about the impact of climate change, which is not even the report that shows climate change is real. To imply you think that undermines the case for climate chan…

So this was the one and only mistake on IPCC part? Even if I misunderstand IPCC process looks like they are not happy with it themselves: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.ht...

You are disagreeing with an incidental comment that is not even the thrust of my argument on a FUD basis, but anyway. That article in Nature interviewed some people associated with the process who expressed not one jot of disbelief in the report. They wished the mistake hadn't happened, and had been caught sooner, and suggested ways to reduce mistakes in the future, but no-one thinks that mistake invalidates the report or the process.

I'll say it differently — if that's the biggest mistake you can find in the IPCC report (and given how much hand-wringing and complaining about it there has been, it's highly likely it was the biggest mistake), then you either have to accept climate change is real, or find a bigger mistake.

I really don't know why I'm arguing with you. Of course the IPCC regret the mistake. But they haven't all gone to commit seppuku over it. Refute the scientific basis report.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#166

Post by loewenskind »

anthonyb wrote: post #159
loewenskind wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was using "put work into it" as a shorthand but yes, this is what I mean: many counter arguments have merit as well. People always tend to assume the other side isn't being rational.

Well in my experience that assumption often holds - most people aren't rational, don't understand the issues and will proceed to try and beat you down with "talking points". I have a two part test to figure out whether someone's a skeptic or a denier: 1. Ask them some sort of question about their position - "Why do you think X", or "How do you explain this weakpoint in your argument?" Basically try and put them on th…

It does often hold, but to me this doesn't justify the arrogance I see so often today. If we spoke with more honest language it might head off some of the defensive responses and make it easier to pinpoint the real break downs in communication. For example, for me the problem isn't that people aren't convinced by the GW evidence accumulated so far (either side). The problem is they are actively advocating a theory based on ignorance (e.g. "it's not conclusive that the cause is X so therefor I assert it is Y").

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#167

Post by anthonyb »

_b8r0 wrote: post #162
anthonyb wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can and does apply to both sides. I have some "greenie" friends who are pathologically opposed to any sort of development, as well as a couple who are full-bore climate deniers. Neither group are particularly well informed on the issues. However, it does seem that in most issues like this, and with climate change and evolution in particular, the non-science side seems to be particularly stubborn and bloody minded…

In answer to your second point. There's scientific evidence to support both assertions. There's a really good infographic floating around that sums up the case for and against and what the scientists behind each side believe. However I can't find it. If I remember correctly, much of the pro climate change case is based on core samples, tree rings and satellite recordings of air temperatures. The case against is centr…

If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temperature records - support it. I'm quite happy to take a look if you can find it.

The point with that link is that even when asked a straightforward question on the one piece of evidence (a non peer reviewed paper) that's been put forward so far, nobody wants to actually answer it. They'd much rather dodge and weave and pull out the same old tired talking points about how things are getting colder, we're overdue for an ice age, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, what does that have to do with the originally cited paper?

Not sure what makes me come across as unstructured, either. Perhaps I'm just too used to arguing these points, so I'm "talking" a bit fast?

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#168

Post by buster »

loewenskind wrote: post #164
buster wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what MMGW is, and i don't know why people like to distract from the subject of matter here. It's not about indians or religion or whatever. It's about a problem that should be taken seriously, because it is _global_ and it will affect future generations! Shutting down discussion is equal to what the parent suggests (that is to shut up and not to react to those false claims). So, when you say "you can att…

MMGW: Man made Global Warming. >It's about a problem that should be taken seriously, because it is _global_ and it will affect future generations! And you do it again. Look, when you run out here screaming "We have to do something now! No time to discuss it and the other side are spewing nonsense anyway" you have the opposite effect. If time really is of the essence then all efforts should be in (a) proving that we f…

I get what you mean.

But: You can lean back and discuss for the next decades without making a move in a direction. You can discuss and discuss and both sides will bring arguments and you will never find a conclusion. It's a sham.

On the other hand it is quite obvious (without discussions, statistics, yada yada yada) that we are polluting the planet. I don't need figures for that, i just need to look out of my window. Germany, for example, is investing quite a lot into green energy. Just for fun? Or probably with a reason?

But, what bothers me, is the feeling that most people don't want to think about it. It's easier to accept the argument that everything is fine, not care about it and live as if nothing happened without reflecting. I guess many people are (subconsciously) thinking like that. And reading those "false" claims on twitter may be reason enough for many people to just believe it without questioning it. That's why it's good to have some "counterweight". I don't know if i made myself clear enough, but well...

The quintessence is to not look away but do something.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#169

Post by demallien »

loewenskind wrote: post #140
demallien wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not once have I seen a global warming proponent who was willing to debate it on a scientific basis, Science is not done by debate. The issues are too complex to be conveyable in the cut and thrust of a discussion. There is a reason that the gold standard of scientific research is the peer review journal and not debates. Until you understand this point, you aren't able to understand how wrong you are on this subject.…

>You will also understand just how strong the evidence for GW is. Here by GW I presume you mean Man made GW. In that case, many of the proponents are also ignorant of how strong (or not) the evidence is. They simply assume that the people paid to know, do. That's not a valid assumption.

Look, here's the thing. We know that CO2 absorbs light energy in the frequencies reflected by the Earth more than the frequencies that arrive from the sun. That is, any CO2 that you have in your atmosphere is going to lead to an increase in the rate of absorbtion of energy from the sun on a planetary scale. The spectrum of Earth's reflected light has been confirmed by satellites, the absorbtion spectrum of CO2 has been determined in lab experiments. That means that the null hypothesis for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will lead to an increase in the temperature of the Earth.

The increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is also something that is directly measurable, and indeed, if you just take the scientific records from the last 50 years, you see a large increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. We can reasonably speculate that this is due to the massive increase of burning of fossil fuels, as we know that burning fossil fuels releases CO2, and we know that we have massively increased the quantity of fossil fuels burned.

That is the basic case for AGW. Afterwards, we can start to look a feedback loops, changes in albedo, effects at high altitude etc, but the basis for AGW is what I just laid out, and is confirmed by measurement. If you want to knock of AGW as a scientific hypothesis, you have to propose an alternative model that describes the same data, along with an experiment that can be conducted that will enable us to identify if your theory or AGW is correct. No-one, and I do mean no-one, has been able to meet that simple challenge. AGW is quite simply the best explanation that we have that fits the data. Come up with a better alternative, get meteorologists to agree that it's valid, and then I'll listen to what climate change deniers have to say. Until then, they've got nothing and as far as I am concerned are dangerously delaying changes to our behaviour that are urgently needed to avert a serious threat to the very survival of the human race. That is all.

Re: Chatbot Wears Down Proponents of Anti-Science Nonsense

#170

Post by _b8r0 »

anthonyb wrote: post #167
_b8r0 wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In answer to your second point. There's scientific evidence to support both assertions. There's a really good infographic floating around that sums up the case for and against and what the scientists behind each side believe. However I can't find it. If I remember correctly, much of the pro climate change case is based on core samples, tree rings and satellite recordings of air temperatures. The case against is centr…

If there's scientific evidence against global warming, then where is it? All the evidence that I've seen - historical stuff, like core samples, and current temperature records - support it. I'm quite happy to take a look if you can find it. The point with that link is that even when asked a straightforward question on the one piece of evidence (a non peer reviewed paper) that's been put forward so far, nobody wants t…

I think perhaps you're unaware of your emotional investment in the argument. I can tell this is something you're passionate about. Unfortunately in that argument your passion is working against you.
Post reply on HN