[MD] Global Warming: Science or Politics?

[ian glendinning]

BTW Case, I will respond to more of your points - some good ones in
there - when I get a chance ...

Ian

On 2/19/07, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for that clarification Case,
>
> I did recognise the irony in Poot's mail, but I joined the thread much
> later after several threads had converged on the quality of the
> "sustainability" arguments.
>
> Our difference is as you say tactical - I'm having a debate (in-house
> argument) with quality people, whereas you are still fighting battles
> with the Platt's of this world. I have moved on from even bothering to
> point out how ridiculous his perspective is. Whilst some of us seek
> progress, we do all still need to keep an eye on the rear-guard - no
> disagreement there.
>
> Regards
> Ian
>
> On 2/16/07, Case <Case at ispots.com> wrote:
> > Ian,
> >
> > My problem with your post was that you insert a kind of in-house argument
> > about the nature of academic discourse into a thread where Platt is arguing
> > that academics are a bunch of bed wetting liberals crying wolf so they can
> > justify marching people off to Gulags. The utter sarcasm of Poot's post
> > seemed totally to have passed you by.
> >
> >
> > Further comments on specifics:
> >
> > > [Case]
> > > Newton just about single handedly invented modern science. His reluctance
> > > to publish and his battles with Hook and Royal Society are legendary. But
> > > this is the kind of office politics that is inevitable in any human
> > > institution.
> >
> > [IG] Tell me something I didn't know. And when you've done that tell
> > me something relevant to my point. Inevitable, take note, your word.
> >
> > [Case]
> > The Royal Society printed what may have been the first scientific journal.
> > My point was that from the beginning there were in-house arguments about
> > publications rights, giving credit where it was due etc. etc. But these were
> > in-house office politics not liberal/conservative politics. When scientists
> > have to deal with real politics science suffers.
> >
> > The fact that flaws in human institutions are inevitable does not mean we
> > should abandon the institutions or any attempts to correct such flaws as can
> > be corrected. Nor do the existence of inevitable flaws invalidate the
> > enterprise.
> >
> >
> > [IG] I'm NOT talking about "mistakes" nor am I condemning it. I'm
> > talking about situations where the balance is closer to rhretoric than
> > objective logic. Of course I support peer review. But the further it
> > gets from simple repeatable cases, further from Newtonian mechanics,
> > the more it depends on rhetoric. Inevitable, as you said.
> >
> > [Case]
> > Newtonian mechanics are nothing if not mathematical. Mathematics is
> > persuasive because it is non-rhetorical. You can go way beyond Newton and
> > still employ mathematics unambiguously. Platt is claiming that the current
> > global crisis is being manufactured through statistical lies. My claim is
> > that peer review moderates against this. I do not think statistics in
> > scientific journals can be manipulated in this way. And of such manipulation
> > survives peer review there are plenty of journal readers to correct the
> > problems.
> >
> > [IG] I'm fully aware of that risk and suffer the slings and arrows
> > constantly, lest I forget. Which is good. In a community like this
> > though, I'd expect people to at least see the middle-ground I'm
> > pointing at, praticularly as it was Pirsig that pointed out to most of
> > us that there was something valuable underlying these damn subjects
> > and objects we're all so quick to divide the world up into.
> > (postmodernish-cult-of-professionals ? you'll have to elaborate.)
> >
> > [Case]
> > I listened to a debate between Dennett and Roty not long ago were in Roty
> > seemed to be claiming the lawyers and scientists were on an equal footing
> > because they were both professional communities of experts seeking after
> > truth. There are kinds and degrees of truth and by the time your analysis
> > reaches a point where all of them are on equal footing, all relevance has
> > long since vanished. Sure the universe is one, so what?
> >
> > [IG] I'd be much obliged if you could point out where I said "any".
> > That would be plain wrong. (Stop excluding middles - "forced" to make
> > a choice between two, I'd make the same one as you, I'm an engineer /
> > technologist / scientist through and through, but "given" a free
> > choice, I choose the middle.)
> >
> > [Case]
> > Again my point was made in the context of the discussion at hand. Platt is
> > asking how one picks a valid source. I don't think it is a safe to say that
> > people do know these things. We have people here quoting as authorities
> > bloggers, random forum posts and just about anything else they turn up in a
> > Google search. There is often not discernment at all as to what is credible.
> > Platt would put "some-guy's-blog" on an equal footing with Science and
> > Nature.
> >
> > [IG] You telling me ? Blogger of this parish ?
