Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Investor’s Business Daily editorial:
The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth. Of course there are some who don’t.
But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth’s climate to warm.
This is the finding of the peer-reviewed paper “Science or Science Fiction? Professionals’ Discursive Construction of Climate Change” and this group is categorized as the “Comply with Kyoto” cohort.
Members of this group, not unexpectedly, “express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
Academics Lianne M. Lefsrud of the University of Alberta and Renate E. Meyer of Vienna University of Economics and Business, and the Copenhagen Business School, came upon that number through a survey of 1,077 professional engineers and geoscientists.
Their work also revealed that 24% “believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the earth” while another 10% consider the “‘real’ cause of climate change” to be “unknown” and acknowledge that “nature is forever changing and uncontrollable.”
:
This is all illuminating information. But it won’t get the same media attention given to Al Gore and the usual assortment of eco-radicals, because it violates the narrative that our selfish activities are warming this planet.It is consistent, however, with what most people call common sense.
Hat tip to Maggie’s Farm.
The alwarmists are not too happy about my exercise in questioning whether what we’re looking at is really science. They’ve formed their own consensus that I’m doubting the “science,” because I don’t like where it goes. There it is again, a consensus. Give ’em credit. They can form a consensus like nobody’s business. Go through them puppies like Rosie O’Donnell through a box of donuts.
This consensus of theirs, tragically, reveals that the point went sailing right over their heads. No matter what your feelings are about where a line on a paper “goes,” you’re not even ready to debate it until you settle the matter of whether the line is what it is perceived to be. Whether it is straight. And there are tests you can do with the straightedge or triangle that was used to draw the line — most effective if they are localized. If they have nothing to do with where the line “goes.” You can use the straightedge to draw the line, flip it over, and bring it up alongside the same line.
This faux vintage of “science” doesn’t pass simple tests like this. It is far too intermarried with the public relations aspect of itself. It seems to be concerned with “winning,” everywhere it is challenged, primarily by means of getting in the last word.
Alwarmists, therefore, sidestep the question of whether their straightedge is straight, deciding instead that we should be concerned with where the line “goes.” They either are lacking conceptual command of the knowledge domain, or they are engaged in an attempt to deceive.
Does it really matter which one it is?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
But what about the 315,000 additional annual deaths attributable to global warming?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/16/overhyped-the-human-cost-of-climate-alarmism/#more-79869
What’s really sad about that article is that the book that parroted the figure (“Overheated” by Guzman) is coming out this year, while the 315,000 figure was absolutely destroyed three years ago, and the foundation that publicized it died of embarrassment a year later — but the garbage figure refuses to die.
The comments make some interesting arguments about the death toll from biofuel-induced starvation and from filthy or brackish water that lacked only abundant energy to make it clean and fresh.
- Texan99 | 02/17/2013 @ 11:49Engineers are not scientists in the relevant field of study. They’re not even scientists.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 09:37Engineers are not scientists in the relevant field of study. They’re not even scientists.
Again, the rules to be followed in the service of making these ideas look like good ones, end up convoluted, moreso than such ideas should be if the ideas really are good. So now we have: Scientists good, engineers bad. But it is an engineer’s role to keep his ideas married up to reality, is it not? Maybe even more than in the case of scientists. So what would the rationale be behind scientists-good-engineers-bad? We like to be close to reality, but not too close? What would the point be to such a thing?
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 10:07mkfreeberg: Again, the rules to be followed in the service of making these ideas look like good ones, end up convoluted, moreso than such ideas should be if the ideas really are good.
The original post concerned an appeal to authority.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
mkfreeberg: But it is an engineer’s role to keep his ideas married up to reality, is it not? Maybe even more than in the case of scientists.
An engineer applies science and ingenuity to specific purposes. They are not scientists, much less climate scientists.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 10:56mkfreeberg: So now we have: Scientists good, engineers bad.
If you want to know the current state of scientific knowledge in a field, you talk to a scientist. If you want to build a bridge, you hire an engineer. If you have a cough, you call your doctor. If your commode backs up, you call a plumber. They are all good and all contribute something important.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 11:01If you want to build a bridge, you hire an engineer. If you have a cough, you call your doctor. If your commode backs up, you call a plumber. They are all good and all contribute something important.
I know you’re trying to tease out these fine distinctions and show you’re sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate them and so forth…but all you’re showing now is your estrangement from reality.
If I want to build a bridge I hire an engineer? Now, think what it takes to build a bridge so that it stays built. It doesn’t have much to do with re-reciting theory from a textbook. If that’s all it took we could just make a new science discipline of bridge-building science, and then hire bridge scientists to build our bridge. As it happens, confining their statements to within their area of expertise, is something implicit to the engineer’s job description — because if they fail that, the bridge crumbles and people die.
If I understand your point correctly, we need to police the perimeter of the engineer’s field of expertise because he doesn’t have the vocational discipline to do that himself. And if that’s what you’re trying to say, then you don’t understand engineering in general, nearly enough to form a believable comment on the limits of their credibility.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 13:28mkfreeberg: Now, think what it takes to build a bridge so that it stays built. It doesn’t have much to do with re-reciting theory from a textbook.
Scientists are people who use the scientific method to acquire knowledge. Scientists do not merely recite theory from a textbook.
mkfreeberg: If that’s all it took we could just make a new science discipline of bridge-building science, and then hire bridge scientists to build our bridge.
Bridge building is not a scientific endeavor, but one of engineering.
mkfreeberg: If I understand your point correctly, we need to police the perimeter of the engineer’s field of expertise because he doesn’t have the vocational discipline to do that himself.
Like grocers and plumbers, engineers are more than free to express an opinion, however, their opinions on climate science don’t constitute expert opinion, and have nothing to do with whether or not there is a scientific consensus on climate change.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 13:40Bridge building is not a scientific endeavor, but one of engineering.
What’s the difference?
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 13:57mkfreeberg: What’s the difference?
Scientists search for new knowledge of the universe through explanations tested by the scientific method. Engineers apply scientific knowledge and ingenuity for specific purposes.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 15:50Engineers apply scientific knowledge and ingenuity for specific purposes.
Mkay. So engineers are scientists; except their vocational exercise doesn’t end before the idea meets up with reality, and thus is tested. Not necessarily true for scientists.
Given that, I must say I’m having difficulty seeing what the problem is. You are trying to assert, are you not, that we should be asking scientists and not engineers, right? I don’t see the advantage of doing this, other than to try to keep the theory safely away from practice. Doesn”t sound like the building of any kind of bridge I’d like to be crossing soon.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 16:16mkfreeberg: So engineers are scientists; …
Um, no. Engineers do not use the scientific method. They have to have a very good idea of whether a bridge will stand *before* they build it. The science has already been worked out before the engineer starts his job.
mkfreeberg: … except their vocational exercise doesn’t end before the idea meets up with reality, and thus is tested.
Scientists also “meet up with reality”. It’s called observation. Didn’t they teach you this in school?
mkfreeberg: You are trying to assert, are you not, that we should be asking scientists and not engineers, right?
Scientific questions are matters for scientists, not engineers. And because both fields are highly specialized, you would want a climate scientist or someone in a closely related field when seeking information on climate change.
mkfreeberg: I don’t see the advantage of doing this, other than to try to keep the theory safely away from practice.
Scientific theories are tested against observation.
mkfreeberg: Doesn”t sound like the building of any kind of bridge I’d like to be crossing soon.
Scientists generally don’t build bridges. If they need one, they call an engineer.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 16:26As I’ve already said, I know you’re trying to tease out these fine distinctions and show you’re sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate them and so forth…but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 16:51Scientific questions are matters for scientists, not engineers. And because both fields are highly specialized, you would want a climate scientist or someone in a closely related field when seeking information on climate change.
Waitaminit…. If that’s the case, then how are the engineers ever going to build these “green technologies” that you insist will be a major part of the solution to climate change?
Oh, and when are you going to kick loose with those green tech stock tips? Fidel, my broker, keeps bugging me about them….
- Severian | 02/19/2013 @ 17:02mkfreeberg: As I’ve already said, I know you’re trying to tease out these fine distinctions and show you’re sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate them and so forth…but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering.
You really need to take a class or something. Engineering defined:
Merriam-Webster: the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people.
Georgia Tech: Engineering is the practical application of science and math to solve problems, and it is everywhere in the world around you.
Science defined:
Oxford Dictionary: the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
American Physical Society: Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.
Severian: If that’s the case, then how are the engineers ever going to build these “green technologies” that you insist will be a major part of the solution to climate change?
The same way they build anything. By taking existing scientific knowledge and applying it to the problem at hand.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 18:08So, you’re trying to define why we would not want to ask an engineer a question about science.
Bearing your definitions in mind…what is the specific answer to this? You appear to have painted yourself into the corner of saying, engineers must apply science, and yet are not knowledgeable about it if they are asked. We have to ask the scientists about science…who think about it, but unlike the engineers, do not apply it.
As I’ve already said, I know you’re trying to tease out these fine distinctions and show you’re sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate them and so forth…but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering. Although you do have access to a dictionary.
- mkfreeberg | 02/19/2013 @ 18:12mkfreeberg: So, you’re trying to define why we would not want to ask an engineer a question about science.
You can certainly ask an engineer about climate science or about the culinary arts, but that is not their specialty.
mkfreeberg: but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering
From someone who said, “So engineers are scientists; except their vocational exercise doesn’t end before the idea meets up with reality, and thus is tested. Not necessarily true for scientists.”
mkfreeberg: You appear to have painted yourself into the corner of saying, engineers must apply science, and yet are not knowledgeable about it if they are asked.
Good. We’re getting somewhere.
There is an intersection between science and engineering. An engineer might be aware of the current state of materials science, for instance (or confer with materials scientists on recent advances). Consequently, an engineer might build a cosmic background explorer per specifications provided by cosmologists, but wouldn’t have an expert opinion on cosmology. Cosmologists would consult with engineers to find out what is feasible in drawing up their specifications.
- Zachriel | 02/19/2013 @ 18:28Might want to point out that engineers rely on expert scientific opinion. They don’t derive the laws of physics, they learn them, then apply them. Hence, they are a secondary source for most scientific information.
Of course, there’s always some overlap. Engineers learn basic science, and sometimes do scientific investigations related to their particular needs. Scientists learn basic engineering, and sometimes need to engineer instruments to their particular needs. But most often, they rely on one another. Here’s an example of the close synergy between scientists and engineers.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 06:10http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/lhc/lhc-en.html
You can certainly ask an engineer about climate science or about the culinary arts, but that is not their specialty.
When I read it, in context, in a statement that says “… when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers…” I’m inclined to believe the engineering specialty has something to do with climate science.
Good. We’re getting somewhere.
There is an intersection between science and engineering. An engineer might be aware of the current state of materials science, for instance (or confer with materials scientists on recent advances). Consequently, an engineer might build a cosmic background explorer per specifications provided by cosmologists, but wouldn’t have an expert opinion on cosmology. Cosmologists would consult with engineers to find out what is feasible in drawing up their specifications.
:
Might want to point out that engineers rely on expert scientific opinion. They don’t derive the laws of physics, they learn them, then apply them. Hence, they are a secondary source for most scientific information.
So it looks like you ARE saying, engineers must apply science, and yet are not knowledgeable about it if they are asked. Again, I know you’re trying to tease out these fine distinctions and show you’re sufficiently sophisticated to appreciate them and so forth…but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering.
Frankly, it’s coming across like you don’t believe in, or are aware of, the very real occurrence of what one might call “backwash” — from the experiences of the engineers, outside the experiences of scientists, implementing the technology there are further lessons to be learned. Which have to somehow find their way back into the books, if the scientists are to remain as knowledgeable as the engineers. In fact, this often doesn’t happen. The last paragraph of your own link acknowledges this not only as a possibility, but as a hope. In fact, I’d say your example is a good one: Once the CERN project is at a mature phase, can you coherently walk us through this mindset in which, should we desire to compile a survey about it, we’d be better served by surveying the scientists exclusively and leaving the engineers out of the survey? I know you think you’re all doing a bang-up job of showing this to be the obvious conclusion, but the truth is very far from that.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 07:41mkfreeberg: I’m inclined to believe the engineering specialty has something to do with climate science.
Your inclination isn’t evidence. Engineers have a variety of specialties, few of which, if any, touch climate science.
mkfreeberg: So it looks like you ARE saying, engineers must apply science, and yet are not knowledgeable about it if they are asked.
They are generally a secondary source, and only in fields related their their own specialty.
mkfreeberg: The last paragraph of your own link acknowledges this not only as a possibility, but as a hope.
Um, the last paragraph referred to experimentation, not engineering.
mkfreeberg: but all you’re showing now is that you don’t understand the basics of science, or engineering.
From someone who said, “So engineers are scientists; except their vocational exercise doesn’t end before the idea meets up with reality, and thus is tested. Not necessarily true for scientists.”
mkfreeberg: Once the CERN project is at a mature phase, can you coherently walk us through this mindset in which, should we desire to compile a survey about it, we’d be better served by surveying the scientists exclusively and leaving the engineers out of the survey?
Because most engineers have no idea how to interpret the results of the experiment. Some engineers may also work as scientists, but most do not. A rocket scientist who helps put Hubble into space is probably not the astronomer who uses the telescope to study the cosmos.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 08:04Your inclination isn’t evidence.
Neither is yours.
They are generally a secondary source, and only in fields related their their own specialty.
Post implementation, they are the primary source, if there are lessons learned. And there almost always are lessons learned.
Um, the last paragraph referred to experimentation, not engineering.
Um, let’s go check.
There are many theories as to what will result from these collisions. For decades, the Standard Model of particle physics has served physicists well as a means of understanding the fundamental laws of Nature, but it does not tell the whole story. Only experimental data using the high energies reached by the LHC can push knowledge forward, challenging those who seek confirmation of established knowledge, and those who dare to dream beyond the paradigm.
GUARANTEED lessons learned. Guaranteed that the engineers will end up knowing more, until the scientists check back. Of course, I’m sure you’ll reply since this is experimentation, that it must be in the scientist’s domain. But in practice, that isn’t how it works — when the experimentation requires engineering.
From someone who said, “So engineers are scientists; except their vocational exercise doesn’t end before the idea meets up with reality, and thus is tested. Not necessarily true for scientists.”
Yup. Not all scientists experiment. But engineers have to do engineering.
Because most engineers have no idea how to interpret the results of the experiment. Some engineers may also work as scientists, but most do not. A rocket scientist who helps put Hubble into space is probably not the astronomer who uses the telescope to study the cosmos.
Ah, now we come down to it. Most engineers have no idea how to interpret the results of the experiment. Yeah, they just go around willy-nilly, building this stuff that has to work the first time, all the time, as part of their job description, what do they know about reality. Silly engineers.
I’m afraid you haven’t done much to compel me to put more faith in a survey of thousands and thousands of some-kind-of-scientists, than in a survey “confining the question to geoscientists and engineers.” In the final analysis, there’s a lot to be learned by doing, and finding out for yourself what happened, that you’re not going to learn just by mimicking phrases and words.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 08:21Zachriel: Your inclination isn’t evidence.
mkfreeberg: Neither is yours.
Which is why we cited the American Physical Society, Georgia Tech’s Department of Engineering, not to mention the Oxford Dictionary.
mkfreeberg: Post implementation, they are the primary source, if there are lessons learned. And there almost always are lessons learned.
Which would be lessons in engineering in order to build a better rocket, not determine the age of the cosmos. If you want an expert opinion on cosmology, you don’t ask the rocket engineer, but the cosmologist. If you want an expert opinion on rocket design, you don’t ask the cosmologist, but the rocket engineer.
mkfreeberg: GUARANTEED lessons learned. Guaranteed that the engineers will end up knowing more, until the scientists check back.
Engineers will know more about building colliders, but not about particle physics. That’s the distinction that you don’t seem to get, and not sure why.
mkfreeberg: Of course, I’m sure you’ll reply since this is experimentation, that it must be in the scientist’s domain. But in practice, that isn’t how it works — when the experimentation requires engineering.
Sure it does. That doesn’t make the engineer an expert in particle physics, or cosmology, or climate science. Nor does it make the physicist, or cosmologist, or climate scientist, an expert in engineering.
mkfreeberg: Not all scientists experiment.
All science is constrained by ‘reality’, by observation.
mkfreeberg: Most engineers have no idea how to interpret the results of the experiment. Yeah, they just go around willy-nilly, building this stuff that has to work the first time, all the time, as part of their job description,
They build to the specification of their clients, in this case, scientists.
mkfreeberg: what do they know about reality.
They know a lot about engineering, not so much about particle physics or cosmology, as it is outside their specialty.
mkfreeberg: I’m afraid you haven’t done much to compel me to put more faith in a survey of thousands and thousands of some-kind-of-scientists, than in a survey “confining the question to geoscientists and engineers.”
If you want to know about science, you ask scientists. If you want to know about engineering, you ask engineers. If you want to know why you have a cough, you call your doctor. It’s not the difficult a concept.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 08:45Which is why we cited the American Physical Society, Georgia Tech’s Department of Engineering, not to mention the Oxford Dictionary.
And those sources said, “If someone bothers to do a survey of geoscientists and engineers, make sure you do NOT find out what that survey says because that’s just wrong.”
Engineers will know more about building colliders, but not about particle physics. That’s the distinction that you don’t seem to get, and not sure why.
Perhaps because…you’re using argumentation tactics that are fit for a school, in which very few participants have any practical experience, and you’re using them here where people do have the practical experience and you’re finding your tactics are crashing and burning, because you end up spewing pure nonsense and people know enough to call you out on it?
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 09:05mkfreeberg: And those sources said, “If someone bothers to do a survey of geoscientists and engineers, make sure you do NOT find out what that survey says because that’s just wrong.”
No, it doesn’t mean they are wrong, just not authoritative.
mkfreeberg: Perhaps because…
Are you claiming that engineers would know as much or more about the results of a collider experiment than particle scientists? Seriously?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 10:20Are you claiming that engineers would know as much or more about the results of a collider experiment than particle scientists? Seriously?
No. And, it is interesting how you seem to think these fine distinctions are all-important, no matter how fine they are — but only in certain contexts.
I think the engineers are the implementers. Which is correct. And as such, they labor under a work discipline to understand how all the parts fit together, and how they work, equal to or greater than the work discipline imposed on the scientists, who primarily work with ideas.
Some of these ideas are found through experimentation, which is the nature of science. But other ideas are found through the experimentation of other scientists. So the scientists have the luxury of working as “intellectuals,” as Thomas Sowell defines the term, as one whose work begins in the realm of ideas and ends there as well, and thus is not tested against reality. There are exceptions to this when the scientists do their own experimentation, to be sure, but much of their work has to do with taking the word of other scientists. Engineers, on the other hand, have to test how their work is functioning, at each step. Point is, as far as conceptual command, and validating that conceptual command up against practice, engineers are at least as disciplined as scientists.
Central question is: Should we disregard this study that makes a point of surveying engineers, along with scientists who are specifically working within the field. The point you seem to be trying to make as that this question is resolved in the affirmative. And yet all you’ve shown is that you have a disdain for engineers that you think others should share. Evidently, for no better reason than this survey has generated a consensus you don’t happen to appreciate.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 10:35mkfreeberg: And, it is interesting how you seem to think these fine distinctions are all-important, no matter how fine they are — but only in certain contexts.
The original post concerned an appeal to authority. To be valid, the authority should be making a statement within their area of expertise. Therefore, it is important to your original post.
mkfreeberg: I think the engineers are the implementers.
They make ‘implements’, yes.
mkfreeberg: And as such, they labor under a work discipline to understand how all the parts fit together, and how they work, equal to or greater than the work discipline imposed on the scientists, who primarily work with ideas.
That is false. Scientists do not only work with ideas. They also observe and experiment.
mkfreeberg: So the scientists have the luxury of working as “intellectuals,” as Thomas Sowell defines the term, as one whose work begins in the realm of ideas and ends there as well, and thus is not tested against reality.
That is false. Testing scientific theories is part of the scientific method. When paleontologists travel to the wastelands of the Arctic or Sahara to find fossils, when a scientist sets up a radio-telescope at the South Pole to observe details of the Big Bang, when a British astronomer travels to the South Pacific to fix the size of the Solar System, when a naturalist sails around the world collecting evidence that will transform biology, this is science.
George Smoot whose work beings in the realm of ideas and ends up, well, not in his armchair.
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/spectrum/SP91S1_m.JPG
mkfreeberg: Central question is: Should we disregard this study that makes a point of surveying engineers, along with scientists who are specifically working within the field.
As an appeal to authority on climate science, you have to disregard engineers. That makes the survey invalid.
mkfreeberg: And yet all you’ve shown is that you have a disdain for engineers
Anything but. If you want to know about engineering, you ask engineers.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 10:52That is false. Scientists do not only work with ideas. They also observe and experiment.
I accounted for this. Note the use of the word “primarily.” You should probably go back and read it again.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/it-is-consistent-however-with-common-sense/#comment-18746
That is false. Testing scientific theories is part of the scientific method.
Accounted for this as well. Go back and read it again.
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/it-is-consistent-however-with-common-sense/#comment-18746
When paleontologists travel to the wastelands of the Arctic or Sahara to find fossils, when a scientist sets up a radio-telescope at the South Pole to observe details of the Big Bang, when a British astronomer travels to the South Pacific to fix the size of the Solar System, when a naturalist sails around the world collecting evidence that will transform biology, this is science.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule#Scientific_sense
And: http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/it-is-consistent-however-with-common-sense/#comment-18746
As an appeal to authority on climate science, you have to disregard engineers. That makes the survey invalid.
Okay, thanks for pointing that out. You live in a reality that enforces validity, by disregarding the people who work with reality for a living — therefore, it isn’t reality as the rest of us know it and live it.
Anything but. If you want to know about engineering, you ask engineers.
And this is the part you’re not picking up: Engineering is not like pouring milk on cereal. In a perfect world, you could get it all done by following the instructions, comprehending little or nothing about the underlying concepts. But, instructions are imperfect. And even in situations where they happen to be perfect, which are quite rare (although you seem to be entirely unprepared for it turning out any other way), if you can find a way to do engineering without understanding the concepts then you aren’t doing it right.
Engineers are responsible for how it all behaves. To do that, they also have to be responsible for understanding how it all works. By saying the study should be invalidated for failing to disregard engineers, you’ve revealed you don’t understand engineering.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 11:01mkfreeberg: Note the use of the word “primarily.” You should probably go back and read it again.
Not even primarily. Pure theorists are the minority of scientists. Even then, theories are constrained by
observation, though not always contemporaneously.
mkfreeberg: You live in a reality that enforces validity, by disregarding the people who work with reality for a living — therefore, it isn’t reality as the rest of us know it and live it.
Your false premise is that science is not constrained by ‘reality’. In any case, please don’t ignore engineers. If you have a question about engineering, then ask an engineer.
mkfreeberg: In a perfect world, you could get it all done by following the instructions, comprehending little or nothing about the underlying concepts. But, instructions are imperfect. And even in situations where they happen to be perfect, which are quite rare (although you seem to be entirely unprepared for it turning out any other way), if you can find a way to do engineering without understanding the concepts then you aren’t doing it right.
Engineers do far more than “follow the instructions”, and are trained in the basics of science, but that doesn’t make them scientists, and certainly doesn’t make them climate scientists. Do you even understand how to assess an appeal to authority?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 11:15Pure theorists are the minority of scientists.
I didn’t even mention “pure theorists.”
http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/it-is-consistent-however-with-common-sense/#comment-18746
Your false premise is that science is not constrained by ‘reality’.
Evidently, my false premise is that you want this survey disregarded out of concern for some careful distinction among the scientific disciplines and what they’re all about. When common sense says, you want this survey disregarded because you don’t like its conclusion.
Do you even understand how to assess an appeal to authority?
Yeah. You don’t take it seriously because it’s a logical fallacy.
And as this exercise has shown, people who want to have some kind of credibility placed in appeals to authority, have a pretty crisp idea in mind about what is to be concluded from accepting them, therefore will want to come up with thin rationale by which this appeal should be accepted, and that appeal should be rejected. That’s what makes them logical fallacies. You can’t really use them to logically ponder the meaning of what has been measured. By their very structure, they are opposed to that process, since their whole purpose for existence can be summed up as “just stop thinking about it, and believe what this guy says, over here.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 11:39mkfreeberg: Evidently, my false premise is that you want this survey disregarded out of concern for some careful distinction among the scientific disciplines and what they’re all about.
Your false premise is saying that scientists are those “whose work begins in the realm of ideas and ends there as well, and thus is not tested against reality.” That is simply false. All science is tested against reality. Even pure theoreticians expect their claims to be tested against observation.
mkfreeberg: When common sense says, you want this survey disregarded because you don’t like its conclusion.
The survey was specifically designed to test non-experts in climate science.
mkfreeberg: You don’t take it seriously because it’s a logical fallacy.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
We’re provided citations previously.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 11:59mkfreeberg: By their very structure, they are opposed to that process, since their whole purpose for existence can be summed up as “just stop thinking about it, and believe what this guy says, over here.”
Not at all. The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 12:00Your false premise is saying that scientists are those “whose work begins in the realm of ideas and ends there as well, and thus is not tested against reality.” That is simply false.
Actually, if you go and check the complete context, you’ll see I didn’t say all scientists qualify for this definition. My point is that none of the engineers do.
Your claim is that “…you have to disregard engineers. [Otherwise] that makes the survey invalid.” This is a very strong statement. It rests completely on anti-science, relying as it does on the notion that one becomes wiser by deflecting knowledge away, as opposed to by absorbing it and making the best use of it in whatever form it is found.
My counterclaim is that when your method of thinking these things out collides with the experience of someone who’s done work in the field, your method of thinking consistently loses out, is consistently exposed as unworkable. In my case that would be computer software science versus computer software engineering…I’m not a computer scientist, per se, but I’ve done computer science to the extent that I know what it’s about, which is a prerequisite to doing any computer software engineering, which is something I’ve done.
To say: For a survey to be authoritative, it must disregard software engineers entirely and use the opinions only of computer scientists — otherwise, the survey is invalid — would be silly, abject nonsense. The experience of a professional who has designed and implemented a container is vastly superior to the experience of one who has only studied up on it, and repeated what he studied…no matter how prestigious and renowned a scientist he may be. As is the case with all realms of science, one learns by doing. Read a scientific journal sometime. Read a research paper. They do some experimentation, yes, but they start with theories of other scientists. Sometimes to test it, sometimes merely to cite it. It’s a mixed bag. Sure, it should all have to do with some experimentation on something, otherwise what’s the point.
But in the end, your very strong claim doesn’t work because the opinions of engineers are not contaminating information, they are just as valid as the scientists. Further, it is not clear that there is any conflict between what the engineers say and what the scientists say. The only evidence we have for that, is a survey result that you don’t like. So before we even get to the silly things you are saying, we have to reckon with the fact that you’re drawing some silly conclusions.
The survey was specifically designed to test non-experts in climate science.
That is false. Go read it again: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/021513-644725-geoscientists-engineers-dont-believe-in-climate-change.htm?p=full
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 12:22mkfreeberg: Actually, if you go and check the complete context, you’ll see I didn’t say all scientists qualify for this definition. My point is that none of the engineers do.
The worth of all scientific claims are measured against observations. Einstein was a pure a theoretician as could be, and his Theory of General Relativity was confirmed by an expedition to Africa to measure the bending of light around the Sun during an eclipse.
On the other hand, some engineers never leave their office.
mkfreeberg: Your claim is that “…you have to disregard engineers. [Otherwise] that makes the survey invalid.”
It doesn’t make the survey invalid. The survey is the survey. It makes any appeal to authority invalid.
mkfreeberg: For a survey to be authoritative, it must disregard software engineers entirely and use the opinions only of computer scientists — otherwise, the survey is invalid — would be silly, abject nonsense.
Authoritative about what? If you want an expert opinion on computer software engineering, you talk to computer software engineers.
mkfreeberg: But in the end, your very strong claim doesn’t work because the opinions of engineers are not contaminating information, they are just as valid as the scientists.
Of course the opinions of engineers matter. However, they are not authoritative on scientific questions.
mkfreeberg: Further, it is not clear that there is any conflict between what the engineers say and what the scientists say.
That’s fine, but that would require polling actual climate scientists.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 13:06It makes any appeal to authority invalid.
No more invalid than any other appeal to authority.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 13:14mkfreeberg: No more invalid than any other appeal to authority.
So your pizza delivery person’s opinion on medicine is just as likely to be correct as a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic, and your plumber’s opinion on quantum physics is right up there with the team of physicists at CERN? Good to know.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 13:22Didn’t say that. Once again, your fondness for details is seen to be situationally selective.
I would say, however, that if I was hiking a trail that was sufficiently challenging that getting help became just the smart thing to do, I’d probably seek the expertise of a trail guide who’d been hiking that trail, than a geologist who’d made a study of the fault lines nearby.
But to reiterate, your claim was extremely strong. You went way beyond saying that scientists know what they’re talking about, or know the subject matter as well as or better than the engineers. You said the survey should be invalidated because they failed to keep the engineers out of the survey.
You have yet to provide any support for this, good or bad.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 13:26mkfreeberg: Didn’t say that.
That’s what constitutes an appeal to authority. It’s an inductive argument that experts in a field are more likely to be correct about claims within their field of study than non-experts. We detailed the criteria several times.
mkfreeberg: I would say, however, that if I was hiking a trail that was sufficiently challenging that getting help became just the smart thing to do, I’d probably seek the expertise of a trail guide who’d been hiking that trail, than a geologist who’d made a study of the fault lines nearby.
That’s right. Because a trail guide is more likely to know the trail, though the geologist may know the trail somewhat. (It’s not such a complex subject.)
mkfreeberg: You went way beyond saying that scientists know what they’re talking about, or know the subject matter as well as or better than the engineers.
We said that scientists are experts at science within their particular field, and engineers are experts at engineering in their particular field.
mkfreeberg: You said the survey should be invalidated because they failed to keep the engineers out of the survey.
There’s nothing wrong with the survey. But the survey doesn’t constitute a valid appeal to authority on the topic of climate science.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 13:38We detailed the criteria several times.
Yeah, you tend to detail lots of things several times, a consequence of not taking sufficient care to define the point of question or disagreement. The criteria is not being subjected to inspection here, what’s being scrutinized is the goal.
Ask the scientists and not the engineers…in order to…what? You can ask the scientists only, and end up wrong. You can certainly ask the engineers, and get an answer back that turns out to be right. Neither one of those are remote scenarios. Once again, we see you have some kind of rule in mind, your point rests on the rule, but there’s no rhyme or reason to it and there’s no definable benefit to following it. We’ve been here before quite a few times.
That’s right. Because a trail guide is more likely to know the trail, though the geologist may know the trail somewhat. (It’s not such a complex subject.)
Riiiiiight…I think I’ll stick with the trail guide.
We said that scientists are experts at science within their particular field, and engineers are experts at engineering in their particular field.
And, the engineer has to know about the science. Not just achieve a passing acquaintance with it, but achieve functional knowledge of it. So it remains unclear what advantage is to be achieved by leaving them out of the survey…or, how the survey is diminished in credibility when the engineers are not left out of it. It’s still looking like you said something silly that can’t be supported.
There’s nothing wrong with the survey. But the survey doesn’t constitute a valid appeal to authority on the topic of climate science.
Well, insomuch as the survey is an appeal to authority, it suffers just as much as any other, but no more than that. Appeals to authority are correctly classified as logical fallacies.
I guess what’s happening here, is you’re starting to get wise to why it’s a good idea to think of them that way.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 14:03mkfreeberg: Ask the scientists and not the engineers…in order to…what?
If you want a scientific opinion.
mkfreeberg: You can ask the scientists only, and end up wrong.
Sure you can, but scientists, when speaking within their specialty, are more likely to be right than non-scientists.
mkfreeberg: I think I’ll stick with the trail guide.
You just made an appeal to authority.
mkfreeberg: And, the engineer has to know about the science. Not just achieve a passing acquaintance with it, but achieve functional knowledge of it.
That is incorrect. The engineer who built the rocket probably doesn’t have the same understanding of astrophysics as the scientist who will be using the space telescope the rocket launched.
mkfreeberg: Appeals to authority are correctly classified as logical fallacies.
Are a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If so, then that is a valid appeal to authority. An appeal to authority can be fallacious, but not necessarily. Everyone uses appeals to authority—even scientists.
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 14:31If you want a scientific opinion.
As has been examined elsewhere, it is highly debatable whether “What is the Earth’s climate going to do in a hundred years?” is a scientific question. If it’s a valid question at all, it certainly is hard to categorize it any more as a scientific one than an engineering one.
Sure you can, but scientists, when speaking within their specialty, are more likely to be right than non-scientists.
“Being right” isn’t even a goal of science. Science has more to do with developing and building on an understanding of nature.
You just made an appeal to authority.
If I’m going to make one, might as well make it the right one.
That is incorrect. The engineer who built the rocket probably doesn’t have the same understanding of astrophysics as the scientist who will be using the space telescope the rocket launched.
Okay then. You just keep right on telling yourselves that.
An appeal to authority can be fallacious, but not necessarily. Everyone uses appeals to authority—even scientists.
Assertions don’t have to be provably or certainly false, in order to be logically fallacious.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 14:52mkfreeberg: If it’s a valid question at all, it certainly is hard to categorize it any more as a scientific one than an engineering one.
Of course it’s a scientific question, theoretical explanations will be proposed and entailed predictions tested through observation, a.k.a. the scientific method; as opposed to engineering which applies science for useful purposes.
–
“Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the universe and organizing and condensing that knowledge into testable laws and theories.”
Engineering is “the application of science and mathematics by which the properties of matter and the sources of energy in nature are made useful to people.”
Zachriel: The engineer who built the rocket probably doesn’t have the same understanding of astrophysics as the scientist who will be using the space telescope the rocket launched.
mkfreeberg: Okay then. You just keep right on telling yourselves that.
Heh. Sure that’s convincing to most people.
mkfreeberg: Assertions don’t have to be provably or certainly false, in order to be logically fallacious.
You didn’t answer, Are a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 16:01The engineer who built the rocket probably doesn’t have the same understanding of astrophysics as the scientist who will be using the space telescope the rocket launched
Pop quiz, hotshot: building a rocket : using a telescope :: astrophysics : ________ ?
A) wtf? this is an apples to oranges comparison
B) no, seriously, wtf?
C) I mean, c’mon, dude, what the everloving fuck?
D) All of the above
The correct answer, for the record, is D.
I’m shocked that a “scientist” such as yourself(-selves) would have to be educated on such a basic point.
Or, to be more correct, I’m not at all shocked.
Nice try, though.
- Severian | 02/20/2013 @ 16:01You didn’t answer, Are a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street?
Two reasons: One, “more likely than the average person on the street” is not a good test, not germane to what we’re talking about. Two, you’re talking in circles. If the test is “likely to understand,” then I’m sure even you’d concede the engineers are going to take the cake here since that’s…ya know…the job. But you had previously said the concern was about making it a valid appeal to authority.
And let us pause here to reiterate your original claim: You did not say an appeal to authority is valid when the scientists are consulted. You did not say you have to consult scientists to form a valid appeal to authority. You did not even stop at saying scientists outrank engineers in speaking authoritatively about something.
You said the appeal to authority becomes invalidated when steps are not taken to systematically exclude engineers.
You have yet to provide justification for this, good or otherwise.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 17:31mkfreeberg: One, “more likely than the average person on the street” is not a good test, not germane to what we’re talking about.
You said “Appeals to authority are correctly classified as logical fallacies.” We provided an example of an appeal to authority. If all appeals to authority are fallacies, then it doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about engineers, doctors, or people who do cross-stitch.
mkfreeberg: You did not even stop at saying scientists outrank engineers in speaking authoritatively about something.
Well, that’s certainly not true. Engineers, not scientists, are authoritative when expressing a consensus within their field of engineering.
mkfreeberg: You said the appeal to authority becomes invalidated when steps are not taken to systematically exclude engineers.
That is simply not the position we expressed. These are a couple of our previous statements. How can you still be confused on this point?
Zachriel: {Engineers} know a lot about engineering, not so much about particle physics or cosmology, as it is outside their specialty.
Zachriel: If you want to know the current state of scientific knowledge in a field, you talk to a scientist. If you want to build a bridge, you hire an engineer. If you have a cough, you call your doctor. If your commode backs up, you call a plumber. They are all good and all contribute something important.
Engineers are authoritative when expressing a consensus about engineering within their specialty.
mkfreeberg: Two, you’re talking in circles.
Please answer the question so that we can move on. Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
- Zachriel | 02/20/2013 @ 18:25mkfreeberg: You said the appeal to authority becomes invalidated when steps are not taken to systematically exclude engineers.
Z: That is simply not the position we expressed. These are a couple of our previous statements. How can you still be confused on this point?
Hmmm…I suppose if something’s confusing me, it could be your own statement:
As an appeal to authority on climate science, you have to disregard engineers. That makes the survey invalid.
So clue me in. What is the meaningful difference between “you have to disregard engineers…[and since that wasn’t done] that makes the survey invalid” — and — “appeal to authority becomes invalidated when steps are not taken to systematically exclude engineers”?
This should be good.
- mkfreeberg | 02/20/2013 @ 18:38mkfreeberg: What is the meaningful difference between “you have to disregard engineers…[and since that wasn’t done] that makes the survey invalid”
Sorry. It should have been clear in context, but was poorly stated. We thought we had clarified it already, but we’ll do so again. It makes the appeal to authority invalid.
In any case, is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 04:02Alright, then, I think I see what you’re saying about appeal to authority. We have a simple disagreement there because to me, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy; it’s fallacious. Not that this means it is guaranteed-false by any stretch. Nor are you guaranteed to arrive at the correct answer by simply avoiding them. The test is, when you think responsibly, and you can support a point by way of logical fallacy and you can also support it by some alternative means, should you select the alternative. To me, that is the practical meaning of fallacy, and appeal to authority fits this. You don’t make it “valid” by following some bullet-point list of rules. It is something to be avoided in any case.
It seems to me you are proceeding from a false premise, that the question on the survey is a scientific one and not an engineering one. Definition of engineering from Britannica:
Given this definition, no, the engineers would not be commenting outside their field of expertise.
In addition to that false premise, you are also operating on an unfounded premise that the reason the survey turned out the way it did, had something to do with the inclusion of these engineers. As I stated previously, this has not been established. If I’ve managed to keep my place here, the only reason we’re speculating on this is that other surveys have assured us of this overwhelming “scientific consensus” presumably without including any engineers, and this one came up with a different result by polling “geoscientists and engineers.” If I had to guess, though, I’d say the reason for the different result is that this survey was more precise about making sure the experts surveyed were experts in the field, whereas the other ones might have been more fast-and-loose about defining “in the field.” Medical doctors, invited to participate under the assumption that global warming is a pressing health issue. Lawyers who represent climate scientists. Or, properly credentialed climate scientists, but fresh out of college and highly inexperienced, and not very studied on anything at all save for green propaganda. I’ve heard it said that there are some of those running around out there.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2013 @ 06:45mkfreeberg: Given this definition, no, the engineers would not be commenting outside their field of expertise.
If appeals to authority are always fallacious, then none of this matters.
The statement is clearly referring to human-made machines, and does not apply to unknown natural systems such as the Earth’s climate. Even most scientists aren’t qualified in climate science. A quantum physicist is not an expert on climate science. And a chemist is not an expert in evolutionary biology.
mkfreeberg: In addition to that false premise, you are also operating on an unfounded premise that the reason the survey turned out the way it did, had something to do with the inclusion of these engineers.
We made no such assumption. We merely pointed out that a survey of engineers on climate science is not a valid appeal to authority, and has no impact on the claim of a consensus in climate science.
mkfreeberg: We have a simple disagreement there because to me, a logical fallacy is a logical fallacy; it’s fallacious.
Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 12:12If appeals to authority are always fallacious, then none of this matters.
Well, you’re mostly right about that. And that’s exactly what we’re studying here, as I’ve stated: Logically, they just don’t work because here’s another “consensus” among “experts,” and you’re slipping on your own wet diapers, grasping for straws, speculating recklessly, trying to come up with some rationale by which the “consensus” you like can be included, and the “consensus” you don’t like can somehow be wheedled out. In short, you want to factor these inconsistently, and try to sell this idea that you’re being somehow consistent.
The statement is clearly referring to human-made machines, and does not apply to unknown natural systems such as the Earth’s climate. Even most scientists aren’t qualified in climate science. A quantum physicist is not an expert on climate science. And a chemist is not an expert in evolutionary biology.
Uh huh, back to the thing about engineers not knowing what they’re talking about. Well, Google is our friend. First, to your criteria:
I just Googled, with quotes around it, “The cited authority has sufficient expertise”. I got back absolutely nothing but a whole bunch of posts from around the blogosphere by one Zachriel, going back to 2007 and before.
