I do see your point. You’re arguing against people thinking that global warming is now fact. But i’m not arguing that. I’m just saying it’s likely.
I think the problem is partially one of language. Gravity is accepted. It’s existence is treated as fact. Of course, as a good scientific theory, it isn’t fact, but a theory. Yet people talk about it as though it were fact. I think it’s a similar thing here. The people that believe global warming is true can tend to talk about it as though it’s fact. But in general we know it isn’t. I’m not saying there are no people who would consider it 100% gospel truth, just that you probably shouldn’t judge everyone like that. I’m just as against treating it as abject truth as you are.
For a long time I’ve noticed a penchant from many on the left to attempt to discredit an opposing argument rather than engage it. It goes back to the old saying “Conservatives think liberals have bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people.” I really am surprised at how many people chose to attack me, the form of the argument, or Rush Limbaugh, and how relatively few actually simply engaged the argument.
I’ll try to get back to the latter before the night is out.
Wow, I was being generous over there throwing a bone to Scylla, but after many others posters demonstrated (Specially jshore) what a misleading bonehead Rush can be with this alleged “clever” “obvious” piece, that I have to take even that bone back. Now the only thing I feel for Rush is pity.
And the OP now looks to be in the wrong place even more.
Ok. I just went back and read your post again. It was post #17 on page one. You said:
As a poster whom I respect and consider carefully, I have to say I don’t really see where you get off calling my characterization a “distortion.”
If everybody agrees, than nobody disagrees, and that is “unanimous.” I made a good faith and accurate characterization of the words you actually said. If you mispoke that is not what you meant, that’s fine, but the fault lies with you for misspeaking.
I think it’s hardly fair to say that I was distorting your argument here, and expect a retraction and a shrubbery.
I don’t beleive a scientific consensus is valuable. The consensus has no effect on underlying reality or truth. The scientific method does not value consensus. In fact, it encourages dissent and the challenging of status quo in pursuit of truth.
The value of consensus is political, not scientific. Consensus as evidence is simply not science.
Yes, I understand that it does. In doing so, it is proper. In using consensus as evidence of truth it is improper.
No doubt. The topic though is not about the bad arguments made by those who argue against global warming. It is about a bad argument being made by some of those who argue in favor of it.
Bad logic on one side does not excuse bad logic on the other.
I disagree very strongly with your concept here. You’re simply making excuses. If somebody suspects that their opposition will argue unfaithfully that does not give them the right nor excuse their faithless arguments.
Yes, you are. And you are being unscientific and illogical. Scientitically, agreement does not denote truth, and is irrelevant, unless you are willing to concede that the Sun circled the earth before Copernicus won a majority. Consensus is a purely politically argument. Global Warming is a scientific question and needs to be answered scientifically.
When you claim consensus as evidence you abandon science.
I think you’re partially right, Scylla. Consensus obviously has no bearing whatsoever on the underlying reality/evidence. And I agree that “dissent” can play a significant role in science. For instance, if scientists had taken Newtonian laws of physics as absolute, we would likely still be fumbling about with some of the details of Quantum mechanics.
However, I do think that consensus can play a significant role in science, as well. Consensus is what allows “the next steps” to be taken, in scientific theory. If there is a consensus on the explanation of how electricity can flow through a circuit board, then an electrical engineer doesn’t have to worry about picking apart every single detail of the “why” when he/she designs a circuit board to be used in a security system.
Of course, the engineer is well trained in the numerous theories and underlying physics of the matter, but with a consensus they can continue their work confident that nothing huge was somehow overlooked. Does that mean that it’s impossible for something huge to have been somehow overlooked? Of course not, but it sure lowers the likelihood.
LilShieste
Because, you know, when you move from the scientific to the political sphere, you’re leaving science right behind. You’re taking the fruits of science, and trying to spur political action based on those fruits.
That is NOT science.
But in the political sphere, talking with people who can’t fully grasp the science, the consensus (or state of play generally) is the evidence.
That’s all you can lay on the table.
And unless and until you find a way to turn politicians into scientists at the drop of a hat, that’s just the way it is.
The alternative is to tell the pols to forget about science, because there will always be that error bar. No, we haven’t proven tobacco causes cancer. No, we haven’t proven Newton’s laws of motion, let alone Einstein’s theory of relativity. We know nothing, nothing. Creationism is a theory too.
Consensus is dependent on evidence. When one says “the vast majority of scientists think this” they aren’t saying “It is their opinion, and thus is correct”. They’re saying that their opinions are based on the evidence, and that strong evidence in one direction will be reflected by a large proportion of those looking at the evidence to say it supports a theory that, well, it supports.
