51–60 of 61 posts
His statements might be correct. But it's interesting to note who is most supportive of him: namely right-wing climate-change deniers. This is a problem in politics. He may be a completely honest actor and yet he will be weaponised against climate research altogether.
So if republican uses your findings they are automatically wrong? Brb, gotta publish that P!=NP proof in a Republican journal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So if republican uses your findings they are automatically wrong? Brb, gotta publish that P!=NP proof in a Republican journal.
You're putting words in my mouth.
Defusing his contribution is easy - just acknowledge the author is a proponent of climate change.
Once Politics jumps in, people become committed to a point of view. We want to be 'right' (at least so far as the debate is concerned) more than we want the actual truth.
Politics unfortunately costs us progress in this and other areas, sometimes. (But I suppose it is the best thing available.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Credentialism is one of the worst forms of intellectual laziness. Judge a person's ideas by their quality, not the piece of paper some institution saw fit to sign.
Some institutions may have significant expertise on a subject where you don't, making such credentials occasionally very useful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the point and why it’s laziness. If you lack the knowledge to judge someone’s work then intellectual honesty requires foregoing an opinion on its quality. Saying “well I don’t understand, but his degree doesn’t have climate in its name so he must not know what he’s talking about” is gross laziness. And if you do have the expertise to accurately judge the work in question, then it stands or falls on its…
Perhaps I have some meta-expertise on judging the correlation between credentials and credibility. Exclusive first-hand observation is a cripplingly restrictive epistemology. Even much of our own first-hand expertise is based on us learning from and believing sources, professors, textbooks etc.
It's interesting to note that he's being attacked in part because republicans are relying on him. Of course they don't do this because of any sort of scientific integrity on their part, but only because they happen to agree with him on some specific points. And of course the democrats do not point that hypocrisy out since they're doing the same thing. He's also only addressing his area of expertise, extreme weather e…
Science and Politics should not be mixed, in an ideal world. Once Politics jumps in, people become committed to a point of view. We want to be 'right' (at least so far as the debate is concerned) more than we want the actual truth. Politics unfortunately costs us progress in this and other areas, sometimes. (But I suppose it is the best thing available.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the point and why it’s laziness. If you lack the knowledge to judge someone’s work then intellectual honesty requires foregoing an opinion on its quality. Saying “well I don’t understand, but his degree doesn’t have climate in its name so he must not know what he’s talking about” is gross laziness. And if you do have the expertise to accurately judge the work in question, then it stands or falls on its…
Perhaps I have some meta-expertise on judging the correlation between credentials and credibility. Exclusive first-hand observation is a cripplingly restrictive epistemology. Even much of our own first-hand expertise is based on us learning from and believing sources, professors, textbooks etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the point and why it’s laziness. If you lack the knowledge to judge someone’s work then intellectual honesty requires foregoing an opinion on its quality. Saying “well I don’t understand, but his degree doesn’t have climate in its name so he must not know what he’s talking about” is gross laziness. And if you do have the expertise to accurately judge the work in question, then it stands or falls on its…
Perhaps I have some meta-expertise on judging the correlation between credentials and credibility. Exclusive first-hand observation is a cripplingly restrictive epistemology. Even much of our own first-hand expertise is based on us learning from and believing sources, professors, textbooks etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s exactly the point and why it’s laziness. If you lack the knowledge to judge someone’s work then intellectual honesty requires foregoing an opinion on its quality. Saying “well I don’t understand, but his degree doesn’t have climate in its name so he must not know what he’s talking about” is gross laziness. And if you do have the expertise to accurately judge the work in question, then it stands or falls on its…
> requires foregoing an opinion on its quality So how do you decide whom to rely on for medical care? Surely you don’t just roll a die.
The same goes for hiring a lawyer. How do I know that I'm getting a good one? Is the one whose daddy paid his way into Stanford really better than the striver who worked his way through some second tier law school? At least with a lawyer I have some ability to judge his verbal intelligence through conversation, but I'm still basically blind as to his actual legal ability.
So you tell me, what's the foolproof technique to hire a top decile professional in a field where you aren't equipped to judge the candidate's quality?