A logical theory of illogicality ?

[Frances_iom]

two articles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/jul/27/climate-sceptics-conspiracy-theorists

+

http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyCCCresponse1.html

[Simon]

Interesting, Frances. I've been wondering myself why the climate change / no change lobbies seem to be split aoong left / right lines. The first article goes some way to address these issues, more or less on the lines that I've discussed with others already in a casual sort of way. But we've generally concluded that it's far too simplistic an idea, albeit perhaps along the right lines.

But I had to grin a bit at the following:

"All scientists are sceptics: it is a healthy, everyday part of the process of systematically weighing up evidence and reaching a considered conclusion."

That's what scienttists like to think they are, and indeed the better ones will aptly fit such a description. But there are also many scientists who are blinkered and narrow-minded, just as there are such people in many other walks of life. My GP - a thoroughly nice person - is one of them, in fact. A result of his training, largely.

[Serial_Apologist]

Interesting, Frances. I've been wondering myself why the climate change / no change lobbies seem to be split aoong left / right lines. The first article goes some way to address these issues, more or less on the lines that I've discussed with others already in a casual sort of way. But we've generally concluded that it's far too simplistic an idea, albeit perhaps along the right lines.

But I had to grin a bit at the following:

"All scientists are sceptics: it is a healthy, everyday part of the process of systematically weighing up evidence and reaching a considered conclusion."

That's what scienttists like to think they are, and indeed the better ones will aptly fit such a description. But there are also many scientists who are blinkered and narrow-minded, just as there are such people in many other walks of life. My GP - a thoroughly nice person - is one of them, in fact. A result of his training, largely.

Surely the point is one of the chief underpinning principles of science being skepticism, rather than whether or not individual scientists adhere to that principle, whereas, in the case of people who are skeptical about mainstream opinion informed by scientific backing, their faith must presumably lie elsewhere?

[Simon]

A valid point. But I don't know if it's a question of "faith". Perhaps it's a question of "not faith" - i.e. not enough faith in those propounding a particular viewpoint. Perhaps, partiicularly in the cliamate-change debate, because of other theories/facts/statistics which appear to prove the opposite?

Skepticism is to my mind always healthy. Opinion informed by scientific backing has not always proved, in the end, to be correct.

[Serial_Apologist]

A valid point. But I don't know if it's a question of "faith". Perhaps it's a question of "not faith" - i.e. not enough faith in those propounding a particular viewpoint. Perhaps, partiicularly in the cliamate-change debate, because of other theories/facts/statistics which appear to prove the opposite?

Skepticism is to my mind always healthy. Opinion informed by scientific backing has not always proved, in the end, to be correct.

Nevertheless, the principle of scientific endeavour should always be peer-group verifiable - whether it is or not is neither here nor there - whereas skepticism, in the abstract, does not require any principle to back itself up. Anyone can be a skeptic.

[amateur51]

Nevertheless, the principle of scientific endeavour should always be peer-group verifiable - whether it is or not is neither here nor there - whereas skepticism, in the abstract, does not require any principle to back itself up. Anyone can be a skeptic.

[Simon]

Nevertheless, the principle of scientific endeavour should always be peer-group verifiable - whether it is or not is neither here nor there - whereas skepticism, in the abstract, does not require any principle to back itself up. Anyone can be a skeptic.

Can't disagree with that. I'd only add that everyone should be a skeptic, up to a reasonable point, anyway.

[Pabmusic]

Can't disagree with that. I'd only add that everyone should be a skeptic, up to a reasonable point, anyway.

But the 'reasonable point' should be no more than that reached through the availability of evidence. Scepticism simply requires evidence; in common parlance it's 'keeping an open mind' until the availability of testable evidence. Conspiracy theorists (as well as those who believe in the supernatural and pseudoscience) go further, proposing answers that ignore, or sometimes go against, the testable evidence. The problem comes when 'scepticism' is used to include these people. It's often accompanied by a post-modernist view that all explanations are equally valid anyway and 'truth' has no single meaning.

It's interesting, though, that the same conspiracy theorists/supernaturalists/pseudoscientists rely on planes, trains and automobiles to move them around, rather than magic carpets, meditation or space aliens.

[Pabmusic]

Fancy that! As if in response to my previous post, there's this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22241

[amateur51]

But the 'reasonable point' should be no more than that reached through the availability of evidence. Scepticism simply requires evidence; in common parlance it's 'keeping an open mind' until the availability of testable evidence. Conspiracy theorists (as well as those who believe in the supernatural and pseudoscience) go further, proposing answers that ignore, or sometimes go against, the testable evidence. The problem comes when 'scepticism' is used to include these people. It's often accompanied by a post-modernist view that all explanations are equally valid anyway and 'truth' has no single meaning.

It's interesting, though, that the same conspiracy theorists/supernaturalists/pseudoscientists rely on planes, trains and automobiles to move them around, rather than magic carpets, meditation or space aliens.

[MrGongGong]

It's interesting, though, that the same conspiracy theorists/supernaturalists/pseudoscientists rely on planes, trains and automobiles to move them around, rather than magic carpets, meditation or space aliens.

I'm secretly hoping the new Health Secretary gets ill so we can see how effective homeopathy really is ......

[amateur51]

I'm secretly hoping the new Health Secretary gets ill so we can see how effective homeopathy really is ......

wicked man

[aeolium]

Of course Hunt has a powerful supporter in his support for homeopathy in Prince Charles - and indeed other royals (there is a long tradition of monarchs supporting homeopathy).

[Lateralthinking1]

I'm secretly hoping the new Health Secretary gets ill so we can see how effective homeopathy really is ......

A thoroughly revolting statement.

[LeMartinPecheur]

Re climate change sceptics, doesn't the term need some unpacking?

The term seems to include a) Those who question whether there is any significant climate change happening at all; b) Those who accept that significant climate change IS happening but question whether it is humanity's actions that are driving it.

I do not subscribe to a) but am keeping an open mind at present on b). But please note however that I do support action on climate change just in case we are to blame. And care over the use of carbon fuels is good house-keeping regardless of whether they're changing anything upstairs!

There seems to be an unstated assumption in much of the climate change debate that, left to its own devices, the climate would and should generate a flat, even graph, no change in sight. This is to discount well-documented periods of significant climate change in the historical record. The period of ice fairs on the Thames (18C?) is an obvious one. OK, brief cold periods are often linked to volcanic eruptions (can't recall if that's the standard explanation for the freezing Thames) but there are also long exceptionally warm periods (the Medieval Warm Period for instance which AFAIK seems just to happen, or might be linked to only dimly understood solar and earth's-solar-orbital cycles.

It does seem to me to be an odd part of the human race's hubris, self-importance and self-loathing that if anything big in the world of nature is going wrong, we positively rush to blame ourselves for it, and completely discount the possibility that we ain't doing it, it's being done to us! That would be so-o-o undignified

I don't think anyone has yet blamed humankind for the Ice Ages, but give it time