[Vision2020] Rumelhart's Error Re: Health Education: A Conspiracy? A bit off the subject now though

[Joe Campbell]

Well, he did say "many people," not all people. Certainly there are folks pushing an anti-science agenda. And many of them, like the folks at Fox News, offer very bad, uncritical reasons for dismissing evidence in favor of global warming, though I would not say you were one of them. But you have to admit that there is a ton of uncritical anti-scientific crap being flung around about the issue, though again not by you. Joe


On Nov 29, 2010, at 8:31 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> Maybe I'm missing something (happens all the time), but didn't you just 
> reiterate the following:
> 
> "My point in simple: many people who should have developed critical
> thinking skills, who are intelligent, who are reasonably educated
> about the world on many levels, still assert an anti-science and
> anti-progressive agenda, refusing to accept as probable that
> humans evolved from simpler organisms, or that the evidence for
> anthropogenic climate change is substantial,..."
> 
> 
> Maybe I'm having trouble parsing that sentence, but it sure seems like 
> you are saying that if you refuse to accept that humans evolved from 
> simpler organisms or that evidence for anthropogenic climate change is 
> substantial, then you are displaying a lack of critical thinking skills, 
> intelligence, education about the world, and/or are thus asserting an 
> anti-science and anti-progressive agenda.
> 
> I have doubts about how probable it is that humans are causing the 
> majority of the recent climate change, given that the climate has been 
> warming for a while.  Does that mean that I am asserting an anti-science 
> or anti-progressive agenda?  Am I displaying a lack of critical thinking 
> skills or intelligence?  Is my education about the world lacking?
> 
> How did I distort this?  Help me out here, my lack of intelligence and 
> my lack of critical thinking skills are getting in my way here.
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>> Please do not distort my statements with false interpretations as you
>> wrote below in this quote from your post:
>> 
>> There are valid scientific reasons to be skeptical of your position that ACC is
>> "the most critical problem facing humanity".  In this case, you're
>> saying that if they disagree with you that they must be anti-science.
>> That itself is an unscientific position.
>> ----------------------
>> 
>> I did not state that if someone disagrees with me that anthropogenic
>> climate change is "the most critical problem facing humanity" that
>> they must be "anti-science."  I will further clarify my position on
>> this issue, which I believe should have been clear in the first place
>> in the post you responded to...
>> 
>> This is what I wrote where I used the phrase "anti-science," including
>> the error in the first few words of "in" instead of "is:"
>> 
>> "My point in simple: many people who should have developed critical
>> thinking skills, who are intelligent, who are reasonably educated
>> about the world on many levels, still assert an anti-science and
>> anti-progressive agenda, refusing to accept as probable that
>> humans evolved from simpler organisms, or that the evidence for
>> anthropogenic climate change is substantial,..."
>> 
>> I stand by this statement, that to refuse to accept that the "evidence
>> for anthropogenic climate change is substantial" is an "anti-science"
>> position, especially when, as I wrote in the post you responded to, it
>> is claimed the climate science involved is a "fraud or a hoax," as I
>> stated regarding the claims of Tea Party darling Sarah Palin, and
>> others in the so called "Tea Party," who I was comparing on this issue
>> to the views of New Saint Andrew's librarian Ed Iverson, and the host
>> of local blog right-mind.us.
>> 
>> Some accept that the science indicating anthropogenic climate change
>> is a problem is reliable, but that other problems are more serious,
>> and that we can adapt to climate change.  Economist Bjorn Lomborg (
>> http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/ ), for example, has argued that the
>> economic costs of addressing human impacts on climate would be better
>> spent addressing other human problems (poverty, hunger, education),
>> and that adaptation to climate change is an realistic option.  I
>> emphatically disagree with his position.  But he does not argue,
>> unless I have read him incorrectly, that the climate science
>> demonstrating human impacts on climate is fundamentally a "fraud or a
>> hoax," or based on widespread incompetence, as I wrote regarding those
>> whose views on climate change I stated are "anti-science."
>> 
>> The anti-science views I am referencing would argue, for example, that
>> the National Academy of Sciences, in this release from May 2010 quoted
>> below, regarding a series of reports on climate change, is involved
>> with a widespread fundamentally incompetent or fraudulent scientific
>> effort.  I have not seen any credible evidence this is the case:
>> 
>> http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=05192010
>> May 19, 2010
>> 
>> STRONG EVIDENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE UNDERSCORES NEED
>> FOR ACTIONS TO REDUCE EMISSIONS AND BEGIN ADAPTING TO IMPACTS
>> 
>> WASHINGTON — As part of its most comprehensive study of climate change
>> to date, the National Research Council today issued three reports
>> emphasizing why the U.S. should act now to reduce greenhouse gas
>> emissions and develop a national strategy to adapt to the inevitable
>> impacts of climate change.  The reports by the Research Council, the
>> operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy
>> of Engineering, are part of a congressionally requested suite of five
>> studies known as America's Climate Choices.
