Yes, but there's a difference between skepticism, and "pseudo-skepticism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Unfortunately, I find that the latter is often passed off as being the former, such as in debates like this.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Global Warming - It's Our Fault
- Thread starter Tituscrow
- Start date
Yes, but there's a difference between skepticism, and "pseudo-skepticism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism
Unfortunately, I find that the latter is often passed off as being the former, such as in debates like this.
Some Wiki cut n pastes that are apropros here (I know I know Wiki blah blah, other sources will have similar definitions).
Scepticism (scientific)
Scientific skepticism ( also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.
Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose
Pseudoskepticism
Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that some advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."
Scepticism (scientific)
Scientific skepticism ( also spelled scepticism) is the practice of questioning whether claims are supported by empirical research and have reproducibility, as part of a methodological norm pursuing "the extension of certified knowledge". For example, Robert K. Merton asserts that all ideas must be tested and are subject to rigorous, structured community scrutiny.
Scientific skeptics believe that empirical investigation of reality leads to the truth, and that the scientific method is best suited to this purpose
Pseudoskepticism
Richard Cameron Wilson, in an article in New Statesman, wrote that some advocates of discredited intellectual positions such as AIDS denial and Holocaust denial engage in pseudoskeptical behavior when they characterize themselves as "skeptics" despite cherry picking evidence that conforms to a pre-existing belief. According to Wilson, who highlights the phenomenon in his book Don't Get Fooled Again (2008), the characteristic feature of false skepticism is that it "centres not on an impartial search for the truth, but on the defence of a preconceived ideological position".
Scientific skepticism is itself sometimes criticized on this ground. The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in controversial fields where opposition from scientific skeptics is strong. For example, in 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion..."
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation" puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."
So, you went with Wikipedia definitions even though a dictionary app is better accepted regarding accuracy. Then break it down to pseudo-skepticism and scientific skepticism. Which is wildly amusing since the argument being made is whether we should be skeptical with science. Too funny!
Then a boatload of spin, circular logic and psychobabble. How's the saying go: "If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, bury 'em in BS". Would you like a bigger shovel?
It finds the best, predictive, falsifiable explanation for the existing evidence. It is always tentative, and always subject to being disproved by new evidence.
That last paragraph describes the post in which it is contained very accurately. Well done.
So go find the dictionary defs, as I said you'll find similar results.
I'm just making a point that when people talk about scepticism there is a huge difference in the way most people view the word and the definition that scientists use, which requires an active participatory examination not just pronouncing "I don't believe" as some sort of passive defense of an entrenched preconceived position.
It's the same sort of potential for confusion that arises when non biologists say that evolution is "just a theory" and think that means WAG, when the theory of evolution is a "scientific theory" which has a much more detailed meaning.
What you call psychobabble is also called "details". That's another thing that scientists and engineers are very concerned with.
Fair enough. So, why do so many here act like today's scientific conclusions are infallible?
Because they're hellbent on being "right".
Also because scientists like to name things after themselves, and they want to have something with their name on it.
They also enjoy kicking puppies, torturing kittens, hate God, love to crucify monkeys and think life is one big accident.
Yeah because being a mechanical engineer after being a research climatologist
should take a weekend of training at the local college annex. What are you smoking?
You won't ever figure out how to harvest the sun's energy without understanding how it works.
This thread is full of misconceptions of what scientists and engineers actually do. What do all you people do for a living?
Ok mister. I'll address this misdirection. I said dollars spent on data collection directed instead to engineering solutions. I never said that pure scientists become engineers over night. I said they should become useful. How can you say we can't harvest the suns energy unless we can know how it works? I stated the fact that we can and do: solar cells, solar furnaces. Inventors built them without the knowledge you insist us necessary. And you tried to deny it is possible?
It's possible because they exist Dr.
More dollars into further developing this existing tech instead of counting co2 atoms and taking the earths temperature needs to be done. Take government money away from climate research and give it to alternative energy tech companies that are already trying to get investment to further develop the tech that exists. That's the way to solve a problem that we know exists, not gather more temperature data.
There is a lot of critical info to be gathered in learning how our planet is changing and how fast. Important for farming, Invalid Link Removed and [Invalid or Expired Link Removed]. eg....]More dollars into further developing this existing tech instead of counting co2 atoms and taking the earths temperature needs to be done. Take government money away from climate research and give it to alternative energy tech companies that are already trying to get investment to further develop the tech that exists. That's the way to solve a problem that we know exists, not gather more temperature data.
- Arctic ice decreases are leading to altered jet streams and changed weather patterns in the northern hemisphere. This will (and IS) impact mostly in the USA and Europe.
- Argo heat monitoring in the ocean. We get a better picture of how the whole system works.
- There's currently some great work going on studying the interface of rock and ice in Greenland and Antarctica. Quite important to know how this works and how quickly it's going to dump its guts in the ocean.
I HIGHLY recommend anyone who's actually interested in understanding this subject to watch this Richard Alley presentation... (it's long - 45minutes) but covers a lot of the misrepresentations in this thread...
How can you say we can't harvest the suns energy unless we can know how it works? I stated the fact that we can and do: solar cells, solar furnaces. Inventors built them without the knowledge you insist us necessary. And you tried to deny it is possible?
It's possible because they exist Dr.
More dollars into further developing this existing tech instead of counting co2 atoms and taking the earths temperature needs to be done. Take government money away from climate research and give it to alternative energy tech companies that are already trying to get investment to further develop the tech that exists. That's the way to solve a problem that we know exists, not gather more temperature data.
You miss the point completely. You wouldn't even have solar cells if someone didn't spend "dollars on data collection" as you say. The basic science knowledge of how light (from the sun) works was and is necessary. If you had been living back when photovoltaics were being investigated you no doubt would have considered the science a complete waste of time and dollars and would have wanted those scientists to get real jobs, maybe engineer better horse buggies. I'm not saying that to be derogatory, just trying to dive home the point in an exaggerated way. Your concept of practical engineering is completely forgetful of (or perhaps never even knew) how science informs and drives technology development.
Holy crap man, you miss the point.
The tech exists. Since 1954. Improve the tech. The tech needs money to develop. Stop wasting money on data collection.
They know that we can convert sun into electricity. The process is a known quantity. The problem lies in the efficiency of the cells and it is a materials problem, not a data problem.
We know what energies are available in sunlight. To use cells to convert the energy does not require a full knowledge of how the sun works. That's clear because the tech works and we don't know how stars work, do we?
Keep on saying I missed the point. YOU missed the point and ignored the direct wording of my post and clearly twisted it to say something it didn't.
The tech exists. Since 1954. Improve the tech. The tech needs money to develop. Stop wasting money on data collection.
They know that we can convert sun into electricity. The process is a known quantity. The problem lies in the efficiency of the cells and it is a materials problem, not a data problem.
We know what energies are available in sunlight. To use cells to convert the energy does not require a full knowledge of how the sun works. That's clear because the tech works and we don't know how stars work, do we?
Keep on saying I missed the point. YOU missed the point and ignored the direct wording of my post and clearly twisted it to say something it didn't.
Again, "Data collection" is what allowed solar panels to be invented. Your materials problem is also a basic science problem that requires more of the data collection you seem to think is so superfluous. I didn't miss your point, I just disagree with it since you seem to willfully ignore how science works. And I never said it required a full knowledge of how the sun works, that's you putting words in my mouth. It requires knowledge enough to do the job though and that knowledge was gained through basic research, the impractical science you scorn as mere data collection.
Again let me spell it out clearly. If there hadn't been people investigating how the light from the sun works there would be no solar cells.
Basic science research, often full of meandering paths and dead ends and seemingly ludicrous to the public, is the source of technological innovation. You can't cut that away and just fund projects you think would have 100% success. Unless you are clairvoyant or something. If so I'd like some stock picks.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
Because a very well educated position with data and corroboration of other fields is much better than the position you're promoting -- skepticism of a very well educated position. You're not promoting data, you're not promoting a corroborated idea that ties into other fields. You're just simply being skeptical.
This skepticism stems from industry-funded campaigns against climate science.
For example, as of 2007 ExxonMobil had spent $19 million to promote skepticism of climate science. It's difficult to present arguments against widespread industry-funded meta-messages sowing doubt at every turn.
Unrepresented
Something Borderline Offensive
I understand. Of my pet peeves is when science gets demonized for political gain.
You trust science to land your plane flight. You trust it to connect your cell phone call. You trust it to have this conversation on computers across the globe, but when a few talking heads and big money start discussing a specific branch that ties into a convenient narrative, it's suddenly "bunk."
I'm skeptical of alarmists crying "The sky is falling!" when such claims have repeatedly proven empty and unwarranted. Thirty years ago the panic was that the world was cooling, and fear mongers claimed we were headed for another ice age. My understanding is that climate is cyclical, and we've been headed for another ice age since the planet emerged from the last one.
I've seen my tax dollars given to "green" companies like Solyndra and Evergreen Solar to see those companies squander the money they were given, move the company to China, and then close down completely.
I'm not convinced human contribution to climate is significant, or that despite the arrogance of the Global Warming alarmists, we can make a significant impact to alter climate change, or even that we should. This argument reminds me of the people who want to save all the cute animals from extinction, even though the natural rate of extinction in an undisturbed ecosystem is 1 per decade (Invalid Link Removed) not counting for mass extinctions that happened throughout history without our help.
I think climate change is similar. It is something the planet does, and will continue to do long after we're gone. I see people trying to change the climate as arrogant meddlers who in the end will likely do more harm than good. Typical of humanity, we try to change things to suit ourselves rather than simply adapt to the changes.
Whatever change is happening, it's taking place slowly enough for us to adapt our lifestyles to it. I appreciate people suggesting books to read and such, and if you have time to read them, good for you. But, I'm neck deep in things that are impacting my life currently, and rarely have time to read the things I enjoy, let alone some scientists views on what they think will happen 50, 100 or however many years from now.
Based on what I've seen of science fact over the last 30 years, I'm no more convinced that today's dire predictions are accurate than I have been of any other I've seen come and go. Scientists are humans, not gods. They are fallible. They've been wrong enough in the past for me to not be concerned with the current prognosis.
Actually, I trust the pilot to land the plane, I trust technology (built out of science, but built and maintained by technicians, not scientists) to transmit my phone and computer communications.
There is also no dispute regarding those things or if and how they work. When planes crash, is science ever blamed?
The fact that even a few scientists question our role in climate change is all the reason I need to question it myself.