Now perhaps you’ve provided a citation for these bullet points about how to make an appeal to authority valid, and I missed it. But from what I’ve seen and what I’m able to recall, you, a consortium of associated individuals of unknown number, refusing to reveal their quantity or their association or their identities, evidently just pulled this five-bullet method out of your butts. And it’s about to cost me and several others trillions of dollars of “green tax” and/or regulatory-compliance money, throughout our lives. For that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable to ask for a cite.
But — onward, to climate engineers. it seems the climate engineers do, after all, meet your criteria whether you can cite them or not:
So you want to know if a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic is more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street. Well gosh, not sure how that’s relevant. Now that you know what a climate engineer is, I’m sure you’d agree that by participating in this survey, they’re considerably more authoritative than an “average person on the street” would be about a medical problem. Right? Or do we have to have an argument about that, too…
This is looking more and more like a game of Jenga. Except you’re removing the pieces from the bottom layer, of your own tower…it’s getting very tippy now.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2013 @ 14:16mkfreeberg: Now perhaps you’ve provided a citation for these bullet points about how to make an appeal to authority valid, and I missed it.
mkfreeberg: it seems the climate engineers do, after all, meet your criteria whether you can cite them or not
Note they don’t evaluate climate science, but use existing scientific knowledge and apply it. They are a secondary source. However, climate engineers would presumably be familiar with climate science. The problem is that climate science is not sufficiently advanced for it to be prudent to engage in climate engineering, so at this point, climate engineering is an undeveloped field.
You’re getting closer.
mkfreeberg: So you want to know if a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic is more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street.
You forgot to answer the question.
- Zachriel | 02/21/2013 @ 14:47We have two sets of knowledgeable experts, arriving at entirely different conclusions from each other, when the consensus among each group is scientifically measured.
This shows Gensler’s idea has some problems. Perhaps it was just as well to leave it as it was before he came along: Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If it’s possible to prove a point by some other means, the responsible arguer is going to use those other means, and the responsible thinker is going to seek out those other means of substantiating the point.
You forgot to answer the question.\
That statement is false. I did, however, remember to show that it’s entirely irrelevant.
- mkfreeberg | 02/21/2013 @ 18:59mkfreeberg: This shows Gensler’s idea has some problems.
Sure. The guy who wrote the book on logic doesn’t understand logic.
Philosophical Society: An appeal to authority is ordinarily one good way to buttress a line of thought. The practice becomes fallacious when one of the following happens: the authority is not an expert in the field in which one is speaking; the allusion to authority masks the fact that experts may be divided down the middle on the subject; no explicit reference is made to the authority.
mkfreeberg: We have two sets of knowledgeable experts, arriving at entirely different conclusions from each other, when the consensus among each group is scientifically measured.
If you have two groups of scientists in a specialty arriving at different conclusions, then there is no consensus, therefore the appeal to authority would indicate so. Generally, that would include the plausible range of possible answers, while still excluding poppycock. That’s the not case with the Lefsrud & Meyer survey, which included the opinions of non-scientists on a scientific question.
Zachriel: You forgot to answer the question.
mkfreeberg: That statement is false.
We apologize as we must have missed it. Please answer directly. Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 06:01Sure. The guy who wrote the book on logic doesn’t understand logic.
Oh my. What a low bar you have. A book, that’s all it takes?
There is this thing called practice. You just did it. You used practice to test Gensler’s idea; what you found is, when the appeal to authority is treated as a valid argument, you can continue to defend it but you can only do so by engaging yet another informal fallacy. “The clear consensus among climate experts is blah blah blah,” “Oh yeah, well here’s a survey where they say something different…” “The clear consensus among REAL climate experts is blah blah blah.” So you declare a known logical fallacy is not fallacious, because you read it in a book somewhere — at the end of the day you have to support this by operating from another fallacy. So it doesn’t work. That’s important, you know…whether things work? So the test is not whether you saw them written in a published book, it’s whether they work.
You’re not alone in this, it’s how people learn. You’ve heard the saying, good judgment is the result of experience, experience is the result of bad judgment…now you’ve got some experience. The decision about whether to learn from it or not, is yours.
Zachriel: You forgot to answer the question.
mkfreeberg: That statement is false.
We apologize as we must have missed it. Please answer directly.
I didn’t say “you didn’t answer the question” is false; I said “you forgot” is false. The question is absolutely irrelevant, for the reasons already given.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 07:08mkfreeberg: Oh my. What a low bar you have. A book, that’s all it takes?
A textbook on logic, plus encyclopedias, philosophical societies, university curricula, etc.
mkfreeberg: The question is absolutely irrelevant, for the reasons already given.
Of course it’s relevant as we’re discussing appeals to authority and we are presenting it as a possible appeal to authority. Your answer will help determine whether it is a valid appeal, or whether any such appeal can be valid.
Everyone knows the answer to these questions you refuse to answer: Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
Why not venture an answer, and let’s see where it leads.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 07:46Of course it’s relevant as we’re discussing appeals to authority and we are presenting it as a possible appeal to authority. Your answer will help determine whether it is a valid appeal, or whether any such appeal can be valid…Why not venture an answer, and let’s see where it leads.
You initiate these discussions with your own interpretation of what the other person is saying? With zero recognition of the possibility you might have misunderstood.
I’ve got a much better idea. How about — since it seems you get all your information out of books, and don’t value the practical learn-from-experience thing the way other people value it — we first come to an agreement about what the other person is saying. We might start with the recognition that terms like “invalid,” “fallacious” and “false” all have different meanings.
But in the meantime, we should recognize what’s happened up until now. Appeal to authority is a recognized informal fallacy of logic. You read in a book somewhere that, with five bullet points properly satisfied, the fallacious can be made non-fallacious (or, “valid”). You’ve spent six years educating the Internet about this, and now you find when you act on this, you end up trying to shore up your fallacious argument by way of another logical fallacy. Which is a sign, at least, that you might be running down a cul de sac, and the advice you read from this book either wasn’t well thought-out, or wasn’t properly interpreted. Can we agree that this is, at least, a red flag for that?
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 07:52mkfreeberg: You initiate these discussions with your own interpretation of what the other person is saying?
mkfreeberg (from original post): They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
You made a claim concerning an appeal to authority, that there is no consensus.
mkfreeberg: We might start with the recognition that terms like “invalid,” “fallacious” and “false” all have different meanings.
Yes, they do.
mkfreeberg: Appeal to authority is a recognized informal fallacy of logic.
No. It’s a fallacy of formal logic of the form, So-and-so says so, therefore it must be true. However, it is a valid inductive argument in that experts are more likely right than wrong about subjects within their particular specialty.
Now, try and answer this simple question. Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 08:46No. [Appeal to authority is] a fallacy of formal logic of the form, So-and-so says so, therefore it must be true.
Ah, now we come to the heart of it. There are all sorts of things potentially wrong with appeal to authority, it can be a fallacy both formal and informal. My objection to it more has to do with its overlap with red herring fallacies, which are informal. Therefore, whether the argument is “valid” is not relevant to the objection.
However, it is a valid inductive argument in that experts are more likely right than wrong about subjects within their particular specialty.
Likelihood is not the issue. If you think they’re likely to be right, you have every right in the world to think so, but you go down that road without me. Just speaking for myself, I consider fallacies to be fallacious whether they’re informal or formal.
Now, try and answer this simple question. Is a team of doctors at the Mayo Clinic more likely to understand a medical problem than the average person on the street? If someone has a medical condition, would you recommend a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages?
Irrelevant. As stated before, likelihood is not the issue.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 10:17mkfreeberg: Ah, now we come to the heart of it. There are all sorts of things potentially wrong with appeal to authority, it can be a fallacy both formal and informal.
No, “the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.”
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/
The strength of the argument depends on the expertise of authority, the degree of consensus, the validity of the field of study, and so on.
In any case, you are apparently unable to answer a simple question that is directly relevant to whether or not “there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 10:22No, “the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited…The strength of the argument depends on the expertise of authority, the degree of consensus, the validity of the field of study, and so on. ”
So it seems your quoted material says one thing, and experience and common sense say the opposite.
Thanks. I’ll go with experience and common sense.
In any case, you are apparently unable to answer a simple question that is directly relevant to whether or not “there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
So…to sell “man is causing climate change” we need to pretend that different things (can’t versus won’t) are the same. It could still be true, but it isn’t very convincing that we have to step into some kind of pretend world in order to make it look convincing.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 10:31When someone consistently builds a reputation with me for expertise and intellectual integrity and experience with a topic, I’ll often take his word for something I find too difficult to understand or that I don’t have time to research for myself. “Authority” is a provisional status that he has with me. He can lose it, if I catch him too often in a boner. He can even lose it if his responses to my questions are vague or unsatisfactory. Maybe he’s right, maybe he’s wrong, and maybe he’s just not good at explaining himself, but he stops being of any use to me as an authority. I’ll look elsewhere for authority, or I’ll figure the issue out for myself, or I’ll live with not knowing the answer for the time being.
In an institution tolerates and protects too many individual “experts” who violate these precepts, the institution forfeits my trust and, usually, my attention as well.
At that point, whether it’s a logical or formal or informal fallacy to argue to authority, I just don’t care. I know it’s a waste of my time. There are few surer indications that someone is wasting my time than to try to get me to accept someone as an authority after failing all the tests I outlined in the first paragraph. At that point, if he keeps arguing to authority and can’t make sense on his own, he just doesn’t get any more of my attention. He’s lost his voice. He might as well be mute.
It’s not as though he could parse definitions in such a way as to re-create lost credibility.
- Texan99 | 02/22/2013 @ 10:31mkfreeberg: So…to sell “man is causing climate change” we need to pretend that different things (can’t versus won’t) are the same.
We’re not actually discussing climate change, but your claim concerning “a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
mkfreeberg: So it seems your quoted material says one thing, and experience and common sense say the opposite.
Common sense would suggest that you won’t answer a simple question because you fear the answer.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 10:55We’re not actually discussing climate change, but your claim concerning “a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
Right, that consensus has been debunked, and in order to continue propping it up you have to indulge in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Common sense would suggest that you won’t answer a simple question because you fear the answer.
Or, because the question is irrelevant. As Texan99 tried to point out to you, some of us do not make decisions about what to believe based on what’s written down in rulebooks…we use common sense. Hence the title of the original post.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 10:59mkfreeberg: Right, that consensus has been debunked, and in order to continue propping it up you have to indulge in the No True Scotsman fallacy.
There’s no point discussing when an appeal to authority fails if they are always fallacious.
mkfreeberg: As Texan99 tried to point out to you, some of us do not make decisions about what to believe based on what’s written down in rulebooks…
If someone has a serious medical condition, would you recommend they consult a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages? Or would you recommend they use their common sense to treat their serious medical condition?
mkfreeberg: Or, because the question is irrelevant.
Most readers know we asked a reasonable question concerning when an appeal to authority is valid.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 11:28If someone has a serious medical condition, would you recommend they consult a doctor, an astrophysicist, or a scholar of Indo-European languages? Or would you recommend they use their common sense to treat their serious medical condition?
Why, I would recommend they consult their doctor and rely on their common sense, seeking a second opinion if it seems logical to do so. Would you recommend they rely only on the one doctor, and abjure their own common sense entirely from the process?
Most readers know we asked a reasonable question concerning when an appeal to authority is valid.
If that is true, then they’d be wrong. I was very clear in making the point that this had nothing to do with probability or likelihood; you’ve never directly addressed that, opting instead to do your “we’ll keep asking as inevitably as the sun rises” thing on this question which I defined rationally as entirely irrelevant. Most people would say that’s not reasonable.
At any rate: Your own source makes it clear that appeal to authority has the potential of being a formal and informal fallacy, yet when I correctly pointed out that appeal to authority can be an informal fallacy, you said “No…” Are you now willing to acknowledge your error?
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 12:16mkfreeberg: Why, I would recommend they consult their doctor and rely on their common sense, seeking a second opinion if it seems logical to do so.
Good. That’s called an appeal to authority.
No one says to abjure common sense. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, so not only does the strength of the argument have to be evaluated, but it has to be balanced with other possible arguments and evidence. That’s called judgment.
So to return to your original point. We have the common appeal to authority based on a claimed consensus of climate scientists. You attack this appeal by saying there is no such consensus:
mkfreeberg: The global warming alarmists repeat the line endlessly. They claim that there is a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change. Fact is, they’re not even close.
Yet, the survey doesn’t include just scientists, but engineers, as well. You do point out that there is a field called climate engineering. However, this field is underdeveloped, and has never actually engineered anything, so it hardly constitutes an expert field of study as yet. In any case, the vast majority of engineers in the survey are not climate engineers, climate scientists, or anything close. This survey does nothing to undermine the claim of “a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 12:49Most readers know we asked a reasonable question concerning when an appeal to authority is valid.
Oh, I dunno…. most readers of this blog probably just find it funny that the guy who is always cutting-and-pasting his stock Galileo quotes is so dogmatically asserting the infallibility of “authority.”
Let’s try the Socratic method: if you’d had a question about astronomy in 1631 and you asked a consensus of “authorities” if the earth moved, what do you think they’d say?
- Severian | 02/22/2013 @ 13:54Yet, the survey doesn’t include just scientists, but engineers, as well. You do point out that there is a field called climate engineering. However, this field is underdeveloped, and has never actually engineered anything, so it hardly constitutes an expert field of study as yet. In any case, the vast majority of engineers in the survey are not climate engineers, climate scientists, or anything close. This survey does nothing to undermine the claim of “a consensus among scientists that man is causing climate change”.
You’ve made a subjective determination that the engineers shouldn’t count, using lots of thin rationalizations to support this. A reasonable person might very well disagree.And the survey does do something to undermine the claim of consensus. So you’re wrong about that.
Other than those two problems, your comment is perfect.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 15:40Also, you forgot to answer the question about you acknowledging the error you made: An appeal to authority has the potential of being both a formal and informal logical fallacy. This is significant, since the word “valid” which you’ve chosen to use, is used only to declare that an argument is free of formal fallacies, while it generally does not make any declaration about the absence of any informal fallacies.
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 16:10Severian: asserting the infallibility of “authority.”
Sorry, that is not our position. Appeals to authority are inductive arguments, and experts are not infallible. We have stated this many times throughout the thread.
mkfreeberg: You’ve made a subjective determination that the engineers shouldn’t count, using lots of thin rationalizations to support this.
Few engineers are trained in climate science, much less publish research in climate science.
mkfreeberg: A reasonable person might very well disagree.And the survey does do something to undermine the claim of consensus.
Scientific consensus does not require unanimity. Even if you included your subgroup, it would be a non-representative sampling of the entire climate science community.
mkfreeberg: An appeal to authority has the potential of being both a formal and informal logical fallacy.
You had said, “Appeal to authority is a recognized informal fallacy of logic”; however, “The informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited.” Not sure how to be more clear. It’s not as if we haven’t explained it many times previously.
mkfreeberg: This is significant, since the word “valid” which you’ve chosen to use, is used only to declare that an argument is free of formal fallacies, while it generally does not make any declaration about the absence of any informal fallacies.
An appeal to authority is an inductive argument that depends on certain criteria. If it doesn’t meet those criteria, then it’s not a valid argument.
- Zachriel | 02/22/2013 @ 18:27Few engineers are trained in climate science, much less publish research in climate science.
Nevertheless, you have put up your five bullet points about how an appeal to authority can be valid. The engineers do meet your own criteria. You don’t get to make up new rules on the spot, since you’ve been putting up those same five bullet points since at least 2007. They must count for something, must they not?
- mkfreeberg | 02/22/2013 @ 19:50mkfreeberg: Nevertheless, you have put up your five bullet points about how an appeal to authority can be valid. The engineers do meet your own criteria.
Engineers to do not meet the criterion as an authority on climate science.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 05:52mkfreeberg: Nevertheless, you have put up your five bullet points about how an appeal to authority can be valid.
The criteria we have posted are standard, and we have provided multiple sources.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 05:55Okay let’s see. You have put up your five bullet points that are “standard.” The bullet points define how an appeal to authority is “valid.” From that, it seems we are to find we have an obligation — although you haven’t come out and stated this, it seems your argument is based on this — to believe what the authority says, uncritically. As Severian has pointed out (and I don’t see you responding) this would have obliged us to believe in the geocentric universe before Galileo’s time, since the authorities of that era would have met your criteria. And I think we can safely conclude that they wouldn’t have been too keen on Galileo’s idea since, well, they weren’t.
But “valid” has a specific meaning. This is where it gets into formal and informal fallacies. You’re probably aware that a formal fallacy has something to do with form of an argument, like a flawed syllogism. Informal is more like sloppy thinking, bait-and-switch. Your own proposition, for example, is an informal fallacy — the audience is left to conclude “oh gosh, these people meet the five criteria which seem ‘standard,’ so I’d better just go ahead and accept it.” When actually, since “valid” has this specific meaning, then even if your five bullet points are good and have been met, all you’ve demonstrated is the argument lacks formal fallacies even though it might be loaded up with the informal.
And then there’s this…
Engineers to do not meet the criterion as an authority on climate science.
Not sure how you arrived at that, given that your five bullet points are:
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
Sufficient expertise, making a statement within the area of expertise, valid field of study, adequate agreement, no evidence of undue bias. Out of those, only the fourth bullet point seems problematic but in context, it’s a bit off-topic since the whole point of the survey is to disclose the varying opinions and the popularity of each.
In short, once it’s accepted that this is how science is done — many among us don’t, so the “overwhelming consensus” never did pack much punch with us, but IF it did — then this survey is as valid as any other. Alright, so you folks personally don’t like engineers. You haven’t provided a good argument as to why you don’t. In fact, you specifically deny that you don’t, alleging instead that you’re nailing them for speaking outside their area of expertise. If that’s the objection, how do you think engineers get anything done at all, while you’re asserting that it is somehow not part of their discipline to understand how things work, and to use that knowledge to make a prediction of what’s going to happen if such-and-such a factor changes?
It looks like we disagree about this survey, and how it impacts the consensus-science AND your five bullets, simply because you don’t understand engineering. That, and you are bad at determining the location of disagreement in a discussion. You’ve misidentified the point of dispute, here & other places, repeatedly. Consensus-science is not science, and even if it was, the consensus among qualified experts has been misrepresented to us for an extended period of time…but first & foremost, this isn’t how science is done.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 08:02Hey, speaking of bait-and-switch… just for giggles I followed Z’s “multiple citations” that he never seems to provide links for.
Here at 14:47 he cites, in order: Gensler (logic textbook), Wiki, Nizkor, and Phil 103. But here’s where it gets interesting.
The textbook — listed first, natch — only says “A correct appeal to authority becomes a strong inductive argument if we add this inductively confirmed premise: ‘The consensus of authorities on a subject is usually right.’”
Wiki says something about induction.
But Nizkor, now… well, let’s take a look: Now that’s interesting. The “citation” they provide for their precious list comes from a “site is intended for educational purposes to teach about the Holocaust and to combat hatred.” Which is a noble endeavor, but, ummm…. our authorities on the validity of an appeal to authority are….?
Let’s dig deeper:
Here’s Z’s list, almost word for word, written by a philosophy prof (or, at least, “the author of a Macintosh tutorial named Fallacy Tutorial Pro 3.0”).
Guys, was that so hard? Links are your friend.
Of course, then we’d have to discuss why you’re getting your “authorities” — philosophy profs or no — from an “anti-hate” website….
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 08:35mkfreeberg: The bullet points define how an appeal to authority is “valid.” From that, it seems we are to find we have an obligation — although you haven’t come out and stated this, it seems your argument is based on this — to believe what the authority says, uncritically.
That is false. We have repeatedly corrected you on this.
Zachriel: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Zachriel: It’s an inductive argument that experts in a field are more likely to be correct about claims within their field of study than non-experts.
Zachriel: Appeals to authority are inductive arguments, and experts are not infallible.
Zachriel: No one says to abjure common sense. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, so not only does the strength of the argument have to be evaluated, but it has to be balanced with other possible arguments and evidence. That’s called judgment.
mkfreeberg: Sufficient expertise, making a statement within the area of expertise, valid field of study, adequate agreement, no evidence of undue bias. Out of those, only the fourth bullet point seems problematic but in context, i
Engineers talking about climate science are not “making a statement within their area of expertise”.
mkfreeberg: because you don’t understand engineering
Maybe these people know about engineering.
National Society of Professional Engineers: What is the difference between science and engineering? Science is knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system that can be validated and communicated to other people. Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives.
http://www.nspe.org/Media/Resources/faqs.html
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Engineering Is Not Science
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science
mkfreeberg: In short, once it’s accepted that this is how science is done …
It’s not how science is done. It’s an appeal to authority, an inductive argument *about* science or other field of study.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 10:14Severian: “A correct appeal to authority becomes a strong inductive argument if we add this inductively confirmed premise: ‘The consensus of authorities on a subject is usually right.’”
