[Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"

[Paul Rumelhart]

Just a quick response, since my time is currently limited.

Whether the gods gave us our brains or we just came by them naturally, we shouldn't be afraid to use them.  The difference between the fields of climate science and lung cancer research FOR ME, is that I have looked into climate science and haven't taken the time to look into the tobacco/lung disease connection yet.  I don't smoke, I have zero interest in it, and the connection doesn't surprise me, so it's way down the list of items that I would like to look into.

I look into things all the time, either because they are interesting on their own or because they affect me personally and I want to be informed about them.  For example, quite a few years ago I sat down with Einstein's book "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" (which can be found online here: http://www.bartleby.com/173/) and laboriously worked my way through mind experiments involving rigid rods and trains moving past stationary platforms.  It was slow going, but I got there.  I was hoping that I'd see something that the great Einstein overlooked.  Not surprisingly, I didn't.  What I didn't find was a ton of reasons to be skeptical about the theory to begin with.  The concepts are actually pretty easy, they just take some work to reorient yourself to think of the consequences.  I've also done the same thing to a lesser degree with Big Bang Theory.  When I decided to do this with climate science, I found a science in it's infancy that is
 generally making progress in lots of areas but is handicapped by it's own political relevance.

 So, that's the difference between smoking and climate science, at least for me.  One I've looked into and found it wanting, the other I take as simple faith purely because it sounds plausible and because I could really give a crap about it.  Maybe someday I'll be motivated enough to examine the claims made by scientists with regards to the tobacco/lung disease link.  If I did so, I'd drop my preconceptions and come into it fresh.  For all I know, it's another case where it's politically convenient to make the connection but isn't really that clear-cut.

Paul





________________________________
 From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
Cc: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>; Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com> 
Sent: Thursday, July 5, 2012 8:57 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"
 
Paul,

Thanks for helping me to make my case!

The point is that you DON'T believe that smoking causes lung cancer on
the basis of scientific evidence that you understand and evaluate,
because you are not a scientist. You believe it because it is "common
sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils down to the fact that
it seems to you to be true) and because the experts tell you it is
true. You still haven't shown a difference between the case of smoking
and human carbon consumption. Let's look more closely at some of the
BAD arguments you give below for the supposed difference.

Two clarifications first. My point was that unless you are an actual
scientist, it is almost impossible to make judgments about scientific
claims on evidence alone. In most cases, understanding the evidence
would require a high level of expertise. This is why scientific
beliefs should be based on testimony, the testimony of experts in the
field. My general claim was that there is NO basis to dismiss one set
of scientists (climate scientists, say) yet not dismiss others as
well. In my previous post, I happened to mention scientists who
specialize in lung cancer research but below I mention others since
they are helpful in showing flaws in your reasoning.

Also, you might wonder how I'm qualified to speak about such matters,
given that I'm not a climate scientist either. But I'm not making any
claims about the climate. I just trust what the climate scientists
tell me for reasons given. I'm making claims about your arguments and
when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of
arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --
there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am
(although there are a few people who are as qualified).

The points in (1) are irrelevant and were addressed above. In the
1950s smoking seemed to be a healthy activity and was promoted as
such. Common sense turned out to be wrong. Common sense is never a
reason for holding scientific beliefs.

Wrt (2), I'd be willing to bet that there are climate scientists
working on these very questions. In any event, I'm not sure what
evidence you have to say otherwise. I tend to leave it to scientists
to determine what kinds of studies they should or shouldn't be
concerned with in order to support their claims. Since you are not a
scientist, these points are meaningless.

For point (3), it is true that the climate is complex. But the
universe is even MORE complex. To the extent that this gives you a
reason to dismiss climate science it should give you EVEN MORE reason
to dismiss all of physics for both the micro-level of the universe and
the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE complex than the earth's
climate. This is just a general skeptical argument that applies to
almost ANY area of science. Why accept it wrt climate science but not,
say, cosmology? Why believe anything that Stephen Hawking says, for
instance? Do you know how much MORE complicated the whole frickin'
universe is when compared with the earth's climate? This is an absurd,
BAD, and irresponsible argument.

I've responded to arguments like those in (4) and (5) before but it
hasn't seemed to sink in yet. Whether or not a scientist has an agenda
is IRRELEVANT. What matters is the EVIDENCE he or she has in support
of the claims made. Suppose you find out that 99% of scientists who
study the links between smoking and lung cancer went into the field
for emotional and irrational reasons -- suppose, say, that members of
their family died of lung cancer. That would be irrelevant and
shouldn't cause you to dismiss their findings. ALL that is relevant is
the epistemological quality of the evidence, which can be judged in
objective ways.

If your argument were sound, it should give people reason to dismiss
EVERYTHING you say because you clearly have an agenda. You can't tell
me that your concern with the issue of global warming is independent
of your political views or your personal habits, that it is solely
motivated by the desire for objective truth and nothing more. This
very argument undermines everything you say on Vision 2020 since all
of it is in keeping with your own political viewpoints, or "agenda."
But people shouldn't dismiss your views merely because you happen to
be interested in politics. They should judge your views on the basis
of the evidence you provide in support of the claims that you make.
They shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about your claims either;
they should evaluate each argument individually.

If your argument were sound, we should dismiss ALL sciences related to
human heath, since they are all motivated by the subjective desire to
help human beings extend their lives and improve the quality of their
lives. Likely anyone working in the area of cancer research is
motivated in part by the selfish desire to become THE person that
finds the cure for cancer. That is irrelevant. This is another general
skeptical argument that (if sound) should cause you to dismiss much
more than climate science.

ALL scientific claims should be judged by the merits of the evidence
given. Personal facts about the scientists are ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.
People tend to choose their vocations for personal reasons, not
because of a desire to seek objective truth. Scientists are no
different in this regard.

Best, Joe

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes lung disease if you don't
>> believe that human carbon consumption has an impact on global warming?
>>
>> Joe
>
>
> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption is not having an impact on
> global warming.  I'm saying that the size of the impacts compared to the
> more-or-less unknown natural factors is unknown and that the feedbacks from
> warming in general are unknown, among other things.
>
> There are plenty of reasons, both scientific and not, that make me skeptical
> of global warming.  Although everyone will assume I'm just grasping at
> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny everything (probably has to do
> with my relationship with my mother), I humbly present a smattering of them
> for your enjoyment:
>
> 1.  On the face of it, the idea is extraordinary.  Humans, even with our
> vaunted civilization, are small potatoes compared to the forces of nature.
> The only reason our carbon footprint even makes a dent compared to natural
> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere.  We've had
> far less of an impact on the water cycle, for example, or with oxygen
> levels.  Not saying that it isn't possible, but there is automatically a bar
> that has to be gotten over which smoking causing lung disease doesn't have.
> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke multiple times a day for years
> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs, even without bringing in
> carcinogens.
>
> 2.  There are some obvious questions that aren't being answered because of
> the focus on human impacts.  For example, what caused the earth to heat up
> immediately following the Little Ice Age?  If we do not know, how can we say
> with any confidence that human-induced climate change is to blame instead of
> the same natural processes still at work?  What causes an ice age to start,
> and what brings us out of one?
>
> 3.  The climate is complex, with multiple feedbacks of unknown strength and
> unknown feedbacks of unknown strength.  The sign of the combination of
> feedbacks isn't even known.  Climate models cannot be that accurate, given
> the above, yet they are seen as gospel.  Even when they make different
> assumptions and model things different ways.  As long as they project a
> warmer future, they are added to the model average and used as proof that
> global warming will kill babies and cause frogs to rain from the sky.
>
> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung disease from tobacco are relatively
> straight forward.
>
> 4.  Some of the major players in the spotlight on the side of global warming
> are environmental activists with an agenda, as opposed to being objective
> scientists just following the data.  For example, Timothy Wirth (Senator
> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating team for the Kyoto treaty) held
> a hearing on global warming at the capital.  He called the Weather Bureau to
> find out what day of the year was usually the hottest in DC, and scheduled
> the hearing for that date.  His team then went in the night before the
> hearing and opened all the windows in the room in which the hearing was to
> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail to keep up with the heat.  All
> so that it could be hot and muggy when James Hansen gave his spiel about the
> dangers of global warming.
> (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html)
>
> The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their sheer propaganda, do seem to be
> run by political activists, but that may be coincidental.
>
> 5.  Major climate scientists also appear to have political agendas. Michael
> Mann and his "hockey stick" come to mind, trying to erase the Medieval Warm
> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious statistics, all so they could
> show that current warming was "unprecedented". All this from a few
> bristlecone pine trees.
>
> I haven't heard of any of these kinds of shenanigans from scientists
> studying the link between tobacco use and lung diseases, probably because
> the links were relatively straight forward.  Not so much the case with
> global warming / global climate change / global climate disruption.
>
> There are more, but that gives you the gist of it.  But hey, it's just me
> being contrarian, right? So please, move along.  Nothing to see here.
>
> Paul
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120705/543c667b/attachment-0001.html>