= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on You're Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (221)
I'm too lazy to write a top-level post about it, but the main problem with AGW as I see it is that most people have reference class of "statements said by people like IPCC and Al Gore, who think that AGW is real, and Kyoto Protocol and similar activities are a good idea".
One group of people look at pretty solid evidence that AGW is real, and from this and such reference class infers that Kyoto Protocol type actions must also be good.
Another group of people look at pretty solid evidence that Kyoto Protocol is a very bad idea, and from this and this reference class infers that AGW might not be real.
All media show these issues as highly entangled, even though they're not really (well, if AGW is false, then Kyoto Protocol is almost certainly bad, but all three other combinations are possible).
I have two reference classes - one for AGWers' statements about climate which I estimate to be almost all true, and another for AGWers' statements about proper policy which I estimate to be almost all false.
Most of my friends do not believe the scientific consensus that being overweight causes health problems. On both sides of the argument you see the same phenomenon you observe here - people do not draw a distinction between this assertion, and a particular prescription, in this instance "dieting is good for your health". From what I've looked at so far, I'm pretty confident of the first, but much less so of the second.
This is a great example, thanks.
I think you're exactly right, and the problem is that people are often so partisan that they don't even think of this or understand it as a possibility. Unfortunately, this problem isn't just limited to AGW. I see it in many discussions of policy questions, where people argue about which statistics are right instead of saying, "Assume these factual statements are true: what is the proper policy?"
Although I don't have any references handy, I've seen people argue that Kyoto-like changes in our lifestyles are necessary on ethical grounds apart from global warming. More often they'll simply dismiss any sort of technological solution as a "quick fix" or even as the thing that caused the problem in the first place.
There are quite a few people who would like to abdicate control over the physical world.
People argue most ridiculous things. If they want to "abdicate control over the physical world" they can simply kill themselves - that's the only way.
What do you mean by "abdicate control over the physical world"?
I fit the profile described here quite well. Feel free to ask (I know I'm 6 years late, but that's the point of internet forums).