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

[Paul Rumelhart]

So the only room for criticism is in criticizing me for criticizing 
climate science? :)

Paul

On 07/08/2012 05:49 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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/20120708/5ac9c685/attachment-0001.html>