Comments on: Scientific “Consensus” http://www.bloggernews.net/14137 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:24:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Trishette http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-62918 Trishette Fri, 20 Jul 2007 07:42:26 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-62918 Communications In a rapidly moving news environment, FDF operates a 24/7 press office and provides communications support to members <a href="http://www.marikina.gov.ph/mrknaforum/forum/viewthread?thread=3649" rel="nofollow">FDF</a> is the voice of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry. We work hard to promote the interests of the UK's most important manufacturing sector. Communications
In a rapidly moving news environment, FDF operates a 24/7 press office and provides communications support to members FDF is the voice of the UK food and drink manufacturing industry. We work hard to promote the interests of the UK’s most important manufacturing sector.

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1288 peterbroady Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:32:28 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1288 Here's something else I alluded to earlier, but which is a really an important point when talking about scientific consensus. Science, since there is so much of it now, has branced off into disciplines and subdisciplines, with every researcher only able to have one or a few areas of expertise, many of them without even working knowledge of other fields or even subfields within their field. So when you take a poll of environmental scientists or environmental professionals, you get all sorts of people, many of whom may have no experience and/or little training in many subfields of the environmental sciences. I doubt that most of the people polled would consider themselves "experts" on global climate change. There are some of these around, though, and some effort has been made to get an idea of what their consensus is. The paper I mentioned earlier by Oreskes is one such attempt...it reviewed papers on global warming, for instance, not just people who qualify as environmental professionals. Even if you accept the numbers you cite as representing the views of relevant experts, however, it doesn't support current policies or really challenge most of Gore's views as far as I am aware (I have seen Gore's film, and thought well of it, but as a general rule I don't get my scientific information from politicians of any sort, even former candidates who seem to have done their homework) Thanks. Here’s something else I alluded to earlier, but which is a really an important point when talking about scientific consensus. Science, since there is so much of it now, has branced off into disciplines and subdisciplines, with every researcher only able to have one or a few areas of expertise, many of them without even working knowledge of other fields or even subfields within their field. So when you take a poll of environmental scientists or environmental professionals, you get all sorts of people, many of whom may have no experience and/or little training in many subfields of the environmental sciences. I doubt that most of the people polled would consider themselves “experts” on global climate change. There are some of these around, though, and some effort has been made to get an idea of what their consensus is. The paper I mentioned earlier by Oreskes is one such attempt…it reviewed papers on global warming, for instance, not just people who qualify as environmental professionals.

Even if you accept the numbers you cite as representing the views of relevant experts, however, it doesn’t support current policies or really challenge most of Gore’s views as far as I am aware (I have seen Gore’s film, and thought well of it, but as a general rule I don’t get my scientific information from politicians of any sort, even former candidates who seem to have done their homework)

Thanks.

