Fools and Appeals to Authority

[LowDown]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[matchlight]

[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.

That is a great book. I learned a lot from it about thinking and knowledge in general.

 

[Steve Case]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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: