• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fools and Appeals to Authority

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There’s a certain strand of exasperation at conservative anti-intellectualism that seems superficially plausible. “Come on,” it runs, “you don’t have decades of experience in that subject, you don’t have a PhD in the relevant field, why can’t you just leave it to the experts, to the smart set? Astronomers don’t tell plumbers how to run their work.”

Sound superficially plausible, right? Except for one thing, which is the kinds of ideas the smart set have been known to defend.

In the late nineteenth century, all the Smart Set just knew that Eugenics was vitally necessary.

Then the Smart Set just knew that democracy and capitalism were over, and a centralized, collectivized economy was the way forward.

Then the Smart Set just knew that overpopulation was going to destroy the world and it was essential to cut off all food aid to the poorest parts of the world, and curb the birth rates of all those, y’know, brown people.

Then the Smart Set just knew that GM foods were wicked and needed to be stopped

Then the Smart Set just knew that climate change was so serious that the ‘temporary’ suspension of democracy was necessary…

People have a well founded fear of intellectuals running amok. They sense a danger when intellectuals say things like "Blacks have a shortage of MAO-A and will therefore always be inherently violent and crime ridden." You don't have to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when they say that "Anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet so therefore we must ramp up taxes, institute a command economy, stop development of the third world, suspend democracy, and jail people who object."

Both of these examples are about power, not science. It's not at all like letting the nuclear engineers run the nuclear reactors or letting the biologists do the research on evolution. It's about using the power of the state to coerce people. If they were about trying to solve the problem instead of bullying the rest of us there would be no problem, but people see these grabs for power for what they are and fight back with everything that comes to hand.
 

Henrin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
60,458
Reaction score
12,357
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The problem people seem to have is that once an "expert" speaks on a subject they just turn off their brains and accept everything they say as the truth. Many times the so called "experts" are wrong and their opinions are illogical, but still people turn off their brains when they speak. Oh well, you can't do anything about idiots that fail to understand that no one is perfect or always right.
 

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,236
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
People have a well founded fear of intellectuals running amok. They sense a danger when intellectuals say things like "Blacks have a shortage of MAO-A and will therefore always be inherently violent and crime ridden." You don't have to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when they say that "Anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet so therefore we must ramp up taxes, institute a command economy, stop development of the third world, suspend democracy, and jail people who object."

Both of these examples are about power, not science. It's not at all like letting the nuclear engineers run the nuclear reactors or letting the biologists do the research on evolution. It's about using the power of the state to coerce people. If they were about trying to solve the problem instead of bullying the rest of us there would be no problem, but people see these grabs for power for what they are and fight back with everything that comes to hand.

[h=3]The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - University of ...[/h]press.uchicago.edu/ucp/.../bo13179781.html


University of Chicago Press


The book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, Thomas S. Kuhn is published by University of Chicago Press.
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
People have a well founded fear of intellectuals running amok. They sense a danger when intellectuals say things like "Blacks have a shortage of MAO-A and will therefore always be inherently violent and crime ridden."

There has never been a consensus view in favor of that.

You don't have to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when they say that "Anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet so therefore we must ramp up taxes, institute a command economy, stop development of the third world, suspend democracy, and jail people who object."

This appears to be a flat-out admission that you've lost the scientific debate, inasmuch as you've skipped right over the science and tried to conflate it with the politics -- no doubt hoping that nobody will notice the trick.

Do you, or do you not, admit that anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet?

Both of these examples are about power, not science. It's not at all like letting the nuclear engineers run the nuclear reactors or letting the biologists do the research on evolution. It's about using the power of the state to coerce people. If they were about trying to solve the problem instead of bullying the rest of us there would be no problem, but people see these grabs for power for what they are and fight back with everything that comes to hand.

But we are all about trying to solve the problem. And the problem is, people like you are preventing us from solving the problem. So kindly shut up and get out of the way, so that those of us who care can save civilization for the likes of you.

Your entire argument is that it's perfectly fine to trust experts unless they disagree with your politics, in which case the experts just gotta be wrong. And that's utter nonsense.
 
Last edited:

matchlight

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 25, 2014
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
3,495
Location
Los Angeles area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative

Steve Case

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2013
Messages
1,791
Reaction score
1,181
Location
USA - Milwaukee, WI
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
...
Do you, or do you not, admit that anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet?
...
It's not an admission or concession, it's a matter of fact that
there's been a warm-up since the 1800s of maybe as much
as a degree, and that the increase in CO2 has probably played
a significant role in that.

What I don't agree to is the notion that warmer weather, longer
growing seasons, more rain, and the beneficial boost CO2 gives
to photosynthesis and the greening of the earth is somehow a
catastrophic disaster.
 

Gaugingcatenate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2013
Messages
12,331
Reaction score
1,939
Location
Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in t
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I find this same problem with Supreme Court decisions.

Some folks feel as though they are not mere mortals, they are more like gods, infallible. We have only to look at two of the most prominent mistakes, Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson decisions. With that there should be an understanding, especially in split 5-4 decisions, that the justices are human just like the rest of us. They can and do make mistakes. Sometimes major mistakes.
 

ludin

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
57,470
Reaction score
14,585
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There has never been a consensus view in favor of that.

