= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jack 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)
What word would you suggest I use to describe those who subscribe to the CAGW Hypothesis? And are you claiming that the "scientific establishment" subscribes to the CAGW Hypothesis?
I think this depends on how fair the rules are. Pretty much every discussion board, including this one, has rules and bans people who break those rules. Do you think my rules are unfair?
What evidence did I refuse to concede?
Suit yourself.
How about "those who subscribe to CAGW"? Certainly referring to them as alarmists begs the question. In general, the suffix "-ist" suggests an ideologue who can't be reasoned with (there are exceptions, such as philosophical positions, but in political discussions this is almost always the case). Whether or not those who hold the view you disagree with can in fact be reasoned with is irrelevant-- this coinage amounts to ad hominem by connotation.
I think the scientific establishment drops the 'C' (or at least doesn't hold the extremely terrifying beliefs a lot of non-scientists hold about global warming) but since you've coined new terms at few points in your blog do I know who you're actually critisizing.
You don't have a discussion board, you have a personal blog. The rules here are mostly informal and they're designed to ensure quality of content and civility. We have a few rules about subject area but they are flexible and are only needed at all because they're often noisy for the large number of people that come here. Your rules limit discussion to one, very particular thesis. Which is fine if you've got a ton of readers and you're trying to sort signal from noise. We ban people who constanly post New Agey nonsense because no one wants to be distracted by that stuff. You don't have the readership to do that. You've had one dissenting commenter afaict. He was banned.
Your other rules: If someone here uses a straw man someone else replies "Hi. This is a straw man." On your blog, you promise to ban them. If someone equivocates here another person will reply "I think you're equivocating on this point." some discussion will then ensue about whether or not that person is in fact equivocating. On your blog however, if someone equivocates or is otherwise "weaslely" they must admit they are weasling or they will be banned. Here if person A criticizes person B's spelling person B will usually edit their comment and reply "Thanks." On your blog, if you are person B you will assume that person A has conceded your argument.
This only begins to describe your list of 9(?) rules. I can't see how they're actually implemented because it looks like you deleted the violating comments. They aren't so much unfair as preposterous. In the words of the one person who commented to the post listing your rules: "Dude, seriously, chill."
Put it this way: you argue like an attorney not a scientist. Is anyone not clear what I mean by that?
Look, presumably you want smart people who disagree with you to challenge your beliefs. I'm giving you strong reasons why they might be avoiding you. Do with that information what you wish.
I find that a bit cumbersome. I try to use the word "warmist," which I think is reasonable. Feel free to disagree. ETA: I will try to stop using the word "alarmist."
Well in that case, "warmist" in fact does not describe the views of the scientific establishment.
That's simply incorrect. Numerous comments either contradict or question what I have written.
I haven't deleted anyone's comments at all. As best I can recall, only one person was banned after a warning.
Yes, I'm a bit confused. It seems to me that whether you are an attorney, a scientist, or anything else, if you claim that I refused to concede some evidence, you should be prepared to either back up your claim with specifics or admit you cannot do so.
So please back up what you are saying. Please show me where I was"refusing to concede evidence" (whatever that means).
Not necessarily. A shockingly high percentage of smart people resort to the sort of tactics which I disdain. For example, I've seen it happen numerous times that people strawman me. It's a complete waste of time to argue with somebody who isn't even arguing against my actual position.
CAGW endorsers? I think neologisms basically suck. But, alright, fair enough.
I count 22 total comments. Half were made by you and another one was Word Press's sample comment. And a solid percentage of the others agreed with you. 'Numerous' seems like too strong a word unless I am missing part of your blog. It does look like there was one other instance of disagreement than I saw the first time. Apologies for hyperbole in that case.
I assumed the person banned in this thread had comments deleted because you responded to all his points and then posted two more times before you banned him. I assumed he had responded to you and done something more heinous to be banned. This doesn't make the banning better, it makes it worse. I don't know what to tell you. The strict rules and the banning look ridiculous for a blog of that size.
My claim was poorly phrased. What I mean is that I would expect these sorts of questions to have some evidence on either side. It is highly likely the majority position especially, has at least some evidence in its favor. Someone who is honestly trying to figure out the science will look at the majority position and say "oh, these are fair arguments but here are some considerations that would make us doubt them" or "here is why these arguments look convincing but aren't". Even with theists we can say "Yeah I can see how a designer looks like a good explanation for the natural world. But here is this other, better mechanism that explains it all (evolution) and it turns out that positing a designer just pushes the question back a step."
Now admittedly it is possible the endorsers of CAGW really have nothing resembling a convincing argument. And you're certainly not obligated to pretend they do. But my problem isn't just that you haven't conceded that your opponent might make plausible points. I'm afraid it is more general and more vague. Reading your blog is a lot like reading one of the sites giving evidence for either side in the Kercher murder. One does not get the sense that you're interested in truth. One gets the sense that you've made up your mind and are interested mostly in beating up the other side and winning the political battle. Your arguments are dressed like soldiers. I have no idea what your actual motivations are, of course. But this is the sense I get from reading the blog.
So you don't want all smart people to challenge your beliefs. Presumably, though, you still want smart people to challenge your beliefs.
If you look more carefully, you will see I asked him a couple reasonable questions; he did not respond; and that was that.
I still don't understand what the problem is. Do you think I have ignored or misrepresented the best evidence in favor of the warmist position?
Sure, if they do so in a reasonable fashion.
You asked him a couple reasonable questions. He did not respond. A few days later, you banned him.
I have no idea if you have done done that. In the same way, If I had just read the "Amanda Knox is guilty" website I would have no idea if they had responded to the best arguments of the "Amanda Knox is innocent" crowd. But as with those websites your tone and form do not give me confidence that you have in fact done so. Maybe someone else can point out exactly what gives me that impression, I'm afraid I'm at a loss. Sorry.
His discussion strategy consists almost entirely of logical rudeness. I had assumed he was an attorney based on my prior experiences with the style long before he presented his qualification as evidence. My prejudices inform me that while they can often be quite competent at seeking out truth, speaking to lawyers is a terrible strategy for finding truth yourself.
This is all very well said. The site is clearly an attempt to argue one position on AGW, rather than to weigh the evidence that comes in. More than that, all evidence to the contrary is held to be deeply stupid and/or dishonest. The result is .... I don't quite know how to put it. But the result is disturbing. It feels like one has stumbled into a strange single-person cult.