<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body>Good post, Joe!<div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Thank you!</div><div><br></div><div>Sam S</div></div><br><br><br>-------- Original message --------<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees" <br>From: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com> <br>To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> <br>CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com> <br><br><br><div style="word-break:break-all;">Two other points worth making.<br><br>First, you would come off as something other than a spokesman for a<br>radical, ill-informed, politically motivated position if your<br>criticisms went both ways. You like to point out "flaws" in climate<br>science. But are there no flaws in the arguments of their detractors?<br>No fallacies, no prejudices, no false reports, no political<br>motivations? Doubtful.<br><br>Second, in your initial post, at the bottom of this one, you list<br>several complaints about the political motivations lurking behind<br>climate science. But this makes it seem as if climate science is<br>somehow separated from the rest of science and the academy and nothing<br>can be further from the truth.<br><br>At WSU, climate scientists work within the School of Earth and<br>Environmental Sciences (SEES), which is made up of scientists from a<br>multitude of disciplines such as geology, geochemistry, ecology,<br>hydrology, microbiology, and marine biology. Were you to poll these<br>folks -- indeed, were you to poll scientists in general -- you'd find<br>that there is an overwhelming consensus among them about the impact of<br>human behavior on global warming. Thus, if we are to believe your<br>reports of bias among climate scientists, the conspiracy would be more<br>widespread than you suggest, involving not just climate scientists but<br>the entire scientific community, perhaps all of the academy. In the<br>end, we're left with a fairytale conspiracy theory that is<br>preposterous and unbelievable.<br><br>Just to note one example, you constantly complain about problems with<br>computer models when making large-scale claims about global climate<br>change but did you know that these models are used in other areas of<br>science as well? A quick scan of some of the research interests of<br>members of SEES makes the point. One professor's "research uses<br>computer simulation models to help us understand the recent problems<br>in the electric power industry." Another "combines field measurements<br>with theoretical models and computer simulations to shed light on<br>natural water flows, mixing, and sediment transport." This is research<br>that is funded by competitive national grants and provides information<br>that is actually used to solve real-world problems. Why not<br>investigate whether or not your worries about computer models apply to<br>these areas of research as well? The flip-side is, don't you think<br>that these scientists would all be standing up on their soapboxes<br>deriding the claims of climate scientists if their work were as biased<br>and fallacious as you contend that it is? Don't you think they'd want<br>to separate their research from the disreputable research of climate<br>scientists if that work were as questionable as you contend? Again, if<br>we are to believe any of your claims, the political conspiracy would<br>be very wide, so wide as to involve the whole of the academy.<br><br>As the Director of the School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public<br>Affairs, I have a keen interest in the connections between science,<br>ethics, and policy: How can we take the information that science<br>provides and apply it to the real world in a way that is beneficial to<br>humanity and the universe in general? Last year we started a series of<br>lectures in an attempt to help the general public better understand<br>complex issues like global warming, bringing together experts from a<br>variety of fields for public forums at least once a semester. Last<br>spring we brought in Andrew Light, a Senior Fellow at the Center for<br>American Progress, and formed a panel discussion with representatives<br>from biochemistry, sociology, and philosophy to provide information on<br>this very topic. After brief presentations from the panelists, there<br>was a Q&A where folks were allowed to ask questions and voice concerns<br>about these matters. I advertised this on Vision 2020. This is not the<br>behavior of people who have an agenda that they want to trick you into<br>believing.<br><br>This year we promise to have more events. I'm in the process of<br>organizing a conference on neurophilosophy, investigating the impact<br>of neuroscience on such areas as ethics and the law, and we're also<br>inviting Allen Buchanan, James B. Duke Professor of Philosophy at Duke<br>University, who will likely give a talk on bioethics. I'll continue to<br>advertise these events on Vision 2020 and I encourage you and others<br>to attend. In general, I encourage you, Paul, to seek out local<br>presentations by climate scientists -- I've helped organize at least 3<br>such events over the last 3 years -- and to ask questions directly to<br>the scientists themselves and see if they might be able to respond to<br>your concerns. In other words, instead of voicing your concerns to a<br>group with no expertise that is unable to evaluate the merits of your<br>claims, take them to the climate scientists themselves and see what<br>they say. And do it in a public venue. That way, folks would be able<br>to here both sides of the issue and make a more informed decision.