>> 
>> "These reports show that the state of climate change science is
>> strong," said Ralph J. Cicerone, president of the National Academy of
>> Sciences.  "But the nation also needs the scientific community to
>> expand upon its understanding of why climate change is happening, and
>> focus also on when and where the most severe impacts will occur and
>> what we can do to respond."
>> 
>> 'Poses Significant Risks'
>> 
>> The compelling case that climate change is occurring and is caused in
>> large part by human activities is based on a strong, credible body of
>> evidence, says Advancing the Science of Climate Change, one of the new
>> reports.  While noting that there is always more to learn and that the
>> scientific process is never "closed," the report emphasizes that
>> multiple lines of evidence support scientific understanding of climate
>> change.  The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses
>> have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of
>> serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
>> 
>> "Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities,
>> and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already
>> affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems," the report
>> concludes.  It calls for a new era of climate change science where an
>> emphasis is placed on "fundamental, use-inspired" research, which not
>> only improves understanding of the causes and consequences of climate
>> change but also is useful to decision makers at the local, regional,
>> national, and international levels acting to limit and adapt to
>> climate change.  Seven cross-cutting research themes are identified to
>> support this more comprehensive and integrative scientific enterprise.
>> 
>> The report recommends that a single federal entity or program be given
>> the authority and resources to coordinate a national,
>> multidisciplinary research effort aimed at improving both
>> understanding and responses to climate change.  The U.S. Global Change
>> Research Program, established in 1990, could fulfill this role, but it
>> would need to form partnerships with action-oriented programs and
>> address weaknesses that in the past have led to research gaps,
>> particularly in the critical area of research that supports decisions
>> about responding to climate change.  Leaders of federal climate
>> research should also redouble efforts to deploy a comprehensive
>> climate observing system.
>> 
>> Beyond 'Business as Usual'
>> 
>> Substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions will require prompt
>> and sustained efforts to promote major technological and behavioral
>> changes, says Limiting the Magnitude of Future Climate Change, another
>> of the new reports.  Although limiting emissions must be a global
>> effort to be effective, strong U.S. actions to reduce emissions will
>> help encourage other countries to do the same.  In addition, the U.S.
>> could establish itself as a leader in developing and deploying the
>> technologies necessary to limit and adapt to climate change.
>> 
>> An inclusive national policy framework is needed to ensure that all
>> levels of government, the private sector, and millions of households
>> and individuals are contributing to shared national goals.  Toward
>> that end, the U.S. should establish a greenhouse gas emissions
>> "budget" that sets a limit on total domestic emissions over a set
>> period of time and provides a clear, directly measurable goal.
>> However, the report warns, the longer the nation waits to begin
>> reducing emissions, the harder and more expensive it will likely be to
>> reach any given emissions target.
>> 
>> The report does not recommend a specific target for a domestic
>> emissions budget, but suggests a range of emissions from 170 to 200
>> gigatons of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent for the period 2012
>> through 2050 as a reasonable goal, a goal that is roughly in line with
>> the range of emission reduction targets proposed recently by the Obama
>> administration and members of Congress.  Even at the higher end of
>> this range, meeting the target will require a major departure from
>> "business-as-usual" emission trends.  The report notes that with the
>> exception of the recent economic downtown, domestic emissions have
>> been rising for most of the past three decades.  The U.S. emitted
>> approximately 7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent in 2008 (the most current
>> year for which such data were available).  If emissions continue at
>> that rate, the proposed budget range would be used up well before
>> 2050, the report says.
>> 
>> A carbon-pricing system is the most cost-effective way to reduce
>> emissions.  Either cap-and-trade, a system of taxing emissions, or a
>> combination of the two could provide the needed incentives.  While the
>> report does not specifically recommend a cap-and-trade system, it
>> notes that cap-and-trade is generally more compatible with the concept
>> of an emissions budget.
>> 
>> Carbon pricing alone, however, is not enough to sufficiently reduce
>> domestic emissions, the report warns.  Strategically chosen,
>> complementary policies are necessary to assure rapid progress in key
>> areas such as: increasing energy efficiency; accelerating the
>> development of renewable energy sources; advancing full-scale
>> development of new-generation nuclear power and carbon capture and
>> storage systems; and retrofitting, retiring, or replacing existing
>> emissions-intensive energy infrastructure.  Research and development
>> of new technologies that could help reduce emissions more cost
>> effectively than current options also should be strongly supported.
>> 
>> Managing the Risks
>> 
>> Reducing vulnerabilities to impacts of climate change that the nation
>> cannot, or does not, avoid is a highly desirable strategy to manage
>> and minimize the risks, says the third report, Adapting to the Impacts
>> of Climate Change.  Some impacts – such as rising sea levels,
>> disappearing sea ice, and the frequency and intensity of some extreme
>> weather events like heavy precipitation and heat waves – are already
>> being observed across the country.   The report notes that
>> policymakers need to anticipate a range of possible climate conditions
>> and that uncertainty about the exact timing and magnitude of impacts
>> is not a reason to wait to act.  In fact, it says boosting U.S.
>> adaptive capacity now can be viewed as "an insurance policy against an
>> uncertain future," while inaction could increase risks, especially if
>> the rate of climate change is particularly large.
>> 
>> Although much of the response to climate change will occur at local
>> and regional levels, a national adaptation strategy is needed to
>> facilitate cooperation and collaboration across all lines of
>> government and between government and other key parties, including the
>> private sector, community organizations, and nongovernmental
>> organizations.  As part of this strategy, the federal government
>> should provide technical and scientific resources that are lacking at
>> the local or regional scale, incentives for local and state
>> authorities to begin adaptation planning, guidance across
>> jurisdictions, and support of scientific research to expand knowledge
>> of impacts and adaptation.
>> 
>> Adapting to climate change will be an ongoing, iterative process, the
>> report says, and will involve decision makers at every scale of
>> government and all parts of society.  A first step is to identify
>> vulnerabilities to climate change impacts and begin to examine
>> adaptation options that will improve resilience.  To build the
>> scientific knowledge base and provide a basis for increasingly
>> effective action in the future, adaptation efforts should be monitored
>> and analyzed to judge successes, problems, and unintended
>> consequences.  The report also calls for research to develop new
>> adaptation options and a better understanding of vulnerabilities and
>> impacts on smaller spatial scales.
>> 
>> Adaptation to climate change should not be seen as an alternative to
>> attempts to limit it, the report emphasizes.  Rather, the two
>> approaches should be seen as partners, given that society's ability to
>> cope with the impacts of climate change decreases as the severity of
>> climate change increases.  At moderate rates and levels of climate
>> change, adaptation can be effective, but at severe rates, adapting to
>> disturbances caused by climate change may not be possible, the report
>> says.
>> 
>> Flexible and Adjustable
>> 
>> The new reports stress that national climate change research, efforts
>> to limit emissions, and adaptation strategies should be designed to be
>> flexible and responsive to new information and conditions in the
>> coming decades.  Because knowledge about future climate change and
>> possible impacts will evolve, policies and programs should continually
>> monitor and adjust to progress and consequences of actions.
>> 
>> America's Climate Choices also includes two additional reports that
>> will be released later this year: Informing an Effective Response to
>> Climate Change will examine how to best provide decision makers
>> information on climate change, and an overarching report will build on
>> each of the previous reports and other work to offer a scientific
>> framework for shaping the policy choices underlying the nation's
>> efforts to confront climate change.
>> 
>> The project was requested by Congress and is funded by the National
>> Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.  For more information, visit
>> http://americasclimatechoices.org.  The National Academy of Sciences,
>> National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National
>> Research Council are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide
>> science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863
>> congressional charter.  Committee and panel members, who serve pro
>> bono, are chosen by for each study based on their expertise and
>> experience and must satisfy the Research Council's
>> conflict-of-interest standards.  The resulting consensus reports
>> undergo external peer review before completion.  For more information,
>> visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf.
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> 
>> On 11/27/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> With respect to evolution, I agree with you.  Creationism (and it's
>>> dressed up version Intelligent Design) are at their core anti-science.
>>> 
>>> With respect to anthropogenic climate change, I disagree.  There are
>>> valid scientific reasons to be skeptical of your position that ACC is
>>> "the most critical problem facing humanity".  In this case, you're
>>> saying that if they disagree with you that they must be anti-science.
>>> That itself is an unscientific position.
>>> 
>>> I wish we could all meet in the middle, something along the lines of:
>>> 
>>> "We think that the huge amounts of carbon being put into the air by
>>> burning fossil fuels is dangerous to the stability of the climate and
>>> might wipe humanity off the face of the Earth.  You think that being
>>> dependent upon unstable foreign countries for our oil is dangerous and
>>> that burning fossil fuels causes pollution and is bad for the
>>> environment in other ways.  So why don't we get together and attack this
>>> one problem with the full backing of both major political parties?"
