Climate blogs and comment threads are full of ‘arguments by analogy’. Depending on what ‘side’ one is on, climate science is either like evolution/heliocentrism/quantum physics/relativity or eugenics/phrenology/Ptolemaic cosmology/phlogiston. Climate contrarians are either like flat-earthers/birthers/moon-landing hoaxers/vaccine-autism linkers or Galileo/stomach ulcer-Helicobacter proponents/Wegener/Copernicus. Episodes of clear misconduct or dysfunction in other spheres of life are closely parsed only to find clubs with which to beat an opponent. Etc. Etc.
While the users of these ‘arguments’ often assume that they are persuasive or illuminating, the only thing that is revealed is how the proposer feels about climate science. If they think it is generally on the right track, the appropriate analogy is some consensus that has been validated many times and the critics are foolish stuck-in-the-muds or corporate disinformers, and if they don’t, the analogy is to a consensus that was overturned and where the critics are the noble paradigm-shifting ‘heretics’. This is far closer to wishful thinking than actual thinking, but it does occasionally signal clearly who is not worth talking to. For instance, an article pretending to serious discussion on climate that starts with a treatise about Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union is not to be taken seriously.
Since the truth or falsity of any scientific claim can only be evaluated on it’s own terms – and not via its association with other ideas or the character of its proponents – this kind of argument is only rhetorical. It gets no-one closer to the truth of any particular matter. The fact is that many, many times, mainstream science has survived multiple challenges by ‘sceptics’, and that sometimes (though not at all often), a broad consensus has been overturned. But knowing which case is which in any particular issue simply by looking for points of analogy with previous issues, but without actually examining the data and theory directly, is impossible. The point being that arguments by analogy are not persuasive to anyone who doesn’t already agree with you on the substance.
Given the rarity of a consensus-overturning event, the only sensible prior is to assume that a consensus is probably valid absent very strong evidence to the contrary, which is incidentally the position adopted by the arch-sceptic Bertrand Russell. The contrary assumption implies there are no a priori reasons to think any scientific body of work is credible which, while consistent, is not one that I have ever found anyone professing in practice. Far more common is a selective rejection of science dependent on other reasons and that is not a coherent philosophical position at all.
Analogies do have their place of course – usually to demonstrate that a supposedly logical point falls down completely when applied to a different (but analogous) case. For instance, an implicit claim that all correct scientific theories are supported by a unanimity of Nobel Prize winners/members of the National Academies, is easily dismissed by reference to Kary Mullis or Peter Duesberg. A claim that CO2 can’t possibly have a significant effect solely because of its small atmospheric mixing ratio, can be refuted as a general claim by reference to other substances (such as arsenic, plutonium or Vitamin C) whose large effects due to small concentrations are well known. Or if a claim is made that all sciences except climate science are devoid of uncertainty, this is refuted by reference to, well, any other scientific field.
To be sure, I am not criticising the use of metaphor in a more general sense. Metaphors that use blankets to explaining how the greenhouse effect works, income and spending in your bank account to stand in for the carbon cycle, what the wobbles in the Earth’s orbit look like if the planet was your head, or conceptualizing the geologic timescale by compressing it to a day, for instance, all serve useful pedagogic roles. The crucial difference is that these mappings don’t come dripping with over-extended value judgements.
Another justification for the kind of analogy I’m objecting to is that it is simply for amusement: “Of course, I’m not really comparing my opponents to child molesters/food adulterers/mass-murderers – why can’t you take a joke?”. However, if you need to point out to someone that a joke (for adults at least) needs to have more substance than just calling someone a poopyhead, it is probably not worth the bother.
It would be nice to have a moratorium on all such analogical arguments, though obviously that is unlikely to happen. The comment thread here can assess this issue directly, but most such arguments on other threads are ruthlessly condemned to the bore-hole (where indeed many of them already co-exist). But perhaps we can put some pressure on users of these fallacies by pointing to this post and then refusing to engage further until someone actually has something substantive to offer. It may be pointless, but we can at least try.
Steve (#145),
Not to urge that might makes right, but we did fight a pretty big war over the fallacy of genetic superiority and Hitler lost. He lost, in part, because his attempts to improve fitness sabotaged the effectiveness of his war effort.