<br><br>Best, Joe<br><br>On Sat, Jul 7, 2012 at 10:21 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> wrote:<br>> Can I assume you have credentials in climate science? Because, otherwise,<br>> you are being hypocritical in calling me out for "degrading" the<br>> conversation because of my lack of the same.<br>><br>> Perhaps I'm missing some fundamental knowledge of how arguments work.<br>><br>> Paul<br>><br>> ________________________________<br>> From: Ted Moffett <starbliss@gmail.com><br>> To: Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <vision2020@moscow.com><br>> Sent: Saturday, July 7, 2012 2:03 PM<br>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the<br>> Forest for the Burning Trees"<br>><br>> Thanks for these comments phrased in a manner so easy to understand, coming<br>> from someone who could write at a level that would be obtuse for many... I'm<br>> reminded of the writing style of philosopher Bertrand Russell<br>><br>> When in a dialog someone of a significant level of education and<br>> intelligence repeatedly refuses to admit when it is pointed out that they<br>> have engaged in significant omissions, errors and misrepresentations<br>> regarding a critical scientific field, and promotes what can be easily<br>> determined by most anyone doing cursory research of scientific peer review,<br>> to be junk science, as though we are supposed to take it seriously, this<br>> implies a factual and/or argumentative filter at work, for whatever reason<br>> or reasons. Call it a indication of an "agenda," or who knows what it is!<br>><br>> Maybe there is still some social value to such a degraded dialog, but it<br>> ceases to offer significant credible factual or augmentative input of<br>> interest for someone who reaches a certain level of competency in exploring<br>> the scientific field involved.<br>><br>> On the issue of complexity as an argument for a high degree of skepticism<br>> about the claims of a given field of knowledge, the human brain/mind is<br>> claimed by some to be the most complex object in the known universe,<br>> therefore we should engage in a high degree of skepticism about any claims<br>> by anyone about any ones state of "mind," whether scientific claims or other<br>> sorts. It amazes me that people make such simple and easy judgements about<br>> each others state of mind, given that such propositions to be credible<br>> should only be made by those with PhDs in a psychology or perhaps<br>> neurobiology related field, and even these judgements it can be argued are<br>> very open to question, assuming a vast complexity is underpinning each<br>> humans state of mind.<br>><br>> Consider this dialog with neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga:<br>><br>> ALAN ALDA INTERVIEWS MICHAEL GAZZANIGA<br>> Featured on "The Man with Two Brains,"<br>> from the SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN FRONTIERS special "Pieces of Mind."<br>><br>> http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm<br>><br>> Alan Alda:<br>> I have to say - and from talking to you I think you feel this way, too -<br>> consciousness is a terrific thing to have. It feels good to have<br>> consciousness. When you lose consciousness and when you sense you're going<br>> to lose consciousness, it doesn't feel good. You get a little nervous about<br>> that. But what do you suppose is the reason we have consciousness? Why has<br>> it persisted? What good is it in terms of the survival of the species?<br>> Michael Gazzaniga:<br>> That's related to the $64,000 question. What's it for? If you want to<br>> understand anything, you've got to know what it's for. And it so permeates<br>> every thought we have, you think, well, it's for keeping us motivated, to<br>> have these thoughts, or whatever. But you start to put this stuff down on<br>> paper and it just doesn't look like you're saying much.<br>> You know, there's a bunch of philosophers now who are saying, "A human<br>> trying to understand consciousness is like a nematode trying to understand a<br>> dog." It's just too big a problem, and they kind of toss it out the window.<br>> Well I don't think we should do that. Clearly, it's going to take a lot of<br>> major new thinking to really give us an insight, a handle on how we can<br>> scientifically talk about this phenomenal awareness that we all experience.<br>> -------------------------------------------<br>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>><br>> On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe@gmail.com><br>> wrote:<br>><br>>I'm making claims about your arguments and</div>> when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of<br>> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --<br>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am<br>> (although there are a few people who are as qualified).<br>><br>> Paul,<br>><br>> Thanks for helping me to make my case!<br>><br>> The point is that you DON'T believe that smoking causes lung cancer on<br>> the basis of scientific evidence that you understand and evaluate,<br>> because you are not a scientist. You believe it because it is "common<br>> sense" (which is irrelevant, for it merely boils down to the fact that<br>> it seems to you to be true) and because the experts tell you it is<br>> true. You still haven't shown a difference between the case of smoking<br>> and human carbon consumption. Let's look more closely at some of the<br>> BAD arguments you give below for the supposed difference.