Yes, we quoted that above.
Severian: Here’s Z’s list, almost word for word, written by a philosophy prof
Yes, we quoted LaBossiere’s Nizkor post above, also.
Severian: Here at 14:47 he cites, in order: Gensler (logic textbook), Wiki, Nizkor, and Phil 103. But here’s where it gets interesting.
That’s right. We quoted a textbook, an encyclopedia, a professor of philosophy, and a philosophy course. Those are all relevant citations. Did you have a substantive comment?
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 10:16Did you have a substantive comment?
Oh, the mind just teems with questions, kiddos.
But let’s start with something simple: Why didn’t you just link the Nizkor post?
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 10:26It might have something to do with the fact that The Zachriel provide five bullet points from this list, whereas the Nizkor project has six.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 10:51Would this be the sixth bullet point you’re referring to?
The authority in question must be identified.
Granted I’m not a scientist, but one would think that something that has apparently been a key point of one’s argument since 2007 would be linked somewheres. If, you know, one were really concerned with proving one’s point, instead of….
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 11:03Right. The Zachriel have been failing their own sixth bullet, since 2007, for having not provided the linky-love, even as they fail to disclose this sixth bullet they’ve been failing, by simply omitting it.
The informal fallacy they are committing with this appeal to authority, the bait-and-switch tactic, is context: The six bullets are clearly meant to be just the first hurdle, it isn’t as if everyone who hears the argument is required to believe what has been claimed, once the five/six bullet points have been satisfactorily met. Example: Lance Armstrong making a claim about his own bicycling feats, up until the climax of his scandal, clearly would have met the five or six bullets. But, equally clearly, common sense says this is inadequate.
The first bullet point is the weakest. It is inherently subjective. A valid argument can be made that Lance Armstrong does, and does not, have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question, just as a valid argument can be made that engineers do, and do not, have sufficient expertise in the subject matter in question. It is often expressed in passive voice (the authority is recognized as an expert) because it is a weak statement representing a weak sentiment.
Bottom line: We should discount arguments that fail any one of the six bullets. It does not necessarily follow that we are required to accept arguments that satisfy all of them.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 11:13Exactly. I’ve been trying to get them to realize that their appeals to authority are fallacious because — in the contexts they use — they fall victim to another fallacy, the historian’s fallacy:
The Zachriel want to claim that global warming “denialism” is false now, because a “consensus of experts” says so. If you deny either the consensus or the expertise — both subject to severe doubt under their own ass-pulled rules — you’re committing the logical fallacy of… I guess… failing to respect authority.
On the other hand, they also want to claim that an appeal to authority against Galileo would be invalid, because as it turns out, Galileo was right and “authority” was wrong. Except that here too, the “experts” had a “consensus;” and it was 180 degrees from Galileo.
So they seem to be caught on a dilemma: If “denialism” is wrong but Galileo right, they’re guilty of the fallacious Appeal to Authority. If Galileo was right but “denialism” wrong, they’re committing the Historian’s Fallacy.
Which is why they spend so much time resorting to The Cuttlefish Maneuver, our (Rotten Chestnuts’) own humble contribution to the taxonomy of bullshit argumentation.
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 11:43Sorry, messed up my tags.
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 11:44Severian: Granted I’m not a scientist, but one would think that something that has apparently been a key point of one’s argument since 2007 would be linked somewheres.
We’ve linked it before, as we have other citations, just as we did here.
mkfreeberg: We should discount arguments that fail any one of the six bullets. It does not necessarily follow that we are required to accept arguments that satisfy all of them.
That’s right. An appeal to authority only has merit if it meets certain criteria. It seems we are in general agreement. Even then, it has to be evaluated as to the strength of the appeal, and balanced against other arguments.
Severian: If you deny either the consensus or the expertise — both subject to severe doubt under their own ass-pulled rules — you’re committing the logical fallacy of
Handwaving, which is denial without a valid reason.
For instance, if someone makes a valid appeal to authority, and you point out that experts can sometimes be wrong, that’s not a valid response, as the original claim was about *likelihood*. On the other hand, you could attack the underpinnings of the appeal, such as pointing out that the Church had a propensity to burn scholars who disagreed with their viewpoint, —or you could simply argue the evidence.
Severian: On the other hand, they also want to claim that an appeal to authority against Galileo would be invalid, because as it turns out, Galileo was right and “authority” was wrong.
The evidence always trumps.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 12:26I remember a time when the evidence said Lance Armstrong was a real champion.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 12:27Handwaving, which is denial without a valid reason.
And that’s just it, isn’t it?
If I found out someone was deliberately, systematically lying to me — the way, say, the CRU folks were — I’d consider that a valid reason to doubt every word that came out of their mouths henceforth.
But that evidence, apparently, doesn’t trump anything.
Seems to me that according to y’all, “handwaving” means “bringing up points I can’t answer.” “Valid” seems to mean “agrees with me.” So does “authority.”
One is also tempted to point out that this statement — “We’ve linked it before, as we have other citations, just as we did here” — is at best sloppy and at worst a lie. Where on this blog did you link to Nizkor?
PS a continued pattern of doing that kind of thing — which y’all have engaged in ever since we’ve had the pleasure of your company — constitutes a valid reason to suspect malice.
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 12:51Severian: Where on this blog did you link to Nizkor?
We didn’t link to Nizkor on this blog, but did cite them by name.
Severian: If I found out someone was deliberately, systematically lying to me — the way, say, the CRU folks were — I’d consider that a valid reason to doubt every word that came out of their mouths henceforth.
Which brings up the associated misunderstanding, ad hominem is not always a fallacy. In this case, you’re arguing that there is evidence of undue bias, which could be a legitimate argument.
Of course, the CRU isn’t the only organization involved in climate research, so this wouldn’t impact the general consensus, and every investigation has cleared the CRU.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 13:04We didn’t link to Nizkor on this blog, but did cite them by name.
Ahhh, I see! I’m sure you can understand my confusion, though, when I said “Granted I’m not a scientist, but one would think that something that has apparently been a key point of one’s argument since 2007 [i.e. the Nizcor list] would be linked somewheres” and you said “We’ve linked it before… just as we did here.”
Which, you know, makes it sound like you’re claiming to have linked to them here.
Normally I’d be inclined to be charitable about this kind of thing, and write it off to sloppiness — this is, after all, the internet — but you all have a very noticeable tendency to “argue” by innuendo. Heck, I even got a good post out of it, with an excellent example provided by you yourselves in the comments. “We said X, therefore Y.” “Bullshit.” “No no no, we only said X. Why are you so stupid that you can’t see X?”
Here the two-step is grammatical:
(a)We’ve linked it before, (b)as we have other citations, (c)just as we did here.
Here a, b, and c are all true, or true-ish. You can probably point to some long-defunct blog or BBS where you linked the Nizkor page; you have linked other citations here in the past; you’ve linked citations in this thread. Therefore, we’re supposed to conclude that d), you’ve linked to Nizkor here. Which is incorrect.
As I said, normally this wouldn’t be a big deal. Slip of the fingers, right? Except that’s what moonwalking is — the attempt to sneak in some political prescription in the guise of an empirically verifiable assertion.
If we can’t trust you to write honestly about something as minor as a link, how can we trust any of your larger assertions?
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 13:49…and every investigation has cleared the CRU.
As they would be expected to do. Since it wasn’t just science, or climate science, or the UEA that was placed under suspicion, but the process of institutionalization itself. It was entirely predictable from beginning to end. A special commission made up of people we’ve never heard of, getting together to “investigate,” and lo & behold! A clean bill of health!
And who am I to doubt them. Lest I be accused of hand waving.
Is hand waving an actual fallacy? It occurs to me that in some situations, some of them historical, hand waving is a good argument, or would be. Case in point: The authorities have reached a consensus that the Earth is flat. Or, Phlogiston theory. Or, if Newton studies and works hard enough at it, he can turn Pb into Au. Barney the Barley Farmer says, “not good enough, I ain’t buying it.” Handwaves. But, of course, turns out to be right.
I am sure you all would agree, would you not, that it would be manifestly absurd and silly to chastise Barney and say “that was wrong of you Barn, a proper response would have been an appeal to the evidence” — when he turned out to be right.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 14:37mkfreeberg: Since it wasn’t just science, or climate science, or the UEA that was placed under suspicion, but the process of institutionalization itself.
The investigations included scientific, academic, and government organizations. That’s a pretty broad spectrum. If you look at the specifics, there’s no evidence of malfeasance.
mkfreeberg: Case in point: The authorities have reached a consensus that the Earth is flat. Or, Phlogiston theory. Or, if Newton studies and works hard enough at it, he can turn Pb into Au. Barney the Barley Farmer says, “not good enough, I ain’t buying it.” Handwaves. But, of course, turns out to be right.
Barney the Blarney is not making an argument. He could just as easily and with just as much certitude wave away evidence for combustion, a Scotsman that puts sugar in his porridge, or anything else.
At least, we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 15:07And yet, in the examples I’ve offered…he’d be right.
So okay, you’ve got your idea of what is a good argument, and Barney is not meeting your criteria. But he’s right. So, it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 15:15mkfreeberg: And yet, in the examples I’ve offered…he’d be right.
You wouldn’t know it from his ‘argument’. He could just as easily be wrong. It’s bluster.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 15:31But, he’d have been right.
- mkfreeberg | 02/23/2013 @ 15:35At least, we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority.
Have we now? And here I thought that’s exactly what Morgan was getting at with his comment about “handwaves” — that “authority” is highly contextual. And in your case, “authority” seems to mean “agrees with me.” I must’ve missed the part where we all agreed to go with that. Maybe you could link it for me?
The investigations included scientific, academic, and government organizations. That’s a pretty broad spectrum. If you look at the specifics, there’s no evidence of malfeasance.
Funny — I and a lot of folks I know said pretty much the same thing, verbatim, when it came to the famous “yellowcake” incident and the Valerie Plame affair. But, of course, “sought weaponizable uranium” is malfeasance, and “hide the decline” isn’t, because, ummm, authority, right? Eppur si muouve and all that?
This is where liberals always lose me. A little hypocrisy is par for the course in human affairs, and I’m as much of a homer as anyone — it’s good hardnosed football when my guys do it, but unconscionable dirty play when yours do. I could live with that. But if liberals have decided as a collective that they’d feel better if A were not-A, they’ll simply insist that A is not-A, and you’re stupid if you think it isn’t, and a racist, and you hate science.
But y’all don’t do that. For whatever reason, you can’t concede anything, even the teeniest tiniest point, to a political enemy. Even when it’s totally harmless, and not even germane to the discussion. I’ll give you an example: “Oops, my bad — I thought I’d linked to the Nizkor site, but I only cited it. Here’s the link.” But no, we have to go through this song-and-dance about how we did link it, or at least cite them by name…..
It’s tiresome, it’s disrespectful, and — here’s the payoff– it makes anyone with half an ounce of intellectual honesty doubt every single word y’all say. Someone concerned with getting a fair hearing for their views would at least try to appear fair-minded themselves.
But it’s never “yes, those CRU revelations were troubling, and we should really scrutinize what they say henceforth, but in the main….” No, it’s always “they were cleared of ANY wrongdoing. There was NO malfeasance.” C’mon, buddy — not even a little bit? Not even your standard “we’re saddened by the actions of one or two bad apples in the organization” pabulum?
If you can’t even be honest about something so minor, why should we believe any of your major claims?
- Severian | 02/23/2013 @ 15:49Severian: “authority” is highly contextual.
That’s right. The context is the cited authority speaking about a consensus within their field. Even then, experts can be wrong. Evidence is always a valid argument.
- Zachriel | 02/23/2013 @ 19:00The context is the cited authority speaking about a consensus within their field
No, the context of my comment was your assertion that At least, we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority.
Which we have not.
Evidence is always a valid argument.
On the evidence presented, you all are unwilling to follow a basic point-to-point discussion. And so I’ll ask again: If you can’t even be honest in these basic matters, what reason do we have to trust your larger assertions?
- Severian | 02/24/2013 @ 08:45Severian: No, the context of my comment was your assertion that At least, we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority.
We were speaking to mkfreeberg. Now, he seems to be arguing about the validity of handwaving as a form of argumentation. Where do you see the area of disagreement with regards to appeal to authority?
Severian: On the evidence presented, you all are unwilling to follow a basic point-to-point discussion.
We are more than willing to follow an argument, but you have to start with the basis. There was a great deal of unnecessary controversy about appeal to authority, which are often valid arguments. The claim is that the appeal to authority is undermined because of undue bias. We addressed that by referring to the wide breadth of the consensus. That’s where it was left before your recent tirades.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2013 @ 09:56The claim is that the appeal to authority is undermined because of undue bias. We addressed that by referring to the wide breadth of the consensus.
Huh. That’s not what I saw. I saw you all asserting something. Then I saw reasonable objections raised to that assertion. Then I saw you all asserting that your assertion was true, and then asserting that “we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority.”
Seems to me there have been about 95 posts in this here thread because that issue has NOT been resolved. Mkfreeberg left it like this:
<blockquote:So okay, you’ve got your idea of what is a good argument, and Barney is not meeting your criteria. But he’s right. So, it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?
Which seems to punch a pretty big hole in your “Mkfreeberg and we have resolved the issue of appeal to authority” theory.
Argument by Assertion is just as big a logical fallacy as Argument from Authority. It’s cute to call objections to obvious fallacies “tirades,” but it doesn’t address the underlying problem.
So: “it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?”
You were saying?
- Severian | 02/24/2013 @ 12:47(grabs popcorn)
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2013 @ 13:33Severian: You were saying?
You haven’t presented an argument. You simply continue to assert that an appeal to authority is necessarily a fallacy. We’ve provided multiple sources explaining that appeal to authority can be a valid inductive argument, and how we might evaluate such an appeal. We’ve shown how people rely on expert opinion in their everyday lives, including, apparently, mkfreeberg.
As for Barney the Blarney, he is specifically described as handwaving, as presenting no argument whatsoever.
- Zachriel | 02/24/2013 @ 14:09Which might very well be, in fact historically has been, right.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2013 @ 14:53You haven’t presented an argument
Good golly, you’re right! Well, at least in this I’m following the example of some true science fans, who said
The basis here is Morgan’s question: “So okay, you’ve got your idea of what is a good argument, and Barney is not meeting your criteria. But he’s right. So, it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?”
In your never-linked, cribbed-from-an-activist-website list of the criteria all “valid” appeals to authority must meet, the criterion “the authority turns out to be right” never appears. From which I conclude that “validity” is outcome-independent.
Which puts you in an interesting bind:
–You all want to argue “global warming is right, because all the evidence says so.”
–But when we point out the problems with the evidence, you argue that “the evidence is right because all the experts say so.”
–When we point out the problems with the “experts,” you fall back on the concept of a valid appeal to authority.
–But the valid appeal to authority is, by your own admission and by the logic of your own premises, outcome-independent.
Which props the whole scaffolding of your argument up against a naked assertion: “These experts are right, this time, because we say their authority tracks with our preferred outcome.”
Yes yes, I know, you’re going to say that “we’ve always said experts can be wrong; we’re only talking about probabilities; an expert in blah blah blah is likelier to know about blah blah blah than blah blah blah.” But at this point, dear hearts — nearly 100 posts in here, and hundreds more elsewhere — you’ve made umpteen claims in two competing areas: logic, and probability. It’s time to pick.
If you take your stand on logic, you’re reducing your entire argument to an assertion (see above). If you take your stand on probability — someone with credential X is likelier to be right about situation Y — then you’re, again, in the realm of the totally subjective. Is a psychiatrist with a consulting gig with Lilly Pharmaceutical “more likely” to be right about your depression-sounding symptoms than a professor of Indo-European languages? What weight do we put on what factors?
You can argue either side, comrades, but you don’t get to claim that both are right, and you certainly don’t get to claim that we’ve settled the matter of appeal to authority.
So…. you were saying?
- Severian | 02/24/2013 @ 15:235. If I must learn something new to meet my objective, I will have to admit that I don’t know it, in order to learn it.
Or…all learning begins with the statement of humility, “I don’t know.”
If Barney the Barley Farmer fails to adhere to your carefully-thought-out definition of an “argument,” but in so doing gets something right, while you paying proper fealty to your carefully-thought-out definition manage to get it all fubar’d…and after the exercise is over you’re still saying “I did it right and Barney did it wrong, even though Barney hit the bulls-eye and I was wrong but my argument was better”…and you’re left with NO curiosity whatsoever about how Barney managed to get better results than you did — then you’re not following this.
Being able to argue well means absolutely nothing, if along with that ability you’re lacking the associative ability to learn.
So now that we know the goal of your set of rules is not to be right, then what is the goal? It’s looking more and more like a doctrinaire suite of published protocols for making mistakes.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2013 @ 16:36David Stove wrote a great essay about this kind of thing called “What is Wrong with Our Thoughts?” He pointed out that formal logic is fairly useless in real-world problems, like so:
In other words: our arguments can be rigorously “valid” according to the canons of formal logic, but still useless in real-world problems. That’s the situation the Z find themselves in — if they’re logically right, they’re empirically wrong (or, at least, very far from objectively right); if they’re talking about probabilities, though, formal logic catches them, and we’re back to weighting maybes.
.
.
.
*for the record, the “filioque” debate is a problem in theology — does the Holy Spirit proceed from the Father alone, or from the Son also (filioque, in Latin)? It’s similar to the kind of thing I was trying to point out to the Z about their “validity” list with my example of St. Thomas and the angels. If we assume that theology is a “valid” field of study — as every educated person in Christendom did for nearly two millennia –then yes, angels exist, on the authority of Thomas Aquinas.)
- Severian | 02/24/2013 @ 17:34Severian: Good golly, you’re right!
Let us know when you decide to present an argument.
mkfreeberg: I did it right and Barney did it wrong, even though Barney hit the bulls-eye and I was wrong but my argument was better”…and you’re left with NO curiosity whatsoever about how Barney managed to get better results than you did — then you’re not following this.
Ah, so he hit a bulls-eye. Did he win the lottery, then?
- Zachriel | 02/24/2013 @ 18:41Not a valid comparison. The lottery is a game of chance.
Whereas, Barney got a better result than the professionals did, because he knew something they did not.
The evidence says so. Strongly suggests it, at the very least.
- mkfreeberg | 02/24/2013 @ 19:47Let us know when you decide to present an argument.
We certainly will, champ. 🙂
In the meantime, we still haven’t received an answer: “So okay, you’ve got your idea of what is a good argument, and Barney is not meeting your criteria. But he’s right. So, it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?”
[this “royal we” thing is a blast, by the way. I should use it more]
- Severian | 02/24/2013 @ 21:11mkfreeberg: So okay, you’ve got your idea of what is a good argument, and Barney is not meeting your criteria. But he’s right. So, it’s important to define the objective of these criteria you’re imposing. Being right is not the goal, is it?
Once upon a time, people relied on oracles. (“Go, return not die in war”). Meanwhile, science has provided people jet airplanes, the Internet and cells phones with GPS and Angry Birds.
mkfreeberg: Not a valid comparison. The lottery is a game of chance.
Here is your comment:
mkfreeberg: Case in point: The authorities have reached a consensus that the Earth is flat. Or, Phlogiston theory. Or, if Newton studies and works hard enough at it, he can turn Pb into Au. Barney the Barley Farmer says, “not good enough, I ain’t buying it.” Handwaves. But, of course, turns out to be right.
Let’s take the Earth is flat. It’s a binary choice. Everyone flip a coin. Some will say the Earth is flat. Some will say it’s not. Unless Barney the Blarney presents some argument, it’s just bluster. However, if Barney the Blarney argues his position, and marshals evidence to support his contention, then perhaps he can be persuasive.
mkfreeberg: Whereas, Barney got a better result than the professionals did, because he knew something they did not.
Or he made a lucky guess. There’s no reason to consider it as more than that unless he argues his position, and marshals evidence to support his contention.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 06:03Or he made a lucky guess. There’s no reason to consider it as more than that unless he argues his position, and marshals evidence to support his contention.
So we have: The possibility that Barney the Barley farmer know/knows more than you. It isn’t proven to be true, but it isn’t proven to be false either, so it remains a possibility.
We also have Barney the Barley farmer being right, when you were wrong. Unknown in prospect, but known in retrospect: He nailed it, you flubbed it.