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1287 peterbroady Sun, 28 Jan 2007 03:07:54 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1287 I am quite familiar with real conservative intellectuals, and the conservative intellectual tradition. I have read some Milton Friedman and other economists, and conservative philosophers where they can be found (there are libertarians, and a libertarian research program, but no real conservative philosophy as such). My point is not that Bush is anti-intellectual in the sense that he doesn't like the ideas of favored contemporary liberal theorists (Rawls, Dworkin, etc.); it's that he is just against any kind of nuanced or careful thinking, and the open discussion that characterizes all vibrant and useful intellectual and scientific pursuits. He said his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a philosopher, in any sense of the word ever used by anyone (and "philosophers" include diverse people like Confucius, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Russell, Quine, Chomsky...what all these people have in common is hard to ascertain, except careful reflection). Also, the number of respected intellectuals who support things like "intelligent design" are few and far between. They exist in other fields (none of the proponents of this theory are actually trained or acknowledged experts in the field in question, which isn't so different in the case of global warming...can you find one expert actively engaged in research on climate change who supports Bush's understandings or policies?). It is in precisely this sense that Bush is anti-intellectual, and I think he is intentionally so (it has surely been pointed out to him that "nu-cu-lar" is the wrong pronunciation, for instance, and that creationism is not scientific...and I would guess that he personally knows this but recognizes, like so many politicians since Jimmy Carter must, the potential political usefulness of appearing simple and religious). Also, while I of course try to be aware of my pre-conceptions and how they shape my understanding (actually I have read extensively on this very question in psychology and philosophy of science since reading Thomas Kuhn and others), I disagree in one sense that it is my "pre-conceptions" that lead me to believe what I do. In reality, my life has been made a lot harder by many of the ideas I have been convinced of, especially those regarding the environment and U.S. history and foreign policy. I don't know why anyone would want to believe that they are contributing to destroying the earth or that their government has been one of the leading sponsors and perpetrators of international terrorism (by it's own definition) in the world. That is awful, but in many specifiable ways it is true. I am quite familiar with real conservative intellectuals, and the conservative intellectual tradition. I have read some Milton Friedman and other economists, and conservative philosophers where they can be found (there are libertarians, and a libertarian research program, but no real conservative philosophy as such). My point is not that Bush is anti-intellectual in the sense that he doesn’t like the ideas of favored contemporary liberal theorists (Rawls, Dworkin, etc.); it’s that he is just against any kind of nuanced or careful thinking, and the open discussion that characterizes all vibrant and useful intellectual and scientific pursuits. He said his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was not a philosopher, in any sense of the word ever used by anyone (and “philosophers” include diverse people like Confucius, Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, Russell, Quine, Chomsky…what all these people have in common is hard to ascertain, except careful reflection). Also, the number of respected intellectuals who support things like “intelligent design” are few and far between. They exist in other fields (none of the proponents of this theory are actually trained or acknowledged experts in the field in question, which isn’t so different in the case of global warming…can you find one expert actively engaged in research on climate change who supports Bush’s understandings or policies?). It is in precisely this sense that Bush is anti-intellectual, and I think he is intentionally so (it has surely been pointed out to him that “nu-cu-lar” is the wrong pronunciation, for instance, and that creationism is not scientific…and I would guess that he personally knows this but recognizes, like so many politicians since Jimmy Carter must, the potential political usefulness of appearing simple and religious).

Also, while I of course try to be aware of my pre-conceptions and how they shape my understanding (actually I have read extensively on this very question in psychology and philosophy of science since reading Thomas Kuhn and others), I disagree in one sense that it is my “pre-conceptions” that lead me to believe what I do. In reality, my life has been made a lot harder by many of the ideas I have been convinced of, especially those regarding the environment and U.S. history and foreign policy. I don’t know why anyone would want to believe that they are contributing to destroying the earth or that their government has been one of the leading sponsors and perpetrators of international terrorism (by it’s own definition) in the world. That is awful, but in many specifiable ways it is true.

]]> By: Doug Payton http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1286 Doug Payton Sun, 28 Jan 2007 00:34:32 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1286 <blockquote>Scientists and other intellectuals are pretty much unanimous on this point: that Bush might be the most anti-intellectual president in recent memory.</blockquote> Careful about assuming consensus there. *grin* Especially if/when it lines up with your preconceived notions.

Scientists and other intellectuals are pretty much unanimous on this point: that Bush might be the most anti-intellectual president in recent memory.

Careful about assuming consensus there. *grin* Especially if/when it lines up with your preconceived notions.

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1276 peterbroady Sat, 27 Jan 2007 06:15:18 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1276 Good god...can the president do no wrong in your eyes? Do you really think he and his advisors understand the environment better than people like Al Gore? Whatever one may think of Gore as a politician, he undoubtedly understands environmental issues, especially global warming, better than Bush or quite possibly anyone in this adminstration. That's not a partisan statement, just recognizing that Gore has been concerned with and actively involved in studying the phenomenon for decades and Bush hasn't. In fact, Bush really can't honestly be said to have shown much substantive understanding of scientific issues. Scientists and other intellectuals are pretty much unanimous on this point: that Bush might be the most anti-intellectual president in recent memory. I don't see how this can be denied. He supports teaching "intelligent design", for goodness sake. Even his own science advisor rebuked him on that. Good god…can the president do no wrong in your eyes? Do you really think he and his advisors understand the environment better than people like Al Gore? Whatever one may think of Gore as a politician, he undoubtedly understands environmental issues, especially global warming, better than Bush or quite possibly anyone in this adminstration. That’s not a partisan statement, just recognizing that Gore has been concerned with and actively involved in studying the phenomenon for decades and Bush hasn’t. In fact, Bush really can’t honestly be said to have shown much substantive understanding of scientific issues. Scientists and other intellectuals are pretty much unanimous on this point: that Bush might be the most anti-intellectual president in recent memory. I don’t see how this can be denied. He supports teaching “intelligent design”, for goodness sake. Even his own science advisor rebuked him on that.