<br>><br>> Two clarifications first. My point was that unless you are an actual<br>> scientist, it is almost impossible to make judgments about scientific<br>> claims on evidence alone. In most cases, understanding the evidence<br>> would require a high level of expertise. This is why scientific<br>> beliefs should be based on testimony, the testimony of experts in the<br>> field. My general claim was that there is NO basis to dismiss one set<br>> of scientists (climate scientists, say) yet not dismiss others as<br>> well. In my previous post, I happened to mention scientists who<br>> specialize in lung cancer research but below I mention others since<br>> they are helpful in showing flaws in your reasoning.<br>><br>> Also, you might wonder how I'm qualified to speak about such matters,<br>> given that I'm not a climate scientist either. But I'm not making any<br>> claims about the climate. I just trust what the climate scientists<br>> tell me for reasons given. I'm making claims about your arguments and<br>> when it comes to judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of<br>> arguments -- the area of logic and the broader area of epistemology --<br>> there is NO ONE living on the Palouse who is more qualified than I am<br>> (although there are a few people who are as qualified).<br>><br>> The points in (1) are irrelevant and were addressed above. In the<br>> 1950s smoking seemed to be a healthy activity and was promoted as<br>> such. Common sense turned out to be wrong. Common sense is never a<br>> reason for holding scientific beliefs.<br>><br>> Wrt (2), I'd be willing to bet that there are climate scientists<br>> working on these very questions. In any event, I'm not sure what<br>> evidence you have to say otherwise. I tend to leave it to scientists<br>> to determine what kinds of studies they should or shouldn't be<br>> concerned with in order to support their claims. Since you are not a<br>> scientist, these points are meaningless.<br>><br>> For point (3), it is true that the climate is complex. But the<br>> universe is even MORE complex. To the extent that this gives you a<br>> reason to dismiss climate science it should give you EVEN MORE reason<br>> to dismiss all of physics for both the micro-level of the universe and<br>> the macro-level of the universe are FAR MORE complex than the earth's<br>> climate. This is just a general skeptical argument that applies to<br>> almost ANY area of science. Why accept it wrt climate science but not,<br>> say, cosmology? Why believe anything that Stephen Hawking says, for<br>> instance? Do you know how much MORE complicated the whole frickin'<br>> universe is when compared with the earth's climate? This is an absurd,<br>> BAD, and irresponsible argument.<br>><br>> I've responded to arguments like those in (4) and (5) before but it<br>> hasn't seemed to sink in yet. Whether or not a scientist has an agenda<br>> is IRRELEVANT. What matters is the EVIDENCE he or she has in support<br>> of the claims made. Suppose you find out that 99% of scientists who<br>> study the links between smoking and lung cancer went into the field<br>> for emotional and irrational reasons -- suppose, say, that members of<br>> their family died of lung cancer. That would be irrelevant and<br>> shouldn't cause you to dismiss their findings. ALL that is relevant is<br>> the epistemological quality of the evidence, which can be judged in<br>> objective ways.<br>><br>> If your argument were sound, it should give people reason to dismiss<br>> EVERYTHING you say because you clearly have an agenda. You can't tell<br>> me that your concern with the issue of global warming is independent<br>> of your political views or your personal habits, that it is solely<br>> motivated by the desire for objective truth and nothing more. This<br>> very argument undermines everything you say on Vision 2020 since all<br>> of it is in keeping with your own political viewpoints, or "agenda."<br>> But people shouldn't dismiss your views merely because you happen to<br>> be interested in politics. They should judge your views on the basis<br>> of the evidence you provide in support of the claims that you make.<br>> They shouldn't make sweeping generalizations about your claims either;<br>> they should evaluate each argument individually.<br>><br>> If your argument were sound, we should dismiss ALL sciences related to<br>> human heath, since they are all motivated by the subjective desire to<br>> help human beings extend their lives and improve the quality of their<br>> lives. Likely anyone working in the area of cancer research is<br>> motivated in part by the selfish desire to become THE person that<br>> finds the cure for cancer. That is irrelevant. This is another general<br>> skeptical argument that (if sound) should cause you to dismiss much<br>> more than climate science.<br>><br>> ALL scientific claims should be judged by the merits of the evidence<br>> given. Personal facts about the scientists are ALWAYS IRRELEVANT.<br>> People tend to choose their vocations for personal reasons, not<br>> because of a desire to seek objective truth. Scientists are no<br>> different in this regard.