It seems pretty clear that the superman cannot be bred. There is something that defeats those efforts. It may be that the concept of groups selection is important here. A useful trait that bounces around would promote group cohesion over time, perhaps, and improve fitness of the group. I don’t think the problem is fully understood, but it is very different from the colors of fruit fly eyes.
It is worrisome that the possibility that the superman can be engineered rather than bred is out there. A consistently created superman probably would not need a group for survival.
A book by Michael H. Fox says an important part in fear is whether or not the feared thing is personified. Let’s call GW “the Wicked Witch of the Weather.”
Arguing by analogy? If the average person used ANY organized way of thinking, it would be an improvement. Or can somebody tell me what it is that goes on in their heads? It appears to me to be chaos.
“GHGs absolutely do increase back-radiation.”
Indeed they do; didn’t mean to imply otherwise. It is, after all, both measurable and measured, as I wrote about here.
http://doc-snow.hubpages.com/hub/Fire-From-Heaven-Climate-Science-And-The-Element-Of-Life-Part-Two-The-Cloud-By-Night
A book by Michael H. Fox says an important part in fear is whether or not the feared thing is personified. Let’s call GW “the Wicked Witch of the Weather.”
Arguing by analogy? If the average person used ANY organized way of thinking, it would be an improvement. Or can somebody tell me what it is that goes on in their heads? It appears to me to be chaos.
I saw Katherine Hayhoe on Bill Moyers’ show an hour or so ago. She pointed out another illogicality in the thinking of most people. They deny GW because the solution involves government action. People would rather die than allow a larger government? Katherine Hayhoe is also illogical, but that is another matter.
Corporations could solve GW. For example, coal companies could voluntarily go out of business, but they won’t.
Other fear causers from Page 236 of that book by Michael H. Fox:
Not trusting government or industry
Is the risk greater than the benefit?
Do we have control?
Do we have a choice?
Is it natural or man made?
Does it cause pain and suffering?
Is it uncertain?
Is it catastrophic or chronic?
Can it happen to me?
Is it new or familiar?
Does it affect children?
Is it personified in an individual?
Is it fair?
These questions seem clear with respect to GW except for the personification question, which is nonsense. Reasoning by a method does not seem to be involved at all. The list is a hodge podge. We could find ways to answer these questions. Would answers be accepted?
What I want to know is who is the Wegner referred to in the opening paragraph – the only prominent Wegner I can think of is a Scandinavian furniture designer! Do you mean Wegener?
[Response: Ah yes. Blog science is also like a spelling bee. ;-) – gavin]
Leonard Weinstein,
Ah, I think I see your problem. You are under the illusion that the scientific debate takes place in the comment sections of blogs. Try reading the science instead. It is unequivocal–we’re in deep kim-chee.
Chris (13 Sep 2014 at 12:31 AM and again at 13 Sep 2014 at 7:37 PM): You seem to be reading way to much into statements that intelligence is heritable. When biologists (a category in which I used to include myself) say something is heritable, they don’t generally mean that it is entirely explained by genetic factors or even that it is predictably handed down from one generation to the next. They CERTAINLY don’t imply that “genius begets genius” or that one could “breed a superman”! It merely (not that it’s that small a conclusion) means that genetics play a role and that at some level we can detect that role (e.g. twin studies) even if we don’t understand it.
Really, it would be surprising if intelligence was NOT at all genetic! Think about the vast numbers of genes that effect brain development. It’s hard to imagine that none of them contribute to intelligence. But that also explains why genius does not beget genius or why supermen are not breedable (they are, however breadable if you have a big enough deep fryer). The complex of genes that would likely contribute to intelligence is surely vast and very complicated (as opposed to relatively simple genetic relationship for say hair color), so heritability is likely complex and difficult to predict.
Also, they’re generally not talking about the evolution of intelligence when speaking about heritability. That’s a very different study.
Apologies if I’m just telling you stuff of which you’re fully aware. It just felt like you and the others were kinda arguing across each other.
Re- Comment by Chris Dudley — 13 Sep 2014 @ 7:37 PM, ~#151
Breeding supermen is social engineering schlock. Your Dunning-Kruger is showing.This is a climate forum. Go read a book (or 3).