So when I said…
So now that we know the goal of your set of rules is not to be right, then what is the goal? It’s looking more and more like a doctrinaire suite of published protocols for making mistakes.
…the jury may be out on that still, but it is established now that your set of rules fails to bring curiosity, indeed mandates a lack of curiosity, about what others might know that you don’t know — even when they generate results superior to yours.
First step to learning something is to admit the unknown. How can a student of life, desiring to learn all it has to offer, but also desiring to follow faithfully this set of rules you have, reconcile the two objectives and sustain a hope of achieving both? It looks like those are two mutually-exclusive things?
And that’s going by your own interpretation of the Barney situation, since you have just proscribed against recognizing the possibility that someone else might know something, and thus against endeavoring to learn from this.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 06:16mkfreeberg: So we have: The possibility that Barney the Barley farmer know/knows more than you.
Yes, he may know something, or it could have been a lucky guess. Now, if he invented the calculus and predicted the retardation of the pendulum, that would be different.
mkfreeberg: …the jury may be out on that still, but it is established now that your set of rules fails to bring curiosity, indeed mandates a lack of curiosity,
Not at all. Barney the Blarney has half the town out looking for the end of the rainbow. You might scoff, but when we find that pot of gold, you’ll wished you had joined us.
mkfreeberg: … about what others might know that you don’t know — even when they generate results superior to yours.
Don’t you remember? Evidence is always an argument against an appeal to authority.
mkfreeberg: First step to learning something is to admit the unknown.
Most of the universe is an unknown. Science is like a sliver of light shining into the dark.
mkfreeberg: How can a student of life, desiring to learn all it has to offer, but also desiring to follow faithfully this set of rules you have, reconcile the two objectives and sustain a hope of achieving both? It looks like those are two mutually-exclusive things?
Student of life? Well, science is not always an appropriate tool for a student of life. There’s poetry and sunsets, and, well, living.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 07:11Don’t you remember? Evidence is always an argument against an appeal to authority.
Okay, well the evidence here says Barney knows something you don’t know.
So I’m still not sure what the objective is of these rules you have. You haven’t answered the question even though Severian has prompted you with it, repeatedly. And we’ve established they aren’t related to producing the right answer. We’ve further established that when the right answer eludes you, but someone else nails it, your rules do not require any curiosity about this, and we’ve further established these rules prohibit any curiosity about it.
It’s looking like your rules have something to do with presenting an illusion of open-mindedness and science-ish-ness, while entirely bypassing the associated disciplines. A reward-without-work thing.
Student of life? Well, science is not always an appropriate tool for a student of life. There’s poetry and sunsets, and, well, living.
I think science has a lot to do with living. Living has a lot to do with science.
Suppose just for sake of argument, Barney might have used some actual knowledge, which you’re lacking, to figure out the “scientific” assertion was a bunch of hooey. What do you think he might have known?
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 07:19Don’t you remember? Evidence is always an argument against an appeal to authority.
Well, if he doesn’t, he’s in good company. Apparently y’all forget this at will as well. Let’s take it from the top:
You claim that Global Warming is right because of Evidence.
Evidence is right because of Experts.
Experts are right because of Appeal to Authority.
Appeals to Authority are right because of your unlinked, cribbed-from-an-activist-website checklist.
But that’s where the truth claims drop out. “The Authority turns out to be correct” isn’t one of the bullet points.
Now, before you start in with something like “that’s what we said, evidence trumps an appeal to authority,” recall that you’ve spent hundreds of posts arguing that the Evidence is unimpeachable. And we know the Evidence is unimpeachable — even when basic stuff like temperature readings contradict it — because of ….. Experts. Who are right because of Appeal to Authority.
The evidence is tainted. You can perform any amount of mathematical jiujitsu on bad data, or substitute wind velocity readings for air temperatures, or do whatever else you like, but GIGO is still the immutable law of nature. “Probability” has nothing to do with it, since useful conclusions all depend on clean data. Yes, a doctor is more likely to be right about your cancer than Barney the Barley Farmer, but if he’s reading the wrong set of labs, he’ll order up a round of chemo for your lukemia when what you really have is the flu.
If you want to say “I believe the data is still good,” and proceed to have a discussion from there, go nuts. You can count me out — I think the data is politicized crap, for the million reasons already pointed out — but that’s my decision on how best to spend my time. Just don’t imply that I don’t understand science because I refuse to accept an obviously tendentious claim.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 07:38If you want to say “I believe the data is still good,” and proceed to have a discussion from there, go nuts. You can count me out — I think the data is politicized crap, for the million reasons already pointed out…
And, just for the record, since the opportunity presents itself for me to clarify: This is why I do not accept “obvious” things like the greenhouse effect. When the data are bad, or questionable, or tainted, the taint is on everything derived from them. Whether an expert projected those findings or Barney the Barley farmer did, the taint is still there. Whoever won’t understand that, just doesn’t understand what’s being discussed.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 07:56That’s what I just don’t get about this whole mess, and why I still find myself occasionally dragged into one of these discussions. Why the insistence on science?
If it’s a debate tactic, it’s a piss-poor one. Anyone looking at these threads from the outside would see a long, looooong pattern of science’s supposed BFF doing very little more than yelling “omigod science you guys!” in response to some very basic and reasonable questions. I’ve never been more sure that Global Weather is a bunch of hooey than I am after a few rounds with these fellows.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 08:09mkfreeberg: Okay, well the evidence here says Barney knows something you don’t know.
No, it doesn’t. It was a binary choice, so it could easily have been luck. In addition, experts can certainly be wrong. You will note that the Earth’s shape and movement were demonstrated, not by guessing, but by a long process of accumulating evidence.
mkfreeberg: So I’m still not sure what the objective is of these rules you have.
Science allows us to reach tentative conclusions with limited information. Argument is the process by which we marshal evidence and reason to support a position.
mkfreeberg: And we’ve established they aren’t related to producing the right answer.
Scientific claims are always tentative. They could be wrong, but are more likely to be correct than simply guessing.
mkfreeberg: We’ve further established that when the right answer eludes you, but someone else nails it, your rules do not require any curiosity about this, and we’ve further established these rules prohibit any curiosity about it.
Says someone who refuses to consider the evidence.
You really should quit misrepresenting our position. We directly addressed this in our previous comment. Evidence is a valid argument against an appeal to authority. Your lack of curiosity is not indicative of others.
mkfreeberg: Barney might have used some actual knowledge, which you’re lacking, to figure out the “scientific” assertion was a bunch of hooey. What do you think he might have known?
He might have, but he’s not talking. He presented no evidence or arguments. He merely waved his hands.
Severian: You claim that Global Warming is right because of Evidence.
Evidence is right because of Experts.
Experts are right because of Appeal to Authority.
Appeals to Authority are right because of your unlinked, cribbed-from-an-activist-website checklist.
Um, no. Evidence is based on observation, not the say so of experts.
Severian: But that’s where the truth claims drop out. “The Authority turns out to be correct” isn’t one of the bullet points.
Experts are more likely to be right than non-experts, but certainly not inevitably so.
Severian: And we know the Evidence is unimpeachable — even when basic stuff like temperature readings contradict it — because of ….. Experts.
Evidence can always be questioned. The collection of evidence can also be influenced by theory.
Severian: The evidence is tainted.
That’s your claim.
Severian: “Probability” has nothing to do with it, since useful conclusions all depend on clean data.
That is incorrect. Science often works with limited and uncertain data.
Severian: Yes, a doctor is more likely to be right about your cancer than Barney the Barley Farmer
That’s called an appeal to authority. Glad we resolved that issue.
Severian: but if he’s reading the wrong set of labs, he’ll order up a round of chemo for your lukemia when what you really have is the flu.
That’s right. Experts can be wrong. The reason people get a second medical opinion is because it limits these sorts of mistakes. A broader sampling of the profession can provide a consensus, which further limits subjectivity. And because valid fields of science overlap, this provides even more confidence. But even then, a consensus of experts can certainly be wrong. But because they were more likely right than wrong, it requires more than simply saying experts can be wrong to tip the judgment to them being actually wrong. That requires evidence.
Severian: If you want to say “I believe the data is still good,” and proceed to have a discussion from there, go nuts.
Well, you haven’t given any reason to believe the evidence is wrong, in fact. A few scientists acted petty, but that doesn’t change the data itself, something you don’t seem interested in examining.
mkfreeberg: And, just for the record, since the opportunity presents itself for me to clarify: This is why I do not accept “obvious” things like the greenhouse effect.
Really? You don’t accept the greenhouse effect? Calculate, or have your favorite neighborhood physicist calculate, the blackbody temperature of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 08:28I’m operating outside of your rules. If someone manages to present better results than I can, I have curiosity about this and I want to know why.
To me, if at the end of it all you’re presenting sucky results and your defense is “Yeah, but I followed all the rules so I am not to be blamed”…then you’re in a position where I don’t want to be. You’re in the position of an Atlas Shrugged villain. And if, before producing these sucky results, you demanded a whole bunch of control over the lives of other people you’ll never even meet, then that makes you a vandal. In fact, worse than a vandal, since a vandal has some idea in mind of how much damage he wants to do before he starts doing it. This is more like vandalism by negligence.
Really? You don’t accept the greenhouse effect? Calculate, or have your favorite neighborhood physicist calculate, the blackbody temperature of the Earth. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth’s surface would be a chilly ≈-18°C rather than the balmy ≈+15°C that it is.
Says someone who just accused me of misrepresenting their position (I think, unless you switched typists). I don’t accept anything with greater certainty than what I can apply to the premises upon which the conclusion depended. If the challenge is to compute Pi out to eight decimal places, and there’s uncertainty about how the fourth digit was produced, then the eighth digit computation accumulates at least that much uncertainty. That’s how I think it out…how do you all do it?
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 08:48mkfreeberg: I’m operating outside of your rules. If someone manages to present better results than I can, I have curiosity about this and I want to know why.
You receive a letter saying they can predict the stock market trend. Lo and behold, they were right. You receive a total of six letters, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the seventh letter. Is this a good bet?
mkfreeberg: To me, if at the end of it all you’re presenting sucky results and your defense is “Yeah, but I followed all the rules so I am not to be blamed”…then you’re in a position where I don’t want to be.
If you mean by “rules” that you should support your position with reason and evidence, well, sure, those are good rules for increasing knowledge.
mkfreeberg: And, just for the record, since the opportunity presents itself for me to clarify: This is why I do not accept “obvious” things like the greenhouse effect. When the data are bad, or questionable, or tainted, the taint is on everything derived from them.
mkfreeberg: I don’t accept anything with greater certainty than what I can apply to the premises upon which the conclusion depended.
Blackbody radiation (greybody with respect to the Earth) is basic physics, the Stefan–Boltzmann law. Do you reject the premises of basic physics? Or what?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 09:16This oughta be educational. Let’s see how many painfully obvious dodges we can find in one post.
mkfreeberg: So I’m still not sure what the objective is of these rules you have.
Science allows us to reach tentative conclusions with limited information. Argument is the process by which we marshal evidence and reason to support a position.
Bzzzzt! Nice try. But the question was
So let’s try again: What is the purpose of your bullet-point checklist for a “valid” appeal to authority, since “being right” doesn’t seem to cover it?
Um, no. Evidence is based on observation, not the say so of experts
Um, do you guys really want to go down that road? I seem to recall a 400-some-odd thread in which many problems with the observational methodology were pointed out to you, and you all claimed that all of these problems weren’t actually problems, because they’d been adjusted by experts. There were big bibliographies and everything.
Severian: But that’s where the truth claims drop out. “The Authority turns out to be correct” isn’t one of the bullet points.
Experts are more likely to be right than non-experts, but certainly not inevitably so.
Tendentious. Cutting-and-pasting “experts aren’t inevitably right” is nice if you want to sound like the voice of sweet reason, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is — see above — the purpose of the the checklist for valid appeals to authority (hereafter, “the Checklist”). Your entire argument rests on making a logical claim about the validity of Evidence. The Evidence is clean because of Authority. Authority is valid because of the Checklist. Likelihood has nothing to do with it. Speaking of which….
Severian: “Probability” has nothing to do with it, since useful conclusions all depend on clean data.
That is incorrect. Science often works with limited and uncertain data.
Bzzzzt! “Clean” is not the same as “limited and uncertain.” You claim the data is limited; I claim it’s tainted. Actively doctored. With malice aforethought. These are light years apart. One can predict all kinds of things from bad data, but the predictions will be wrong because the data’s bad.
Evidence can always be questioned. The collection of evidence can also be influenced by theory.
Severian: The evidence is tainted.
That’s your claim.
Yup. Based on the evidence presented to me by Morgan, Texan99, Captain Midnight, and the others in the various threads that won’t die. When I see great big discrepancies in data, and pictures of temperature stations in parking lots, etc., I begin to smell a rat. I question the evidence of global warming, based on my theory that big obvious discrepancies cause big obvious problems. See, it’s science!
Severian: Yes, a doctor is more likely to be right about your cancer than Barney the Barley Farmer
That’s called an appeal to authority. Glad we resolved that issue.
Have we now? And here I thought I specifically said
And Morgan specifically said
So the doc’s wrong and Barney’s right — you have the flu, not leukemia. So, being right has nothing to do with an appeal to authority. Glad we resolved that issue. Although that doesn’t bode well for your argument….
Well, you haven’t given any reason to believe the evidence is wrong, in fact. A few scientists acted petty, but that doesn’t change the data itself, something you don’t seem interested in examining.
Ahhhh, now this is a good one! Truly a masterpiece, kiddos. For one thing, I’ve been given lots of reasons to suspect the evidence is wrong, ranging from CRU emails to poor weather station placement to the complete failure of predictions to common sense to your tendentious, obfuscatory, cuttlefishy comments. So that’s flat wrong. And then the fact that the “petty” stuff the CRU scientist did actually did change the data itself — that is, in fact, precisely what they were accused of doing, and which by their own admission they did, or at least planned to do. And then they convened a panel of folks with vested interests in “hiding the decline” which, shockingly enough, cleared them of all charges. Having examined that data, I don’t really see much point in examining the “data” collected in such an obviously compromised way. GIGO, as software engineers say (although I suppose they don’t count because they’re not real scientists, eh?).
Hows about instead of assigning homework to Morgan, y’all go get some new debater’s tricks. These are old, threadbare, and obvious.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 09:19You receive a letter saying they can predict the stock market trend. Lo and behold, they were right. You receive a total of six letters, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the seventh letter. Is this a good bet?
Nice try, but the issue is not whether I should invest $1000 in Barney, the issue is whether or not I should merely invest a nominal amount of time and effort — involving nobody else — in simply taking a closer look at his methodologies. It’s called curiosity.
The issue is also whether I should invest unlimited resources in the opinions of the scientists who, when they went up against Barney, turned out to be wrong. And I’m not encouraged to do so when I read things like this.
So. A bunch of peer-reviewed commission-driven studies were convened, and they found no evidence of wrong-doing. So we should all forget it ever happened.
Seems we’re arguing a lot more about whether common sense should be invoked, than about whether “science” should be invoked.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 09:36Severian: Being right is not the goal, is it?
Yes, it is. Science allows us to reach tentative conclusions with limited information, and has been a very powerful tool in “being right”.
Severian: What is the purpose of your bullet-point checklist for a “valid” appeal to authority, since “being right” doesn’t seem to cover it?
“A doctor is more likely to be right about your cancer than Barney the Barley Farmer.”
Severian: I seem to recall a 400-some-odd thread in which many problems with the observational methodology were pointed out to you, and you all claimed that all of these problems weren’t actually problems, because they’d been adjusted by experts.
That’s right. It’s called statistics.
Severian: Likelihood has nothing to do with it.
Likelihood has everything to do with it.
Severian: You claim the data is limited; I claim it’s tainted.
Much of the temperature data was collected many years ago by people interested in making local weather forecasts. Do the “climate extremists” have time machines?
Severian: When I see great big discrepancies in data, and pictures of temperature stations in parking lots, etc., I begin to smell a rat.
Multiple studies have shown that the warming trend is there regardless of the heat island effect. Did you want to discuss the details of these studies?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 09:43Heck, forget common sense, I’m starting to wonder if these guys understand the basic concept of relevance.
Barney is our stand-in for someone who arrived at the correct conclusion without following proper procedure, i.e. The Checklist. Now we’re investing $1000 in him?
It’s a trivial truth that experts can be wrong. It should also be a trivial truth that experts, and Barney, and everyone else with a pulse is virtually guaranteed to be wrong if one of their main premises is wrong. The doctor is far likelier than Barney to correctly interpret a set of blood tests. If, however, they’re the wrong tests, for the wrong patient, his prescriptions will be no better, and very probably much worse, than Barney’s.
How that has anything to do with investing $1000 in Barney’s stock pick of the week is beyond me.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 09:47I think it’s the reverse-Pascal’s wager thing. You know, if the global warming theory is right and we don’t do anything about it, the consequences are catastrophic, so the heavier burden of proof should be placed on whoever doesn’t buy into the hooey.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 09:50Multiple studies have shown that the warming trend is there regardless of the heat island effect. Did you want to discuss the details of these studies?
Ah yes. “Multiple studies.” With a bibliography and everything, no doubt. Would those be the ones coming from data “collected many years ago by people interested in making local weather forecasts”? Or did these guys have time machines, to go back and check on the heat island effect that “multiple studies” show isn’t there?
But, of course, that’s all been corrected by experts, no? “It’s called statistics,” after all…. Hey, did you know Matt Nokes is the greatest offensive catcher in baseball history? I proved it with statistics.
Watching you all chase your own tails is fascinating. By all means, let’s keep responding to fallacious appeals to authority with more appeals to authority. You might want to cut-and-paste that bibliography and the NOAA .gif a few more times. I’m juuuuuust about convinced. Almost…. there…..!
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 09:56mkfreeberg: Nice try, but the issue is not whether I should invest $1000 in Barney
Not an answer. It was a simple question. Would you make the bet if they waited until seven correct predictions?
mkfreeberg: the issue is whether or not I should merely investt a nominal amount of time and effort — involving nobody else — in simply taking a closer look at his methodologies.
You specifically said he didn’t provide any methodology, but just a wave of his hand. The methodology is crucial in science. It isn’t enough to say the world is flat or round. You have to provide evidence and reason to support your position. That’s how progress is made in science. Sorry, it’s not a perfect method.
mkfreeberg: A bunch of peer-reviewed commission-driven studies were convened, and they found no evidence of wrong-doing. So we should all forget it ever happened.
Several editors resigned because the peer review process was being undermined by skeptics who would shop the paper around without addressing the concerns raised with the methodology. The journal repudiated the paper, while more recent research contradicted the findings.
Severian: How that has anything to do with investing $1000 in Barney’s stock pick of the week is beyond me.
Because mkfreeberg apparently thinks that Barney the Blarney’s one guess makes him an oracle. We were wondering about six or seven correct predictions in a row. Surely they must be even more convincing.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 09:57Severian: Ah yes. “Multiple studies.”
Multiple studies by different researchers using different methodologies reduces the chance for error or subjectivity. In any case, we’re not asking you to rely on the authority of the papers, but the actual evidence and analysis.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 10:00I see. So your rules do make sense after all, if we pretend I’m saying something about Barney that I never actually said, and we further presume I’m saying Barney is entirely lacking in any methodologies just because I never actually went on record with the opposite.
Again: if the data are incorrect, or are tainted, any conclusion drawn from them is similarly incorrect, or tainted. This seems to be lost on you, who evidently reduce it to a very casual exercise, as one takes measure of what’s really going on.
Perhaps Barney is noticing a trend in his own life experience, about people who turn out to not know anything of what they’re talking about, and by applying it to the situation at hand managed to produce a result that turned out to be correct. Possible?
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 10:02so the heavier burden of proof should be placed on whoever doesn’t buy into the hooey.
Yeah, no doubt. Because that’s the way science!!!!! works. See Flummery and Flimflamm, “Omigod Science You Guys,” in The Journal of Peer-Reviewed Peer Reviews, Fall 2010.
I sure wish “looking at the behavior of those who claim to believe a theory” was somewhere in The Checklist, because then I could be all scientifickal and shit when I said I’ll start taking the warming prophecies of doom seriously when the prophets themselves do. Is it “valid” to wonder why things like this invariably end with “…and then you put me in charge of everything; now hand over your wallet”?
‘Cause that would rule.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 10:04In any case, we’re not asking you to rely on the authority of the papers, but the actual evidence and analysis.
Would that be the evidence imported from “many years ago,” sans time machine, or the evidence “normalized” because it didn’t fit the predictions?
Either way, I’m sure I can trust that data, because, after all, it’s been peer-reviewed by top men. Top. Men.