No one’s claiming consensus as evidence. No one is saying that opinions of scientists cause changes in the world - that’s a strawman the size of a house. What we’re saying is that consensus depends on the evidence, and that the scientific process - which depends on dissent, disagreement, the proposing of many varied theories - provides the best possible theory on the evidence, a part of science you seem to be forgetting.
Scylla: I am confused. What is exactly your counterproposal for how the state of science that has implications for important public policy questions should be assessed? The process of science is the best way that we have come up with for assessing the truth and when that science has important implications for society, it is important to assess what the current state of the science is. This is really the only context in which the idea of a consensus comes up.
And, yes, a “scientific consensus” in a field can be wrong…but the fact that you had to go back several hundred years for an example (although some people do point, with greater or lesser historical accuracy, to more recent ones) suggests that it is usually the way the smart money bets. And, when one starts to make policy decisions on the hope of a robust consensus being wrong, one basically throws reliance on science for policymaking out the window because one can always then find one’s own “pet scientist” to support one’s point-of-view. So, this is a recipe for making policy decisions on politics alone with essentially no input from science.
Yes, I’m well aware of that. The problem is, I don’t think you know what people mean when they talk about a scientific consensus, as evidenced by the following:
Nobody believes it does, excepting maybe the makers of What the Bleep do We Know, and I join you in holding them in contempt. If this is the position against which you’re arguing, you’re arguing with nobody on this board.
Of course all of this is true. Who disagrees? What significance does any of this have to the political debate over how we should translate the scientific findings into political action?
The reason I asked you for the summary of the valuing-consensus opinion was to see if you could articulate a position that real people actually hold. I’d still like to see if you could do that.
[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I think you’re partially right, Scylla. Consensus obviously has no bearing whatsoever on the underlying reality/evidence. And I agree that “dissent” can play a significant role in science. For instance, if scientists had taken Newtonian laws of physics as absolute, we would likely still be fumbling about with some of the details of Quantum mechanics.
I think scientists should do science, and I think politicians should do politics, and I don’t think the two should be confused. I think you when espouse a scientific viewpoint with political rhetoric you are doing neither good science nor good politics.
Actually the smart money rarely bets consensus since the upside has been discounted.
If you’re argument though is that I’ve had to reach back centuries to find examples of scientific consensus in error than all I can say is that I hope the anxiety over whether I can come up with something more recent doesn’t give you a… stress-induced ulcer.
I said nothing of the kind. I simply don’t beleive you can make a scientific decision based on consensus, nor a scientific argument based on consensus. Consensus is not evidence of scientific fact and should not be argued as such any more than Rush Limbaugh’s accuracy should be measured by his audience.
Hard to say that when one considers the alternative: truth by fiat, individual intuition, minority verdict, or non-expert verdict is many times more expensive or deadly, but I don’t think that is the value you are talking about.
Anyhow, in this case, as a result of what **jshore ** pointed out, minority opinions that are more logical and truthful than a consensus do not stay in the minority for long. As I notice so many times with extreme conservatives, time is once again the enemy of a point like this. For the consensus that we are talking about is from experts with now several decades or years of investigation. And that consensus is not discouraging dissent, as much as the minority is screaming about it, far from it.
For example, I do remember reading that researchers investigated if one predicted effect by one of the best dissenters was going to show in the form of more clouds in one of the atmospheric layers, when after several years the clouds failed to appear as predicted the dissenter just changed what could be expected, I think that many would not give that researcher even the time of day after that, but just because his new predictions are testable more research will be headed that way.
So scientific consensus is not a scientific argument, but the consensus can be based on the scientific method, Rusbo is trying to make all think there is no scientific basis for the global warming consensus.
I am noty looking for a retraction; I just want everyone to play on a level field.
Does you browser have a filter that eleiminates everythjing inside parentheses?
Many groups agree to perate on consensus rather than on majority vote. In such arrangements, there does not have to be unanimity to proceed–people may continue to hold reservations about aspects of a proposal or declaration or law. However, everyone must agree that the proposal, declaration, or law is sufficiently important that they all work toward that goal despite reservations. That means that if there is a point on which people disagree, they work toward language that expresses the general agreement of the group or they drop the offending point or some members agree to asupport the larger point without agreeing with the minor points. Everyone must agree with the final overall product, but they do not need to express unanimity regarding all the aspects of the discussion.
I’m having difficulty believing that you have never encountered the formal use of the word consensus, (although I can believe you would refuse to work where it was employed ).
).