Ben Gunn on 11/3/2008 at 18:43
Quote Posted by Chade
Also: a lot of people know little about (and don't really trust) the scientific process.
Often, not knowing or knowing a little about something generates veneration toward it.
The main reasons for distrust toward science, imo, are the opposite conclusions you hear after every new research. Vegetarianism has now a scientific stamp! cries a headline, only to be refuted the next week.
These examples are endless.
The folks dont trust the weathermen to forecast the next week (and they have ample reasons), why does it surprise you they are skeptical about the next decade predictions?
jay pettitt on 11/3/2008 at 19:24
This would be, I suspect (why am I so nice? - this is a media issue you big jessie; if you can't tell the difference you're probably substandard), a media issue, rather than a science issue. Media loves a story, science does not. In the 70s the media got excited about claims of a cooling planet and impending ice age - but the bulk of published papers, even then, pointed toward a warming climate resulting from CO2 emissions ((
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm) linky). The public at large doesn't follow science, we just follow the bits and pieces of science that gets reported by which ever media outlet we show a preference for.
Weather and climate are two different things.
Ben Gunn on 11/3/2008 at 19:52
Why are you so nice? I guess your nice persona is more dominating atm.
But yet again your reading skills fails you. Your ability to take things out of context is a marvel to behold.
I'm tired of explaining every goddamn little thing I write to you but I'm a patient man- I'm willing to do it once more but only if I have your word that you have read it again and this time IN context. (at least try)
Starrfall on 12/3/2008 at 14:46
Ooooo someone had some SASSY with his breakfast this morning.
Only if he has your word, you hear him!
failure2comply on 12/3/2008 at 15:00
Like the first follow-up posters said, "follow the money" (and watch your back if you do).
Swiss Mercenary on 12/3/2008 at 15:44
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
The main reasons for distrust toward science, imo, are the opposite conclusions you hear after every new research. Vegetarianism has now a scientific stamp! cries a headline, only to be refuted the next week.
That's not a scientific conclusion. That's the conclusion made by one experimenter, that was chosen to be reported on.
Scientific consensus isn't reached on the headlines of the NYT.
Ben Gunn on 12/3/2008 at 16:31
You are right of course but that's not what I said. I'd explain in what way it was an answer to Chade but it wouldn't be fair towards Jay.
She's still struggling with it, the brave little spirit she is.
jay pettitt on 12/3/2008 at 18:44
Oh go on then, you can have my undivided and most careful attention just as long as you've got something worth my while to say. If you fail I get to pull your arms off and gobble you up, you yummy little morsel you - ok?
(Sorry, I've started dribbling already)
Shoot...
Starrfall on 12/3/2008 at 20:24
We're about to be seriously enlightened here people I hope you're all paying attention.
Ben Gunn on 12/3/2008 at 20:52
Ok, here we go again.
First, let us recall this post by Chade-
Quote Posted by Chade
A lot of people probably find it easy to believe that the evidence supporting global warming is new, and therefore unreliable.
Also: a lot of people know little about (and don't really trust) the scientific process.
Did you notice the polite, yet discernible overtone of patronizing? As if all of us, who allow ourseleves to remain skeptics or at least to plead uncertainty on this matter, are ignorants.
Let us now analazye my answer in detail. I started with-
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
Often, not knowing or knowing a little about something generates veneration toward it.
This is a notion I borrowed from Balzaq who said in one of his novels that there are 2 types of illiterate people- the first scorns what he sees as a pointless scribble that bears no meaning to him, and the second treats it like something mysterious, sacred, almost a word of god. (god, I love talking to you- it helps me to sneak in the fact that Ive read Balzaq)
By that I meant to say- hey, the less I (or others) knew about the subject, the less we questioned and doubted it. The more I read and searched, the more I realized that the consensus is not 100%, not all the objectors work for the oil industry and that even the strongest supporters of the thoery in the scientific community are only 99.99% sure about it.... ok, Im OTing now, you catch my drift, lets not argue about this point again.
To sum it up- on the contrary. knowledge, more often than nought, fuels skepticism while ignorance cultivates blind trust.
Now, that we have established what exactly I did say in that sentence, that served as a prologue, let's move on to the intersting, controversial part.
Quote Posted by Ben Gunn
The main reasons for distrust toward science, imo, are the opposite conclusions you hear after every new research. Vegetarianism has now a scientific stamp! cries a headline, only to be refuted the next week.
These examples are endless.
The folks dont trust the weathermen to forecast the next week (and they have ample reasons), why does it surprise you they are skeptical about the next decade predictions?
Did I say "the main reasons for MY distrust towards science"? No.
Did I ever say I distrust science? No.
Doesn't it look I'm speaking generaly, about the public, and not about my own beliefs? No?? :tsktsk:
Let's examine how does it connects to the first part of my answer (aka prologue)- After claiming that ignorance often leads to the opposite of what Chade said and that (at least my own) doubts are often emerging only after learning more about something,- I wanted to show why even the average joe who is skeptical out of ignorance does not deserve a patronizing glare. Not even a polite one.
One who doesnt know much about science, who has never bothered to read about the mind-boggling math of chaotic systems (can ya blame him?), who is not aware that the macro is a bit more predictable than the micro because of the chaotic variables, who is fed only with the conclusions and doesnt know nothing about the thinking process and methods that led to them.
All he can see and hear is week after week of contrudicting recommendations of how to live his life, what to eat, what not to eat, to run daily or maybe jog, with or without snickers, to drink milk but only if it's goat's... you get the point.
This man doesnt know what to believe anymore but he doesnt deserves Chade's scorn. He has all the reasons for it. Even if they are wrong. Wrong but adequate with the common sense.
Thank you, you've been a lovely audience