Keep on chasin’ that red dot, comrades. You’re so close! Today might be the day you finally catch it!
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 10:08mkfreeberg: So your rules do make sense after all, if we pretend I’m saying something about Barney that I never actually said …
mkfreeberg: “Barney the Barley Farmer says, ‘not good enough, I ain’t buying it.’ Handwaves.”
mkfreeberg: … and we further presume I’m saying Barney is entirely lacking in any methodologies just because I never actually went on record with the opposite.
As we said, we have no way to know. He never said. Suppose we could spy through his windows while Barney the Blarney is out trying to find the end of the rainbow.
mkfreeberg: Again: if the data are incorrect, or are tainted, any conclusion drawn from them is similarly incorrect, or tainted.
We have multiple sources of data, by different researchers, at different times, by different methodologies, in different cultures, under different political systems. Those crafty climate scientists must have time machines.
–
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 10:13You receive a letter saying they can predict the stock market trend. Lo and behold, they were right. You receive a total of seven letters, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the eighth letter. Is this a good bet?
Severian: Would that be the evidence imported from “many years ago,” sans time machine, or the evidence “normalized” because it didn’t fit the predictions?
Please start with the raw data, if you like. That’s what the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project did. They started over from scratch and used updated statistical methods to determine if there was a real trend in the data.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 10:15Perhaps Barney is noticing a trend in his own life experience, about people who turn out to not know anything of what they’re talking about, and by applying it to the situation at hand managed to produce a result that turned out to be correct. Possible?
Probable.
One thing I do wonder about this whole biz, though, is why the Global Weather crowd don’t use their mad predictin’ skillz to make a whole shitload of money. If they’ve got the stats-jitsu to predict the future state of the entire planetary ecosystem from a few weather satellites, then it should be a snap to predict minor events for which there’s plenty of raw, up-to-the-minute, 100% reliable data available. Vegas takes prop bets, for instance. Put Barney’s $1000 down on a home run going over the left field fence at Wrigley Field at exactly 2:36pm Monday, June 9, 2013. Boom! Insta-millionaire. I mean, how hard could it be? You’ve got the Cubs’ schedule, terabytes worth of info on wind patters, weather conditions, etc. in Chicago, baseball-reference.com data since forever on every possible pitcher / hitter combo…..
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 10:22Severian: Perhaps Barney is noticing a trend in his own life experience, about people who turn out to not know anything of what they’re talking about, and by applying it to the situation at hand managed to produce a result that turned out to be correct. Possible?
Severian: Probable.
Not even then. It’s a binary choice. The so-called experts might not know anything about what they pontificate about, but they might be right by chance, just like Barney the Blarney. Indeed, experts are more likely to be right, absent some other argument or evidence against their position.
On the other hand, if Barney invented the calculus and predicted the retardation of the pendulum, our evaluation would change.
Severian: One thing I do wonder about this whole biz, though, is why the Global Weather crowd don’t use their mad predictin’ skillz to make a whole shitload of money.
That would be statisticians. Casino games are designed with the help of statistics, some casinos have been gamed by statisticians, while statisticians have made a lot of money in baseball.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 10:30http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/
in different cultures, under different political systems.
Why on earth does that matter? Science is science, right? Weird.
That’s what the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project did.
Uh huh. Would that be the one where you said “The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project found that problems with temperature stations have been properly accounted for by previous analyses”? The same one that uses volcanoes as a proxy for human greenhouse emissions?
Our experts have determined that our experts were right. Trust us, we’re experts.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 10:36As we said, we have no way to know. He never said. Suppose we could spy through his windows while Barney the Blarney is out trying to find the end of the rainbow.
You could…walk up and…y’know, ask him.
Would that be breaking some kind of a rule? What’s the citation?
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 10:38That would be statisticians.
So climate scientists, who can predict the future state of the entire Earth, have never thought to do this? They left all that money on the table for lowly statisticians? Sheeeeeit, that right there is enough to make me doubt the wisdom of climate scientists.
Plus, think of all the ways to game the stock market…. Hey, speaking of: You fellows sure do seem up on climate science! And you’ve repeatedly assured us that green tech will be a huge export sector. You ever going to kick loose with those stock tips? Fidel, my broker, is still standing by….
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 10:39Zachriel: … in different cultures, under different political systems…
mkfreeberg: Why on earth does that matter? Science is science, right?
A broader consensus minimizes biases, including institutional biases.
mkfreeberg: The same one that uses volcanoes as a proxy for human greenhouse emissions?
Um, no. Can you provide a citation? (There are other projects that study volcanic forcing, which is not the same as a proxy.)
mkfreeberg: Our experts have determined that our experts were right.
No, they were an independent project.
mkfreeberg: So climate scientists, who can predict the future state of the entire Earth, have never thought to do this?
Climate scientists are not statisticians. They often work with statisticians, though. Cosmologists can predict the future state of the entire cosmos, but are no better than most other people when it comes to beating the house.
mkfreeberg: They left all that money on the table for lowly statisticians? Sheeeeeit, that right there is enough to make me doubt the wisdom of climate scientists.
Most scientists are funny that way. They pursue knowledge.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 11:33Looks like you’re replying to Severian.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 11:41mkfreeberg: Looks like you’re replying to Severian.
Right-o!
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 11:42Can you provide a citation? (There are other projects that study volcanic forcing, which is not the same as a proxy.)
Ah, my bad — it reads “volcanoes and a proxy.” So, you know, a complete ass-pull.
I think Morgan had a post about this somewheres, the upshot of which was that we can learn a lot about lunar topography if we use cheese as a proxy. Let C be the percentage of the moon’s surface that’s made out of cheese, and it’s a pretty simple matter to determine the percentages of Gouda, Limburger, cheddar…
And before you crack out one of your little cut-and-paste bibliographies about proxies, realize that my point is valid no matter how one justifies the use of it. A “proxy” is, by definition, something that stands in for something else because the real thing you’re trying to measure is unknowable. You can plug in a higher number and “prove” that we’re all gonna die, just like I can plug in a lower one and “prove” it’s no big deal. They’re all ass-pulled, no matter the value you pick. The only thing “multiple studies…in different cultures, under different political systems” prove is that there’s broad-ish quasi-agreement on pulling technique.
Cosmologists can predict the future state of the entire cosmos, but are no better than most other people when it comes to beating the house.
C’mon, y’all….. it’s just unseemly, pretending to be this obtuse. The planet will be overrun by superintelligent apes by the time we can check any present-day “predictions” about the future of the entire cosmos. You people, on the other hand, predict gloom and doom for The Day After Tomorrow. Which means you must consider yourselves pretty good at predicting events in calendar — as opposed to geologic — time. Haven’t you cut-and-pasted all the horrible things that are just around the corner if we don’t implement Binding International Treaties (TM) this very second? Didn’t y’all in fact try to bullshit us into thinking you’d made a successful AGW prediction just the other day?
As I’ve often said: If we can’t trust you to be honest about minor things like this, what reason do we have to believe anything you say? Other than this, of course….
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 12:35Severian: A “proxy” is, by definition, something that stands in for something else because the real thing you’re trying to measure is unknowable.
No, that’s not what it means. It’s just a way of measuring something indirectly. In this case, now that we know what you were referring to, atmospheric CO2 is being used as a proxy for anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is a reasonable approximation.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 13:03No, that’s not what it means. It’s just a way of measuring something indirectly
Yep. Measuring indirectly, because — follow carefully now — it’s impossible to measure directly. Hence, unknowable. Our definition works fine. [That is fun!]
atmospheric CO2 is being used as a proxy for anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is a reasonable approximation.
Oh yeah, it sure is. All the experts say so.
Cripes, that’s pathetic, even for you.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 13:08Severian: Measuring indirectly, because — follow carefully now — it’s impossible to measure directly.
Proxies are often used to provide evidence of conditions that are difficult to measure, but that isn’t what makes it a proxy. For instance, tree rings are a proxy measure for growing conditions, whether the conditions can be directly observed or not.
Zachriel: atmospheric CO2 is being used as a proxy for anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which is a reasonable approximation.
Severian: Oh yeah, it sure is. All the experts say so.
As CO2 is the primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas, and most other emissions have increased proportionally with industrialization. Are you just handwaving, or did you have a point?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 13:17Are you just handwaving, or did you have a point?
Are you seriously attempting to win an argument about appealing to authority in a thread that’s all about your continued abuse of appeals to authority? Or did you have a point?
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 13:21Hey, by the way, when are you going to kick loose with those green stock tips? After all, just the other day you tried to bullshit us into thinking you’d made an AGW prediction.
So are you going to give up the goods or what? Feel free to use whatever proxies you need. My broker is standing by.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 13:25Severian: Are you seriously attempting to win an argument about appealing to authority in a thread that’s all about your continued abuse of appeals to authority?
We didn’t cite any authority. We explained that your statement that proxies only exist when it is impossible to measure directly was incorrect, and we provided a simple example that you should be able to follow. We then pointed out that CO2 is the primary anthropogenic greenhouse gas, a statement that is fairly easy to verify.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 13:26But, see, that’s not what you said. You said
And since growing conditions 500 years ago cannot, by definition, be observed, you are using a proxy for something that is unknowable.
You also said
which is not the same as
Once again, you’re trying to beg the question in the guise of “a simple example that [I] should be able to follow.” (Condescend to me more, Daddy! It gets me all wet). Paging Michael Jackson. Sneaking in an appeal to authority — valid according to whom? — in a post that starts “We didn’t cite any authority.” Cute. Obvious and trite, but cute.
You’re “arguing” as you’ve always done, claiming this or that will happen because it’s “science.” Except that the “science” always turns out to rest on ass-pulled assumptions about the validity of evidence, all of which rests entirely on the authority of “experts.” We’ve spent umpteen posts here explaining very patiently why that’s unconvincing. Meanwhile, you can’t even manage to be honest in quoting yourselves.
This is not, to put it mildly, the behavior of people arguing in good faith. Pathetic is what it is, frankly. Having been on this merry-go-round with you for some time, I’m far less inclined to believe in AGW. Appeals to “the evidence” will not sway me, as you’ve given no indication that you understand our objections it… or are capable of arguing honestly about them in any case.
Oh, and I’m still waiting on those green stock tips.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 13:44Severian: Hey, by the way, when are you going to kick loose with those green stock tips?
Knowing that automatic typesetting machines were the future didn’t keep Mark Twain from bankrupting himself investing in the wrong machine. Knowing that electric headlights would eventually replace acetylene, doesn’t mean that you would thereby know which company would be able to develop the product and bring it to market. Sorry, you’ll have to do your own market research.
Severian: And since growing conditions 500 years ago cannot, by definition, be observed, you are using a proxy for something that is unknowable.
Yes, but they are also a proxy for growing conditions today, something that can be measured directly. Nor are growing conditions 500 years ago unknowable. Not only are there records from 500 years ago, but the whole point of a proxy is to provide that information. Not being able to measure something directly is not the same as unknowable. Much of science is based on indirect measures. Perhaps you can think of a few, if you try.
Severian: Once again, you’re trying to beg the question in the guise of “a simple example that [I] should be able to follow.”
It was a simple example that showed why your statement was false. Are you disagreeing or just making noise? Did you have an actual point?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 13:56Are you disagreeing or just making noise?
Now that’s classic, coming from the cuttlefish collective.
Perhaps you can think of a few, if you try.
No no no, that’s why we have experts. So we don’t have to think for ourselves. Don’t you remember? Go read the thread again.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 14:15Zachriel: Not being able to measure something directly is not the same as unknowable. Much of science is based on indirect measures. Perhaps you can think of a few, if you try.
Severian: No no no, that’s why we have experts. So we don’t have to think for ourselves.
No, really. You should try.
Science abounds with examples. Galileo only had circumstantial evidence of the Earth’s movement. Dalton only had circumstantial evidence of the existence of discrete molecules. Bruno only had circumstantial evidence that stars were suns with their own planets. And no one has seen a blackhole. How could they?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 14:36Right, curiosity drove the exercise.
But when Barney the Barley Farmer beats your pants off figuring out what’s going on, i.e., getting the correct answer when you and your scientists got the wrong one, there’s no curiosity whatsoever about how he did it; indeed, you prohibit anyone else showing any curiosity about it. Because of your rules. That, to me, is the big story. I’m not too concerned about whether the scientists are likely or not likely to get the answer right, or whether Barney is more or less so, I’m more concerned about results. Let’s face it, your forecast of probabilities is useless if you don’t have some measure of whether you’ve got a good way of measuring them, and if Barney is right about something while you’re wrong about it, you should have some measure of humility about this. You should WANT to take the opportunity to re-orient yourselves, if Barney just got done spanking you.
But when Barney does spank you by getting the answer right when you got it wrong, you don’t have any curiosity about it. So: It might as well have happened a hundred times. Or a thousand. Or a million times in a row, Barney got it right when you got it wrong; still, you don’t want to take the time to amble over to Barney and ask him — without incurring a thousand dollars cost in doing so, indeed, without incurring so much as a nickel of it — hey, what’s your method?
Now I got you to admit that the purpose of your rules is to get the right answer. But when this depends on showing a little bit of old-fashioned curiosity, like that shown by Galileo or Eratosthenes…you haven’t got it in ya.
I think your rules are just rules for detail-phobes to go on being detail-phobic; and, at the same time, acting smug. To keep up that feeling, that self-delusion, that they’re doing lots of digging in and researching, when in fact all they’re doing is reading the works of others and learning to mimic the phrases and sentences. To keep up a monopoly on the discussion while, at the same time, persisting in the valley girl no-homework excuse of “OMG I just can’t believe it, I’m SOOOOOOO busy!”
It is the same “science” by which Joe Biden insists a shotgun should provide us with all of our personal defense needs. Just step out on the porch, and fire two blasts…
Who needs to know anything, when you can just as easily simply memorize some phrases and just act like a condescending boob? Let’s all just win arguments the Biden way. Saves time.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 15:18No, really. You should try.
No, really, you should try to understand our arguments. Why should I extend to you a courtesy you don’t extend to us?
You use “proxies” to approximate all kinds of stuff you can’t measure directly. The choice of what to approximate, and how, is in some measure abitrary by definition. Galileo, Dalton, etc. later had their inductions confirmed by direct observation. Your version of “climate science,” by contrast, starts with an arbitrary assumption and measures from there. When observations don’t match up with the models, you insist that it’s the observations, not the models, that must be wrong. And when you’re called on any of this, you fall back on the same tired appeals to authority.
We’ve been over this I don’t know how many times now. I’d offer to start doing “science” when you start doing logic, but here again, you can’t even be honest when you quote yourselves. Seems kinda pointless.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 15:28mkfreeberg: indeed, you prohibit anyone else showing any curiosity about it.
Please quit misrepresenting our position. You said “Barney the Barley Farmer says, ‘not good enough, I ain’t buying it.’ Handwaves.” At no time did we suggest that one couldn’t be curious. but all we have is handwaving. Turns out that’s not a particular good method of reaching conclusions about the natural world.
mkfreeberg: I’m not too concerned about whether the scientists are likely or not likely to get the answer right, or whether Barney is more or less so, I’m more concerned about results.
Turns out that the scientific method has been extraordinarily successful, while handwaving not so much. Method does matter.
mkfreeberg: Barney got it right when you got it wrong; still, you don’t want to take the time to amble over to Barney and ask him
You’re the one who said all he did was handwave. It’s your scenario. If you want to provide us more information on Barney’s behalf, we’d be happy to consider it.
mkfreeberg: Now I got you to admit that the purpose of your rules is to get the right answer. But when this depends on showing a little bit of old-fashioned curiosity, like that shown by Galileo or Eratosthenes…you haven’t got it in ya.
The difference is, of course, that Galileo and Eratosthenes both provided evidence to support their claims. That allows science to progress, knowledge to increase. In the case of Barney the Blarney, all we have are handwaves.
–
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 16:17You receive a letter saying they can predict the stock market trend. Lo and behold, they were right. You receive a total of seven letters, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the eighth letter. Is this a good bet? If you are considering Barney’s binary choice to be indicative of anything, then certainly multiple accurate predictions should be even more so. (Note we’re not asking you to invest your own money. We’re just asking if it is a good bet.)
Severian: No, really, you should try to understand our arguments.
Um, you specifically said you weren’t providing any arguments.
Severian: You use “proxies” to approximate all kinds of stuff you can’t measure directly.
Yes, that’s a common purpose of proxies. It’s also used to provide a secondary measure of something you might have a direct measure of, but one that may not be completely accurate or reliable.
Severian: Galileo, Dalton, etc. later had their inductions confirmed by direct observation.
Both of their hypothetico-deductions were strongly confirmed long before any direct observation, and in very interesting ways. This is where you should indicate some understanding of this point.
Severian: Your version of “climate science,” by contrast, starts with an arbitrary assumption and measures from there.
What assumption is that? Please be specific.
Severian: And when you’re called on any of this, you fall back on the same tired appeals to authority.
We’re happy to discuss the evidence, but you’ve shown no interest.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 16:18Turns out that’s not a particular good method of reaching conclusions about the natural world.
Quit misrepresenting my hypothetical.
If anything “turned out,” it turned out that Barney was right. And your scientists were wrong. That’s the whole point, how it “turned out.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 16:18mkfreeberg: Quit misrepresenting my hypothetical.
We’ve read it several times, and think we understand it. Scholars say the world is flat. Barney says “not good enough, I ain’t buying it.” and waves his hands. For all we know Barney is simply guessing that the world is not flat. But maybe he’s friends with Dr. Who. No way to tell from what you have provided.
Method does matter. The scientific method requires evidence, not mere assertion. Sure, maybe Barney is omniscient, an oracle for everything we want to know, but in the real world, science has been extraordinarily successful. And providing reasons for claims is essential to the process.
–
Let’s test whether mere results are sufficient:
You receive an email saying they can predict the stock market trend, up or down. Lo and behold, they were right! You receive a total of six emails, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the seventh email. Is this a good bet?
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 16:30For all we know Barney is simply guessing that the world is not flat. But maybe he’s friends with Dr. Who. No way to tell from what you have provided. Method does matter…
Yes, now you’re getting it. The scientists somehow settled into this theory which we know to have been wrong. So their method must have been lacking in some way, and perhaps Barney caught on to this. Oh yes, and he might have just guessed. It has not escaped my notice that you’re fond of supposing that. But that is, in itself, a form of hand waving isn’t it? You’re none too fond of my friend Barney, even when he happens to be right (perhaps because he is). So you find it favorable to think that every decision he makes in life is random.
But…I never said that, either.
See, from all you’ve said here, I think you all just like to imagine competence on the part of those who agree with you, and incompetence on the part of those who don’t. Your rules impress me as little more than a bitter and butt-hurt attitude against plain old horse-sense.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 16:40Azimov on the world is flat
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 16:41http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
mkfreeberg: So their method must have been lacking in some way, and perhaps Barney caught on to this.
Actually, you don’t know that. Their method may have been fine, but they may not have had the evidence necessary to reach another conclusion.
mkfreeberg: It has not escaped my notice that you’re fond of supposing that. But that is, in itself, a form of hand waving isn’t it?
Not at all. Barney could have been guessing. He could know Dr. Who. He could be a mystic. He could be a genius. Or he could have been wrong and the scholars right. There’s no way to know based on “’not good enough, I ain’t buying it.’ and waves his hands.”
By the way, you ignored our point about the method being important, and never answered about the bet.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 16:45Actually, you don’t know that.
That’s quite alright. You’ve leaped to all sorts of conclusions about my friend Barney and his “hand waving.” I’ve suggested repeatedly that he might know something you don’t, and without any reason to do so whatsoever, you’ve completely ignored this as a possibility.
Science is about curiosity. You have none; you approve of none; and yet you represent yourselves as, how did Severian put it? Science’s BFF?
By the way, you ignored our point about the method being important, and never answered about the bet.
I read your post until I came to the first glaring flaw, and responded to that.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 16:54mkfreeberg: I read your post until I came to the first glaring flaw, and responded to that.
That’s fine. So we’ll put it at the beginning of the post. Let’s test whether mere results are sufficient:
You receive an email saying they can predict the stock market trend, up or down. Lo and behold, they were right! You receive a total of six emails, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the seventh email. Is this a good bet?
mkfreeberg: You’ve leaped to all sorts of conclusions about my friend Barney and his “hand waving.”
Not at all. We didn’t reach any conclusions, but merely ventured guesses. Maybe he knows someone with a TT Type 40, Mark 3. Maybe he’s the ghost of Christmas Future. Maybe he’s a genius and has an observatory at home. But we know he’s not Eratosthenes, because Eratosthenes didn’t engage in handwaving, but provided evidence to support his claims.
mkfreeberg: Science is about curiosity.
