Laughing at those who laugh at science
Chris Mooney had one of his usual good Point of Inquiry shows back in November that I just caught, an interview with Michael Gordin, who wrote The Pseudoscience Wars. Gordin considers the idiot Velikovsky to be one of the originators of modern pseudoscience. Astronomers of the time tried denouncing him, tried ignoring him, and then Carl Sagan even tried engaging and refuting his nonsense one step at a time. None of it worked. Instead, just as science advances one funeral at a time, pseudoscience sometimes gets scrubbed away one funeral at a time. Nobody cares about Velikovsky any more.
It's still unclear how to handle idiotic attacks on science. A latest idiotic attack by people who don't understand science and therefore respond by laughing at it, is an attack stating the study of evolution of duck genitalia is so stupid that it's funny. At the link, Carl Zimmer disposes of the idiots, but I think he's using Carl Sagan's technique of engaging and refuting them on the facts. As Sagan found out, that doesn't really work.
Eli's trick has been to engage, refute, and laugh at the science deniers. I think it's worth a shot but I don't know if it'll work, and I've not quite figured out the right tone to take myself. I've also tried engage, don't refute, just bet them, but that hasn't gone all that far. I can't figure out how to bet people who laugh at the scientific value of biology experiments, so maybe just laughing at those people is the best bet right now. The experiment of figuring out how to handle pseudoscience will have to continue.
Posts
237 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 237 of 237David,
The Feynman lecture to which Susan Anderson linked—http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2012/05/24/the-essence-of-science-feynman-gets-it-in-63-seconds/—is entirely about the scientific method, IIRC. And the students look like undergrads.
I was wondering how long it would take for Lewandowsky to be mentioned.
"Brad's" multi-blog jihad seems to be be based on the following chain of causation. Cook & Lewandowsky paper -Climategate!! - Feynman!!!! - Climate Science isn't real science when it accommodates Mann and Jones - therefore "Brad" is not a crank.
And he's been generating thousands of words per day (in a most un-crank-like manner, to be sure) across the blogosphere to prove it for weeks if not months now.
And here is Brad, still braiding evasions and distortions with pomposity and arrogance and fooling only himself.
He'll keep it up for *literally* thousands of comments you know. Don't say you weren't warned!
;-)
Sorry chek. Didn't realise we were on to the next page.
Just like old times, eh?
;-)
Indeed, BBD. And "Brad's" schtick really is getting old. And frayed!
I was talking about the scientific method.
The one true scientific method, no doubt.
Classic Bradley:
Previously, I said that Brad, like so many before him, seems to think Jones and Mann etc are proxies for the entire field of 'climate science' and that he is banging the old 'climate science is corrupt because Phil & Mike' drum.
Now watch Bradders repeat the insinuation that 'cli-sci is corrupt' while denying that he ever supposed such a thing (shocked, my dears!). The emphasis is his own:
However—as I think I mentioned to you at Deltoid—I don't think they're "proxies" for anything other than what you can get away with in science if you do climate science. I haven't suggested—because I don't think for a second—that the median, modal or mean climate scientist actually has attempted, let alone gotten away with, anything as brazen as J & M.
At some point, Bradley will, for the third time in public, call me a racist, then immediately claim that he did no such thing. It's an ingrained stylistic tic of his that I have yet to grow to love.
There is more lawyer than scientist in Brad's playbook.
Me: "Do you really not believe any science unless you personally go to the journals and evaluate the evidence yourself?"
Brad: "Bzzz. That's incorrect."
Me: "Obvious follow-up. Then where do you get your beliefs?"
Brad dodges again. Simple question.
Re slow being a hard sell. Brad makes a big stink about this obvious fact. One would think that anyone living in a society focused on quarterly reports would understand how planning on a 30 year time scale might be politically difficult.
But of course Brad understands this, he is a deliberate piece of the effort trying to prevent such planning.
PS -- probably my last word on this. When one is involved in a discussion with an intelligent opponent one can learn things. Others, meh.
Brad isn't prejudiced against mainstream science--he isn't smart enough to understand what mainstream science is or how it works. He has merely found he can get more attention by being a contrarian and disagreeing with whatever scientists say. It's a familiar behavior if you've ever taught adolescents.
