<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div>Donovan,<br><br>I agree that academics don't always take the time to explain things to the general public and that is a bad thing. On the other hand, most academics that I know are committed teachers. They do take the time to explain things to students; they do take the time to explain things during public debates; they went into education precisely because they desire to educate others. <br>
<br>Have you attended any of the public lectures or forums that I've helped to organize -- at least 2 a year for the 15 years I've lived in the area? I don't think so. So there is a problem in both directions: academics need to take more time to reach out to the public and the public needs to take more time to reach out to the academy. Trying to figure out how to bridge this gap has been the central concern of the service aspect of my academic life. If anything, this conversation shows me that I need to try harder but there has to be some accountability from the public, as well. Turn off Fox news, get off your butt, and attend some of the functions that WSU and UI hold on a regular basis when school is in session. I'm not speaking to you in particular, Donovan; this is a general comment. I could do better in this regard, as well; we all could do better.<br>
<br>I disagree about the connection between politics and ethics, and I would add that if we don't clue in to the connection it will be our own fault. Keep in mind that politics here is political science, an academic discipline connected to but not equivalent to politics as we generally think of it. What I like about political science, and politics in the general sense, is that there is a practical dimension, an understanding that things need to get done and we need to take time and effort to ensure that it gets done right. As I see it, science tells us what's happening, political science figures out what needs to be done and how to do it, and ethics ensures that we do it right. So they should go together even if they haven't gone together as well as they should have to date.<br>
<br>Best, Joe<br></div><div><br>On Jul 8, 2012, at 5:26 PM, Donovan Arnold <<a href="mailto:donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com" target="_blank">donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite">
<div><div style="font-size:12pt;font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div><span>Joe,</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span>Me too. I think if more professors of ethics, <span><span>philosophy</span></span> and <span><span>political</span></span> science took the time to explain and educate as you do far more students would understand and stay interested in the subjects.</span></div>
<div><span></span> </div>
<div><span><font face="tahoma, new york, times, serif">However, I don't think politics and ethics always mix well. Good ethics is like <span style="FONT-FAMILY:'Times New Roman';FONT-SIZE:12pt"><font face="tahoma, new york, times, serif">kryptonite</font> </span>to most <span><span>politicians</span></span>.</font></span></div>
<div><span></span> <var></var></div>
<div><span>Donovan J. Arnold</span></div>
<div><br></div>
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;FONT-SIZE:12pt">
<div style="FONT-FAMILY:times new roman,new york,times,serif;FONT-SIZE:12pt">
<div dir="ltr"><font face="Arial">
<div style="BORDER-BOTTOM:#ccc 1px solid;BORDER-LEFT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;LINE-HEIGHT:0;MARGIN:5px 0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;min-height:0px;FONT-SIZE:0px;BORDER-TOP:#ccc 1px solid;BORDER-RIGHT:#ccc 1px solid;PADDING-TOP:0px" readonly>
</div><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">From:</span></b> Sam Scripter <<a href="mailto:moscowsam@charter.net" target="_blank">moscowsam@charter.net</a>><br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">To:</span></b> <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a> <br>
<b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Cc:</span></b> <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a> <br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Sent:</span></b> Sunday, July 8, 2012 12:10 PM<br><b><span style="FONT-WEIGHT:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [Vision2020] Institute for Public Accuracy: "Media Miss the Forest for the Burning Trees"<br>
</font></div><br>
<div>
<div>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 href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>> <br>
To: Paul Rumelhart <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> <br>CC: Moscow Vision 2020 <<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a>> <br>
<br><br>
<div>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 href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>><br>
> To: Joe Campbell <<a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a>><br>> Cc: Moscow Vision 2020
<<a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">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 href="http://www.longwood.k12.ny.us/lhs/science/mos/mind/algazzin.htm" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com" target="_blank">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 href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">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 href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/interviews/wirth.html" target="_blank">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 href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">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 href="http://www.fsr.net" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net</a><br> <a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br></div></div><br>=======================================================<br>List
services made available by First Step Internet,<br>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<br> <a href="http://www.fsr.net/" target="_blank">http://www.fsr.net/</a><br> mailto:<a href="mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">Vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
=======================================================<br><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div>