Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Over at “Digging in the Clay” Verity Jones has an excellent graphic summarizing the different levels of disagreement. The graphic deserves wider circulation. The types of disagreement range in a spectrum from the strongest, refuting the author’s central point, all the way down to the weakest, name-calling. Here’s the graphic:
The graphic is based on How to Disagree by Paul Graham, which is well worth reading. So let me discuss the pyramid shown above.
The problem with proving I’m wrong is that lots of folks don’t understand how to disagree effectively. So here’s the Quick Guide To Proving Willis Is Wrong.
Sadly, far too many folks make their living on the web down at the bottom of the pyramid, name-calling. Whether the insult is “ass hat” or “racist” or “Zionist” or “terf”, that goes nowhere.
Next up the pyramid is the “ad hominem” argument, like “Willis, you can’t be right, you don’t have credentials” or “you post on a ‘climate denier’ website”. Nonsense. The issue is, are my claims true or not? That doesn’t depend on my education, credentials, or where I publish.
Next up the pyramid is responding to tone. It’s where someone ignores the actual claims and issues and instead responds to how it’s presented. That’s something like “Willis, you shouldn’t be so harsh in your arguments.” So what? That doesn’t disprove anything.
Then we have contradiction. Here, the disagreement finally reaches the goal, the actual issues and claims themselves. However, there’s nothing but contradiction—no evidence, no math, no logic. Just “Nope, Willis, you’re wrong”. Again, that goes nowhere. Meaningless.
Then we have counterargument. We’re getting to the good stuff. This first contradicts what I said and then provides observations, evidence, logic, and/or math to support your argument.
Moving upwards, we have refutation. That’s where you first quote my exact words and follow with “Willis, that interpretation of the facts is wrong, and here are the detailed reasons why.”
You have actively refuted exactly what I said. And at this point, for the first time, you’ve shown I’m wrong.
Finally, many arguments rest on a central point. Show that point is wrong and the edifice crumbles. That looks something like “Willis, your central claim is where you say, and I quote, “Germaniums grow better under moonlight.” That’s wrong, and here’s why.”
The top two levels are the only ways to show that I’m wrong, and I invite you to do so—it’s the quickest path to me learning new things.
One thing I’d like to highlight is that in the linked article the author says (emphasis mine):
DH5. Refutation.
The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It’s also the rarest, because it’s the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.
To refute someone you have to quote them. You have to find a “smoking gun,” a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it’s mistaken. If you can’t find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.
I bring all of this forward to encourage both myself and others to up our game, to aspire in our comments to the higher levels of the pyramid shown above, and to eschew the lower levels.
Finally, please, don’t bother with the bottom levels of the pyramid, name-calling, ad hominems, and the like. I’ll just point and laugh.
TL;DR version:
TO SHOW THAT WILLIS IS WRONG:
• Quote exactly what I said that you think is wrong, then
• Show with supporting arguments exactly why it’s wrong
Quoting is crucial. I can defend my words. I can’t defend your rephrasing of them.
Regards to everyone,
w.
My Usual Postscript: If you disagree with someone, please quote their exact words so we can all understand just what you are disagreeing with.
Further Reading: Verity Jones’s article is here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The ‘food for thought’ pyramid 😉 and the Venn diagram are excellent graphics, but they convey more information than is necessary. The classic dichotomy between Logic and Rhetoric covers it all for me.
Logic is used to prove a proposition using facts with the rigor of abstract algebra; Rhetoric is used to persuade an audience with emotion, regardless of the facts.
Nearly all of the Logical Fallacies find their utility solely in the domain of Rhetoric.
Unfortunately, once a mind has been ‘made up’ (subverted) by rhetoric, it is maintained with the strength of Faith marked by an unquestioning loyalty to ‘what is’, an aversion to novelty, and an unwillingness to even consider concepts that may threaten established doctrine. The Faithful will only abandon Error upon their individual deaths. Thus Truth can only prevail over Error in the long run due to it’s longevity.
It is important for Truth to present itself to uncommitted minds as soon as possible so they are equipped with a reference when Error first tries to sell itself. It is important for young minds to become Enlightened before they join the Faithful.
At 11:06 AM on 6 April, tadchem had posted:
That’s a helluva construe on the word “rhetoric,” which is the art or study of using language effectively and persuasively, “an art that aims to improve the capability of writers or speakers to inform, persuade, or motivate particular audiences in specific situations.”
The evocation of emotion might be employed in the art – the better to get and hold an audience’s attention – but it’s the information and persuasion that matter. To use language in peddling lies….
Well, that’s not rhetoric per se. Better to use the words “propaganda” and “fraud” and “political language,” which last is:
Or so said the estimable Mr. Blair
The lead post’s ‘pyramind’ graphic may be a way to bring out discussion of argument rhetorical modes although it does not enumerate all rhetorical modes. Without referencing the ‘pyramid’ a simple articulation of the rules of logic (correct thinking) during a dialog seems the most direct method to achieve closure.
