Mike Jonas writes:
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, UK) looks at analysis that could lead to more moderate attitudes.
This BBC article provides some food for thought that is relevant to the climate debate. It looks at a paper “Political Extremism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding” by Fernbach, Rogers, Fox and Sloman, which shows how people’s mistaken sense that they understand underlying causal processes can be used to improve the quality of their arguments and lead to more moderate attitudes.
That is something that the climate science debate could really do with – but be warned: it doesn’t just apply to others, it applies to you too!
The BBC article is here:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140521-the-best-way-to-win-an-argument
and the Fernbach et al paper is here:
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/24/6/939.short
The BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation, UK) looks at analysis that could lead to more moderate attitudes.
But is still convenes secret committees to promote a one sided pro climate change agenda and when caught out in this does nothing to correct the imbalance that is in violation of its charter and hence in violation of the very justification for a compulsory licence..
Easy:
Sceptic: You think CO2 causes global warming?
Believer. Yes
Sceptic: Good.
Sceptic: Do you know the role of clouds in climate?
Believer: No
Sceptic: Neither does anyone else. So how do you know that it is CO2 and not clouds that is making things warmer.
Believer: ??????????????
Unless you can convince the other side to totally change their mind there won’t be a winner. Either both side become moderate which is a draw, or one side remains certain they are right while the other accepts they don’t know who is right which is a stalemate.
If you were a canny sort you would paint your actual aim as a moderate position and then adopt an artificially extreme position. Once the argument begins you can then appear to moderate your position along with the other side but the result is what you actually wanted. Aiming high in negotiations with the intention to make it look like you are giving something up is nothing new.
Another Gareth says:
Unless you can convince the other side to totally change their mind there won’t be a winner. Either both side become moderate which is a draw, or one side remains certain they are right while the other accepts they don’t know who is right which is a stalemate.
It seems to me that in a debate about facts, a ‘moderate’ position is a loss for the ‘correct’ side.
I’ve recently read some Ayn Rand essays where she talks about the intellectual move away from accepting facts to a position that facts are inherently unknowable. This seems to reflect that idea.
Pity there’s no-one applying the BBC method to the BBC ….
“Climate Alarmism Is Supported by an Illusion of Understanding”
This could be connected to “system 1” and “system 2” thinking:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow
Predjudices such as CAGW are based on lazy fast system 1 thinking.
Science should be about testing system 1 ideas by system 2 methods.
Oddly it’s not available in the United Kingdom.
As a guy who barely graduated HS and has very little college I admit a lot of what is discussed here goes way beyond what I’m able to understand. (seems like I might have brought that up here before but not sure) Anyway, I quite arguing with people I know or online about AGW, climate change or whatever a long time ago as a lot of people I try to discuss it with are not any smarter than I am. But they try to make is seem like they are by spouting off or copying and pasting some scientific minutia that makes no sense to either of us. I’ve been reading about this hoax off and on since the mid 90’s and my gut just tells me it’s all BS and that’s all I need.
Even though I can’t always fully understand a lot of the science discussed here I absolutely love this site. If I comment on a AGW/climate change article at other sites I usually sum it up by also saying that I get all my climate news from here, post a link and say it’s the only site I trust. The reaction to that is priceless every time but I don’t engage.
What a pile of FOD.
“They began by asking their study participants to rate how well they understood how things like flushing toilets, car speedometers and sewing machines worked”
Ask me! I’ve fixed all three and then some. As a person matures, it is natural and common to know things and also know the boundaries of his or her knowledge.
“Recruiting a sample of Americans via the internet”— there’s problem number one; a non-representative sample — people willing to answer questions on the internet and a grand assumption that the survey hasn’t been “punked”.
“they were asked to explain how the policy they were advocating would work.”
Yeah, I do that too. How exactly are you planning on providing health care to all 7 billion people on earth? Make Tom do it? How exactly are you planning on stopping hurricanes? Make everyone else give up heating their homes and driving cars to work?
“Those who were asked to provide explanations softened their views”
Unless they own a blog, such as Scientific American, in which case it is easier to ban annoying commenters than actually describe the methods by which these miracles will be produced.
“you might end up being the one who changes their mind.”
Bad English: YOU are not a THEY. A more correct way to write this is “You might end up changing your mind.” (shorter, more active voice, more correct). BBC — are you reading this?
“we mistake our familiarity with these things for the belief that we have a detailed understanding of how they work.”
THERE IS NO “WE”. You speak for you, I will speak for me. What I claim to understand is what I understand; when I say I am familiar with something, it means we can converse and I might understand enough of your words to sort of comprehend what you are talking about.
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 8:25 am
=========
You made that up; it is not stated in the article. The article begins with a premise, then ends. You act as if more is developed from the premise.
Steven Mosher says:
May 23, 2014 at 8:25 am
Lesson for Bruce. explain why the earth is warmer than the moon.
====================
Why, global warming, you silly…
The surface of the moon is much hotter than the earth – it can reach temps of up to 123 degrees on the sun side
Would that Mosher question about the moon being colder than the Earth be when Luna is sunlit, or when in shadow?
If it is about an “average temperature”, perhaps Mosher can explain how averaging an intrinsic property can result in a new intrinsic property (rather than a meaningless math result…)
If it is about an “average temperature”, perhaps Mosher can explain why any given method of averaging is used in preference to any other. Would that be a power mean (and which one…) or an arithmetic mean, or some other mean. Which one is chosen, and based on what physics? Since they all yield different results, not knowing why you choose one over the other is admission of ignorance.
Personally, I’d say the moon has some patches in sunlight that are hotter than some patches on Earth and that it has some in shadow that are colder than some patches on Earth. Luna, lacking an atmosphere, has less active heat transport between sunny and shadowed parts… How averaging them together makes any sense at all, is left as an exercise for Mosher. It’s his game.
Per “the best way to win an argument”: IMHO, it doesn’t matter. What matters is keeping a tidy mind (a LOT of work), not indulging in personal preference when it comes to data and analysis, and being right much more often than wrong ( as that shows you are doing the other steps generally well). QA and self checking, along with a painful attention to detail (“Damn the sloth, full speed ahead down that rabbit hole!”) and an unwillingness to skip over ‘issues’ helps a lot.
Or, more briefly: It is hard to win an argument with a stupid stone. Or anyone who mimics one… So “let it go”… and improve your own grasp of reality instead. “Intelligence is limited, but stupidity known no bounds.” – E.M.Smith So avoid being sucked into the stupidity black hole…