[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>:

> [Arlo]
> What you're promoting here is critical thinking. :-) And I wholeheartedly back
> the idea that we should, under our own investigations, critically analyze as
> much information as possible. But, I'd also say, there is simply too much out
> there for me to research, review, interview, synthesize, and analyze all on my
> own. When I read that Anna Nicole was found dead, I don't want to fly to LA (or
> wherever), investigate the scene, talk to coroners, etc. We need to outsource
> our agency on occasion. That seems unavoidable. The question remains, to whom?

Agree.

> [Platt]
> Investigation of as many resources as possible with a skeptical attitude toward
> all. Trust must be earned, not assumed.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yes, agreed. But what of, for example, that study I cited that showed that we
> have a tendency to ignore or dismiss information that does not conform to our
> prior assumptions. Pirsig called this the Harbor Effect, but the study
> demonstrated that the more ideologically partisan a person was, the more s/he
> failed to use reason in her/his discernment. How do we break people out of the
> Harbor Effect? Can we? Should we?

That's a toughie. Not sure what the answer is, if there is one. Perhaps encouraging
others to admit once in awhile that they could be wrong is about the best we can do.

> [Platt]
> But, the question you raise is an important one. Who can we trust when bias,
> including our own, is part and parcel of the human condition?
> 
> [Arlo]
> As I said, scholarly publication was designed with the forethought to eliminate
> bias. And, as I've said, its not a perfect system, but it does appear to work
> better than anything else I've seen. In other words, I trust the process of
> scholarly research and publication. Its the best we've come up with.

OK, but I trust the process less than you do, especially in the fields of liberal
arts, social sciences and forecasting. I like to think that I keep the door open
to Pirsig's contrarians. But maybe I'm kidding myself.
 
> [Platt]
> So far on this site, Wikipedia seems to be widely accepted as a source. It's
> articles appear to be fair and balanced, subject to change. That's the criteria
> I use in choosing sources of information.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I agree that Wikipedia is a valuable source, but for many things I'd recommend
> looking for external support material. 

OK. But I don't think a simple count of the amount of support material available
for a point of view is necessarily conclusive -- not that you suggest it is.

> [Platt]
> When a controversy arises, such as with global warming, I look to the minority
> of the "experts" and investigative reporting to provide a balanced view. But,
> as always, I can be wrong.    
> 
> [Arlo]
> The problem is a "minority of experts" can be found to support any preconceived
> view. You could find scientists who blame global warming on alien activity, or
> others who believe the earth is only 6000 years old, still others who believe
> the world is flat. So finding experts that match what we already want to
> believe is quite simple, and one reason why critical thinking (which could be
> reworded as skeptical analysis) is so important.

You raise the important issue of who qualifies as an "expert." Would like your
views on this. My problem with academic credentialed experts is that among them
one can usually be find those who support opposite sides of an issue. Thanks.






-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/