Steve
Leonard Weinstein:
By mentioning that you are Jewish, it appears you have adopted the interpretation that calling someone who thinks he’s a skeptic a “denier” always implies “denier that Nazi Germany attempted to exterminate Jews in Europe.” It’s been repeatedly pointed out, though, that for at least 500 years “denier” wihout any modifier has simply meant “one who denies”. When I use the unmodified word in a climate-related context, the “anthropogenic climate change” modifier is implied. I’m merely reducing my keystrokes, not implying any other modifier, such as “Holocaust”. If the context is ambiguous, I’m careful to use the modifier. Is that really so hard to understand?
Even though it’s easy to find people who deny ACC but not the Holocaust, some motivated ACC deniers may insist that “denier” must always imply Holocaust denier, at least when it’s applied to them by someone the denier labels “warmist”, “alarmist”, or even “leftist”. It’s a transparent rhetorical stratagem, but pseudo-skeptics who fall for it apparently believe that absence of a modifier is evidence for only one possible modifier, no matter what the context. So much for skepticism.
Martin (#158),
Break out the kryptonite and let’s have dinner. We’ll call it the Bath of Khan.
Yes, a good chunk of heritability of intelligence in humans is non-genetic. It is just difficult to see how straight forward selection can act on intelligence if it does not persist from generation to generation through genetics. And the reshuffle Hank described seems awfully evident.
151 Chris Dudley: Please go to https://www.coursera.org and take several courses in biology, geology, etcetera.
Chris (161 – 14 Sep 2014 @ 11:53 AM): You seem a little confused. Heritability of traits in this context is ALL ABOUT genetics (let’s leave aside epigenetic influences for simplicity). That’s just what it means. But to say that intelligence is heritable, which I believe is reasonably well established, is not to say that genetics is the most important factor in determining intelligence. Developmental and environmental factors are instrumental in determining intelligence.
As for genetic shuffling, that’s not incompatible with either the heritability of intelligence or with differential selection, umm, selecting for intelligence. For example, let’s say that in a certain population and environment there is a reproductive advantage to being intelligent. If there were combinations of genes that were more likely increase intelligence and thus reproductive success, then it would not be surprising that those combinations of genes would increase in frequency within a population. Note that I’m not arguing that this is happening in modern human society… but that’s a discussion that opens up WAY too many side issues to pursue here.
> I have seen much less calling of these type names the other way.
Oh, please. You’ve fallen for — and are promoting — a PR strawman originated decades ago _by_ the tobacco industry, pretending to be a victim of a story they made up and promoted widely.
I gave you cites to several sources 7 Sep 2014 at 9:29 AM in this very thread, with quotes.
Briefly, again, just one of those at that earlier link:
Tob Control. Oct 2008 (5) 291–296.
“Nicotine Nazis strike again”: a brief analysis of the use of Nazi rhetoric in attacking tobacco control advocacy
book: “Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas” by Cass R. SunStein, 2014
Pages 10 and 11: “Most striking, researchers have found that “this tendency even extends to beliefs in mutually contradictory conspiracy theories, and to beliefs in fully fictitious conspiricy theories. Thus, those who believe that Princess Diana faked her own death are also more likely to believe that she was murdered;…” Mutual contradiction is no barrier to belief.
Page 1: “49 percent of New York City residents believe that officials of the US government “knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act.””
Not in this book but from my experience, if I say “A”, he acts as if I said “Z”. I say “No, I said “A”” then he will say, “Oh, you meant “M.” Ad nauseum. Some people cannot be communicated with.
Never mind reasoning by analogy. And notice that there are far more of those people than there are people who can actually reason at all.
Martin (#163),
Yes you are right. I was reading something with unfortunate phrasing. Heritability can go to zero http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/u81/Turkheimer_et_al___2003_.pdf but that is owing to it being a measure of variance. It can be pushed down by other factors.
So, that raises an interesting question: if heritability is weakest when times are tough, just when selection pressure may be strongest, does that mitigate against selection?
If we go with sexual selection, there is quite a squirm to include there as well: “Sexual selection for intelligence and judging ability can act on indicators of success, such as highly visible displays of wealth (cattle, farmland, servants, etc.). It is possible that for females to successfully judge male intelligence, they must be intelligent themselves. This could explain why despite the absence of clear differences in intelligence between males and females on average, there are clear differences between male and female propensities to display their intelligence in ostentatious forms.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_human_intelligence
Some invoke intelligence providing adaptability to climate change as the fitness upon which intelligence evolved. But is not cooperation the largest adaptation? A range of intelligence may be helpful in some cooperative arrangements.
Coming from the other direction, is the existence of cooperation in wolves the reason we can breed both a border collie and a pit bull from their stock?
Ultimately, I think a claim like “But it is worse than that. IQ is a variable. If IQ were not a variable, evolution would be impossible because there would be no possibility of natural selection for intelligence. We would be no smarter than fish.” is unsupportable at present.
Aaron Lewis:
If you’re worried about this, take a look at, for example, section 2.1 of Bühler’s A Brief Introduction to Classical, Statistical, and Quantum Mechanics (American Mathematical Society, 2006), which proves by construction that, as long as there a region of Fourier space, in which the power spectral densities of fluctuations density, velocity, composition, temperature etc. are small, which surrounds the long-wavelength and long-period region of interest, and separates it from the short-wavelength and short-period period associated with individual molecules (“scale separation”), then there is an averaging procedure which produces valid continuum differential equations for conservation of mass, momentum, energy and so on.
While I’m on here for the first time in ages (sorry!)… I notice there have been a number of instances of misspelling “Dan H.”‘s name as “DanH”. Please be advised that “DanH” (that’s me, first post on here that I can track down 9th September 2008) and “Dan H.” (first post on here that I can track down 21st October 2010) are, in fact, different people, and if you work on the assumption that we’re the same person, you’ll think frequently think that the unified person ‘doesn’t recognise the fundamental principles of reason, such as the law of non-contradiction’.
Aaron Lewis:
If you’re worried about this, take a look at, for example, section 2.1 of Bühler’s A Brief Introduction to Classical, Statistical, and Quantum Mechanics (American Mathematical Society, 2006), which proves by construction that, as long as there a region of Fourier space, in which the power spectral densities of fluctuations density, velocity, composition, temperature etc. are small, which surrounds the long-wavelength and long-period region of interest, and separates it from the short-wavelength and short-period region associated with individual molecules (“scale separation”), then there is an averaging procedure which produces valid continuum differential equations for conservation of mass, momentum, energy and so on.
While I’m on here for the first time in ages (sorry!): I notice there have been a number of instances of misspelling “Dan H.”‘s name as “DanH”. Please be advised that “DanH” (that’s me, first post on here that I can track down 9th September 2008) and “Dan H.” (first post on here that I can track down 21st October 2010) are, in fact, different people, and if you work on the assumption that we’re the same person, you’ll think frequently think that the unified person ‘doesn’t recognise the fundamental principles of reason, such as the law of non-contradiction’.
There’s a huge difference between analogy and metaphor. Noting the differences and how they play out in the communication and cognitive mix would have a been a useful contribution from the get go. Arguing against analogies when in truth they are metaphor is well kind counter-productive and the opposite of education and sharing ideas that are more worthy of a discussion in relation to why so many people, even some labelled scientists and academics just don’t get AGW.
The flip side of that are these items : “Metaphors that use blankets to explaining how the greenhouse effect works, income and spending in your bank account to stand in for the carbon cycle, what the wobbles in the Earth’s orbit look like if the planet was your head, or conceptualizing the geologic timescale by compressing it to a day, for instance, all serve useful pedagogic roles.” are NOT metaphors to begin with. But, each to their own. Ask any linguistics professor or cognitive scientist, no need to take my word for it. In fact, don’t. I may be wrong.
MartinJB:
… but surely the hereditable epigenetic influences are enormous, particularly if, as seems to be the consensus above, the genetic effects lose hereditability by not being localized to particular regions of the genome. For example, let’s say my great-grandfather owned a copy of a puzzle book that was really effective in developing cognitive skills [*]. In a series of bequests, that book ended up in my possession. Then we’ve got intelligence as a selectable, hereditable trait, without the involvement of a single base pair.
[*] … or maybe, instead, he relocated to a county where the public libraries had loads of such puzzle books, and I still live in that county. Chris Dudley mentioned twin studies – this variant of the effect would be extraordinarily difficult to control out of twin studies, because even if the twins are adopted, there’s a good chance of them being brought up in the same county.
CD@ ~ 166
Well, it is an interesting area. You’re doing a lot of speculating and it’s a very deep topic that so far is not on topic. Belaboring Greisch’s point is a losing proposition, since I doubt that even he knows what his point is.
Dogs. PBS had a 2 part thing that may be illuminating:
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/episodes/dogs-that-changed-the-world/introduction/1273/
but it is OT here. Please take it and move on. For pity’s sake, vato.
People talking about heritability need to spend some time defining terms and underlying measurements.
For example, (essentially) ALL the differences between identical twins are due nurture. Heritability (nature) is statistically lower in closely related populations for the same reason compared to more distantly related populations for the same reason. Conversely (essentially) ALL of the variation in people raised in identical environments is ascribed to nature.
It’s a really slippery subject to study and make any sense out of. There are statements that can be made, but you need to take real care and be very specific about your underlying genetic and environmental variables.
As for breeding humans, I have no doubt at all that a long-term multigenerational selective breeding program controlled by some long lived entity would produce some changes in some human characteristics and perhaps some having to do with some aspects of intelligence. This has been repeatedly done over the millennia by humans already with domestication of various bacteria, plants, and animals and I see no reason to think that humans are any different. But we are not talking 1, 2 or a few generations. And of course all breeders know the importance of culling.
In terms of the discussion on this thread, the Nazi analogy is a good example of a completely failed analogy because nothing in the Nazi program related to principles of selective breeding that breeders have known since the days of the Fertile Crescent.
re 125: SecularAnimist: No, I am saying that the underlying assumptions of the math methods in models need to be considered. Always! Calculus/differential equations are not always the technique that will give the best answer, because they are based on assumptions of continuity in a world that does include quantum mechanics. Or, sometimes the domain must be strictly defined and bounded. There are other mathamatical techniques. Often they are very burdensome, but they they can avoid the assumptions of continuity/differentiability.
The devil does not need lawyers. He does quantum mechanics even while the priests of mathematics are reciting the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus.
re 128: Chris, it is a more general problem because differential equations are used to describe the energy content of ice warming under stress – however the ice fractures, and energy concentrates at the boundaries of the fracture, resulting in a discontinuous energy field. With calculus, just because you are modeling an ocean does not mean that the quantum mechanics of molecular bonding do not matter, because calculus takes one back to the smallest elements of the system, which are molecules and their bonds.
From Katherine Hayhoe (in the recent Moyers interview):
“We have all the information we need to take precautionary steps on this issue. It’s not a scientific issue, it’s not a matter of one more report will do it. One more national climate assessment, that’s what will solve the problem. One more new analogy, and people will get it. Information is not the answer. The answer has much more to do with who we are as humans, and how we function politically.”
Even physical analogies can present polemic hazards:
The relatively short time scale of human actions that force climate relative to geophysical processes could be used to frame an alalogy to the Kapiza Pendulum, in which rapid dynamic perturbations stabilize low frequency oscillators– the real world is, after all, as full of strange attractors.
Leonard,
I think most scientists avoid the verbal attacks which you mentioned, preferring to let the evidence stand on its own merit. However, there are many people, usually non-scientists, who prefer to argue from the standpoint that their opponent has allied some unfathomable evil, in the hopes to dissuade others from accepting their statements. As someone said earlier, this is msot prevalent on web blogs and not found in the scientific literature.
Arguing by analogy, arguing by fact, arguing by logic, but the argument type that beats everything is argument by emotion. Politicians know this, but not so much scientist.
If I am remembering correctly, the MMPI has 22 different ways to be crazy. Within one standard deviation:
.66 to the exponent 22 =1 out of 10,000 is sane
Within 2 standard deviations, 35% are sane.
Why did you expect sanity?
171 Radge Havers: My points:
1. “Humans” are too stupid to save themselves.
2. The result is predictable mass death.
Q&A ABC TV Australia – Panelists 4 x Scientists 1 x Engineer (2 x Nobel Laureates)
Monday 15 September, 2014 – Science: Precious Petals to Passionate Teachers
In tonight’s #QandA audience: 63% studying, teaching and researching Science and 100% depending on Science.
Text & Video 1 hour
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4069393.htm
The very Last Question was: CLIMATE CHANGE
Jacqui Hoepner asked: Many scientists despair that public acceptance and action on climate change doesn’t reflect the scientific consensus. It’s now been 25 years since the first World Climate Conference, yet the public is more divided than ever and predictions for the effects of climate change are more dire. If winning people over with “more facts and less opinions” was plan A, what’s plan B?