John
Here’s another pyramid:
http://postimg.org/image/5zsn8e963
I’ve just eaten (BBQ) but still loving that pyramid 😉
It’s all renewable. What’s not to like ?
You are an ass hat, Willis.
whiten April 6, 2015 at 11:46 am
whiten, thanks for your kind comments. I have no doubt that Janice’s intentions were to be good and kind. As they say, that makes great paving material for the road to the place of eternal CO2 generating combustion. Her intentions are not in question. And I am clear that my tone was over the top, and I apologized to her for that. But her actions were way out of line.
The curious part of the whole incident to me was that Janice never uttered one word of disagreement or complaint about what I said. This left the field wide open for folks like those above to excoriate me for my actions—they were free to project their own feelings and resentments onto Janice without fear of contradiction. They could claim on her behalf to be hugely insulted and outraged … when in fact we have no idea how she took the whole situation.
However, I still say that she was doing her best to sell me Jesus. Read her comment again. I’d said that Death itself was my best and most trusted advisor. She opens by telling me my beliefs are wrong and will bring little lasting comfort:
Classic sales technique. First you have to make the potential buyer unhappy with their present position. Would you approve of a Muslim attacking a Christian’s beliefs in that manner after he gives a Christian eulogy? Here you go, here’s a sample …
Jesus is a liar??? Doesn’t sound so appropriate now, does it? Would you say that to a grieving Christian?
Then she offers her solution, special today. I should give up entirely on what I believe and what my experience has led me to, and I should turn to
Sorry, my friend, but despite doing it with the purest of intentions and the mildest of manners she is using the occasion of my grief at my father-in-law’s death to try to sell me Jesus. I find that reprehensible. (There’s some quotes, special for Mosh, thanks for reminding me.)
Now, I don’t demand that everyone find it reprehensible. But for me, in that time and place her actions were way, way out of line. I see that there are folks that don’t like that, and want to lecture me on proper behavior towards Janice. To all of you, let me repeat. Janice is a grown woman. You folks speaking on her behalf are perpetuating the myth of the weak woman who can’t protect herself. If she has something to say she is free to say it. I have offered before and offer again, if she wants to discuss any of this with me, I’m happy to do so.
But discuss it with some third party who is offended on her behalf? Sorry, but in this kind of situation I talk only to the person in question. The professionally offended class who pretend to speak for her will have to seek satisfaction elsewhere.
Note that I don’t include you in that class, whiten. You are pushing for reconciliation, which is appreciated. Look, I have no ongoing beef with Janice. I don’t like her using my grief as an excuse to try to convert me, but I doubt she’ll do that again. I don’t think she’s a bad person.
Thanks for your contribution,
w.
Essential to this topic is that the “central point” one is arguing must be on such a pyramid – anywhere that could be addressed.
Belief – religious, climate, CO2 – is not on the pyramid. It can’t be argued. You can attempt to convert belief, but that is a completely different matter and usually a failing matter. IMO
It would be easy to be a good Christian
if it weren’t for all these people.
But it’s more fun being an idiot:
http://www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/Images/leunig_idiot.gif
Willis, while understand your point, your remarks about Jesus would be extremely offensive to a Muslim. Jesus is a Muslim and a Prophet in Islam. No Muslim would ever refer to Jesus as a liar. Quoting you:
Please note that I am not offended, for myself or on behalf of anyone else; I am agnostic. But I do note that Muslims are rather touchy about remarks regarding their faith.
All of these argumentation techniques exist for good reasons.
Consider transactional analysis, TA, “I’m Okay, You’re Okay” (book by that title). The idea is that you communicate only when people are taking complementary roles.
If a person signals that she is at the bottom of this pyramid, the only meaningful response is also at the bottom. You could go up or down one level and still be comprehended but even that’s a guess.
But since we are debating in public, you guess at the comprehension level of the public and make your pitch to them.
The person that responds to “You are an idiot” (I don’t like you) with an explanation of how adenosine triphosphate is regenerated in human cells (look how smart I am) is going to be seen as seriously debate challenged. A better response might be “At least I am not your idiot!” (I don’t like you, either).
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/biology/atp.html
We Just Disagree
Max 57-62?
you sure them 70s tunes.
53 at the end of this month 🙂
I find one of the great joys of the internet is being able to effortlessly pull up ‘blasts from the past’ … music and memories just seem to go together.
But I also really enjoy contemporary music. For example, I was just listening to this beauty as I came across your post:
I hate when that happens.
Just search YouTube for:
Loz Contreras – Sarajevo (Blackmill Remix)
Here, I’ll try again …
This is a Procrustean Bed.
A Procrustean solution is the undesirable practice of tailoring data to fit its container or some other preconceived structure.
Now it’s called Common Core.
someone says,
We must place a new pinnacle on the top of the diagram. The Pink Unicorn. Everything beneath this assertion is Pink Unicorns. 😀
On the question of BC/AD terminology, I suggest we leave intact the notation conventionally used for generations, BC and AD, with a simple additional AB at c. 1960.