>>> 
>>> Instead, we get carbon trading, carbon taxes, and other schemes brought
>>> to you by the same people that brought us Enron and the financial
>>> meltdown.
>>> 
>>> Paul
>>> 
>>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Consider the students at New Saint Andrews college in Moscow, many of
>>>> whom I am sure would score high on the SAT, and have IQs well above
>>>> 100, yet also consider that their views are in many respects
>>>> consistent with the Tea Party on important issues, one of which is
>>>> anthropogenic climate warming, which I think is the most critical
>>>> problem facing humanity.
>>>> 
>>>> Tea Party darling Sarah Palin is well known for making scientifically
>>>> laughable statements on global warming; and her pro-fossil fuel
>>>> industry, opposition to government regulation of CO2 emissions stance
>>>> I think is common among so called "Tea Party" followers: global
>>>> warming is a hoax or a fraud.
>>>> 
>>>> Speaking of teaching Philosophy as a means to increase the educational
>>>> and critical thinking skills of the public, consider that Pastor
>>>> Douglas Wilson of Christ Church, involved with the religious ideology
>>>> behind New Saint Andrews, has a degree in Philosophy from the
>>>> University of Idaho.  U of I Professor Emeritus Nick Gier, if I recall
>>>> correctly, supervised Wilson's thesis...
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect that if tested on their academic logical capabilities,
>>>> Wilson, as well as many New Saint Andrews students, would do
>>>> reasonably well.
>>>> 
>>>> My point in simple: many people who should have developed critical
>>>> thinking skills, who are intelligent, who are reasonably educated
>>>> about the world on many levels, still assert an anti-science and
>>>> anti-progressive agenda, refusing to accept as probable that
>>>> humans evolved from simpler organisms, or that the evidence for
>>>> anthropogenic climate change is substantial, both very hotly
>>>> debated.in <http://debated.in> the public sphere, regardless of the
>>>> scientific evidence that the debate is warranted.  Many also oppose
>>>> gay or women's rights on specific points, gay marriage or abortion.
>>>> 
>>>> Ed Iverson from New Saint Andrews College (librarian with some science
>>>> education credentials) has written several op-eds in the
>>>> Moscow/Pullman Daily News attacking the integrity of climate
>>>> science, as does the well known blog right-mind.us
>>>> <http://right-mind.us>, hosted by a well known member of Christ
>>>> Church, who appears to be an intelligent person, while he in my
>>>> opinion applies a rather extreme confirmation bias filter to climate
>>>> science findings, devoted to undermining the science supporting human
>>>> impacts on climate.
>>>> 
>>>> Belief in "free will" can distort an objective analysis of the
>>>> evidence regarding why human beings believe what they believe on many
>>>> important issues in life.  Why are most people born in Iran Islamic,
>>>> and most in the US Christian?  "Free will?"  No, they are conditioned
>>>> by their culture into the dominant ideology, with biologically based
>>>> needs for conformism at work.  They may appear to be making free
>>>> choices about their religious beliefs to their own minds, but this is
>>>> often illusion.
>>>> 
>>>> We are emotional socialized animals who for the most part make
>>>> decisions based on peer pressure and emotions, with powerful
>>>> intellectual filters unconsciously suppressing evidence contrary to
>>>> beliefs in which their is substantial emotional investment.  Life
>>>> after death (soul?), for example.  The intellect, regardless of how
>>>> capable or well educated, is often utilized to argue confirmation bias
>>>> filtered positions; and sometimes the more capable and educated the
>>>> person, the more convincingly they can construct intelligent appearing
>>>> logical arguments for positions that are in fact anti-science and in
>>>> opposition to human rights.
>>>> 
>>>> The person who objectively surveys all the evidence on a given issue
>>>> and dispassionately applies logic to arrive at a conclusion is rare.
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com
>>>> <mailto:kmmos1 at frontier.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>    On Friday 26 November 2010 07:31:18 Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>> <[snip]> ... but likely in the near future the MA program will
>>>>    be cut and
>>>>> I'll have undergraduate "readers" instead. <[snip]>
>>>> 
>>>>    Even if the MA in Philosophy is shelved until better economic
>>>>    times return, I
>>>>    wonder whether there may be opportunity for applied philosophy
>>>>    efforts to keep
>>>>    the Philosophy Department reasonably intact. For example,
>>>>    undergraduate and
>>>>    graduate courses in business ethics for the business curricula,
>>>>    economic
>>>>    philosophy for the economics programs, and political philosophy
>>>>    for the
>>>>    political science and public administration programs. These
>>>>    traditional areas
>>>>    could (continue to) be augmented with environmental philosophy,
>>>>    and a newer
>>>>    look at educational philosophy.
>>>> 
>>>>    On the latter topic I wonder whether we ought not examine the plebeian
>>>>    assumption that personal educational responsibility to society
>>>>    ends when one
>>>>    is able to drop out of high school, and that personal efforts
>>>>    beyond that are
>>>>    optional. Perhaps a better notion is that there exists some basic
>>>>    minimum of
>>>>    expected educational achievement and ongoing competence that should be
>>>>    expected of all adult citizens throughout their lives. As the
>>>>    decades roll by,
>>>>    the contents of that minimum may change, and with those changes,
>>>>    citizens are
>>>>    then obligated to meet those new standards, preferably, perhaps,
>>>>    with at least
>>>>    some minimal assistance to do so. For discussion purposes, I take
>>>>    the minimum
>>>>    standard to be the current requirements for public high school
>>>>    graduation.
>>>> 
>>>>> Also, I think it is a mistake to think that a lack of logic or
>>>>    critical
>>>>> thinking skills is at fault. My own view is that the fault lies
>>>>    with the
>>>>> increase in private education and isolationism
>>>> 
>>>>    While it may be the case that pedagogical pandering to bygone ages
>>>>    of frontier
>>>>    foraging and farming may attempt to evoke rugged individualism and
>>>>    libertarian
>>>>    license, observation of contemporary circumstances suggests
>>>>    explanations that
>>>>    require less conscious and coordinated effort to attain the status
>>>>    quo. Simple
>>>>    inertia against continuing personal educational work, lethargy and
>>>>    laziness,
>>>>    combined with  mindsets disinclined toward ideas and theory, and
>>>>    wanting to
>>>>    get on with the practical realities of life, keep the majority
>>>>    away from not
>>>>    only post-secondary education but from revisiting or reviewing
>>>>    what they
>>>>    should have learned, and should still remember, from their high
>>>>    school years.
>>>> 
>>>>> but my guess is that most
>>>>> private schools teach as much or more logic and critical
>>>>    thinking as they
>>>>> do in public schools. Logic is analogous to computer hardware;
>>>>    even the
>>>>> best is only as good as the input. As they say, "garbage in,
>>>>    garbage out"
>>>>> but also quality in, quality out. What counts as garbage and
>>>>    what counts
>>>>> as quality? That's where things get tricky.
>>>> 
>>>>    Well, sure. Must we require a two-value, forced-choice, true-false
>>>>    logic, or
>>>>    may we consider other logics without their middles excluded? Some
>>>>    sets of
>>>>    circumstances suggest that maybe or neither or don't know to be more
>>>>    appropriate answers than true or false.
>>>> 
>>>>    And, heretical as it may be to the core of Western logic, I wonder
>>>>    whether
>>>>    logic and its interactions through various linguistic pathways
>>>>    within the
>>>>    brains resident in various cultures may not have variations that
>>>>    are functions
>>>>    of the cultures within which it resides. Different logics in
>>>>    different cultures,
>>>>    however slight may be the differences, may result in different
>>>>    conclusions that,
>>>>    unexamined, lurk near the cores of some of our more intractable
>>>>    international
>>>>    discussions.
>>>> 
>>>>> What counts as evidence? What
>>>>> counts as sound reasoning? Some answers are easy: empirical
>>>>    findings,
>>>>> classical logic, and mathematics. But that alone won't get you far.
>>>>> Unfortunately, after that point we start doing philosophy, where
>>>>> reasonable disagreement is par for the course. If the answers
>>>>    were easy,
>>>>> we'd all agree. But we don't, so they're not.
>>>> 
>>>>    Not only are unresolved philosophical questions problematical, but
>>>>    so are the
>>>>    continually troubled communications, or lack thereof, between C.P.
>>>>    Snow's two
>>>>    cultures, the scientists and the aesthetes, the left and the right
>>>>    brained.
>>>> 
>>>>    Newton demonstrated that effort is necessary to overcome inertia,
>>>>    and that
>>>>    effort is what is required to get some of us out of the bag of
>>>>    chips, off the
>>>>    couch, and into more active, energetic, and educationally
>>>>    accomplishing lives.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>    Ken
>>>> 
>>>>    =======================================================
>>>>     List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>                  http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
>>>>             mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>    =======================================================
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> 
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>               http://www.fsr.net
>>>>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================