Dan H.: “I think most scientists avoid the verbal attacks which you mentioned, preferring to let the evidence stand on its own merit.”
In print, perhaps, but if you think scientists are unemotional when it comes to scientific debate, you haven’t been around many scientists. In particular, scientists care about advancing understanding. When they perceive that a colleague is obfuscating or dissimulating, they are utterly merciless.
Aaron (#173),
Understanding water at a fundamental level in an active area of research. You might enjoy this paper: http://authors.library.caltech.edu/36706/1/JChemPhys_137_244507.pdf But quantities like temperature and heat capacity have an empirical history in thermodynamics that works well when modeling ocean warming.
Gavin: Things you could do about Arguments by Analogy:
Set up a petition for your readers to sign on line favoring the STEM requirements to state legislatures that haven’t passed the proper law yet.
Try to get the universities you are associated with to require humanities and fine arts students to take the Engineering and Science Core Curriculum [E&SCC] with the engineering and science students. As of now, they are teaching a lot of Mickey Mouse courses [no math and no lab] in sciences that are amenable to such treatment. Try to get your colleagues to do the same. It is long since time for universities to be remodeled.
Preaching to the choir doesn’t convert sinners.
@Dan Greisch #177,
Upon realisation, when perceived change becomes apparent, climate change will spur emotions. But are people smart enough to understand the changes? For instance, north polar air intrusion, observed in the last couple of years in the northern hemisphere, could be such a change, maybe here to stay and become worse.
Ray Ladbury, responding with admirable restraint to Dan H:
I’ve witnessed this several times. Hoo boy! Many working scientists would agree it’s an essential part of the process, though:
Not everyone is cut out to be a professional scientist. A thick skin is a necessary personality trait.
Jim Hansen quote:
“Suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and [the] Tooth Fairy.”
Analogies are useful as the first step to start a conversation. Analogies by themselves do not however change a people’s mind.
Whether one is successful in changing a person’s mind is dependent on the logic and reason that is available and presented to support a person’s accretions/paradigm, whether people will listen to logic and reason, and whether people will change their mind if logic and reason does not support their paradigm/accertions.
re “On arguing by analogy”
Curious if anyone has ever considered: To stop arguing, period?
iow finally recognized that it is the arguing itself that is counter-productive and the Brick Wall Barrier to changing the overtly destructive, anti-life, collective human behaviour?
It appears not. Not on this climate subject nor any other, not here and not anywhere else either. All the best.
– See more at: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/09/on-arguing-by-analogy/comment-page-4/#comment-594992
Now, that is some crazy logic! Why would the number of potential disorders say anything about their prevalence in a given population? (And that’s leaving aside the grotesque mischaracterization of the MMPI’s various ‘scales’ as ‘ways to be crazy.’)
Good thing this is way OT anyhow.
Mal,
You missed the point. Scientists argue their points based on evidence, not ad hominem attacks. When new understanding shreds old thinking, you rarely see the old guard attacking the person who did the research. They may attack the validity of the research, but there is a certain level of respect for the scientists involved. At least in the hard sciences, like chemistry and physics.
188 Kevin McKinney: My comment is exactly on topic. The topic is: reasoning. Remember the philosopher who tried to teach logic in a psychiatric hospital? He found out that it is not possible, and that is my point. Gavin wants to teach crazy people to think. They can not, therefore they will not. There is no puzzle there. The puzzle is: Why does Gavin bother to complain? The answer is: Gavin is frustrated. So what else is new?
To whom it may concern;
PLEASE post a new article! There is much news on the Climate front, what with the UN conference and Climate March both upcoming. This current article (and comment thread) is worn out by now.
Thank you,
Henry.
EG @ ~ 190
No. The topic is arguing by analogy. On this site. That’s pretty specific. ‘Reasoning’ would be a ridiculously huge topic. Same with ‘sanity’, ‘IQ’ and the like. Your approach is rhetorical as the problems of inaction are institutional and (in the same sense that people tend to deny death) psychological– which may boil down to stupidity but not in any clinical sense.
OTOH, if you know of a link between say lead in the drinking water and climate stupidity, I’d like to hear it. On the UV thread. And that’s not to say that you don’t have a kernel of a point about education, IMO.
#190–OK, I’ll give you the point that it is, in fact, on topic.
