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

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

newscientist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 81 posts

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

#71

Post by Tichy »

msg wrote: post #69
Tichy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure I understand what you are getting at - what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment? I am not arguing for bad science.

I am also not using the ticking time bomb as a general example to support torture - I was just challenging the original posters assumption that his morals were unchangeable.

Nevertheless it is nonsense to refuse to weigh lives against each other. For example, in big building projects, there is presumably an inherent risk that innocent people will die in accidents during the building process. Yet the decision is often made to build (perhaps build a hospital?). Or take streets - thousands of people die in road accidents every year (and probably many more are killed by exhaust fumes), but apparently society has decided their lives are worth sacrificing. If the decision wasn't conscious, I'd argue it would be an improvement if the decision were made consciously.

Also, nuclear weapons are a real problem. They don't go away by simply not thinking about them. Frankly it might be a good thing that there are other people than feminists thinking about it.

Lastly, I think morals are just a poor workaround for having no sound theory for why a certain kind of behavior is beneficial. The more morals can be replaced by reason, the better for society, in my opinion.

Morals may have a good reputation, but in some other countries people get stoned to death for immoral behavior. Since morals have no scientific foundation, at times we might be ashamed about our own behavior a couple of years later, when understanding improves.

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

#72

Post by scrod »

ubernostrum wrote: post #48
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.

I think you're missing the fact that this is a new libertarian talking point. Laissez-faire approaches tend to result in the tragedy of the commons, where the commons is some environmental factor -- fish stocks, etc. -- and science has been consistently pointing out the problems caused as a result. Therefore, to defend itself, libertarianism must discredit science. The solution is to associate science with government…

This is perhaps the most salient observation in the entire thread.

Free-market libertarians have an ideological imperative to deny any causality between activity in the pursuit of profit and environmental catastrophes.

It's no surprise that a framework based almost entirely on individual property rights is unable to protect that which is impossible to own, to say nothing of the incorrectness of treating land as partitionable property when we know the ecosystem to be a globally-connected process.

By claiming to champion rationalism, their pretenses shine through; when the scientific method reveals the impracticality of their philosophy, they attack science itself.

You know, maybe we need a less-biased source of scientific funding — how about Exxon Mobil? I'm sure they'd have enough to pay for some real independent research. Oh, actually, it looks like they've been pretty busy already: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ExxonMobil_fundin...

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

#73

Post by lutorm »

ErrantX wrote: post #65
lutorm wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You are right about the bias, of course, though I think there's a much stronger bias in favor of theories you've come up with yourself.

I think that in the context of climate science, if you make a statement that you disagree with "GW theory", you are making a statement that is very close to a blanket denial. Which specific facts of the theory do you disagree with, and what is your alternative? Are you disagreeing with the IPCC number for the climate sensitivity? Or are you disagreeing with the idea that anthropogenic global warming can be true? Those are very different, the first is well within the scientific mainstream, the second is not.

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

#74

Post by lutorm »

ErrantX wrote: post #66

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…

I applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting.

However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists) because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its basic existence. Even if you have an good explanation of why the majority of scientists got everything totally wrong, any community has more inertia than being swayed by lone dissenting voices unless they are very well known and respected, because you will basically be telling them all that they fucked up.

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

#75

Post by ErrantX »

lutorm wrote: post #74
ErrantX wrote: post #66

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…

I applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting. However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists) because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its…

Honestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there really is not much more we can honestly say than that.

It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elephant".

Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react?

Currently I have quiet confidence we will start to ask that within the next decade.

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

#76

Post by lutorm »

ErrantX wrote: post #59
lutorm wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. That's exactly why claims that have many independent lines of evidence, like global warming, should be taken seriously.

Well, although I don't want to get into any argument about it (I was meaning it as a "winning quote" in general - not just r.e. climate science) I think your wrong. Because considering GW as a single claim in entirety is incorrect - there is a lot of claims and elements that make it up. It is more a field than a claim.

I thought that was what I was saying -- that there are a lot of claims that, when taken as a whole, point to the conclusion that global warming is happening.

But I admit that I'm biased -- I think that basic physical arguments will tell you that it must be happening. We can argue over to what exact degree, though.

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

#77

Post by lutorm »

ErrantX wrote: post #75
lutorm wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applaud you for actually digging in and understanding what the studies are saying, it's a vast field and to try to do that is daunting. However, I don't think it's a surprise that not believing in man-made GW is met with a huge amount of distrust (I assume you mean by actual scientists) because to most climate scientists, that question is settled. There is argument over the severity of the effect, but not over its…

Honestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there really is not much more we can honestly say than that. It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elep…

Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react?

You lost me here, how is the question of what is climate change going to do completely unconnected to global warming?

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

#78

Post by msg »

Tichy wrote: post #71
msg wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure I understand what you are getting at - what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment? I am not arguing for bad science. I am also not using the ticking time bomb as a general example to support torture - I was just challenging the original posters assumption that his morals were unchangeable. Nevertheless it is nonsense to refuse to weigh lives against each other. For example, in big…

"morals have no scientific foundation"

Your consequentialist philosophical views also have no "scientific foundation". Science reveals the world as it is, not as it should be.

You claim that somehow you are beyond values by applying this crude calculus of "lives saved". The truth is that you have not provided a foundation for your ethics. So what is it?

I agree that you do not understand what I'm getting at. Maybe we should just table this.

edited to add:

"what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment?"

If you read The One Percent Doctrine, you will learn about the people the United States tortured to try to get intel about terrorist attacks, using the ticking time bomb justification. And hello, "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." We invaded Iraq using similar justifications about the risks of WMD.

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

#79

Post by ErrantX »

lutorm wrote: post #77
ErrantX wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly. Most climate scientists shrug :-) as I said it's rationale that man has an affect on the climate. If you consider the work done so far there really is not much more we can honestly say than that. It always amuses me, too, the slanging match that evolves over what could be a fairly trivial point. Truthfully we are sorely lacking in long term data (no easy solution to that) and filling that void is this "elep…

Ultimately a rational decision must be made that is completely unnconnected to GW. And that is: what is climate change going to do, and how do we need to react? You lost me here, how is the question of what is climate change going to do completely unconnected to global warming?

Sorry, I forgot the qualifier "man made". :)

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

#80

Post by Tichy »

msg wrote: post #78
Tichy wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at - what exactly has been justified by the "ticking time bomb" experiment? I am not arguing for bad science. I am also not using the ticking time bomb as a general example to support torture - I was just challenging the original posters assumption that his morals were unchangeable. Nevertheless it is nonsense to refuse to weigh lives against each other. For example, in big…

"morals have no scientific foundation" Your consequentialist philosophical views also have no "scientific foundation". Science reveals the world as it is, not as it should be. You claim that somehow you are beyond values by applying this crude calculus of "lives saved". The truth is that you have not provided a foundation for your ethics. So what is it? I agree that you do not understand what I'm getting at. Maybe we…

You don't understand what I am saying and misquote me. No point in discussing further.
Post reply on HN