= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Wes_W comments on Argument Screens Off Authority - 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 (80)
An example of where not to apply this advice: There are so many different observations bearing on global warming, that if you try to check the evidence for yourself, you will be even more doomed than if you try to decide which authority to trust.
So, when trying to form an opinion or position on climate change, what is a rational approach?
As far as I can tell the experts don't agree and have all taken political positions (therefore irrational positions).
Given a field with no expert consensus, where you can't just check things yourself, shouldn't the rational response be uncertainty?
I don't think global warming fits this description, though. AFAIK domain experts almost all broadly agree.
The devil is in the details. They "broadly agree" on what? I don't think there's that much consensus on forecasts of future climate change.
Yes. This. And the details aren't trivial. They make a huge difference in policy. From "do nothing" to "reduce all growth and progress immediately or we go extinct".