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

Science is dead

finemrespice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 41 posts

Re: Science is dead

#21

Post by yummyfajitas »

philwelch wrote: post #18
yummyfajitas wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that sex outside of marriage is bad unless it really is is bad. In fact, it's a huge hedonic loss for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because as rich high status men, they are prevented from having the extramarital sex which comes easily to them (or at least they must hide it). However, it's in the direct benefit of perverts and sex freaks to…

Your argument is invalid because there are practically no scientists (social or otherwise) coming out against premarital sex in modern societies with adequate screening against STDs and responsible use of contraception. Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't until the invention of reliable birth control in…

Phil, you didn't make an argument about scientists. You made a blanket statement about everyone, and singled out the political classes.

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the political classes...

Incidentally, scientific communities have gotten behind theories with little evidence for political or religious purposes: Lysenkoism and various eugenic theories, for example.

Re: Science is dead

#22

Post by philwelch »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #21
philwelch wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument is invalid because there are practically no scientists (social or otherwise) coming out against premarital sex in modern societies with adequate screening against STDs and responsible use of contraception. Honestly, sex outside of marriage probably was bad in the medieval society where the Roman Catholic Church pushed that doctrine on all of us. It wasn't until the invention of reliable birth control in…

Phil, you didn't make an argument about scientists. You made a blanket statement about everyone, and singled out the political classes. It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the political classes... Incidentally, scientific communities h…

The topic under discussion is "social pressure on scientists to fabricate evidence towards some sort of ulterior motive". Perhaps I should have explicitly restated that, but I assumed the way our respective comments are threaded implied it well enough.

Re: Science is dead

#23

Post by rationalbeaver »

philwelch wrote: post #20
grellas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course. I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this…

Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.

Allow me to assist. How do you think the environmental lobbyists propose that we combat APG? Does 'switch to renewable energy sources' sound familiar, or 'reducing emissions'? Does 'taxing carbon emissions' or 'carbon trading' sound familiar? All of these proposed changes have real economic impact, and they create winners and losers in the marketplace.

If the government subsidizes solar or wind power and penalizes coal, who wins and who loses? The companies who make turbines and solar plants are, generally speaking, not the same companies who make and operate coal plants (or coal mines, for that matter).

I think its quite safe to say that money is driving both sides of this argument.

Re: Science is dead

#24

Post by akkartik »

philwelch wrote: post #11
grellas wrote: post #6

Science and advocacy is an interesting topic. As a lawyer, I have witnessed the phenomenon of the "hired gun" very often in a courtroom context. A "neutral," "objective" expert comes to the very conclusion for which he or she is paid and dresses it up with all the right-sounding phrases and data to support the desired conclusion. Does this mean every court expert is a mere hack? No, not at all. There are honest exper…

It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone. It doesn't even help the political classes, because they have to waste political capital pursuing this issue rather than the half dozen other things they could worry about. However, it's in the direct benefit of oil compa…

I almost became an academic, so let me address the first half.

> "It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists."

Young associate professors have four years to make tenure. It's easier to get funding and get published if you espouse a cause. It makes your work seem 'important' to reviewers.

Scientists have a significant (10-20%) probability of getting invested in an ideology in the process of seeking tenure.

I agree with the second half.

Re: Science is dead

#25

Post by brc »

philwelch wrote: post #20
grellas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course. I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this…

Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.

Carbon trading was invented by Kenneth Lay of Enron. That should give you a pointer into what self interests lie for which groups? There is massive amounts of money to be made in the carbon trading arena : yet another type of derivative contract in which you'll have to pay a percentage for in order to buy/sell carbon credits.

While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co2 is so evil and so dangerous, why are we not talking of a finite ban, like DDT or Fluorocarbons?

Re: Science is dead

#26

Post by yummyfajitas »

philwelch wrote: post #22
yummyfajitas wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Phil, you didn't make an argument about scientists. You made a blanket statement about everyone, and singled out the political classes. It doesn't actually benefit anyone to convince people that anthropogenic climate change exists unless anthropogenic climate change actually exists. In fact, it's a huge pain in the ass for everyone...It doesn't even help the political classes... Incidentally, scientific communities h…

The topic under discussion is "social pressure on scientists to fabricate evidence towards some sort of ulterior motive". Perhaps I should have explicitly restated that, but I assumed the way our respective comments are threaded implied it well enough.

Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists.

If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them.

In any case, there is direct benefit to climate scientists to exaggerate the dangers/probabilities of climate change: it raises the importance of their field and by extension themselves. Exaggerated fears of global warming benefit climate scientists, just as exaggerated fears of the next great depression benefited Nouriel Roubini.

Re: Science is dead

#27

Post by philwelch »

brc wrote: post #25
philwelch wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.

Carbon trading was invented by Kenneth Lay of Enron. That should give you a pointer into what self interests lie for which groups? There is massive amounts of money to be made in the carbon trading arena : yet another type of derivative contract in which you'll have to pay a percentage for in order to buy/sell carbon credits. While I think internalising the externality is a fine idea in terms of controlling it, if co…

No one is saying CO2 is "evil", just that there are limits to how much we can safely emit into the atmosphere.

Incidentally, "carbon trading was invented by Ken Lay" is a classic logical fallacy. It's no better than saying "assembly lines were implemented in the auto industry by Henry Ford, a notorious anti-Semite who was decorated by Adolf Hitler and personally refused to assist in the war effort". Ford's evils don't invalidate the fact that cars are affordable, and Lay's evils don't invalidate the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

Re: Science is dead

#28

Post by philwelch »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #26
philwelch wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The topic under discussion is "social pressure on scientists to fabricate evidence towards some sort of ulterior motive". Perhaps I should have explicitly restated that, but I assumed the way our respective comments are threaded implied it well enough.

Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists. If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them. In any case, there is direct benefit to cli…

I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate science other than the petroleum, automotive, and energy industries.

Re: Science is dead

#29

Post by yummyfajitas »

philwelch wrote: post #28
yummyfajitas wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your argument explicitly mentions "anyone" and "political classes"; in no way does it single out scientists. It's a very general argument which, based on context, I assumed you were specializing to scientists. If you wish to claim it is true for scientists, but not people in general, you'll need to explain what special features of scientists make the argument true for them. In any case, there is direct benefit to cli…

I was responding to the vague claim that statists, who have an interest in increasing the power of the federal government, are exerting influence on climate scientists to fraudulently manufacture a rationale for a presumably wide-ranging and invasive intervention in the economy. My argument is that it's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiably vested interest in fraudulent climate s…

It's very hard to identify any sufficiently powerful group with any identifiable profit motive for fraudulent sex research either.

People sometimes push an agenda for irrational ideological reasons rather than simply profit.

Incidentally, bad sex research was fairly common. Homosexuality used to be classified as a disease, for example.

Re: Science is dead

#30

Post by mynameishere »

philwelch wrote: post #20
grellas wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No conspiracies involved - just my view of human nature and how it is capable of responding in an entirely spontaneous way to the temptations around it. Others are free to disagree, of course. I do disagree with you, quite strongly, about the idea that there are no vested interests associated with massive government power. A mere glance at what lobbyists do serves to dispel that assumption in my mind. At heart, this…

Lobbyists usually lobby for something or other--some government regulation to serve as a barrier to entry, some government subsidy of this or tax on that, but usually with some understandable commercial interest involved. I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.

I can't conceive of any self-interested goal that's furthered by combating anthropogenic climate change, other than mitigating the effects of it actually happening.

Wow. Really? It's not that hard. When billions of dollars move around, there's always a destination. The beneficiaries are:

1. Unproductive countries that sell carbon credits to productive countries.

2. Financial firms that skim the transaction.

3. Politicians, who move one (well, many) steps closer to the longstanding goal of controlling the means of production and distribution.

Post reply on HN