BBD:
"At some point, Bradley will, for the third time in public, call me a racist, then immediately claim that he did no such thing. It's an ingrained stylistic tic of his that I have yet to grow to love."
Groan. You really are fixated on ancient history, aren't you, Dominic?
Very well. Readers are invited to verify the following numerical facts over at John Cook's sheltered workshop for the rhetorically retarded:
For every "lie" I typed in my "dishonest" comments at SkS, you spewed forth a chillingly Belgophobic, Walloon-supremacist slogan, BBD!
I know; I've counted; I stand by these data.
:-p
Gator:
"'Obvious follow-up. Then where do you get your beliefs?'
Brad dodges again. Simple question.'
*Sigh.*
Proximately, from my brain.
Ultimately, from ALL SORTS OF PLACES.
Mithras on a stick, Gator! You honestly expect me to write out a neuroepistemology textbook for your amusement? "Simple question", you say. Grow up.
Dilbert:
"Brad isn't prejudiced against mainstream science--he isn't smart enough to understand what mainstream science is"
Is there another kind, beefwit?
"He has merely found he can get more attention by being a contrarian and disagreeing with whatever scientists say."
Yup. You got me. I disagree with whatever scientists say, even the ones who disagree with the other ones. Congratulations. Your work here is done. You can go away.
Notice Bradley's strategy--he never commits to anything he believes. He only criticizes what others say.
Ultimately, he is too cowardly to commit to any belief whatsoever. He's so afraid of being wrong that he can never be right.
somebunnies would think that a thread on Rabett Run that went past the 200 mark was quite peculiar. But then, otherbunnies would know that it must be poptech or the clueless Brad what dunnit. Further speculation, or indeed, participation is... perhaps fruitless.
Brad,
Glad to see you've been busy.
Since you're busy, I'll stick to two points.
The first is that if you claim:
> The only C is the C in CAGW.
and agree that CAGW does not appear in the literature, then you're stuck with your straw man.
The second is that if you agree with my formulation of your argument as a non sequitur, then looking at the meaning of that term should be enough to understand why I'm saying that you are showing concerns regarding an inference.
If that is the case, then you are asking that we provide you evidence of an inference.
This can't be felicitous, Brad, as it is absurd.
Please think about it,
Thank you for your compliments,
W
Gator:
"But of course Brad understands this, he is a deliberate piece of the effort trying to prevent such planning."
You got me! My apparently ingenuous questions and consistently thoughtful comments about climate science are all part of a consp—er, I mean a coordinated, well-funded stealth campaign by the fossil-fuel multinationals and Big Nicotine to merchandise doubt and prevent planning!
Nah, just kidding.
Paranoid ideation much, Gator?
ROFL
willard:
"[I]f you agree with my formulation of your argument as a non sequitur..."
I don't.
Enjoy your day!
Less successful at being right than a stopped clock.
Don't be too hard on him, David—at least he's polite.
There are blog science.
Brad,
The first time I told you you were basically arguing that to derive CAGW from AGW was a non sequitur, you said:
> Bingo.
http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-science.html?showComment=1364607686531
I thought this meant some kind of agreement.
Now, you do seem to disagree.
Please tell me how to reconcile your two responses.
***
Do you consider playing dumb a bit tricksy, Brad?
Many thanks!
Eli,
Do not forget the auditing sciences:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/AuditingScience
***
Oh, and in case I forget again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)
willard,
I quite reasonably understood this...
"The second is that if you agree with my formulation of your argument as a non sequitur..."
...to mean that you'd characterised my argument as a fallacy. With which characterisation I obviously don't agree.
If what you mean—per your subsequent, clearer message—is that you think I'm arguing that some other argument is a fallacy, then yes, you're right, in that I'd certainly say that this:
Premise
AGW
Conclusion
CAGW
was a fallacy. Non sequitur. It does not follow.
I hope this brings us onto the same page. No tricksies here.
Brad,
Glad we agree: you claim that "AGW -> CAGW" is a non sequitur.
Now, let me recall you my two points:
1. If CAGW is a straw man, this non sequitur lacks relevance. You have yet to support your presumption that CAGW should be scientifically defined. We both agree that it never was.
In other words, by assuming that CAGW should be scientifically defined, you're begging the question.
2. Since you accept the premises but not the inference, i.e. in "AGW -> CAGW", you disagree about the "->", not the "AGW", asking for evidence lacks felicity. You already accept all the evidence there is, but disagree about what to infer from this. Providing more evidence simply won't meet your argument.
David, there are some lovely clips of Feynman, and there are his later books:
"You've Got to Be Joking, Mr. Feynman"
"Why Do You Care What Other People Think"
These were published about the time I knew him, and give a good picture of the guy I knew.
Susan Anderson --- Thanks, but I don't do video. As for the books I think I knew him well enough from my CalTech years; a rather small and tightly knit community.
David—
"As for the books I think I knew him well enough from my CalTech years; a rather small and tightly knit community."
You legend. Good stuff, David. What were you doing in those days, may I ask?
By the way—this is a fairly simple question, I would have thought, though Susan seems oddly reluctant to give a straight answer: what would Feynman have made of Phil Jones' immortal emails, do you think (my emphasis)...
1. the 'hide the decline' email?
2. the Warwick Hughes email: 'why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?'
Your thoughts gratefully anticipated.
Brad,
I hope this "Yes, but Climategate" does not show unresponsiveness from your part.
In any case, here are 141 from John Nielsen-Gammon on Climategate, with my emphasis:
> Gee, let’s try to avoid drifting into a Climategate discussion, too. I’ll limit my response to the 141 words you just spent on the topic. First, they tried to get a journal editor fired for the sin of daring to publish papers that were full of intentional and unintentional errors. Second, everybody agrees that the “decline” caption was inadequate. Third, it did become way too personal for them…though I don’t know if I wouldn’t react the same way if I had discovered that our entire civilization was in danger and others were using dirty tricks to convince people that it wasn’t. My biggest complaint was their unwillingness to share data. Meanwhile, though, we have the PCMDI archive, where every model run from the IPCC is publicly available to download and analyze. So don’t tar and feather the entire discipline.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/39845081323
I hope they satisfy you.
Wonder why NG prefaces his 141 words by "let's try to avoid drifting into a Climategate discussion?"
***
Speaking of secrecy, please comment on the Auditor's reply to Michael Ashley, dated Oct 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM:
> [I] already had a version of the data from the Russians, one that I’d had since 2004.
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/6078252343
Remember Yamal, Brad?
Your concerns are always welcome.
Many thanks!
w
willard:
"Speaking of secrecy, please comment on the Auditor's reply to Michael Ashley, dated Oct 7, 2009 at 9:22 AM:"
Sorry, no.
I welcome you to comment on it, willard (preferably by elaborating your allusions into an actual point—which is not yet discernible to me), but I neither know nor care enough about the circumstances to have a personal take on it.
Brad,
Thank you for the invitation, which I might accept when you'll acknowledge and respond to my two points.
Your unresponsiveness looks a bit too tricksy, for now.
Thank you for your unresponsive concerns,
w
Of course, I believe in climate skeptics- why one was stopped in San Diego yesterday for biking without a tinfoil helmet .
Brad Keyes --- All three of my degrees are from CalTech.
Richard Feynman was probably more of the "gentlemen don't snoop into other's mail" school.
I suggest the willard & brad keyes discussion move to a very special spot on the internet:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/02/02/brangelina-thread/
where it can continue without such difficulties.
cRR Kampen:
”Did not reply the bradthing for a multitude of diurnal periods. Now, why? I heeded advise from a number of participants here. Who, to my surprise (somewhat), never took even the tiniest shred of their own advisories. Resulting in two threads that imho should've gone down the ahole during the Bunny Days, of the year 2013 to be clear, already. I feel kinda raped by this bradthing. And by those telling me to keep quiet while being raped and cheering the thing meantime. The good news is there is now ample space in my rabett hole.”
LOL! This is pitch-perfect writing, cRR. You're a great stylist!
"the bradthing ... down the ahole ... I feel kinda raped ... keep quiet while being raped ... ample space in my rabett hole..."
You've really nailed (as it were!) the paranoid amour propre of the True Believer.
But, ever-mindful of Poe's Law, perhaps I should explain to new readers that:
- I've been nothing but gentle and attentive to cRR's needs
- cRR and I (though on opposite "sides" of the climate debate) have only ever exchanged friendly arguments, as far as I can remember
- cRR has thanked me for my "sobering" responses, and in turn I've praised him at Deltoid as one of the Rabett Runners who "has half a brain"
- beneath the playful irony, there's an undertone of betrayal—cRR feels let down by the hypocrites and bad counsellors on his own "side"
- his comment acts out a "displacement" of this anger onto the perennial scapegoat: the heretic
Hopefully this will be an occasion for some of you to examine your consciences. Thanks for providing such an occasion, cRR.
Ow yow you here, too? Very well. This was done at Deltoid quarantine where it still resides with moderation. But now I see we can work here. Thus, Brad 'Dayum' Keys:
First, I might feel raped by you. Otoh I gave you the benefit of the doubt in order to lure you into my artillery sights which would happen if and only if you are a climate revisionist, which you are and today so stated clearly. You see, in our gentlemen's exchange at Rabbet's you tried to lead me into believing we were actually on the same side in the CAGW-debate ì.e. the realists' side. Rabiately independently minded as I am, I took some time sussing you out while temporarily blocking out the storm of comments by those who already knew you (but me, probably less so). You showed up under the barrels in close to no time, though as a climate revisionist you are relatively clever. Like a rat of sorts. Still, I dare say you could learn dayumed much from one McIntyre in this respect.
Second, yes, I shot a flare at those whose company I feel honoured to be allowed to enjoy, simply because it is my experience that these wise people often still do not fully understand what they are up against. They tend to think they are dealing with trolls, or, at their least naive, they think they are dealing with 'merchants of doubt' and believe they can negotiate with such 'merchants'. What they need to understand is that they are debating with fascism. The kind of fascism that abhors knowledge, science, intelligent thinking. The kind of fascism that uses people and planet to waste for their own petty materialistic egocentrism (oh, long live death). The kind of fascism that will destroy the planet just for the fun of it. The kind of fascism that has rape for culture.
Third, I am a True Believer for I am the Founder of the Pi Sekt. We believe the ratio of circumference and diameter of any circle is a transcendent number and we kick out those who say otherwise without trial or comment - like True Believers do.
Fourth, dessert will be served. Cold.
"Unless Brad Keyes is a Poe and playing the total clown I doubt that even he would argue that the appropriate adjective would be INCONSEQUENTIAL AGW."
You're quite right. I would not argue such a thing.
Brad is flat-out lying. He has repeatedly said, and not only in that Deltoid thread, that AGW is either inconsequential or somewhat beneficial.
In addition, he has repeatedly claimed that scientists who warn of deleterious consequences of AGW do so without any evidence to support this "conjecture" ... this is a slander.
Brad's twitter profile says "Hobbies include defending science against The Science™" ... this demonstrates his conspiratorial ideation, his fixed ideological dogmatic judgment of what he sees as "The Science", his casual commitment to being an anti-science (what he calls "The Science") troll, his mental confusion as he sees science in actual practice (what he calls "The Science") as a threat to some abstraction he calls "science", and much more. Notably, his hobby does not require actually studying or learning about the scientific evidence revealed by science, which is why his posts are mostly devoid of any scientific details, beyond a bare acceptance of AGW. Critically, Brad steadfastly avoids answering questions such as those posed in
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-science.html?showComment=1364489103813#c3334513127831791325 and http://rabett.blogspot.com/2013/03/laughing-at-those-who-laugh-at-science.html?showComment=1364489285323#c6162168990047435197
I see Jim Balter (jbq) has followed me here. Just when I thought I could lead the normal life of a private citizen. Sigh.
Very well.
"He has repeatedly said, and not only in that Deltoid thread, that AGW is either inconsequential or somewhat beneficial."
Ah. "Or." And do you know what "or" means, Mr Balter?
For the record, climate change—anthropogenic or otherwise—couldn't possibly be inconsequential if that means without consequences. Of course it has consequences. It has always had, and will always have, consequences. Indeed it can shape the course of whole civilizations.
Much like plate tectonics, one might say.
(Only with a lot more grant money up for grabs.)
Post a Comment