AB is short for “After Boomers.” In order to acknowledge that the Cannabis Generation arrived, and declared their own personal unicorns (which are many) are all unvarnished, unbiased, pure-as-the-driven-snow white (definitely not pink), and in order to show our gratitude for their authority and clarity on unicorns, we surely must designate time since Baby Boomers as AB.
So now I also want a new base for the argument triangle – “fun with another communicator’s sincerely held analogies.”
you mean trolling for sport 🙂
Inability to let a flippant remark simply lie, and making a flippant remark in kind and according to measure, is more of a character weakness than anything else.
what?
“So now I also want a new base for the argument triangle – “fun with another communicator’s sincerely held analogies.” Wouldn’t you agree that that is essentially trolling?
No, I retain the right to refute a pink mythological creature with a white mythological creature, without being called a mythological creature!
oh whew… I was making a funny….I was too brief. Cheers
I offer my thanks and congratulations to Willis Eschenbach and Verity Jones for hitting the philosophical nail on its head. In debates about global warming, logical discourse is a rarity.
I have had this on my this on my bookmarks list for about eight years
http://blog.createdebate.com/2008/04/07/writing-strong-arguments/
And although my memory has become significantly less reliable lately I seem to recall linking it in comments here at least 2 or 3 times over the years. It is often argued that unless you have specific scientific knowledge and skills you can’t reasonably criticize the work of the work of “climate scientists”, particularly those affiliated with the IPCC, but from my point of view an analysis based on argumentation types is sufficient to discredit most of the “science” produced in re the CO2 demon. I’m thinking especially of the numerous efforts at statistical jiggerypokery put forth in support of the 97% notion in one form or another over the last several years. And while the ad hominem attack has become the preferred mode for the climate alarmists I must admit that even those who I would like to agree with are hardly immune from this kind of shoddy work.
As for myself, I have always freely admitted that I haven’t a clue about what the climate will do over the next 85 to 100 years, but after wasting way more of the last decade of my rapidly declining remainder of life than any real smart guy would consider prudent rummaging through what passes for science on this topic I have yet to come across anyone who is convincingly better situated than me in that regard.
One got missed:
Every time I post an article or information of a forum, all the ACC numpties come running in with “WUWT is a known denier website – of course it’s going to have the sceptic’s lies on it”
They don’t attack the site or you, they don’t even bother to read the articles – just being on a “known denier website” auto-invalidates anything you post.
Casey,
That one is pretty easy to counter. When someone writes that WUWT (or similar) is a ‘denier’, ‘denialist’, etc., call them to account. Point out exactly what they’re doing, and add that their comment shows that they have no credible argument. You post facts — but they respond with ad hominem name-calling.
Make them argue facts. If they continue name-calling, then continue to point out that they’ve got nothin’. Even if they don’t see it, everyone else will.
There is not a logical way in which a derogatory characterization of a person or institution can result in a valid conclusion about our climate. Thus, it would be better were participants in this blog to refrain from posting derogatory characterizations.
Terry Oldberg,
Thanks. I agree, and I would add that commenters here should refrain from defending those name-callers. That makes them pretty much the same, IMHO.
As for WUWT earning its reputation, it has, and deservedly so. Its reputation is as the internet’s premier “Best Science” site. No other blog comes close — and all the alarmist blogs trail far behind. Most of them aren’t even in the running. They couldn’t make the playoffs.
People want to read all sides of the debate, and not be spoon-fed alarmist pablum. That’s what they get from realclimate, tamina, ‘skeptical’science, and hotwhopper. Here at WUWT the truth gets sifted from the pseudo-science through uncensored conversation and debate. That’s why WUWT has such a great reputation — despite the odd, nasty comments that pop up here and there.
Hear hear!
Ron House:
WUWT won the “Best Science” category three times running. Therefore, by the rules WUWT cannot run again. It is the undefeated champion — but you can be certain that if it were allowed to run again, it would wipe the floor with every alarmist blog there is, and all your favorites would go down in flames, just like they did before.
Now, why don’t you explain why you never have anything good to say about WUWT?
Ron House asks:
Why did the Bloggies discontinue the category?
Now you want me to do your homework for you? As if.
Go ask them yourself. If you’re not capable of doing that, then just sit in front of your monitor in slack jawed wonder.
With that, we can agree to disagree, as the title says. Fair enough?
Ron House says:
… it was discovered that the voting was being “gamed”
Bunch of carp from sore losers like you.
Prove it.
We get it: you’re a hater. You hate the fact that WUWT won the Weblog Awards for “Best Science” site every time it was entered. So now you’re trying to feed us your load of horse manure, claiming that every year WUWT cheated.
Projection, no more and no less: I recall reading on realclimate and on SkS comments by their readers during the voting, saying that they had programmed computers to cast multiple votes. Other readers said they had multiple computers, and used sockpuppet names to cast multiple votes.
