<html><head></head><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>I'm not criticizing criticism and debate. I'm criticizing you; we're debating. I'll respond to the longer post later. Joe<br><br><br></div><div><br>On Jul 8, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
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?<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
<br>
On 07/08/2012 11:10 AM, Sam Scripter wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:updxoim8n1f6q2uc2d6nu70r.1341771052643@email.android.com" type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></a> <br>
To: Paul Rumelhart <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a> <br>
CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a> <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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a> 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 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com"><starbliss@gmail.com></a><br>
> To: Joe Campbell <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></a><br>
> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020 <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com"><vision2020@moscow.com></a><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>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm">http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm</a><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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com"><philosopher.joe@gmail.com></a><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
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com"><godshatter@yahoo.com></a> 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>
>>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html">http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html</a>)<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>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
> =======================================================<br>
><br>
<br>
=======================================================<br>
List services made available by First Step Internet,<br>
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">=======================================================
List services made available by First Step Internet,
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.fsr.net">http://www.fsr.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a>
=======================================================</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</div></blockquote></body></html>