Sure, but it still requires evidence. The method is important in science. Otherwise, there’s no way to determine whether Barney is right or not.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 17:14We’re happy to discuss the evidence, but you’ve shown no interest.
Yeah, I have to admit, I’m not too interested in another four hundred posts of “pin the tail on the cuttlefish.” You spent several hundred posts handwaving away very large and significant problems with your theory by specious appeals to authority. You’ve spent another hundred or so here claiming that specious appeals to authority aren’t specious, based on specious appeals to some other authority. Combine that with your repeated and obvious pattern of dishonesty — you can’t even quote yourselves without distortion — and I just can’t see much profit in it.
This is where you should indicate some understanding of this point.
Yup. And there you have it. Argument by assertion, followed by an insinuation that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t understand basic science. And with that, you’ve pretty much shot your rhetorical wad. It’s time for some new material.
- Severian | 02/25/2013 @ 17:15You receive an email saying they can predict the stock market trend, up or down. Lo and behold, they were right! You receive a total of six emails, each time, accurately predicting the stock market trend. The next time, they want $1000 for the seventh email. Is this a good bet?
You’ll have to define “good.” I’m a bit unusual in that I don’t go for these kinds of things. I don’t gamble, I don’t buy lottery tickets. I don’t even enter into raffles. And when the challenge is to use one’s inductive reasoning to figure out likelihoods, well, I like to internalize that.
That last part is significant. It seems you all don’t share this, you’re more into figuring out who’s the best authority on something — and then you outsource the thinking. With an obsession about likelihoods. Detail-phobes, in other words.
Hey, whatever works for you. I don’t think you should be jumping through hoops to put on these appearances that you’re thinking things out, and that others aren’t. It’s more like the reverse, since you’re externalizing all the hard thinking, and we the people with whom you’re having these discussions, seek to internalize it. That would make us the disciplined, detail-oriented ones. Not you. But whatever rocks your boat.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 17:33Severian: You spent several hundred posts handwaving away very large and significant problems with your theory by specious appeals to authority.
As we said, we are more than happy to discuss the evidence.
Zachriel: Both of their hypothetico-deductions were strongly confirmed long before any direct observation, and in very interesting ways. This is where you should indicate some understanding of this point.
Severian: Argument by assertion, followed by an insinuation that anyone who doesn’t agree with you doesn’t understand basic science.
The only assertion was that their findings were strongly confirmed long before direct observation. We’re more than happy to support the assertion, but we figured we’d ask you first.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 17:45mkfreeberg: I’m a bit unusual in that I don’t go for these kinds of things. I don’t gamble, I don’t buy lottery tickets. I don’t even enter into raffles.
We’re not asking you to bet. We’re basically asking whether you think the emails signify knowledge of the stock market. If so, then a lot of money can be had.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 17:45We’re not asking you to bet. We’re basically asking whether you think the emails signify knowledge of the stock market. If so, then a lot of money can be had.
Ah, do they signify knowledge. Well under the circumstances you’ve defined, I would say there has been some evidence provided, but not proof.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 17:47mkfreeberg: Ah, do they signify knowledge. Well under the circumstances you’ve defined, I would say there has been some evidence provided, but not proof.
Thank you for finally answering.
It’s actually a well-known, and illegal, scam. The perps send out 100,000 messages, with half of the messages saying the market will go up, half down. Then to those who received the correct answer, they send out 50,000 messages, with half of the messages saying the market will go up, half down. After six iterations, about 1,000 will have received six messages with perfect six perfect predictions. Then the hook. Send $1000 for the next prediction. Let’s say only the most greedy 10% or 100 respond. That’s $100,000 for the perps.
But the scam’s not over. Half of those people will get a seventh message with the correct prediction, and use that ‘information’ to make money in the stock market. After ten iterations, there will be people mortgaging their houses to pay the perps for the next message.
Rinse and repeat.
This relates to whether Barney knows anything or not. Given nothing but a single correct binary prediction, no, you can’t determine he’s done more than guess. Indeed, you can’t even determine whether or not he’s correct. That’s requires others doing the actual work of collecting evidence. At most, Barney has a hypothesis.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 18:09And we know that the scientists do not engage in scams, because?
And you did read Dr. Ball’s comments about the CRU scandal before answering, right?
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 18:16mkfreeberg: And we know that the scientists do not engage in scams, because?
Heavens! Where did you get that idea? It’s like thinking cops never commit crimes, or doctors never smoke. There was Piltdown Man, the impending extinction of blondes, Tim Ball being a climatologist, the mechanical Turk. The list is endless.
- Zachriel | 02/25/2013 @ 18:42Mkay, since both sides can scam, I choose to internalize my reasoning processes.
I understand others opt for the other. Not sure how that works though. Based on your comments, it looks like an art-or-science of likelihood, followed by a calculation of approximate likelihoods, and let’s-hope-for-the-best. Okay, that I understand…but then there’s all this condescension against those who choose to internalize. Not sure how that works.
- mkfreeberg | 02/25/2013 @ 18:54mkfreeberg: I choose to internalize my reasoning processes.
Have no idea what that means. In any case, we have the scientific method to help us learn about the natural world.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2013 @ 05:02mkfreeberg: I choose to internalize my reasoning processes.
Z: Have no idea what that means. In any case, we have the scientific method to help us learn about the natural world.
Science without any internalized reasoning. What a fascinating concept.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2013 @ 05:31mkfreeberg: Science without any internalized reasoning.
If you simply mean thinking, then everyone does that; so, saying you prefer to “internalize your reasoning process” isn’t particularly informative.
You still seem confused on the scientific method. The process of forming a scientific hypothesis can include reason, experience, intuition, even dreams. But a scientific hypothesis should entail specific empirical predictions, hypothetico-deduction.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2013 @ 06:18http://zachriel.blogspot.com/2005/08/scientific-method.html
mkfreeberg: I choose to internalize my reasoning processes.
Perhaps you mean you can’t or won’t tell us how you arrived at a conclusion. Is that the case?
- Zachriel | 02/26/2013 @ 06:23Actually, if I said I choose to internalize the reasoning process, and you have no idea what that means, then this would indicate you’re the one who is confused. It’s nice you’ve got books to quote and you’ve got all these opinions about what the scientific method should & should not be. But internal awareness is important too; people should comprehend the concepts, especially if they’re going to take their “shoulds” to the Internet and start getting in arguments about them.
Fact is, if you have so thoroughly disclaimed conceptual command that you don’t even understand what people are saying when they choose to internalize the reasoning process, then you have no business using terms like “hand waving.” You should understand the objections people are making before you seek to criticize those objections.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2013 @ 06:24mkfreeberg: Actually, if I said I choose to internalize the reasoning process, and you have no idea what that means, then this would indicate you’re the one who is confused.
Which is why we asked for clarification, to make sure we understood your intended meaning. Isn’t that what you do? In any case, you still haven’t bothered to clarify your comment. We’ll parse your previous statement according to our understanding.
mkfreeberg: I choose to … think.
Bully for you! However, that’s not sufficient for science. You also have to state an explicit hypothesis with entailed empirical predictions.
- Zachriel | 02/26/2013 @ 14:58…you still haven’t bothered to clarify your comment.
Rather tall order, I’m afraid. Explaining “internaliz[ing] my reasoning process” is easy enough, but you’re asking me to do it to enlighten someone who thinks “we’ve provided multiple citations” is an adequate walk-through of their own reasoning process…in other words, someone who externalizes it, and seems to think externalizing it is the only way to go. And, further, rationalizes endlessly trying to make appeal-to-authority an acceptable argument. I don’t wish to be insulting about it, but it’s rather like explaining days-of-week to a pig or a bat or something. You’re asking about something that is outside of a scope of thinking to which you seem to be confined, a scope that you have, up until this time, considered to be all-encompassing and universal. You’d have to broaden the scope in order to understand.
Well okay, we would first start with proclaiming the appeal to authority as a logical fallacy, or doing whatever else is necessary to stay the heck away from it. So: “All the scientists agree the Earth is round” is a no-no, instead we opt for “the sunbeam is 7 degrees from top-dead-center in Alexandria, at the same moment it is directly overhead in Syene”…and this means something.
So the explainer walks through each step, the deductive reasoning as well as the inductive. The person to whom it is explained, before considering the lesson to be complete, comprehends how the reasoning works — would be able to explain to a third party, why possibilities were included in the deductive reasoning process, how & why they were excluded. By the time the process is done, we can just sidestep the endless debate on whether appeal to authority is a reasonable argument, because it’s no longer needed. The reasoning is not externalized, it is internalized. No footnotes necessary.
So — Tim Ball can scam, all the other climate change skeptics can scam, the alwarmists can scam too. Everybody can scam. So the responsible thing to do is to internalize one’s reasoning process.
- mkfreeberg | 02/26/2013 @ 17:13mkfreeberg: Well okay, we would first start with proclaiming the appeal to authority as a logical fallacy, …
An appeal to authority can be a valid inductive argument as experts are more likely to be right when speaking about a consensus within their field of expertise. Every one relies on expert opinion, including scientists. Erastothenes relied on a professional pacer, for instance.
mkfreeberg: … or doing whatever else is necessary to stay the heck away from it.
That’s fine. The evidence is more interesting and more instructive than an appeal to authority. That’s why we prefer to discuss the evidence. For some reason, you avoid discussing the evidence.
mkfreeberg: So: “All the scientists agree the Earth is round” is a no-no, instead we opt for “the sunbeam is 7 degrees from top-dead-center in Alexandria, at the same moment it is directly overhead in Syene”…and this means something.
Not sure how that is “internalized reasoning”, which you have yet to define. It’s called hypothetico-deduction. There’s an explicit hypothesis, an entailed prediction, and an observation.
Just curious. How do you know there is a seven-degree difference? Did you take it on authority, or did you measure it yourself?
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 06:12An appeal to authority can be a valid inductive argument…
As I’ve already stated, “valid” has a specific meaning, one not sufficiently broad to address the concerns here. Ignoring the more arcane and eccentric uses of the term, it is generally used to describe a logical argument with good form: If you were to strip the statement of any specifics, replacing them with algebraic letter-variables and present the skeletal structure as a syllogism, you could see the logic is “good.” No formal fallacies. However, there may be informal fallacies, which generally arise from unknowns being treated as knowns.
“If A, then B. A. Therefore, B.” This is “valid.” But if A is being treated as a known when it isn’t proven, the statement has an informal fallacy and is therefore fallacious. Bottom-lining it — once again, you have performed a sleight-of-hand deception here, presenting a “proof” based on the premise that the dispute is in a place other than where it really is. Appeals to authority meeting your five criteria are “valid” in that they have good form. That actually isn’t even true, and in addition, there are six points to this and not five, but let’s let all that go for now: There is still the problem of informal fallacies, of unknowns being treated as knowns. Scientists, speaking within their field of expertise, are thought to know more than the engineers. You don’t know that. It is an assumption you are making to prop up your own argument.
No doubt, if it was the survey of scientists saying action is not urgently required, and the survey of engineers saying it absolutely is, we’d be getting a lecture from you on how much more the engineers know than the scientists.
Just curious. How do you know there is a seven-degree difference? Did you take it on authority, or did you measure it yourself?
I subtracted 24°05′ from 31°12′. Good enough?
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 07:43This is what I was trying to get at with that David Stove quote about the procession of the Holy Ghost. One can run through the entire Logic 101 playbook, citing it all in Latin, and still be wrong, because the underlying proposition — the Holy Ghost exists, and proceeds from something — is faith, not science.
Simliarly, the Checklist can be used to render any conclusion valid. For instance: Angels exist. I cite the authority of Thomas Aquinas. He fulfills all the conditions of The Checklist. And if Heisenberg himself were to disagree, claiming that we can’t see it mathematically…. or Stephen Hawking were to point out that nobody’s seen Heaven in a telescope… well, they’re not theologians, are they? Therefore they’re opining outside their area of experise. Therefore their objections are invalid.
Argument from Authority is a fallacy because authority is a tool, nothing more.
- Severian | 02/27/2013 @ 08:29mkfreeberg: There is still the problem of informal fallacies, of unknowns being treated as knowns
But that’s not what you said, which was “we would first start with proclaiming the appeal to authority as a logical fallacy”. Some appeals to authority are fallacious, some aren’t. If someone is making a presumption about the relative expertise or validity of a field, then the appeal fails. That doesn’t mean all appeals to authority are fallacious.
mkfreeberg: Scientists, speaking within their field of expertise, are thought to know more than the engineers.
It is more likely that a scientist knows more within his specialty, just as it is more likely an engineer knows more within his specialty.
mkfreeberg: You don’t know that. It is an assumption you are making to prop up your own argument.
It’s an empirical statement. Do you really think if we ask biologists about biology, they will know no more than mechanical engineers, on average? Do you really think that if we ask mechanical engineers about mechanical engineering, they will know no more than biologists, on average?
mkfreeberg: I subtracted 24°05′ from 31°12′. Good enough?
Sure, you looked it up in a book that you considered authoritative.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 09:53Severian: Simliarly, the Checklist can be used to render any conclusion valid.
You mean render the argument valid, in order to support the conclusion.
Severian: well, they’re not theologians, are they?
No, they’re not theologians. Theology is a legitimate field, as it is the study of human religious beliefs. They would be correct to point out that angels have no empirical evidence of angels, however.
Severian: Argument from Authority is a fallacy because authority is a tool, nothing more.
That’s funny. If an argument is fallacious, then it’s not much of a tool.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 09:55Sigh. This is getting *really* pathetic.
You mean render the argument valid, in order to support the conclusion.
No, I meant “render the conclusion valid.” Accoring to the way you lot use The Checklist, Global Warming is valid because Experts say so. Therefore, angels exist because Aquinas says so. If The Checklist is good for the one, it’s good for the other.
angels have no empirical evidence of angels, however
Angels have no empirical evidence of themselves. That’s interesting. Your ontology is as fascinating as your logic.
If an argument is fallacious, then it’s not much of a tool.
That’s because I said “Argument from Authority” is a fallacy, not “authority itself is a fallacy.” Y’all don’t read too good, do you?
Argument from Authority is the logical fallacy that says a position is right because an authority says so, full stop. “Authority” –field experience, a credential, what have you — is a tool that rational people use in decision making, nothing more.
Let me give you an example (“a simple example even you should be able to follow,” as I believe the phrasing goes): You go to the doctor complaining of a migraine. The first thing he wants to do is order up a colonoscopy. Now, maybe there is a colon-specific etiology for migraine headaches, and that’s what the doc wants to check, but a rational person would ask about it. You would apparently just drop trou and bend over, because he’s got an MD after his name.
The first is “authority,” as rational people understand and use it. The second is Appeal to Authority, as you all are using it. Having internalized my reasoning process, I ask before I let someone shove something up my ass.
- Severian | 02/27/2013 @ 10:16But that’s not what you said, which was…
Quoting from the twenty things that are non-partisan, or darn well should be:
9. [blank] and [blank] are functionally equivalent; they are not different in any meaningful way.
Let’s repeat that: Any meaningful way. I’ve been consistent in my position that appeal to authority is fallacious both formally and informally, a good thing to shun in any case. Also, if you thought on the matter in an intellectually honest way rather than just squirting your ink, you’d immediately see that internalizing the reasoning process would necessitate, first and foremost, eliminating this as a means of support for any argument.
Do you really think if we ask biologists about biology, they will know no more than mechanical engineers, on average? Do you really think that if we ask mechanical engineers about mechanical engineering, they will know no more than biologists, on average?
Quoting the non-partisan things, again…
8. [blank] and [blank] are meaningfully different; what works for one does not necessarily work for the other.
Mechanical engineering is outside the expertise of biology. Biology is outside the expertise of mechanical engineering.
What is to happen to the climate in the future, is within the expertise of climate engineering.
Outside of. Within. Those two things are opposites. They are different. They are not the same. So your comparison fails.
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 10:20Severian: No, I meant “render the conclusion valid.”
The conclusion is supported by valid arguments.
Severian: Accoring to the way you lot use The Checklist, Global Warming is valid because Experts say so. Therefore, angels exist because Aquinas says so. If The Checklist is good for the one, it’s good for the other.
Um, no. That is not our argument. First of all, we don’t typically use appeal to authority to support climate science, but direct people to the evidence. Second, global warming isn’t valid or invalid. It’s a hypothesis. Finally, an appeal to authority is an argument. If valid, it can be used to support a claim.
Severian: Z: Angels have no empirical evidence of themselves.
Didn’t think you would have trouble parsing it, or we would have corrected the typo. It should read, “They would be correct to point out that there is no empirical evidence of angels.”
Severian: Argument from Authority is a fallacy because authority is a tool, nothing more.
So if several independent doctors agree you have cancer, they are not more likely to be correct than, say, your barber?
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 10:29mkfreeberg: I’ve been consistent in my position that appeal to authority is fallacious both formally and informally
And that position is still false.
mkfreeberg: Mechanical engineering is outside the expertise of biology. Biology is outside the expertise of mechanical engineering.
And that is why an appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacy. If you have a question about biology, you will more likely get a correct answer from your biology professor than from your mechanical engineering professor. If you have a question about mechanical engineering, you will more likely get a correct answer from your mechanical engineering professor than from your biology professor. See how that works. It’s a very simple case of an appeal to authority.
mkfreeberg: What is to happen to the climate in the future, is within the expertise of climate engineering.
What? On the one hand you say all appeals to authority are fallacious, but on the other hand, you want to appeal to the authority of climate engineers. Which is your real position?
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 10:36On the one hand you say all appeals to authority are fallacious, but on the other hand, you want to appeal to the authority of climate engineers. Which is your real position?
Again, we need to embiggen your scope in order for you to understand what’s happening here. I’m doing something here that you’ve been called upon to do several times, and others have taken note that you either can’t or won’t: Concede something, just for the moment, for the sake of examining a particularly glaring flaw somewhere else.
That’s actually what Eratosthenes did. A lot of science is like that. “Okay let us say for the sake of argument this thing is true, which controverts what my research will prove” — in his case, that the Earth is flat. We have a dilemma, in the angular differences of the noon-summer-solstice sunbeam over these water wells. From this self-tasking of squaring up the pre-existing theory with these empirical observations (which one must internalize one’s reasoning process in order to do), he can see that the flat-earth theory ultimately has to break down. This can be done well or poorly. Galileo tried to do it with the tides, and ended up offering a decent example of how science should not be done.
So I’ve dealt your idea that appeals to authority can be valid, a devastating blow, simply by taking the idea seriously. If appeal to authority under those conditions is valid, and from that we see there’s a consensus, then well here’s a survey involving scientists-and-engineers — we do not know how many there are of each, but we know they do work in those fields — and the consensus is no longer there. You’re left scrambling around saying “but…but…we hold that this appeal to authority is valid and that one is not, because engineers are commenting outside their field of expertise so that survey doesn’t satisfy our bullets.” The word “valid” doesn’t apply to informal fallacies, and you commit an informal fallacy by identifying and unknown as a known, dreaming up this bit of fiction that the survey you don’t like relies overly much on engineers commenting outside of their discipline. There isn’t any evidence to support this.
Fallacious things can be true. I do not pretend to have disproved what you have said. What I have proven, however, is that the “consensus” is a sham. It relies on rationalizing away some expert opinions, and placing excessive weight on other expert opinions.
Now, I understand how this is supposed to go. I read Douglas Adams in middle school, too:
So, I looked up the latitudes of Alexandria and Syene in a book somewhere (actually, multiple books, multiple atlases, multiple globes, Wikipedia, all of which agree with each another as one would expect), in so doing I have relied on an authority, you’re supposed to have your QED moment and I’m supposed to go “Oh dear” and vanish in a puff of logic.
Not only is it not happening, but you continue to try to get into your Hitchhikers Guide re-enactment in situations that don’t fit it for a number of reasons. The whole thing just looks a bit silly and odd, but furthermore, demonstrates that the “Hooray we’re still doomed” paradigm is really a comfort zone for a lot of people. Perhaps the consensus-alwarmist-scientists are immune from this surreal and strange temptation? It’s a possibility. But I’ve little reason to think so.
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 11:20mkfreeberg: So I’ve dealt your idea that appeals to authority can be valid,
It’s not just our idea. We’ve cited texts on logic, encyclopedias, university courses, professors of philosophy, etc.
mkfreeberg: a devastating blow, simply by taking the idea seriously. If appeal to authority under those conditions is valid, and from that we see there’s a consensus, then well here’s a survey involving scientists-and-engineers — we do not know how many there are of each, but we know they do work in those fields — and the consensus is no longer there.