]]> By: Doug Payton http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1271 Doug Payton Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:16:37 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1271 I'm all for looking for ways to clean up the environment. Going to all fluorescent bulbs in the house, for example, and encourage other to do so. I'm all for the market-driven push by President Bush to wean us off of oil. I think your assumptions got the better of you. In the meantime, environmentalists from Gore on down keep trying to convince us that only nutjobs on par with Holocaust deniers think that global warming isn't largely man-made, and always talk about scientific consensus. I was just noting that said consensus isn't what they claim it is. I’m all for looking for ways to clean up the environment. Going to all fluorescent bulbs in the house, for example, and encourage other to do so. I’m all for the market-driven push by President Bush to wean us off of oil. I think your assumptions got the better of you.

In the meantime, environmentalists from Gore on down keep trying to convince us that only nutjobs on par with Holocaust deniers think that global warming isn’t largely man-made, and always talk about scientific consensus. I was just noting that said consensus isn’t what they claim it is.

]]> By: peterbroady http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1269 peterbroady Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:15:19 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/14137#comment-1269 Well it's fine if you want to dispute the possible effects that global warming will have on the world and the exact time in which it might have those effects (the study cited, however, should be placed alongside others showing different results, and it should be kept in mind that people who really are qualified to speak with expertise on global warming are those who directly study the phenomenon and publish peer-reviewed articles and papers in that area...like the people in the 2004 study by Naomi Oreskes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). But really, what is the objection to working to stop the undeniable harm to the natural environment that Western 'progress' necessitates? "The economy?" It's always about "the economy". But everyone understands the ridiculousness of that argument on some level, including those who keep repeating it. The existence of slavery, for instance, which is still around in many forms today and practiced by many well-known American corporations, has the same justification...it's good for "the economy". It was 'good' for the economy to work thousands of African and Native Americans to death in mines, and to keep people in bondage on plantations harvesting cotton. Our nation was largely built on free labor, and hasn't come that far in many ways, because it's our corporations who hold third world peoples and children behind barbed wire working for 12+ hours for a few cents an hour. That's disgusting and a violation of human rights, but it's 'good for the economy'. Everyone now pretty much agrees that economies should serve humanity in that respect at least though. Why not in every respect? Why ever put profit over people? It's not going to be that bad to use less fuel, conserve, and work towards a sustainable world; in the long run it's going to be good for nearly everyone, wherever they live and whatever their political persuasion happens to be. I just don't understand what the real objection to better environmental practice is. It seems to me to have more to do with the short-terms gains of a few already-rich companies to the detriment of humanity and other living creatures of the earth. Tell me how I'm wrong here, man. I'm listening. Well it’s fine if you want to dispute the possible effects that global warming will have on the world and the exact time in which it might have those effects (the study cited, however, should be placed alongside others showing different results, and it should be kept in mind that people who really are qualified to speak with expertise on global warming are those who directly study the phenomenon and publish peer-reviewed articles and papers in that area…like the people in the 2004 study by Naomi Oreskes http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). But really, what is the objection to working to stop the undeniable harm to the natural environment that Western ‘progress’ necessitates? “The economy?” It’s always about “the economy”. But everyone understands the ridiculousness of that argument on some level, including those who keep repeating it. The existence of slavery, for instance, which is still around in many forms today and practiced by many well-known American corporations, has the same justification…it’s good for “the economy”. It was ‘good’ for the economy to work thousands of African and Native Americans to death in mines, and to keep people in bondage on plantations harvesting cotton. Our nation was largely built on free labor, and hasn’t come that far in many ways, because it’s our corporations who hold third world peoples and children behind barbed wire working for 12+ hours for a few cents an hour. That’s disgusting and a violation of human rights, but it’s ‘good for the economy’. Everyone now pretty much agrees that economies should serve humanity in that respect at least though. Why not in every respect? Why ever put profit over people? It’s not going to be that bad to use less fuel, conserve, and work towards a sustainable world; in the long run it’s going to be good for nearly everyone, wherever they live and whatever their political persuasion happens to be. I just don’t understand what the real objection to better environmental practice is. It seems to me to have more to do with the short-terms gains of a few already-rich companies to the detriment of humanity and other living creatures of the earth. Tell me how I’m wrong here, man. I’m listening.

]]>