Matt Ridley
Arguments from authority are the refuge of priests. For the scientist, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
—
Views: 370
The appellation sceptic is no slur
Matt Ridley
Arguments from authority are the refuge of priests. For the scientist, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin.
Views: 370
There is one problem. The informal fallacy “appeal to authority” does not mean what you think it means.
It means finding someone claiming to be an authority, but often without the relevant expertise, to say what you want him to say – which is usually contrary to most of the expert opinions. It’s what lawyers do to sow doubt in the minds of the jurors.
The IPCC is the authority. It may not offer the best science, but it offers the best consensus.
If you want the best science, you need to ask the leaders in the field. They are often professors in the best universities, publishing in Nature and Science.
Geographers and Modellers do not count though…….. Nor does consensus, basic scientific method.
SH,
The best scientists don’t avoid awkward questions, but the Royal Society avoids revealing evidence of the greatest challenge of our generation — the Prime Minister’s nuclear-free moment. Nature and Science are overrun with left-wing activists and may be unreliable.
Tell us more about this conspiracy theory of yours Richard. How did these left-wing activists gain control of the refereeing committees? How do they suppress the truth? Are all 97% of the profession in on the conspiracy? Do they pay the Royal Society to keep quiet about it?
It isn’t a “conspiracy” that left wing activists control most of academia, it is a fact.
Apparently it is now scientific consensus (according to some of Jordan Peterson’s colleagues) that there are no biological differences between men and women.
The same people claim that gender is a social construct. I wonder what gender the PM’s foetus is, and how many years will it take for us to find out?
Of course the Overton window has swung so far to the left now, that libertarians and classical liberals are considered “far right”. Which makes us all Nazis too, which is weird because Nazis were socialists, but hey I ave up trying to understand “progressivism” a long time ago
” Progressivism”…Andy,
The climate blog Think Progress has not been able to make any progress at thinking.
How can science be left wing or right wing? You’re imposing a social construct on the natural and physical world. Facts are facts. What we do about it is policy and politics.
If you want to play the Godwin card, it is like the Nazis initially calling particle physics “Jewish science” and therefore invalid and unworthy for study. Fortunately, it played a big part in why Nazi Germany were slow to start a nuclear programme.
Claiming that Nature and Science are overrun with left-wing activists and that the science is therefore unreliable is just crazy crank thinking.
Simon,
I didn’t say it was, because it isn’t. But those in charge (not the membership) have a social agenda. Scientists quickly find out they have to include boilerplate phrases about continuing dangerous global warming just to get published and find further funds. Don’t insult me just because I report the truth about it.
I just looked up Godwin; I’d forgotten him. You’d better quickly take that back, Simon, because you raised the bloody Nazi card, not me!!
Try answering this: why don’t those two journals accept papers from so-called climate sceptical viewpoints?
I thought that Godwin’s Law was when you compared someone else to a Nazi, meaning that you had lost the argument.
Since I have been referred to as a (1) White Supremacist, a (2) racist a (3) fascist, (4) a despicable liar and countless other insults hurled at me by left wing activists over the years, I don’t think that it is me that is using Godwin’s Law
As for “facts are facts”, sea level rise is 1.7mm a year for the last 100 years, or is it 3.4 mm a year?
Pick and Mix “facts” to suit the agenda?
Is Antarctica melting? Which facts fit the agenda? Should be ignore the ones that don’t?
(Rhetorical question)
The postmodernists don’t believe in objective truth. Their world view has infested much of modern thought, even if we are not aware of it.
Besides which, everyone, despite science’s apparent objectivity, has their own confirmation biases
Scientists quickly find out they have to include boilerplate phrases about continuing dangerous global warming just to get published and find further funds.
Untrue. If anything the opposite is true in the US with nutters like Scott Pruitt running the EPA.
Those two journals haven’t accepted papers from so-called climate sceptical viewpoints because their ‘science’ has been wanting or been discredited.
There’s an interesting Tamino post today on sea ice: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/17/sea-ice-the-truth-the-bad-and-the-ugly/#more-9769
Good scientists always test their confirmation biases. A negative result is always more interesting than a positive one.
Simon,
Your confirmation of their refusal to publish is welcome. However, it goes astray, since discrediting depends on prior publication, so that can’t be a reason for refusal. In addition, not knowing the papers they’ve declined makes a study of their reasons to refuse utterly impossible, so it’s highly likely your comment is uninformed by knowledge.
Your accusation that I “played the Godwin card” was fabricated but you forgot to retract it.
“Good scientists always test their confirmation biases” which is why they keep droning on about “deniers” I presume
Richard, You were the one who claimed that Nature or Science refused to accept papers from so-called climate sceptical viewpoints. That presumably means that you know of contrarian authors who have tried to get their work published there but have been turned down.
My comment on Godwin’s Law was meant for Andy. He was the one talking about Nazis.
I was talking about Nazis
That doesn’t invoke Godwin’s Law.
I said “we are all Nazis” because everyone right of Stalin is “far right” these days. I fail to see how that is invoking Godwin.
But hey, I’m “far right” so maybe my judgement is clouded.
Simon,
Yes, and you showed us you knew it by defending it.
I’ve personally heard of several, but there have been many reports of it over the years and without doubt there have been attacks on so-called climate deniers, like these totally unfounded allegations against the wonderful Willie Soon. There are frequent accounts of climate sceptics being forced out of all kinds of private and public positions around the world.
If everyone just labelled their comments, this mistake wouldn’t occur.
I still don’t see how I have invoked Godwin’s Law.
I’m presuming that Climategate was a non-issue and just showed “non-political” scientists working in an open and transparent manner.
Certainly the “independent” government enquiries showed that.
Fast forward almost 10 years from Climategate and people are literally being thrown in jail at the UK border for having the wrong opinions