They still lost.
And in every contest, Anthony posted warnings to readers, saying he absolutely discourages anyone gaming the system. Anthony repeatedly told his readers that if WUWT couldn’t win fair and square, that we would lose fair and square. WUWT won. Those posts are still in the comments, anyone can find them.
So we have Anthony telling readers not to cheat — and alarmist blogs openly encouraging cheating.
WUWT still won. Three times running.
WUWT has exploded in popularity, going from nothing eight years ago, to almost a quarter BILLION unique views. That means a lot of lurkers here. And there have been far more than one million unique reader comments. Do the math: WUWT has more than enough potential votes to swamp any alarmist blog. So they lie about it — because they’re sore losers. You know what? That makes them losers.
Therefore, Ron House, either someone is lying to you, and you swallowed it hook, line and sinker — or you are lying.
Which?
Ron House,
Now you are just trolling — imputing evil motives onto our host, with no evidence whatever. You have run out of arguments, so you fall back on your hating.
Go away. You add nothing to the conversation except your bile. This is a science site; the internet’s “Best Science” site. It isn’t a blog for haters.
The poor quality of the case for acute alarm over our CO2 emissions has been increasingly accompanied by poor quality argumentation. Perhap that was inevitable. Eschenbach, on the other hand, strikes me as someone who enjoys good debate, and who has set himself high standards. This pyramid graphic is welcome, and should encourage us all to emulate him.
Perhaps Verity Jones could have made his point with a little less visual plagiarism?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs.png
[img]http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Maslow’s_hierarchy_of_needs.png[/img]
Also, the original diagram (after Maslow) at least has the sense to use shaded outlines on the low-contrast colour combinations.
Where does “Your argument demonstrates poor photoshop skills, therefore your reasoning is suspect” go on the pyramid?
terrahertz,
Just FYI: Verity Jones is a woman. A very intelligent woman. You could even look it up.
Brandon Gates April 7, 2015 at 12:59 pm
Thanks, Brandon. So if that’s Arhennius’s falsifiable prediction, would it be falsified by e.g. 18 years of increasing “carbonic acid” with absolutely no concomitant increase in temperature?
If your answer is no, eighteen years of no temperature increase wouldn’t falsify Arhennius’s falsifiable hypothesis, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to just what would falsify it.
Regards,
w.
Thanks Willis,
Brandon, you said:
Is that what kids these days are calling “bait and switch”?
Here’s what I asked originally Brandon:
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
Comments don’t get surreptitiously modified here so anyone can scroll back up to there to see what I wrote originally. So you see there was no bait and switch, except in your cognitively dissonant/deceitful head.
Thankfully Willis has falsified your falsifiable 1896 conjecture/hypothesis/theory, so please do try again in real time (2015).
Willis,
(Again thanks. With science and its funding being such a jealous mistress, I shouldn’t really be on here).
Your Arrhenius quote is also an eye-opener. The Beer-Lambert Law (might have had other names then) originated at least five decades before 1896. Geometric …. arithmetic … wow. It might not be exactly first-order logarithmic from 280 – 400, but still … wow.
Willis,
That’s the question at hand. I say yes — it’s a testable proposition. What’s your answer?
Let’s not conflate “falsifiability” with “falsified” and pretend the goalposts didn’t move. Since this is a thread about debate and upping our game, I’ll take the opportunity for a teaching moment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
I consider it a foul, and try to only do it when my interlocutor is acting like an arse. Which is, well, a lot. So it’s gotten habitual for me as well.
That’s a new one Brandon – it doesn’t count because it’s off-topic, waaaaah.
Try again, Phil. I didn’t say “it doesn’t count”. I’m making two points of order there according to my conception of higher-level debate … which, by the way, IS the original topic of this post.
In the quote from Arrhenius, is the “temperature” a quantity that can be measured by a thermometer? If so Arrhenius’s contention is falsified by the fact that this “temperature” sometimes declines as the CO2 level increases.. Perhaps Arrhenius’s “temperature” is the equilibrium aka steady-state temperature. In this case, Arrhenius’s contention is not falsifiable for the equilibrium temperature cannot be measured. Either his contention is false or it is not falsifiable.
It’s steady state, Terry, and yes I figured that was going to be your objection, as I alluded to below.
Brandon, regarding falsifying Arrhenius, let me offer you a few quotes from Science Magazine from six years ago, 2009 (emphasis mine):
So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified. We did NOT see “rapid warming in the next 5 years” as forecast. We did not see warming resuming “in the next few years”.
Now, if the scientists in question who made those statements were forthright, they’d admit that the pause has exceeded the generous limits they set, and that their hypothesis is falsified according to their own criteria … dream on.
w.
Would anyone care to share with me what Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis is?
Well I think Willis had a shot at it. Brandon is the self-proclaimed expert on this, so maybe you need to be patient (the goalposts on this thread are getting a bit too heavy for him to move methinks, or he could be sleeping. Is he in Australia ?).
I also have a post in moderation that I don’t think he’ll file in his 2015 faves folder.
I see he just answered Willis, sort of
philincalifornia,
I’m still awake … attentions were simply elsewhere for a while. The only goalpost moving I’m doing is to put it back where you staked it in your first post. The next time you ask someone for a falsifiable hypothesis/theory, it behoves you to be prepared to demonstrate an understanding of what those terms mean to you. Which opportunity is still very much available to you.
I am NO expert. I will gladly give you or anyone my opinion or understanding of what I read in literature, and tell you what my conclusions and beliefs are based on what I read … and here’s the key … when I think the question has been asked honestly. Since I cannot always tell, I tend to err on the side of answering the first one. My behaviour after that is very much contingent on the response:
1) I don’t suffer bottom-feeding bullshit “debate” tactics gladly.
2) If you wish to discuss science like an honest truth-seeker and a rational adult without the cheap shots and insults, I’m happy to do so.
Pretty simple ROE, if you ask me. I invite you to test me on (2) and see how it goes for us.
Terry Oldberg,
Nothing you and I haven’t discussed before, but I did bury it above in my longish reply to philincalifornia earlier today:
A copy of the 1896 paper is available here: http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
The introductory modern-day editorial makes this interesting point:
Contrary to some misunderstandings, Arrhenius does not explicitly suggest in this paper that the burning of fossil fuels will cause global warming, though it is clear that he is aware that fossil fuels are a potentially significant source of carbon dioxide (page 270), and he does explicitly suggest this outcome in later work.
The 1896 paper gave an estimate for ECS between 5-6 K per CO2 doubling, which he revised down in a 1906 paper to 3.9 K: http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Arrhenius%201906,%20final.pdf
IIRC, your core argument — or at least the one I recall best — is that since the system is never in equilibrium, the proposition as stated isn’t falsifiable.
Brandon:
That’s it except that what Arrhenius means by “temperature” is ambiguous. If he means the quantity that is measurable by a thermometer then his contention is falsified by the evidence. If he means the equilibrium temperature then his contention is not falsifiable. In either case, Arrhenius’s contention is scientifically and logically improper.
Terry Oldberg,
I’ve written several other places on this thread already: equilibrium surface temperature.
I declare by similar fiat: you’re wrong.
Brandon
You’ve mislabeled a concept. Rather than being a fiat, that the equilibrium surface temperature is insusceptible to being observed is a fact.
This is getting super-tedious, but I’ll try again:
Where is there a falsifiable hypothesis/theory of anthropogenic global warming, or anthropogenic climate change, as it stands in April, 2015?
[facepalm]
Truly your best answer.
There isn’t one.
Not significantly changed since 1896. Look up: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1900282
If you don’t agree that Arrhenius provides a testable, and therefore falsifiable, hypothesis, it is incumbent on you to explain why you don’t think so.
I’ve explained that for you. Do you capitulate or do we have to continue this farce?
Willis showed that that one has been falsified, so you need a new one.
Why is it so difficult ? Seriously, why is it so difficult ?
Phone a friend. Is Nick Stokes up ?
The really strange thing about this particular farce Terry, is that I could probably write 6 or 10 alternative falsifiable hypotheses in an hour that would pass muster with you and Willis. There would be caveats, such as the 280 – 400 ppm thing is all anthropogenic, and that global temperature anomaly is a real metric (I know that’s a stretch), but WTF ? …..
philincalifornia:
Well said. It is easy to state falsifiable hypotheses. One could state a dozen of them in an hour. However, it is hard to avoid falsification of them when they are tested. If one’s falsifiable hypothesis were to be falsified one might lose one’s sinecure. The solution (if one is unprincipled): avoid making falsifiable hypotheses while seeming to make them!
philincalifornia,
Because it’s like trying to explain the colour purple to a blind man. You know the word “falsifiable”, but don’t demonstrate an ability to define it for yourself. When Willis conflated “falsifiable” with “falsified” you didn’t pick up on the fact that he’d dodged YOUR question about “falsifiability”. Nor does it appear to have occurred to you that Willis implicitly defined his own hypothesis and provided “evidence” of its “falsification”.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand how to have an orderly, rational dialog with someone? Seriously, why is that so difficult? Are you still beating your wife?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
Am I getting through yet?
Nope Brandon. Phony passive aggressiveness ain’t gonna do it.
You really need to f**k off and stop trying to pretend you’re a scientist.
Temper, temper.
Terry Oldberg,
I explained to you that I reject your role as Phil’s mouthpiece and will await an answer from him.
I disagree with your position, have told you why several times in the past, and that I’m not inclined to pursue that discussion further. You can call that capitulation if you wish; I don’t control you. My opinion of your argument on this topic is that it’s sophistry which doesn’t hold up under further scrutiny.
Brandon Gates:
Your “sophistry” is what a philosopher would call “logic.” You’re attempting to reverse 2300 years of intellectual progress by turning logic on its head!
Yeah, well I’m not the one wandering talking about “proof” in a conversation about inductive and/or abductive reasoning: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/04/05/agreeing-to-disagree/#comment-1899907
I really like how the fact that I gave an answer you didn’t agree with constitutes a “failure” on my part to give an answer at all. That was a particularly nice touch. If that’s where we’re at after 2,300 years of intellectual progress, I fear for our species.
You failed to give an answer to the question of the identity of Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis.
It’s testable, therefore falsifiable.
My patience is worn thin. This dialogue has gone on for many iterations in which you have not yet identified Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis. If there is such a hypothesis, please identify it now. Otherwise, kindly signify your capitulation so we can avoid further fruitless discourse on this topic.
Terry,
Same answer it’s been all along:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
You not agreeing that it’s falsifiable is not my failure to give an answer. Bad form to chase your own tail and say I’m the one leading you on it.
Brandon:
I’ve PROVED my assertion. If you don’t like the conclusion of this PROOF then the proper course for you is to try to refute it. If you find what you think is a bullet proof refutation try it out on this audience. We’ll give you a critical review.
The tack you are now on is the logically illegitimate one of applying the fallacy of proof by assertion: one asserts that the conclusion of his argument is true and ignores the contradictions. In doing so you are wasting our time. Rather than being an asset you are making your self a pain in the neck..
Terry Oldberg,
So you SAY.
According to YOUR definition of proper.
I maintain that there is no such thing as “bullet proof” when the subject under consideration is a vastly complex system which all but precludes deductive logic as a method for determining truth propositions about its multitude of physical parameters. We — humanity — use mainly use inductive and abductive reasoning to study such phenomena. I hold that the concept of a logical axiomatic proof does not apply when the underlying reasoning used to form and test hypotheses relies on inductive and/or abductive reasoning.
Irony. Your first words in this subthread: philincalifornia:
There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory. In his response to you, Brandon Gates fails to cite one though implying that he is doing the opposite..
Yes, I know this behaviour well — I am weary of your habit of doing it.
I am not compelling anyone here to respond to me. I do not have that power.
Your opinion is noted, with the additional detail that the feeling is very much mutual. For example, this exchange above:
Brandon Gates
April 7, 2015 at 1:17 pm
I already know where you stand as we’ve discussed it several times before, without satisfactory resolution to definition of terms. My view of it is that, not unlike Phil, you stand on definitions and won’t budge from them even when I have pointed out where I think they fail. Which I find tedious and non-productive. So thanks, but no thanks.
Terry Oldberg
April 7, 2015 at 1:22 pm
It would be appropriate to read your non-response as a capitulation on the falsifiability issue.
Where did I “capitulate” Terry? I stated very clearly that I disagreed with your conclusion, why I think so, and why I am disinclined to take it up further.
By your own stated standard …
If you don’t like the conclusion of this PROOF then the proper course for you is to try to refute it.
… your strongest possible response to my stated disagreement would have been to … [drumroll] … post the proof you had already claimed exists. Yet you didn’t. You asserted capitulation on my part when the words I wrote are entirely inconsistent with the words that I wrote.
I look forward to your proof about what goes on in my own head.
I will also point out that your posting of your own proof is not at all contingent upon whether or not I have asked for it, or if I have expressed interest in reading and discussing it. Please do not hold me accountable for your own failure to provide substantive support for your own arguments and rebuttals. I consider such behaviour highly annoying and counter-productive, as very much evidenced by my frustrated and therefore intentionally ironic argument by assertion directed toward you:
You’re wrong.
Which, if you rewind tape, ought to find is a concise distillation of your leading argument:
philincalifornia:
There is no falsifiable hypothesis/theory. In his response to you, Brandon Gates fails to cite one though implying that he is doing the opposite..
Perhaps it is clearer to you now why I ended the cycle where you started it, and wish to withdraw from further discussion with you on this topic.
Logic stands in contradistinction to sophistry. I observe that you use the latter and not the former whenever this suits your purposes.
Errata: Yet you didn’t. You asserted capitulation on my part when the words I wrote are entirely inconsistent with the words that I wrote.
Yogi Berra would be proud.
Terry Oldberg,
Only when logic is applied to the substantive issue. What’s substantive here is subjective, and very much a matter of personal choice. I have made mine, and it is quite obviously at odds with yours. I call that an impasse. When I find myself in a situation I deem intractable, I choose to withdraw.
See again: I look forward to your proof of what goes on inside my head.
Capitulation it is then. Sold to the lowest bidder.
Brandon – you are so far away from knowing what you don’t know it’s a joke.
Go back to school. Work your way up to a Ph.D. program in Chemistry or something. You’ll still be a failure, but at least you’ll know why.
…. maybe
philincalfornia
Irony: Perhaps when Brandon’s done mentally masturbating on the other six threads, he can let us know.
You had it locked from the get-go.
You’re Doing it Wrong. When the auction is over, you no longer need to bid. Now about that payment; will it be cash, charge or check? I’m easy, but not cheap.
On the thread level, sorry Willis, although there’s probably a Symposium Series in here somewhere.
there’s no bridge, no ferry from clouded views to clear landscape as long as the shores of ‘clouded views’ mark the boundaries of ‘escapism country.’
Hans
johann wundersamer on April 8, 2015 at 1:47 am
– – – – – –
johann wundersamer,
That is poetic styled and profound remark.
John
Reblogged this on Finding Confluence and commented:
Stop calling me an “ass hat”… 🙂
Brandon Gates April 7, 2015 at 9:41 pm
Ah, I see the problem. Once again my writing wasn’t sufficiently clear.
I had not “conflated “falsifiable” with “falsified”.” I was not claiming that Arrhenius had been falsified at all.
Instead, I was asking a simple question—if Arrhenius’s hypothesis is indeed falsifiable, then what would it take to falsify it?
Me, I don’t think it’s easily falsified because it is too vague. If I say “The temperature as measured at the Santa Rosa ground station will exceed 73°F today”, that is falsifiable. But the statement “It will be hot in Santa Rosa today” is NOT falsifiable, because it is too vague. It could get up to 85°F and I could say “doesn’t seem hot to me, not like the heat we’d get when I was a boy” … you see the problem.
Now, recall that Arrhenius’s statement was:
I asked you what it would take to falsify Arrhenius’s statement. Simple question. Does 18 years of increasing carbonic acid with no increase in temperature falsify it? And if not, what would falsify it?
I thought that I had clarified my thoughts by pointing out what some other people thought would falsify it. Despite that, I note that you have not answered the question, which is why I’m clarifying it.
Regarding Phil’s contention that I’ve shown that Arrhenius is falsified, sorry, Phil, not so. I’m just pointing out that there is no agreement on what it would take to falsify Arrhenius, and that even those who set a falsifiability test now don’t live by the results of their own test … which is why it is not inherently falsifiable.
w.
PS—Brandon, could you cut back on the personal attacks? I don’t “dodge” questions, that’s just mud-slinging. I make an honest effort to answer all serious scientific questions. If I don’t, folks know enough to just ask again in a pleasant manner. Well, most folks know that.
Willis:
The rules for making claims falsifiable do not depend upon what these claims are. Thus, it is sufficient to state these rules once.
When claims made by a model are falsifiable, they reference a set of events. Each event has an outcome. In testing the model the observed values of the relative frequencies of the outcomes of observed events are compared to the predicted values of the associated probabilities. If there is not a match, the model is falsified by the evidence. Otherwise it is “validated.” For brevity, I’ve glossed over the problem of sampling error.
Beginning with Arrhenius and continuing up to the present day, global warming climatologists have failed to identify the events underlying their models. Consequently, the claims made by these models are not falsifiable. Another consequence from the absense of the events is for the models convey no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his/her policy decisions. Thus, after the expenditure of several hundred billion dollars on research the climate remains uncontrollable.
The study of global warming climatology that began with Arrhenius has been an abject failure. That this is true is not apparent to enough people for needed changes to be forced in the design of the research. In a study that I conducted at the request of the chair of Earth Sciences at Georgia Tech, I traced the cause of this phenomenon to applications of the equivocation fallacy on the part of climatologists. My most recent peer-reviewed article on this topic is available at http://wmbriggs.com/post/7923/ .
Willis,
That wasn’t your original question to me. I quote:
So if that’s Arhennius’s falsifiable prediction, would it be falsified by e.g. 18 years of increasing “carbonic acid” with absolutely no concomitant increase in temperature?
I’m going to let Wikipedia speak for me. Very broadly that form of questioning falls into these buckets:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leading_question
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
To me, “simple” questions are open-ended, do not contain any presuppositions or implicit assertions, and do not contain any conditionals. Example: What is your definition of a falsifiable proposition?
Your immediately following question to the above is “better”: If your answer is no, eighteen years of no temperature increase wouldn’t falsify Arhennius’s falsifiable hypothesis, then perhaps you could enlighten us as to just what would falsify it.
My answer to the first question is, indeed, no. By my reading of Arrhenius (1896), he does not give an estimation of the time it would take to reach a new equilibrium temperature following a perturbation in CO2 concentration. Which brings us to …
Yes, I agree. However that raises the question: why then did you introduce the observed GAT trend over the past 18 years into this discussion?
One thing which has gotten lost in the shuffle is the final salient point of my initial response to philincalifornia:
So from my POV, it’s mostly about getting the fine details less wrong.
I cited ongoing research to constrain the value of ECS as one example of that.
Your words to me above: So according to all of those good folks, the Arrhenius hypothesis is already falsified. We did NOT see “rapid warming in the next 5 years” as forecast. We did not see warming resuming “in the next few years”.
I find it very difficult to read the statement in bold any other way than an attempt to falsify Arrhenius (1896).
Yes, that’s what you’re explicitly arguing now, which is great — I think that’s an important discussion. I chose the bolded words VERY specifically.
I’ll lead with some opinions: Given that there is no universally acceptable or applicable definition of falsifiability, arguments which seek to impose such a definition are counter-productive.
Yes, there is an implicit a priori in that previous statement, but I note that there is ample anecdotal evidence on this thread suggesting its veracity. All I need to falsify the proposition “All swans are black” is to observe the existence of one and only one white swan. The climate system is not so starkly binary, and I contend that it is folly to discuss it as if it is. /opinions
Has anyone ever seen a battle between a giant squid and a sperm whale ?
Brandon vs Willis must be the literary equivalent.
I certainly ain’t gonna get between those two heavyweights, just yet.
Call me Ishmael.
Call me Fishmeal …
w.
Excellent. Unfortunately, one Paul Kamen of Berkeley, CA has dibs: http://www.well.com/~pk/resume.html
Many who have sailed with me call me Ahab, but that’s been many years. Quixote is probably more fitting.
What’s the relevance?
Willis,
The astute reader will notice I still haven’t directly answered your question: what would falsify [Arrhenius (1896)]?
There are two reasons why I have not:
1) I want do some reading and thinking about it so as to compose reasonably comprehensive answer.
2) At present I’m more interested in the “meta” issues of the AGW debate — well, conflict I think is the better term — which I think is fitting given the topic of your OP. I reiterate my appreciation and thanks to you for writing it.
It will take some time for me to compose my response … something on the order of a workday.
Huh? Not one of those addresses Straw Man arguments and other false logic? And not one of them includes one side characterizing the other side in a false way? The latter is NOT the same thing as a Straw Man argument. It is when they just make stuff up about the opposing side – stuff that has nothing to do with any of their arguments or general positions.
That pyramid needs 2 more levels, Willis.
This is to note for the record that Brandon Gates continues to fail to produce Arrhenius’s falsifiable hypothesis for inspection. Though claiming its existence he fails to produce it.
This is, and has been, my answer to that request several times now:
If the quantity of carbonic acid increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
Terry is free to contend that it is not falsifiable. He is not at liberty to suggest that I have not provided an answer to the request and be seen as truthful.
Brandon:
The sentence that you’ve rendered in bold font is an hypothesis. It is not, however, a falsifiable hypothesis.
If Arrhenius’s “temperature” is observable, it fluctuates rather than increasing monotonically with the CO2 concentration as Arrhenius hypothesizes that it does; in this case, his hypothesis is falsified by the evidence. If his “temperature” is the equilibrium temperature, it is not observable; thus, Arrhenius’s hypothesis is not falsifiable. Either Arrhenius’s hypothesis is falsified by the evidence or not falsifiable. In neither case is it falsifiable.
That’s a logical conclusion. Do you accept this conclusion as true or will you continue to pursue an illogical conclusion through application of one or more fallacious arguments?
Terry,
I will continue to recognize the utility of inference and inductive reasoning in the sciences, and not further attempt to decompose the planet Earth down to its component axioms. As much as I’d like science to be based solely on deductive reasoning, present human capabilities preclude us from doing it. I consider pragmatism a virtue, and hold that it is entirely rational to make considered choices between the normative I want and the positive I can get.
Brandon:
What is the logical basis for your claim that “As much as I’d like science to be based solely on deductive reasoning, present human capabilities preclude us from doing it,” your claim that “I consider pragmatism a virtue” or your claim that you “hold that it is entirely rational to make considered choices between the normative I want and the positive I can get.” There is no such basis. These claims are pretentious nonsense.
Terry Oldberg,
Well, that’s got to be split into parts. The clause of my statement prior to the comma is normative, making a logical defence difficult. I stand on my own will to decide what my values and desires are.
I take the latter part as so blindingly obvious as not to require much discussion. Considering the entire planet and its interactions with other bodies in the solar system, I would think it an absurd notion to conclude that we could study the whole system on the basis of deduction alone. To do so would require knowledge of every component interaction AND the ability to process and comprehend the data. Thinking in terms of atoms and fundamental forces alone, this might be logically feasible. Newtonian physics suggested a deterministic system was a possibility, yet Einstein himself was deeply bothered by the implications of quantum theory he himself helped pioneer.
That leaves us with inference by such things as deduction or abduction, which are NOT logically robust in the sense that deduction is. I get it that doesn’t sit well with some folks; I don’t always care for it either.
Nonsense may be logically demonstrable, but I defy you to write a proof defending the use of a qualitative adjective. That’s two you owe me now. The previous one is: I look forward to your proof of what goes on inside my own head.
In response to my “capitulation” as well as: I observe that you use the latter and not the former whenever this suits your purposes.
One wonders about the integrity of a commenter who demands a logical basis and/or proofs for statements of personal opinion, yet leaves multiple quid pro quo calls for same unanswered.