Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
newscientist.com
Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
1–10 of 81 posts
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#2Awesome 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 before the conversation (or experiments) even begins.
By the way, these topics go way beyond climate science, or even politics. These are the same types of conversations we have in technology teams about things like TDD, or linux versus windows. There are lots of opinions and consensus (or not) but most times what we really should do is have an open mind, create a theory, perform an experiment, see what works, and adapt. Many times teams would rather argue than do this. This is because we (technical people) suck many times at being able to politely disagree.
The same problems we see with skeptics and true believers in climate science are the ones we see all around us everyday. To me understanding and being able to work these kinds of conversations have much more immediate and useful value than the types of compression algorithms Google uses on its databases.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#3Awesome 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.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#4This comment is pretty interesting:
"here are supporters on both sides of the climate debate ('warmists' and 'deniers') for whom the science is secondary. One feature of them both is that recognise no shade of gray."
This kind of polarization happens a lot in the technology field (e.g. SQL vs NoSQL, Flash vs HTML 5) - usually not by the leaders in these areas but often by people who feel they have the need to strongly align themselves with one particular perspective.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#5Awesome 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.
Yes. I tried to say that, but looks like I failed.
If you already know the answer to some complex issue that is not direct, hard science, then you are cognitively limiting yourself. If it's reproducible and demonstrable, of course, then we can still remain properly agnostic and rely on induction to save the day. If it is not, we have to be very, very careful about what our hidden assumptions are.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#6Awesome 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.
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"?
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#7Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false.
Winning quote right there.
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#8Awesome 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.
> the term "climate change skeptic" ought not to exist, because following the evidence where it leads ought to be default position of everyone.
True enough. However coming to a discussion with no opinion is next ot impossible for someone to do. It's reasonable to imagine someone who follows the evidence will have a pre-conception of what the answer is.
What sets him/her apart is a willingness to be proven wrong (or even just a bit less right).
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#9This is just one paper in an entire issue of New Scientist about "Denial" http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627605.900-special-r...
There was a post by Robin Hanson on Overcoming Bias about it, with a long string of comments http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/05/dumping-on-denial.html
Re: Living in denial: When a sceptic isn't a sceptic
#10Awesome 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.
You are kidding, right? You've never heard someone use a term like "alarmist", "warmist" or "true believer" applied to those who accept the evidence for AGW?