> >
> > [Case]
> > Yes I am. As a blogger would you claim that the stuff you blog should be
> > treated as authoritative? Traditional news outlets at least in the past
> > lived or died on their reputations. You might not like the way your local
> > paper said things but you had a pretty good idea of how to judge its
> > contents. Those kinds of relationships between reader and writer are not as
> > clear as they once were.
> >
> > [IG] A "seal of approval" is a social phenomenon, reliant on rhetoric
> > and social authority ... good when used appropriately, but not
> > foolproof over intellect, and better understood as a result. That's
> > largely what Booth's paper is about. Jeez Pirsig was a teacher of
> > rhetoric !
> >
> > [Case]
> > The "seal of approval" conferred by publication in an academic journal still
> > means something. It means what the article in question meets certain high
> > standards. Far higher standards than what is published in almost any other
> > form of discourse. This is true of nearly all professional journals. They
> > are written by people who know what they are talking about for people
> > trained to understand them. Certainly when they have a position, they are
> > seeking to persuade. But this is a far cry from the use of rhetoric in other
> > areas.
> >
> > > [Case]
> > > To abandon this goal to some idealized democratization of intellect is
> > > sheer folly.
> >
> > [IG] Abandon. Jeez where did you dream that. No such words ever cross my
> > lips.
> >
> > [Case]
> > What you said was, "Only the long run, evolved, emergent outcome of patterns
> > in large bodies of free dialogue and narrative get close to "truth"." If my
> > interpretation of your meaning is skewed I apologize but maybe you could
> > elaborate.
> >
> > > [Case]
> > > Society can eventually learn to love its contrarians but by God they
> > > ought to have to work for that love. There should be obstacles in the path
> > > of wackos.
> >
> > [IG] There are penty, thank god. But equally, thank god, they are only
> > obstacles, not exclusions. It's not all or nothing. Repeat after me
> > ...
> >
> > [Case]
> > Once again the point in this thread was Platt's contention that academics
> > are a bunch of bedwetting liberals who throw up obstacles to prevent right
> > thinking good Americans from having their say. We are safe in just ignoring
> > the scientific community because they are no better than lawyers, they are
> > just grinding personal axes and if they were worth a crap they would get
> > real jobs...
> >
> > > [Case]
> > > If society is going to be totally open minded there is not telling what
> > > kind of nonsense will pass as common sense.
> >
> > [IG] Totally !?! you extremist. I never used such a word. I'd like to
> > think no nonsense will ever pass me as common sense, but it might
> > strike me as worth thinking about.
> >
> > [Case]
> > No, you want to take both extremes seriously so you can find a path down the
> > middle. Well look around, the middle has shifted because liberals have
> > tolerated the nonsense issuing from cranks. It has become common sense that
> > government is wasteful, politicians are crooked and academics are bed
> > wetting liberals. I have recently renounced tolerance as a virtue. It is
> > not. And the middle of the road looked a lot better when it was closer to
> > the actual middle of the road. In the mean time all I ever got out of
> > sitting on the fence was aching nuts.
> >
> > [IG]
> > We're talking quality ... some ideas are better than others, but the
> > better ones ain't necessarily "totally" right, nor the inferior ones
> > "totally" wrong for that matter. Is that so hard to accept, or are you
> > a totalitarian at heart ?
> >
> > I'm disappointed case.
> >
> > [Case]
> > No we are talking about how to judge Quality and the MoQ is next to
> > worthless in this respect. Everyone here judges Quality in light of their
> > preexisting prejudices. When an idea is so bad that all you can say for it
> > is that is not "totally" wrong what respect does it deserve? If all that is
> > good about it is its sentence structure that baby belongs out in the yard
> > with the bathwater.
> >
> > Conversely when a good idea is not "totally" right, this does not mean we
> > should toss it because it has faults. Good ideas should not be treated as
> > equal to bad ideas in establishing middle ground.
> >
> > Yes, I am embracing this new intolerance with a vengeance. Having one foot
> > in a bucket of boiling water and the other in a bucket of ice does not
> > average out to being cozy.
> >
> > We are dealing here with people who think that the extinction of a species
> > is no big deal; especially if we can save thirty cents a month on our power
> > bill. It doesn't really matter if the ice caps melt because it could be good
> > for the real estate market. It's ok if we pollute the air and water because
> > our descendants will be clever enough to figure out something else to drink
> > and breathe.
> >
> > moq_discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> >
>