|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2009 : 13:53:31
|
What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?
I must admit to being a fan of Danial Loxton. I probably shouldn’t say this, but to my way of thinking he has already eclipsed Michael Shermer as one of skepticism's best teachers, and one of its most rational thinkers. And even if it’s on those things that us skeptics already agree, he has a way of getting to the heart of the matter, using language that anyone can follow. In his new position as one of the Skeptiblog contributors, he discusses our relationship to science in light of the recent Randi fiasco.
Here is an excerpt from his latest blog:
… I’ve long argued that our patchy, lukewarm reluctance to accept mainstream climate science is skepticism’s greatest failure. I’ll return to that argument in future posts, but today I’d like to concentrate on the general question raised by Esau and Pigliucci: what is skepticism’s appropriate relationship to consensus science? What — if anything — may skeptics responsibly say on mainstream science subjects?
Organized skepticism has always talked about science. Certainly, we use science-informed arguments when critiquing paranormal claims. We use techniques from science (and from other investigatory disciplines, such as history and journalism) when digging into strange stuff. The promotion of scientific literacy is also a core part of our traditional mandate (as I argued in the essay “Where Do We Go From Here?”).
Nonetheless, it’s my opinion that there are severe limits on the kinds of scientific arguments into which skeptics may responsibly wade. If we’re serious about our science-based epistemology, we must be prepared to consistently defer to scientific consensus… |
A good read.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 14:36:52 [Permalink]
|
Science is the wellspring of modern skepticism.
It's long been my own thinking that skepticism by non-scientists should be modeled upon and as far as is possible be essentially an offshoot of science itself. Everything that is good and useful about skepticism comes from the scientific process, either by direct borrowing, or by conscious or unconscious emulation.
Failures of skeptics (as with Randi vis-a-vis AGW) are generally due forgetting science, that unparalleled model for learning how the physical cosmos operates. Perhaps underlying Randi's recent screeds is his personal memory of scientists being duped by scammers (and by himself, in proving their human credulity and lack of knowledge of the tricks of stage magicians).
Yes, individuals, even scientists, may be fooled by concerted disinformation and distraction. But science, represented by the overwhelming consensus of tens of thousands of contentious, quarreling, climate experts -- not so much. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 14:44:43 [Permalink]
|
As I said on Greg Laden's blog, science is applied skepticism. It already is skeptical. So when you express skepticism of the scientific consensus, you are actually being skeptical of the skeptical. And that's contrarianism, not skepticism.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 15:38:05 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
| Nonetheless, it’s my opinion that there are severe limits on the kinds of scientific arguments into which skeptics may responsibly wade. If we’re serious about our science-based epistemology, we must be prepared to consistently defer to scientific consensus… |
Kil, more and more, as I dodder into my dotage, I am reminded of the essential truth of Loxton's premise. I try to read as widely as I can in the literature of science and serious skepticism, but it is, of course, wolefully short of what I would like to read.
However, as I see more and more comment by both professional (well-published) skeptics and particularly less-professional skeptics (folks like us with strong opinions and reasonably well-informed educational portfolios), I see what appears to be a serious inclination to expound vociferously regarding subjects upon which we may not be sufficiently well-informed to offer serious opinion.
Let me be the first to confess guilt to indulging in this form of armchair academicism. Although I am entitled to display some letters after my name, I have never practiced clinical psychology as a profession in my life. And that example of the healing arts has progressed so far since my academic exposure to it, I know that my ability to keep abreast of current methodology and practice is, to say the least, inadequate.
I have, from time to time, spoken as though I really knew something about clinical psychology. I wish to publicly retract that impression, if indeed it does exist! I know little more than the average layman. The same is true concerning a large number of other technical and scientific subjects!
From time to time I see the same tendency to express expert, studied, and practiced knowledge of extremely technical and complex disciplines coming from folks who may not be highly trained and deeply experienced in the fields of knowledge about which they make definitive, sometimes dogmatic, statements.
Deepak Chopra, admittedly a respected endocrinologist, MD board-certified in his field, writes best-seller after best-seller on subjects such as psychological and psychiatric medicine. Also writes as an an expert on ancient and modern philosophical theory. Any reasonably well-informed amateur skeptic can clearly see that much of Chopra's writings are pure woo-woo aimed at a gullible public.
There are stellar examples on the other side of the argument. Within our own Forum, we have a member who is as expert in the fields of biology, zoology, and many aspects of anthropology as any lettered expert writing professionally in those areas today. Yet, to my knowledge, his genuine expertise has been laboriously acquired by intense interest and self-education over many years of industrious self-application. I have great respect for this individual.
I also have enormous respect for James Randi. He has not only talked the talk, but indeed walked the walk of skepticism extemely well for many years. Almost by his own admission he has recently committed a serious act of hubris regarding the problem of global warming; because of his self-admitted ignorance of the science of climate change and behaviour
Randi has been mostly right most of the time, and deserves respect. But no one can be omniscient or perfectly trained in a multitude of extremely complex scientific disciplines, and therefore always be right about everything of which they speak!
Most of what is expressed here is opinion -- some well based, some only loudly expressed! Some of my opinion could be categorized as the latter, and I wish to apologize for that!
|
| Edited by - bngbuck on 12/22/2009 15:45:18 |
|
|
|
dglas
Skeptic Friend
Canada
397 Posts |
Posted - 12/22/2009 : 16:35:31 [Permalink]
|
| You folks do realize that the history of skepticism extends much, much further back than the history of science, particularly modern science, right? To say that, "Everything that is good and useful about skepticism comes from the scientific process..." is quite the dogmatic little claim. Modern science itself is something good and useful that came from skepticism, not the other way around. As someone who has read Sextus Empiricus's depiction of Pyrrhonian skepticism, I see the context. Let's try not to get carried away, okay? |
--------------------------------------------------
- dglas (In the hell of 1000 unresolved subplots...)
--------------------------------------------------
The Presupposition of Intrinsic Evil
+ A Self-Justificatory Framework
= The "Heart of Darkness"
--------------------------------------------------
|
| Edited by - dglas on 12/22/2009 16:39:27 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 12/22/2009 : 17:27:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by dglas
You folks do realize that the history of skepticism extends much, much further back than the history of science, particularly modern science, right? To say that, "Everything that is good and useful about skepticism comes from the scientific process..." is quite the dogmatic little claim. Modern science itself is something good and useful that came from skepticism, not the other way around. As someone who has read Sextus Empiricus's depiction of Pyrrhonian skepticism, I see the context. Let's try not to get carried away, okay?
|
Since the discussion here and by Loxton is about the modern day scientific skepticism that we promote, the comment you have quoted should be taken in that context. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 06:22:31 [Permalink]
|
| I feel dirty, climate skeptics are not Skeptics, well most of them anyway. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 06:54:57 [Permalink]
|
In my opinion, the climate "skeptics" have a political and probable commercial motivation, rather than any sort of scientific one. Therein lies the rub; politics pollutes the process and business wants to be as usual, and to clean up would be inconvenient at best and expensive at worst -- both, really.
Here's a cartoon I found at PZ's. I'm only posting the link because the image is large enough to screw up the page format.
Ah Bill Scott, where are you when we need you?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/23/2009 06:56:43 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 08:28:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
In my opinion, the climate "skeptics" have a political and probable commercial motivation, rather than any sort of scientific one. Therein lies the rub; politics pollutes the process and business wants to be as usual, and to clean up would be inconvenient at best and expensive at worst -- both, really.
Here's a cartoon I found at PZ's. I'm only posting the link because the image is large enough to screw up the page format.
Ah Bill Scott, where are you when we need you?
|
Freezing my tail off here in my little corner of the world. Just had the coolest average temperature for July since the keeping of records this past summer. Heck, I don't even know why I put my boat in the water and paid the dock fees. What a waste as the whole dag blasted summer was to cold for the water. It has gone right into winter without letting up. Lived in this same corner of the globe since I was hatched some 39 and 3/4 years ago and these past few winters have been as long and as intense as any I can remember. Well maybe except for the blizzard of 78. All I can say is thank God for man made global warming, or climate change, whatever the catch phrase of the day is. Wait that did not sound right. Thank Man for man made global warming. It now looks like the coming ice age predicted in the 1970's would have been a reality if not scathed off by the then unknown counter effect of MMGW or climate change, which is just a one size fits all battle cry for the alarmists. It the temps go up the alarmist cry "climate change". If the temps go down the alarmists cry climate change. If the number of hurricanes is up for the year the alarmists cry climate change. If the number of hurricanes is way down for the year the alarmists cry climate change. If anything at all happens to the weather the alarmist cry climate change. Again, at this point all I got to say is thank God Man for man made global warming as I would probably be frozen solid at this point without it. Well that and it made Al Gore over $100 million dollars. How convenient. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 08:30:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
In my opinion, the climate "skeptics" have a political and probable commercial motivation, rather than any sort of scientific one. Therein lies the rub; politics pollutes the process and business wants to be as usual, and to clean up would be inconvenient at best and expensive at worst -- both, really.
