[Vision2020] Realclimate.org: "Debates Between Creationists and Evolutionists:" (548 Responses)

[Ted Moffett]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/03/why-we-bother/

Dear RealClimate team:

I have a background in biology and studied at post-grad level in the area of
philosophy of science. For the last few years, I have been working on a book
about the logic of argument used in debates between creationists and
evolutionists.

About a year ago I decided it was time to properly educate myself about
climate science. Being perhaps a little too influenced by Harry M Collins’ “The
Golem<http://books.google.com/books?id=t5wovH0l-bcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Harry+M+Collins%27+%22The+Golem%22&source=bl&ots=9lMbCoujde&sig=kSc7XOY4GMFNM-bdV4UaiHp706E&hl=en&ei=uumYS-fsA4uWtge0kpGwCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=global%20warming&f=false>”
(and probably too much modern French philosophy!), I was definitely
predisposed to see group-think, political and cultural bias in the work of
climatologists.

On the whole, though, I tried hard to follow the principles of genuine
skepticism, as I understood them.

Obviously, there are plenty of ill-considered opinions to be found either
side of any issue, but only the most ignorant person could fail to see the
terrible intellectual gulf between the quality of so-called skeptic sites
and those defending the science behind the AGW thesis.

What convinced me, though, is that the arguments made by a few sites like
yours are explicit and testable. In particular, it is useful that
RealClimate sticks to the science as much as possible. It has been a lot of
hard work to get here, but I am now at a point where I understand the
fundamentals of climate science well enough to articulate them to others.

For my part, I am grateful to you guys. I hope it gives you some small
amount of satisfaction to know that your work can convert readers who really
were skeptics in the beginning. I use the word ’skeptic’ carefully – the one
thing most commonly absent from the so-called ’skeptics’ is authentic
skepticism.

By the way, my book is an attempt to categorise the various logical errors
people fall into when they search for arguments to support a conclusion to
which they have arrived at a priori. It will now have a few chapters on
global warming.
All the best,

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100321/12c2be95/attachment.html