Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Humans are responsible for most of the recent global warming
Collapse
X
-
-
Yay, the denialism continues...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostYay, the denialism continues...
http://climatechange.procon.org/view...stionID=001445
Several "con" scientists there...That's what
- She
Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
- Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)
I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
- Stephen R. Donaldson
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
There are a few regular scientists with relevant expertise on the con column in that list. But it's effectively an appeal to authority, and most of the people in the con column aren't authorities or have external reasons to motivate their claims. And if you go the appeal to authority route, then you have to deal with the fact that the vast majority of people with relevant expertise accept the evidence that indicates climate change is real, happening, and will cause dramatic changes over the course of this century. It's not an even point-counterpoint as that list presents.
Just to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 04:04 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
This is like when AIDS denialists post a list of "con scientists" who don't accept that HIV causes AIDS. Or creationists / ID proponent, who post nonsense lists about a scientific dissent from Darwinism. That's the level of tactics denialsts like you resort to:
Originally posted by Jichard View PostOriginally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
"Characteristics of denialism
[...]
Use of fake experts
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostJust to be clear, though, i think that Jichard's tendency to throw inflammatory labels around is stupid.
Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostHow is "denialism" an inflammatory label?
Is it inflammatory when doctors, virologists, immunologists, etc. use it when discussing AIDS denialism?
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals.
It's not stupid at all; it makes it clear that one recognizes their denialist position for what it is.
At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
But if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Alexey Karetnikov's "Commentary: Questioning the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis: 30 Years of Dissent"
"AIDS Denialism and Public Health Practice"
In science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.
And I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jichard View PostSo it's stupid for virologists, immunologists, etc. to call Peter Duesberg a "denialist" when they're interacting with him? It's stupid to call people denialists in print, when responding to those people's denialist claims in print?
But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.
Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostBut if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Originally posted by Jichard View PostIn science, we have no problem calling out denialists when we see them.
Originally posted by Jichard View PostAnd I never said there was "a blanket denial of evidence". Instead, there's a denial of any evidence that's inconvenient for their denialist position.
EDITED: it's, not its. GAH.Last edited by TheLurch; 11-04-2015, 05:18 PM."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostSo, basically you're just using this thread as a blog, is that right? I mean, outside of this back and forth I don't really see any discussion here, and this is a discussion forum.
You are not providing that which you do not see.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostHaving talked to Duesberg personally, i think i have some perspective on this. Yes, he does deny reality; in his case, denialist is an appropriate label. But by talking with him, you can get a sense of both what motivates him to do so, and the "reasoning" process he uses to support his position. And both of those are valuable in communicating with people who don't know science well, but find Duesberg's arguments compelling.
But Duesberg's a rare breed; there's very few people who have his scientific training and still deny reality on multiple topics. He's also rare in that he won't shut down when someone calls him a denialist - he relishes being controversial.
Mea culpa for not noting that there are some exceptions to my statements above.
Originally posted by TheLurchOriginally posted by JichardBut if you doubt this, then please explain how the following people'ss use of the term "denialism" made it impossible for them to rebut the claims that they did:
Above, you seem to claim that calling someone a denialist makes it impossible for what to delve into the details of what they say. But if that's the case, then that makes it impossible to rebut their claims, since rebutting their claims involves delving into the details of what they say.
That's funny; i've been involved in science in one way or another since the mid-1980s. And i've seen extensive debate over whether it's a productive tactic.
Well, you've sure shouted "denialist" at a lot of people here who are quite open to evidence when you bother to take the time to discuss it with them.
Bill the Cat doesn't count; you saw exactly how he reacted to the evidence showing that humans caused most of the recent global warming. He was not open to the evidence, and he instead responded in just the way one would expect a denialist to. Bill isn't open to evidence that goes against his denialist position.
Same for Mountain Man. He's a conspiracy theorist who just posts nonsense he read off of conservative websites like breitbert.com.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's a convenient label when referring to a group or movement. It's stupid when personally interacting with individuals. At that point, you can start delving into details - what they know, what evidence they accept, what concerns they have, etc. And you can generally find that there's not a blanket denial of evidence if you take the time to pay attention. And you can identify both common ground and points of disagreement, and focus the discussions accordingly.
None of that's possible if you just shout "LOL, DENIAL!" all the time.
"Ideological divide over global warming as wide as ever"
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/16/ideological-divide-over-global-warming-as-wide-as-ever/
Their denialist position on this is driven by ideology, not by any genuine interest or concern about the scientific evidence that goes against their denialist position. That's how denialism works after all.
"How the growth of denialism undermines public health"
http://www.bmj.com/content/341/bmj.c6950.extract
"Promoting pro-environmental action in climate change deniers"
nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n8/full/nclimate1532.html
"A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change1, 2. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally3, 4.
So there's little-to-no chance of you convincing them to change their denialist position through discussions of scientific evidence. Contrary scientific evidence tends not to change the mind of ideological conservatives. So it'll be a cold day in Hell before folks like Bill, Mountain Man, One Bad Pig, etc. accept the evidence-based scientific consensus on AGW.
Comment
-
It's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.
Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.
By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
a) mislabel a lot of people.
b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.
*Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostIt's obvious i haven't made my argument clear, so i apologize. Let me try to summarize it briefly.
Yes, there are some hard core denialists like Duesberg*. They are relative rarities. Most of the public are not committed and haven't examined the issue that carefully. They mostly make decisions based on their cultural affinities and other non-evidence-based methods.
By shouting "denialist" at every turn, you:
a) mislabel a lot of people.
b) make them less likely to ever examine the issue on a deeper level.
*Duesberg's more of a contrarian, taking positions that run counter to what most biologists conclude in part because he loves the controversy. But it's close enough that i'll grant you it.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
3 responses
32 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-07-2024, 08:07 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
5 responses
52 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
05-14-2024, 11:35 AM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
14 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
27 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
14 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment