Brandon Schollenberger writes:
As you’re aware, Stephan Lewandowsky has written several papers claiming to have found certain traits amongst global warming skeptics. I believe his methodology is fundamentally flawed. I believe a flaw present in his methodology is also present in the work of many others.
To test my belief, I’m seeking participants for a short survey (13 questions). The questions are designed specifically to test a key aspect of Lewandowsky’s methodology. The results won’t be published in any scientific journal, but I’ll do a writeup on them once the survey is closed and share it online.
The Poll follows.
Please feel free to participate and/or share the survey with anyone you’d like:
http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=jblyccj8lluam18284546
Note: the poll is just one page, and after submitting you’ll get a “make your own survey” ad page.
Scute says @ur momisugly January 12, 2014 at 12:40 pm;
Your linear thinking examples do a nice job of illustrating how some folks are (partially) (mis)engaging with problems. An analytic or deductive examination, contrasting with a synthetic or inductive approach.
Do you do more writing in this vein? Or can you recommend others who do?
Ted
Scute… there are two major divisions in the alarmist population. Those who are too stupid to know that it’s a scam and repeat everything by rote. And those who know it’s a scam and go along with the narrative as put out by a few deeply flawed “scientists” or eco-warriors. Neither group knows diddly squat about much of anything so creativity and intellect are badly missing from both groups.
@ur momisugly Ted Clayton on 13th January 2013 at 6:14 A.M.
Ted,
I can think of two authors who deal explicitly with this issue of lateral thinking and four deceased scientists who touched on it continually in order to be inventive.
Authors:
1) Seth Godin. He has a blog and posts most days. It’s mostly to do with business but is applicable to most areas of life. One in ten posts,I would say, has a little Eureka gem of an observation. He’s written many books too.
2) Edward de Bono: I have two of his books but haven’t read them yet so I can’t comment but people are always saying he laments the way groupthink has taken over.
Scientists:
1) Charles Babbage: e.g. “On The Economy of Machinery and Manufactures”. Linked below. Sounds dry but being written in 1835 you realise he is using the lost art of observation. He is the consummate juggler of ideas and observations. At one point he says that he would observe many different machines, inventions and business practices, guessing speed, productivity, output, profit etc before asking the owner. As a result he could walk into any factory and immediately estimate the output and turnover just by observing the shop floor for a few minutes. I took his lead and always guess before Googling or asking an expert. It seems to pay off. My guesses are better than they used to be.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=wUQeMa0MFnkC&pg=PR14&focus=viewport&output=html_text#c_top
2) Buckminster Fuller: “Synergetics 1 and 2”. He is really heavy going at times but you get into the flow after a while and get glimpses of his genius. He always has a new and different perspective. I use these volumes as reference tomes just to check if I’m missing the point with something because if there’s a different perspective he will have it. I’ve only read about 2% of both books though because his language is pedantic but then again I’m sure he would say that I was missing the point if I thought that. I can hardly believe these two books are free on the net. Years ago I spent a fortune on two second-hand copies because they were out of print. The first sentence says it all:
http://www.rwgrayprojects.com/synergetics/intro/moral.html
3) Most stuff by Richard Feynman. Lectures on YouTube and the film about the Challenger disaster with William Hurt as Feynman is good.
4) Robert Hooke. An underrated scientist. His biography is worth a read:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/0333782860
Oh and Leonardo da Vinci of course, goes without saying so that’s five.
My pieces are thin on the ground, just two articles at Tallbloke’s Talkshop. What about you- any articles or books?
Actually, thinking about it, one of these two articles linked below is a perfect example of groupthink vs slow contemplation and discussion with patient individuals (me and one other commenter for 600+ comments). It involves the strange behaviour at NASA as regards a link between the Chelyabink asteroid and 2012DA14. Subsequent evidence suggested there was no link but they embarked on a campaign of misinformation to cover their backsides within hours of the Russian hit and long before any real evidence for their stance came in. NASA is still on the defensive a year later and other astronomers such as Phil Plait have repeated their false statements instead of going to source material. This really is groupthink. Recent comments from the astronomy community now echo much of what was painstakingly worked out in the 600 comments, using hard maths, models and patient observation. Though a link is still denied and is far from certain, we have debunked all but one of NASA’s objections- the velocity disparity.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/andrew-cooper-were-the-recent-asteroid-flyby-and-russian-meteor-strike-events-linked/#more-11506
Scute
Scute I heard on the internet, that NASA was going to tow some asteroids to orbit around the moon to study. I hope they know their physics, LOL.
Scute @ur momisugly January 13, 2014 at 2:31 pm
Scute,
Thanks for the refs & commentary! I’ve seen both Godin & Bono mentioned and will check out what they’re doing.
I recently reviewed the Ada Lovelace story, and could see that there is now so much more on Babbage that is accessible. I’ve got Synergetics 1 & 2 etc (college-town thrift store, decades ago), and the Buckminster Fuller bug. Mostly I’ve been after his design approaches, but as you say there is a lot more going on…
I’ve seen & read ‘peripherally’ so much about Feynman, but never got into a proper orbit. I should correct that. Robert Hooke is a hero-figure, since I was an early microscope-tyro … and then several other things where he popped up too. da Vinci may be old history, but for me history is not very inert.
I have a growing collection of out-of-copyright Google Books, and will now be making several new directories. Thanks! 🙂
I have not published, have only ‘some’ college, but I did hard sciences in public school (and Post), and then Navy nuclear power. Always continued to enjoy being a student as much as I did learning Cell Theory or Crookes Tube for the first time.
I had a website up for some years; started with hand-coding and followed the tech as it advanced. I work outside though, in low-key construction … and found myself taking on more duties as opportunity & advisability indicated. Hi-tech websites need more hands-on attention than the proverbial high-maintenance relation …
… So I moved my coding & writing & page-building to a localhost environment, where it can be parked for weeks & months, then picked up again where I left off, as time allows. I’ve said several times I was almost ready to go back online, so I avoid saying that now. 😉
I tried & studied several CMS, after they became the way to go. Then I pretty-much settled on WordPress early on, and am handy with it.
Although I was aware of the different mental states of the sensible AGW-skeptics and the better global warming scientists & enthusiasts, I look forward to exploring how people in the opposing climate-camps make use of the linear versus lateral thinking modes. Very interesting indeed!
Ted