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

[Paul Rumelhart]

Does "validly express one's positions on the findings of science" equate 
to "conform to the scientific consensus"?  Is there no room for 
criticism and debate?

Paul

On 07/08/2012 11:10 AM, Sam Scripter wrote:
> Good post, Joe!
>
> I appreciate the "pains"/time/effort you take to carefully, fully 
> explain your points about how to validly express one's position on the 
> findings of science.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Sam S
>
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss 
> the Forest for the Burning Trees"
> From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
> CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>
>
> Two other points worth making.
>
> First, you would come off as something other than a spokesman for a
> radical, ill-informed, politically motivated position if your
> criticisms went both ways. You like to point out "flaws" in climate
> science. But are there no flaws in the arguments of their detractors?
> No fallacies, no prejudices, no false reports, no political
> motivations? Doubtful.
>
> Second, in your initial post, at the bottom of this one, you list
> several complaints about the political motivations lurking behind
> climate science. But this makes it seem as if climate science is
> somehow separated from the rest of science and the academy and nothing
> can be further from the truth.
>
> At WSU, climate scientists work within the School of Earth and
> Environmental Sciences (SEES), which is made up of scientists from a
> multitude of disciplines such as geology, geochemistry, ecology,
> hydrology, microbiology, and marine biology. Were you to poll these
> folks -- indeed, were you to poll scientists in general -- you'd find
> that there is an overwhelming consensus among them about the impact of
> human behavior on global warming. Thus, if we are to believe your
> reports of bias among climate scientists, the conspiracy would be more
> widespread than you suggest, involving not just climate scientists but
> the entire scientific community, perhaps all of the academy. In the
> end, we're left with a fairytale conspiracy theory that is
> preposterous and unbelievable.
>
> Just to note one example, you constantly complain about problems with
> computer models when making large-scale claims about global climate
> change but did you know that these models are used in other areas of
> science as well? A quick scan of some of the research interests of
> members of SEES makes the point. One professor's "research uses
> computer simulation models to help us understand the recent problems
> in the electric power industry." Another "combines field measurements
> with theoretical models and computer simulations to shed light on
> natural water flows, mixing, and sediment transport." This is research
> that is funded by competitive national grants and provides information
> that is actually used to solve real-world problems. Why not
> investigate whether or not your worries about computer models apply to
> these areas of research as well? The flip-side is, don't you think
> that these scientists would all be standing up on their soapboxes
> deriding the claims of climate scientists if their work were as biased
> and fallacious as you contend that it is? Don't you think they'd want
> to separate their research from the disreputable research of climate
> scientists if that work were as questionable as you contend? Again, if
> we are to believe any of your claims, the political conspiracy would
> be very wide, so wide as to involve the whole of the academy.
>
> As the Director of the School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public
> Affairs, I have a keen interest in the connections between science,
> ethics, and policy: How can we take the information that science
> provides and apply it to the real world in a way that is beneficial to
> humanity and the universe in general? Last year we started a series of
> lectures in an attempt to help the general public better understand
> complex issues like global warming, bringing together experts from a
> variety of fields for public forums at least once a semester. Last
> spring we brought in Andrew Light, a Senior Fellow at the Center for
> American Progress, and formed a panel discussion with representatives
> from biochemistry, sociology, and philosophy to provide information on
> this very topic. After brief presentations from the panelists, there
> was a Q&A where folks were allowed to ask questions and voice concerns
> about these matters. I advertised this on Vision 2020. This is not the
> behavior of people who have an agenda that they want to trick you into
> believing.
>
> This year we promise to have more events. I'm in the process of
> organizing a conference on neurophilosophy, investigating the impact
> of neuroscience on such areas as ethics and the law, and we're also
> inviting Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy at Duke
> University, who will likely give a talk on bioethics. I'll continue to
> advertise these events on Vision 2020 and I encourage you and others
> to attend. In general, I encourage you, Paul, to seek out local
> presentations by climate scientists -- I've helped organize at least 3
> such events over the last 3 years -- and to ask questions directly to
> the scientists themselves and see if they might be able to respond to
> your concerns. In other words, instead of voicing your concerns to a
> group with no expertise that is unable to evaluate the merits of your
> claims, take them to the climate scientists themselves and see what
> they say. And do it in a public venue. That way, folks would be able
> to here both sides of the issue and make a more informed decision.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> 
> wrote:
> > Can I assume you have credentials in climate science? Because, 
> otherwise,
> > you are being hypocritical in calling me out for "degrading" the
> > conversation because of my lack of the same.
> >
> > Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental knowledge of how arguments work.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > ________________________________
> > From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
> > To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> > Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the
> > Forest for the Burning Trees"
> >
> > Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner so easy to understand, 
> coming
> > from someone who could write at a level that would be obtuse for 
> many... I'm
> > reminded of the writing style of philosopher Bertrand Russell
> >
> > When in a dialog someone of a significant level of education and
> > intelligence repeatedly refuses to admit when it is pointed out that 
> they
> > have engaged in significant omissions, errors and misrepresentations
> > regarding a critical scientific field, and promotes what can be easily
> > determined by most anyone doing cursory research of scientific peer 
> review,
> > to be junk science, as though we are supposed to take it seriously, this
> > implies a factual and/or argumentative filter at work, for whatever 
> reason
> > or reasons.  Call it a indication of an "agenda," or who knows what 
> it is!
> >
> > Maybe there is still some social value to such a degraded dialog, but it
> > ceases to offer significant credible factual or augmentative input of
> > interest for someone who reaches a certain level of competency in 
> exploring
> > the scientific field involved.
> >
> > On the issue of complexity as an argument for a high degree of 
> skepticism
> > about the claims of a given field of knowledge, the human brain/mind is
> > claimed by some to be the most complex object in the known universe,
> > therefore we should engage in a high degree of skepticism about any 
> claims
> > by anyone about any ones state of "mind," whether scientific claims 
> or other
> > sorts.  It amazes me that people make such simple and easy 
> judgements about
> > each others state of mind, given that such propositions to be credible
> > should only be made by those with PhDs in a psychology or perhaps
> > neurobiology related field, and even these judgements it can be 
> argued are
> > very open to question, assuming a vast complexity is underpinning each
> > humans state of mind.
> >
> > Consider this dialog with neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga:
> >
> > ALAN ALDA INTERVIEWS MICHAEL GAZZANIGA
> > Featured on "The Man with Two Brains,"
> > from the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS special "Pieces of Mind."
> >
> > http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm
> >
> > Alan Alda:
> > I have to say - and from talking to you I think you feel this way, too -
> > consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It feels good to have
> > consciousness. When you lose consciousness and when you sense you're 
> going
> > to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good. You get a little 
> nervous about
> > that. But what do you suppose is the reason we have consciousness? 
> Why has
> > it persisted? What good is it in terms of the survival of the species?
> > Michael Gazzaniga:
> > That's related to the $64,000 question. What's it for? If you want to
> > understand anything, you've got to know what it's for. And it so 
> permeates
> > every thought we have, you think, well, it's for keeping us 
> motivated, to
> > have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start to put this stuff 
> down on
> > paper and it just doesn't look like you're saying much.
> > You know, there's a bunch of philosophers now who are saying, "A human
> > trying to understand consciousness is like a nematode trying to 
> understand a
> > dog." It's just too big a problem, and they kind of toss it out the 
> window.
> > Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly, it's going to take a 
> lot of
> > major new thinking to really give us an insight, a handle on how we can
> > scientifically talk about this phenomenal awareness that we all 
> experience.
> > -------------------------------------------
> > Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >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).
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > 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
> =======================================================
>
>
> =======================================================
>   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
> =======================================================


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120708/cd25211c/attachment-0001.html>