Other than that, though…
It’s true that the claims of climate science should not be judged by an assessment of some other unrelated claim.
But, if you are arguing by consensus then you are going to get the counterargument that some scientific consensuses have failed or have been reversed/withdrawn. The failure rate is not all that low, at least that is my impression of the matter.
The broad public are not going to be able to effectively dig into the specifics of climate science to evaluate it. The arguments that they can handle are going to be shallow of necessity.
Just laying out some parameters of the problem, not sure how to solve it.
I read some of the Forbes article. Do these people have influence? I hope I am never alone in a room with the author. What fascinates is that there is no nuance, AGW has, to use a metaphor!, to be nuked out of existence. Clearly, scientists who work on AGW need to be sent for re-education Pol Pot style.
#189 “Scientists argue their points based on evidence, not ad hominem attacks.”
LOL Hahahahahaha! OMG, the funniest (untrue) thing ever written on RC.
It’s funny because so many actually believe it is true.
Humans are the only life form with this affliction called ‘beliefs’.
Is it any wonder then, that Planet Earth is in such a pickle today?
And it’s getting worse faster than ever.
When luxury cruise ships are doing tours to the north pole in midsummer for the rich and famous in 2025, still the global mafia of Bond Holders and Corporate whore shareholders will be denying this current reality of climate change is not man-made and self-created.
Believe me (LOL), they will be! Nothing said or done here will ever make an iota of difference.
This comment is on topic even though it may not seem like it. This book may be more pertinent than it looks:
“A Manual for Creating Atheists” by Peter Boghossian
Chapter 3: People may be more adamant about their previous ideas as they become more open to your ideas. They may even become hostile or violent.
I am on page 55. The same methods should apply to any counterfactual belief. Boghossian’s idea is to get people to look at experimental evidence by what he calls “street epistemology.” The problem, so far, is that it is for one person at a time. Boghossian gives lectures, so maybe that comes later.
That is the same as we want to do: Get people to look at the experimental evidence and quit believing nonsense. Or, quit reasoning by analogy and reason from experimental evidence with logic. The only difference is the subject to which the method is applied.
No, Dan H, you missed the point. It is that cynical AGW deniers will justify unsupported scientific claims by complaining that their critics aren’t polite. The deniers hope the lay public will mistake forthright scientific criticism for ad-hominem attacks, and that their ideas will gain credibility if they are treated politely. They are playing the victim card, as with whining that calling them AGW deniers implies they are Holocaust deniers.
#197 Get people to look at experimental evidence and quit believing nonsense.
Edward, I agree that this is where the argument should be. The problem is not misplaced analogy, it is probably that the scientific output related to experimental evidence on the attribution issue would account for 5% of the total amount of science in the public that is branded ‘global warming’ etc.
Gavin (who works on attribution) would agree a lot of the ‘impact’ papers the public have seen took the pre 1998 warming record plus model projections as a given and then projected from that. That is not science on attribution. How can we blame analogy when the ‘unscientific’ simply appreciate that models are now significantly not matching model prediction and then hear a multitude of reasons why not.
As the actual science of attribution becomes more complicated by the pause, it is fine to maintain high certainty in palaeolithic evidence and it’s implications but to carry on as if the original arguments hold as much water as they did is perhaps not in the spirit of the nebulous ’scientific training’ discussed earlier. Appreciating this would negate the need to grasp around for reasons why the majority are not with ‘us’ but with ‘them’. It does not help to imply that oneself is absolved from influence of the said reason due to luckily being part of the evolutionary 7% capable of understanding science and immune to such human frailty.
“Climate contrarians are either like flat-earthers/birthers/moon-landing hoaxers/vaccine-autism linkers or Galileo/stomach ulcer-Helicobacter proponents/Wegener/Copernicus”
If we want to be professional and get the message of climate science out, then we need to take a higher road than the above quote. Sure, many opposed to climate action are clueless and annoying, but so are many who are marching in the streets of NYC this weekend. On the issue of climate, there is an unlimited supply of ignorance on all sides.
The old saying goes “You cain’t argy wif iggernance”. So don’t even try. This post uses blanket insults against everyone opposed to climate action. I suggest a better approach would be to ignore the clueless and engage with respect those who wish to bring science to the debate, whether we agree or not.
[Response: You appear not to have the article at all. Please try again. – gavin]