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

Sun Jul 8 17:49:43 PDT 2012

I'm not criticizing criticism and debate. I'm criticizing you; we're debating. I'll respond to the longer post later. Joe

On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:

> 
> 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/20120708/0f87ea3c/attachment-0001.html>