<br>><br>> Best, Joe<br>><br>> On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter@yahoo.com> wrote:<br>>> On 07/03/2012 05:42 PM, Joe Campbell wrote:<br>>>><br>>>> So, Paul, why believe that smoking causes lung disease if you don't<br>>>> believe that human carbon consumption has an impact on global warming?<br>>>><br>>>> Joe<br>>><br>>><br>>> First, I'm not saying that carbon consumption is not having an impact on<br>>> global warming. I'm saying that the size of the impacts compared to the<br>>> more-or-less unknown natural factors is unknown and that the feedbacks<br>>> from<br>>> warming in general are unknown, among other things.<br>>><br>>> There are plenty of reasons, both scientific and not, that make me<br>>> skeptical<br>>> of global warming. Although everyone will assume I'm just grasping at<br>>> straws because of my deep-seated urge to deny everything (probably has to<br>>> do<br>>> with my relationship with my mother), I humbly present a smattering of<br>>> them<br>>> for your enjoyment:<br>>><br>>> 1. On the face of it, the idea is extraordinary. Humans, even with our<br>>> vaunted civilization, are small potatoes compared to the forces of nature.<br>>> The only reason our carbon footprint even makes a dent compared to natural<br>>> forces has to do with the small amount of CO2 in our atmosphere. We've<br>>> had<br>>> far less of an impact on the water cycle, for example, or with oxygen<br>>> levels. Not saying that it isn't possible, but there is automatically a<br>>> bar<br>>> that has to be gotten over which smoking causing lung disease doesn't<br>>> have.<br>>> It should be common sense that inhaling smoke multiple times a day for<br>>> years<br>>> can have a deleterious effect on the lungs, even without bringing in<br>>> carcinogens.<br>>><br>>> 2. There are some obvious questions that aren't being answered because of<br>>> the focus on human impacts. For example, what caused the earth to heat up<br>>> immediately following the Little Ice Age? If we do not know, how can we<br>>> say<br>>> with any confidence that human-induced climate change is to blame instead<br>>> of<br>>> the same natural processes still at work? What causes an ice age to<br>>> start,<br>>> and what brings us out of one?<br>>><br>>> 3. The climate is complex, with multiple feedbacks of unknown strength<br>>> and<br>>> unknown feedbacks of unknown strength. The sign of the combination of<br>>> feedbacks isn't even known. Climate models cannot be that accurate, given<br>>> the above, yet they are seen as gospel. Even when they make different<br>>> assumptions and model things different ways. As long as they project a<br>>> warmer future, they are added to the model average and used as proof that<br>>> global warming will kill babies and cause frogs to rain from the sky.<br>>><br>>> I imagine that the mechanisms for lung disease from tobacco are relatively<br>>> straight forward.<br>>><br>>> 4. Some of the major players in the spotlight on the side of global<br>>> warming<br>>> are environmental activists with an agenda, as opposed to being objective<br>>> scientists just following the data. For example, Timothy Wirth (Senator<br>>> from Colorado and leader of the negotiating team for the Kyoto treaty)<br>>> held<br>>> a hearing on global warming at the capital. He called the Weather Bureau<br>>> to<br>>> find out what day of the year was usually the hottest in DC, and scheduled<br>>> the hearing for that date. His team then went in the night before the<br>>> hearing and opened all the windows in the room in which the hearing was to<br>>> be held, causing the air conditioning to fail to keep up with the heat.<br>>> All<br>>> so that it could be hot and muggy when James Hansen gave his spiel about<br>>> the<br>>> dangers of global warming.<br>>><br>>> (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html)<br>>><br>>> The anti-tobacco campaigns, with all their sheer propaganda, do seem to be<br>>> run by political activists, but that may be coincidental.<br>>><br>>> 5. Major climate scientists also appear to have political agendas.<br>>> Michael<br>>> Mann and his "hockey stick" come to mind, trying to erase the Medieval<br>>> Warm<br>>> Period and the Little Ice Age, using dubious statistics, all so they could<br>>> show that current warming was "unprecedented". All this from a few<br>>> bristlecone pine trees.<br>>><br>>> I haven't heard of any of these kinds of shenanigans from scientists<br>>> studying the link between tobacco use and lung diseases, probably because<br>>> the links were relatively straight forward. Not so much the case with<br>>> global warming / global climate change / global climate disruption.<br>>><br>>> There are more, but that gives you the gist of it. But hey, it's just me<br>>> being contrarian, right? So please, move along. Nothing to see here.<br>>><br>>> Paul<br>><br>><br>><br>> =======================================================<br>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>> http://www.fsr.net<br>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>> =======================================================<br>><br><br>=======================================================<br> List services made available by First Step Internet,<br> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> http://www.fsr.net<br> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<br>=======================================================<br></body>