Appeal to populum fallacy.

This appears to be a flat-out admission that you've lost the scientific debate, inasmuch as you've skipped right over the science and tried to conflate it with the politics -- no doubt hoping that nobody will notice the trick.

when the science is 90% politics then he didn't skip over anything.

Do you, or do you not, admit that anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet?

climate change has always changed the planet. that is why we have had glacial period and major warming trends to melt those glaciers.
you don't have to be a scientist to know this. climate change is supposed to happen.
it has always happened and will continue to happen.

this myth that the earth's climate isn't supposed to change is about as anti-science as it gets.

But we are all about trying to solve the problem. And the problem is, people like you are preventing us from solving the problem. So kindly shut up and get out of the way, so that those of us who care can save civilization for the likes of you.

No your not. even the IPCC has admitted in public that their theories are nothing more than power grabs and major wealth transfers.
it is a poor attempt to redistribute the worlds wealth.

Your entire argument is that it's perfectly fine to trust experts unless they disagree with your politics, in which case the experts just gotta be wrong. And that's utter nonsense.

nope his entire argument is that as long as scientists and experts are being true to their field of study then it is fine.
as soon as they start entering politics we need to question their methods and their logic.
 

LowDown

Curmudgeon
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,767
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
There has never been a consensus view in favor of that.

A consensus isn't needed.

This appears to be a flat-out admission that you've lost the scientific debate, inasmuch as you've skipped right over the science and tried to conflate it with the politics -- no doubt hoping that nobody will notice the trick.

No, it's an assertion that your ilk doesn't want to debate the science and instead goes straight to politics.

Do you, or do you not, admit that anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet

I ascribe to all the science in the First Working Group of the 5th IPCC report. Not the executive summary, the report itself. Do you know what that says?

But we are all about trying to solve the problem. And the problem is, people like you are preventing us from solving the problem. So kindly shut up and get out of the way, so that those of us who care can save civilization for the likes of you.

No, you are making a grab for political power. If someone solved the problem it would be inconvenient ... for your ilk.

Your entire argument is that it's perfectly fine to trust experts unless they disagree with your politics, in which case the experts just gotta be wrong. And that's utter nonsense.

Stop trying to bully everyone into certain political policies and work on the science instead. Then you'll be a scientist.
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
People have a well founded fear of intellectuals running amok. They sense a danger when intellectuals say things like "Blacks have a shortage of MAO-A and will therefore always be inherently violent and crime ridden." You don't have to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when they say that "Anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet so therefore we must ramp up taxes, institute a command economy, stop development of the third world, suspend democracy, and jail people who object."

Both of these examples are about power, not science. It's not at all like letting the nuclear engineers run the nuclear reactors or letting the biologists do the research on evolution. It's about using the power of the state to coerce people. If they were about trying to solve the problem instead of bullying the rest of us there would be no problem, but people see these grabs for power for what they are and fight back with everything that comes to hand.

I think we have to distrust given that the conclusion can depend upon the funding...it's like pop science or something...we have a product and we need to show it is not only safe but improves health....they can make that happen and present only one side so knowing who is funding it is vital ....stats and conclusions are easy to manipulate
 

Poor Debater

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 5, 2015
Messages
961
Reaction score
348
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
A consensus isn't needed.

If you're admitting that phrenolgy is crank, then it's not any authority anyone has to appeal to. In which case it does not provide support for your argument.

No, it's an assertion that your ilk doesn't want to debate the science and instead goes straight to politics.

I'm quite happy to debate the science, and have done so frequently here. But there is not one shred of science in the OP.

I ascribe to all the science in the First Working Group of the 5th IPCC report. Not the executive summary, the report itself. Do you know what that says?

I do. Thanks for the clarification.

No, you are making a grab for political power. If someone solved the problem it would be inconvenient ... for your ilk.

At this point, you have dropped waaay off of science and into the realm of conspiracy theory. You're in the wrong forum.

Stop trying to bully everyone into certain political policies and work on the science instead. Then you'll be a scientist.

The science is settled and solid. There are changes coming (and some already here) that are big and bad. We have the power to prevent the worst of it if we act rapidly.

All that is science.

You being a conspiracy theorist has nothing to do with science.
 

jmotivator

No longer monitoring
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2013
Messages
27,304
Reaction score
13,586
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
People have a well founded fear of intellectuals running amok. They sense a danger when intellectuals say things like "Blacks have a shortage of MAO-A and will therefore always be inherently violent and crime ridden." You don't have to be a trained climatologist to smell danger when they say that "Anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet so therefore we must ramp up taxes, institute a command economy, stop development of the third world, suspend democracy, and jail people who object."

Both of these examples are about power, not science. It's not at all like letting the nuclear engineers run the nuclear reactors or letting the biologists do the research on evolution. It's about using the power of the state to coerce people. If they were about trying to solve the problem instead of bullying the rest of us there would be no problem, but people see these grabs for power for what they are and fight back with everything that comes to hand.

That reminds me of this video:

 
Top Bottom