Here's a cartoon I found at PZ's. I'm only posting the link because the image is large enough to screw up the page format.
Ah Bill Scott, where are you when we need you?
|
Hey look only 18 more posts until my 1500th contribution. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/23/2009 08:34:48 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 08:35:32 [Permalink]
|
| OK now it is only 17. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 08:37:04 [Permalink]
|
| Hey this counter keeps moving on me. Only 15 more to go, I think. It's been a long week already. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 09:15:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
It the temps go up the alarmist cry "climate change". If the temps go down the alarmists cry climate change. If the number of hurricanes is up for the year the alarmists cry climate change. If the number of hurricanes is way down for the year the alarmists cry climate change. If anything at all happens to the weather the alarmist cry climate change. Again, at this point all I got to say is thank God Man for man made global warming as I would probably be frozen solid at this point without it. Well that and it made Al Gore over $100 million dollars. How convenient.
|
Bill, Greenland is thawing at an alarming rate, and that's saying something. What you fail to grasp, and conveniently so, is that were talking about a rise in global climate temperatures, not local temperatures. The data is there:
A warming pause?
It is noteworthy in this context that despite the record low in the brightness of the sun over the past three years (it’s been at its faintest since beginning of satellite measurements in the 1970s), a number of warming records have been broken during this time. March 2008 saw the warmest global land temperature of any March ever recorded in the past 130 years. June and August 2009 saw the warmest land and ocean temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere ever recorded for those months. The global ocean surface temperatures in 2009 broke all previous records for three consecutive months: June, July and August. The years 2007, 2008 and 2009 had the lowest summer Arctic sea ice cover ever recorded, and in 2008 for the first time in living memory the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage were simultaneously ice-free. This feat was repeated in 2009. Every single year of this century (2001-2008) has been warmer than all years of the 20th Century except 1998 (which sticks out well above the trend line due to a strong El Niño event).
The bottom line is: the observed warming over the last decade is 100% consistent with the expected anthropogenic warming trend of 0.2 ºC per decade, superimposed with short-term natural variability. It is no different in this respect from the two decades before. And with an El Niño developing in the Pacific right now, we wouldn’t be surprised if more temperature records were to be broken over the coming year or so. |
Get over it Bill. Try thinking in global terms rather than how much snow you must shovel away from your door. And once again, you have managed to bash Al Gore in your post, as though he is the one collecting the data. Gore doesn't matter. The conciseness of climate scientists matters. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 12/23/2009 : 09:33:48 [Permalink]
|
Oh my gods, our Bill is turning into a post-slut! 
Heh, good to see ya back! 
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 12/23/2009 09:36:15 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 10:07:21 [Permalink]
|
| Bill, Greenland is thawing at an alarming rate, and that's saying something. What you fail to grasp, and conveniently so, is that were talking about a rise in global climate temperatures, not local temperatures. The data is there: |
And exactly how do they come up with global climate temps? There certainly could not be any fudging of the data here. And they really have no clue what the global climate temps range or what they have ranged over the last few thousand years. They throw out their numbers as if they actually know. They don't. They just claim that they do.
| Get over it Bill. Try thinking in global terms rather than how much snow you must shovel away from your door. |
I have tried. Yet I keep having to go through yet another colder then normal winter season. This year we even lost our summer to "climate change". Coldest average temps for July since the records have been kept. Could not imagine what we would be going through without global warming. Without it I would have been ice fishing in July.
| And once again, you have managed to bash Al Gore in your post, as though he is the one collecting the data. Gore doesn't matter. |
When the dude rakes in over $100,000,000 by claiming the sky is falling and then flies around on his private jet, floats his house boat down the Tennessee river with jet skies in tow pumps out tens of thousands of dollars for utilities bills each month for a house he hardly sleeps in this makes him the whipping boy for climate change skeptics.
| The conciseness of climate scientists matters. |
What conciseness?
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2009 : 10:20:21 [Permalink]
|
| I will not engage this time, Bill. We have been over all of this stuff before. Maybe there are others here who will once again make the attempt, but it won't be me. You are just a denier Bill. And that's that. I don't want to waste my time on this. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
What, If Anything, Can Skeptics Say About Science?