Per “our idea”, it requires they be speaking to a consensus within their own legitimate field of study. Engineers are not scientists.
mkfreeberg: we do not know how many there are of each, but we know they do work in those fields
About ⅔ were engineers.
mkfreeberg: You’re left scrambling around saying “but…but…we hold that this appeal to authority is valid and that one is not, because engineers are commenting outside their field of expertise so that survey doesn’t satisfy our bullets.”
We provided citations from the National Society of Professional Engineers and from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers saying that engineering is not science. But whadda they know about engineering.
mkfreeberg: So, I looked up the latitudes of Alexandria and Syene in a book somewhere (actually, multiple books, multiple atlases, multiple globes, Wikipedia, all of which agree with each another as one would expect), in so doing I have relied on an authority, you’re supposed to have your QED moment and I’m supposed to go “Oh dear” and vanish in a puff of logic.
Well, you don’t have to vanish in a puff of logic, like your argument has, but you should acknowledge the point. You didn’t measure the angle of the Sun in Alexandria and Syene on the solstice. You relied upon received knowledge from a reliable resource—and reasonably so.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 11:52Engineers are not scientists.
Didn’t see “scientist” in your many-times-cited bullets.
QED. Time for you to go “puff.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 11:58mkfreeberg: Didn’t see “scientist” in your many-times-cited bullets.
It would be helpful if you acknowledge that appeals to authority can be valid arguments, even if you disagree in this instance.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
If the topic is biology, ask a biologist.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 12:09If the topic is plumbing, ask a plumber.
If the topic is climate science, ask a climate scientist.
It would be helpful if you acknowledge that appeals to authority can be valid arguments, even if you disagree in this instance.
Actually no it wouldn’t, since it is well established that appeals to authority are vulnerable both to formal and informal fallacies, and the word “valid” only has to do with formal fallacies.
I don’t even accept that they qualify for that, since in order to have good form, an argument has to have a — form. How would you build a Socratean syllogism around your appeal to authority? Seems to me, to be able to use a syllogism at all, you would have to internalize the reasoning. An appeal to authority, by its very nature, externalizes this.
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 13:50mkfreeberg: Actually no it wouldn’t, since it is well established that appeals to authority are vulnerable both to formal and informal fallacies …
Ah, that’s much better. Everyone relies on appeals to authority, as you did with regards to the difference in the Sun’s angle between Alexandria and Syene. You didn’t measure it yourself, you relied upon received knowledge. But you are right, they are subject to fallacies, which is why they have to meet certain criteria to be valid. In addition, it’s important to remember that experts can certainly be wrong, and that evidence is an effective argument against such an appeal.
mkfreeberg: I don’t even accept that they qualify for that, since in order to have good form, an argument has to have a — form.
It does have a form. We’ve provided it many times. If the appeal meets certain criteria, then the claim is more likely correct than not, all else being equal.
mkfreeberg: Seems to me, to be able to use a syllogism at all, you would have to internalize the reasoning. An appeal to authority, by its very nature, externalizes this.
It’s not an Aristotelian syllogism. Neither is the scientific method. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument.
We’ve asked you several times to define how you are using the term “internalized reasoning”, as your usage doesn’t seem to comport with its normal meaning.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 14:08The conclusion is supported by valid arguments.
Again, not what I said. You really should try reading what I did say, rather than making up something you wish I’d said in your heads and then responding to that. Speaking of…
Didn’t think you would have trouble parsing it, or we would have corrected the typo
See, I’d give you the benefit of the doubt here, but as several of us have pointed out here, you have shown no inclination, or even ability, to make an honest claim. You didn’t invent moonwalking, but it’s your go-to tactic — assert X and Y, get called on Y, retreat to X, implying the whole time that X was all you said and that we’re stupid for disagreeing. So, no dice.
But while we’re on the topic….
They would be correct to point out that there is no empirical evidence of angels
Doesn’t matter. The appeal to authority is still valid according to The Checklist. After all, there could be angels, the way there could be a stellar parallax or a New World. They all laughed at Columbus, remember? And eppur si muove and all that. As our poor friend Barney has shown, an Appeal to Authority is logically valid whether the authority is empirically right or not. That’s one of the reasons why it’s an informal fallacy.
Speaking of…
So if several independent doctors agree you have cancer, they are not more likely to be correct than, say, your barber?
Again, irrelevant, and another reason why I’m not willing to extend you the benefit of the doubt on your “typos.” Let’s agree that the doctors are “authorities,” small-a, on medicine. If I go to a doctor for a migraine and he wants to run a colonoscopy, I want an explanation. This will remain true no matter how many doctors urge the colonoscopy, because I’m not abdicating my common sense based on a white coat. If they can give me that explanation — an ass-centric etiology of migraines — then we’re good. But if all they say is “trust us, we’re doctors, now drop your pants,” I’ll begin to suspect a different motivation.
The way you’re using Appeal to Authority, however — and the conclusion you’re obviously desperate for us to draw from your repeated “likely to be right” comments — is that the colonoscopy is the right thing to do, no matter what, because the guy with the stethescope says so. It’s poor logic, but very psychologically revealing.
Speaking of….
Um, no. That is not our argument. First of all, we don’t typically use appeal to authority to support climate science, but direct people to the evidence.
Um, yeah, it is. When we first had the pleasure of making your acquaintance, we were pointing out some big flaws in the hypothesis of global warming. You called us fools, and directed us to the evidence. When we pointed out some big flaws in the evidence, you called us fools, and directed us to the methodology. When we pointed out some big flaws in the methodology, you called us fools, because all the “experts” said the methodology was just fine. When we pointed out that this is the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, you…. well, nearly 200 posts later, here we are. Looks to me like that’s exactly your argument, kemo sabe. See why I don’t give you the benefit of the doubt on your “typos?” Again, poor argumentation, but psychologically revealing.
- Severian | 02/27/2013 @ 14:29Everyone relies on appeals to authority, as you did with regards to the difference in the Sun’s angle between Alexandria and Syene. You didn’t measure it yourself, you relied upon received knowledge. But you are right, they are subject to fallacies, which is why they have to meet certain criteria to be valid.
I know you want to act out the Hitchhiker/God/puff-of-logic thing so badly you can taste it, but frankly that’s not an accurate summation of the situation. Meeting certain criteria has absolutely nothing to do with offering a credible proposition that Syene is at 24° degrees N. It happens to be the right answer. I know this, not on the strength of any one particular source, but because they all agree on it and the matter has not been put to a serious dispute.
This is a meaningful distinction. If someone comes along and says “actually, it’s at sixteen degrees North” or “It’s really at forty-five,” I’ll revisit the issue. And if they turn out to be right and what I wrote above turns out to be wrong, I’ll have to admit to having been snookered. That’s an important part of real science, being ready to admit you got it wrong — or that you’d been snookered. Meanwhile, while all that drama is going on there is only one correct answer. And that is the key to science itself.
We’ve asked you several times to define how you are using the term “internalized reasoning”, as your usage doesn’t seem to comport with its normal meaning.
And you said you don’t know what this means, that’s why you asked me for a definition. I gave you one, but said it would be hard to make it meaningful for you because it seems to be something you don’t do. Now you’re changing your tune and saying you do have some understanding of this after all, but my usage “doesn’t seem to comport with its normal meaning.”
It’s not an Aristotelian syllogism. Neither is the scientific method. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument.
Looks to me like it’s a good way to become a useful idiot, with limited usefulness.
- mkfreeberg | 02/27/2013 @ 14:29It does have a form. We’ve provided it many times. If the appeal meets certain criteria, then the claim is more likely correct than not, all else being equal.
Again, a lie.
You didn’t say “more likely correct.” You said “valid.” We’ve had many posts here discussing the difference. Remember poor Barney? The Appeal to Authority was “valid,” even though empirically wrong; Barney was empirically right, even though (you claimed) he was just guessing.
This is why you don’t get the benefit of the doubt on typos or, well, anything. You can’t even quote yourselves without distortion.
- Severian | 02/27/2013 @ 14:37One thing I am curious about, though….
You claim that an appeal to authority is only valid if the “authority” is speaking within their area of expertise.
You also claim that the opinions of “climate engineers” aren’t valid because engineers aren’t scientists, and so unqualified to speak on “climate science.”
And yet, you seem certain you can convince us — commenters on a blog — that Global Warming is a real problem based on a NOAA .gif and a bibliography.
How does that work, exactly?
- Severian | 02/27/2013 @ 14:57Severian: Again, not what I said.
It was our position you were misrepresenting, so you were presenting a strawman. An argument may be valid or invalid. A conclusion is supported or undermined by a valid argument.
Severian: They all laughed at Columbus, remember?
Yes, and they laughed at Bozo the Clown.
Severian: Authority is logically valid whether the authority is empirically right or not.
If there is a scientific consensus scientists claim that the Earth is flat, then that would be a valid appeal to authority. Keep in mind that an appeal to authority is not ‘proof’. It’s just an argument that can be undermined when the evidence permits.
Severian: That’s one of the reasons why it’s an informal fallacy.
That doesn’t make it a fallacy. It would be like saying the scientific method is a fallacy. Rather, an appeal to authority is an induction, and like all inductions can be wrong.
Severian: Let’s agree that the doctors are “authorities,” small-a, on medicine. If I go to a doctor for a migraine and he wants to run a colonoscopy, I want an explanation.
Sure, but that rarely happens, especially if you get additional opinions. That’s the whole point. They apply scientific principles to diagnosis and treatment. They are more likely to be right than people without their training.
Severian: the colonoscopy is the right thing to do, no matter what, because the guy with the stethescope says so.
Zachriel: No one says to abjure common sense. An appeal to authority is an inductive argument, so not only does the strength of the argument have to be evaluated, but it has to be balanced with other possible arguments and evidence. That’s called judgment.
Severian: You called us fools, and directed us to the evidence.
Please point to exactly where we called you a fool. In any case, as you say, we directed you to the evidence.
Severian: When we pointed out some big flaws in the evidence, you called us fools, and directed us to the methodology.
Please point to exactly where we called you a fool. In any case, as you say, we directed you to the methodology.
Severian: When we pointed out some big flaws in the methodology, you called us fools, because all the “experts” said the methodology was just fine.
Please point to exactly where we called you a fool. In any case, we pointed out that independent methodologies arrived at the same result, and we pointed you to these additional studies.
Note that in none of these instances did we appeal to anything but the evidence and the methods of science.
Zachriel: It does have a form. We’ve provided it many times. If the appeal meets certain criteria, then the claim is more likely correct than not, all else being equal.
Severian: Again, a lie.
Ah, when you misunderstand someone’s position, repeatedly misrepresenting it, they are lying.
Severian: You didn’t say “more likely correct.” You said “valid.”
Again, if an appeal to authority is valid, then it supports the claim.
Severian: Remember poor Barney? The Appeal to Authority was “valid,” even though empirically wrong; Barney was empirically right, even though (you claimed) he was just guessing.
That’s right. An appeal to authority can be valid, but the cited authority wrong. Otherwise evidence couldn’t be an argument against a valid appeal to authority. It’s also why we said to you, “experts can be wrong”.
Severian: And yet, you seem certain you can convince us — commenters on a blog — that Global Warming is a real problem based on a NOAA .gif and a bibliography. How does that work, exactly?
Um, because we’re not making an appeal to authority, but pointing to the evidence.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 16:24mkfreeberg: I know this, not on the strength of any one particular source, but because they all agree on it and the matter has not been put to a serious dispute.
They, being geographers, and all in agreement and not put to serious dispute means a consensus. Your appeal to authority is persuasive, and we have no reason to argue with it.
- Zachriel | 02/27/2013 @ 16:32Actually, if a non-geographer says 24 degrees then he’s right. And if a geographer says something else, then he’s wrong. It’s the answer that matters and not the person. That’s what’s wrong with appeal to authority. It is misdirection by nature.
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2013 @ 05:22mkfreeberg: Actually, if a non-geographer says 24 degrees then he’s right.
Yes, a non-geographer just did—by relying on an appeal to authority. (We can see it, right up there↑)
mkfreeberg: Actually, if a non-geographer says 24 degrees then he’s right.
How would you know? Did you make the measurements yourself?
mkfreeberg: That’s what’s wrong with appeal to authority. It is misdirection by nature.
Then why did you make your appeal to authority?
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 05:41I didn’t. I said 24 degrees, you asked me how I knew that was the answer, I got it from multiple sources and it wasn’t up for any serious challenge.
So to help you make your point, we need to go to something that’s up for serious challenge…or was…uh, I know, there’s an experiment where the guy got real famous for coming up with the right answer: Measuring the size of the earth, approx. 200 BCE.
That guy was a library administrator. Had about as much business measuring the size of the Earth as a software engineer does commenting on politics. If we rely on appeal to authority, not only is that guy’s correct answer automatically wrong, but if he’s included in a survey about the issue then the entire survey is contaminated with his icky, library-administrator opinion.
So we see just from reviewing that one example, it doesn’t work. The point is, it’s the answer, not the person.
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2013 @ 05:50mkfreeberg: I said 24 degrees, you asked me how I knew that was the answer, I got it from multiple sources and it wasn’t up for any serious challenge.
Please point to your original source.
mkfreeberg: So to help you make your point, we need to go to something that’s up for serious challenge…or was…uh, I know, there’s an experiment where the guy got real famous for coming up with the right answer: Measuring the size of the earth, approx. 200 BCE.
And how do you know this person did what you say? Did you read about it somewhere?
mkfreeberg: That guy was a library administrator. Had about as much business measuring the size of the Earth as a software engineer does commenting on politics.
Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition—he did science. Did you check his results, or do you rely on received knowledge?
mkfreeberg: So we see just from reviewing that one example, it doesn’t work. The point is, it’s the answer, not the person.
Eratosthenes didn’t just provide a number, but a method. Without that, it’s not science.
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 06:13Please point to your original source.
Why? Is the answer disputed somehow?
Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition—he did science. Did you check his results, or do you rely on received knowledge?
And engineers don’t do this, huh?
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2013 @ 06:33mkfreeberg: I said 24 degrees, you asked me how I knew that was the answer, I got it from multiple sources and it wasn’t up for any serious challenge.
Zachriel: Please point to your original source.
mkfreeberg: Why? Is the answer disputed somehow?
It’s amazing how much trouble you go through to avoid answering simple questions. We looked up the answer in an atlas.
mkfreeberg: And engineers don’t do this, huh?
There is nothing that says someone trained as an engineer can’t do science. However, engineering isn’t science, and few engineers do scientific work. (This was different in previous eras when there was much less specialization.)
mkfreeberg: So to help you make your point, we need to go to something that’s up for serious challenge…or was…uh, I know, there’s an experiment where the guy got real famous for coming up with the right answer: Measuring the size of the earth, approx. 200 BCE.
And how do you know this person did what you say? Did you read about it somewhere?
mkfreeberg: That guy was a library administrator. Had about as much business measuring the size of the Earth as a software engineer does commenting on politics.
Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition—he did science. Did you check his results, or do you rely on received knowledge?
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 06:42In any case, we pointed out that independent methodologies arrived at the same result, and we pointed you to these additional studies.
Uh huh. And then we pointed out that those same methodologies relied on the exact same tainted data. And then you claimed that that was ok, because “experts” said so. And when Captain Midnight pointed out that these methodologies stunk — they’re designed to retrofit data to the models, not revise models in the light of the data — you called him a fool, and made yet one more desperate appeal to authority.
You’re arguing in effect that “climate science” is the only discipline in human history immune to the law of GIGO. There’s a joke in the liberal arts: If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts. Which is fine when everyone’s a postmodernist and they’re arguing about James Joyce’s use of adverbs or something, but this alwarmist nonsense comes out of my paycheck.
Think again of the doctors. Once more you tried to weasel your way out of it, but by your own Checklist the colonoscopy would be “valid” – the doctors are experts, they’re speaking in their field, etc. Would you like us to quote your own oft-cited-but-never-linked, cribbed-from-an-activist-website checklist back at you? “Being right,” or even “the likelihood of being right,” never appears, because formal logic doesn’t work that way.
In this case, they’d be empirically wrong. An all-star superteam of the best doctors in the world, plus House M.D., can make all kinds of prognoses based on the best available evidence. Problem is, if they’re reading off the wrong chart, they’ll start ordering colonoscopies and chemotherapy when all you’ve really got is a headache. If you were to point this out to them — “hey, I’m Lisa Smith, not Tim Jones” — the intellectually honest among them would go get the right chart and start over.
Those desperately invested in their image as The Man in the White Coat, on the other hand, would insist that all their diagnoses are correct, because all the finest experts agreed with them based on all the data available to them. They could hand Tim Jones’s chart to another all-star superteam of doctors, and they would all agree that yes, Tim Jones definitely has bowel cancer. Authorities would be confirming the judgment of other authorities, across institutions and methodologies…. but they’d still be wrong, because you’re Lisa Smith.
A “climate scientist,” apparently, would start arguing that you are Tim Jones.
You claim the evidence isn’t tainted. I claim it is. You cite Authority. I cite common sense. I guess that’s where we part ways, because common sense tells me that predictions about future air temperatures are bunk when measured temperatures don’t match those predictions. You claim that temperature isn’t really temperature, and the best way to really measure temperature is not with a thermometer, but by some other method, wind velocity or some such. Common sense tells me that different things are different. Common sense tells me that if we can’t even get the weekly weather forecast right more than half the time, attempts to predict the future state of the entire world’s weather are just pissing into the wind.
Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition—he did science
Which makes everything I just said unimpeachably scientific, because I did some science just this morning. I hypothesized that if I introduced H20 to a sub-0 environment, it would solidify. And lo and behold, there’s ice in my drink right now. I also hypothesized that introducing ethanol and corn syrup to that ice, and the resultant mixture to a stationary biological system, would result in your deliberate pseudo-obtuseness being less annoying. It failed (though the rum and coke was delicious). Still…. science!!!
- Severian | 02/28/2013 @ 08:06Severian: And then we pointed out that those same methodologies relied on the exact same tainted data. And then you claimed that that was ok, because “experts” said so.
No. We pointed out that much of the data was collected decades ago, by researchers for entirely different purposes, from all around the world. Recent data has been collected by a wide variety of researchers working in different fields, using different methods, including satellite radiation studies, under different political and culture environments. This minimizes bias, in particular, the bias you claim is due to the recent political controversy.
Regardless, we are discussing the quality of the data, not appealing to authority. Indeed, the historical data wasn’t primarily collected by climatologists.
Severian: And when Captain Midnight pointed out that these methodologies stunk — they’re designed to retrofit data to the models, not revise models in the light of the data — you called him a fool, and made yet one more desperate appeal to authority.
Not at all. We pointed to independent statistical methods reaching the same results. Simply waving your hands doesn’t make the data go away. You have to look at the specifics of the data, the methods, and how the trends are determined.
Severian: Which makes everything I just said unimpeachably scientific, because I did some science just this morning.
You seemed to have missed a step. Generally, before starting a research project, you should review the literature to see what has already been discovered in the field.
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 08:27we are discussing the quality of the data, not appealing to authority
Are we? And here I thought that was the crux of the argument — the quality of the data is pronounced good by Authority.
Indeed, the historical data wasn’t primarily collected by climatologists.
Huh. Then how do they know it’s good?
Generally, before starting a research project, you should review the literature to see what has already been discovered in the field.
The way Eratosthenes and Galileo did?
- Severian | 02/28/2013 @ 08:34It’s amazing how much trouble you go through to avoid answering simple questions.
Huh, what? I just typed in W-H-Y-?-I-S-T-H-E-A-N-S-W-E-R-D-I-S-P-U-T-E-D-S-O-M-E-H-O-W-? and hit the “Post” button. It was easy. I realize you’ve got a God/Oh Dear/Puff of Logic moment and you’re positively salivating for it, but try to keep your observations straight. At least, when you’re discussing the virtues of the scientific method with us non-scientists, for sake of showing how this uber-disciplined thinking is done…
So let me see if I’m following right. I look things up in books and I believe what I read. Therefore, by internalizing my reasoning process sometimes and externalizing it other times…by way of making use of reference material, and not buying a round-trip ticket to Syene & walking 500 miles…I am behaving inconsistently. And all inconsistent things and beings in our universe must say “oh dear” and vanish if puffs of logic, or else they’re poopy heads or something.
Again, non-partisan-item #8. Different things are different, they are not the same. “We’re all going to die unless we do something” has been disputed. “Syene is at the 24th parallel” has not been. You do understand this meaningful distinction, right?
There is nothing that says someone trained as an engineer can’t do science. However, engineering isn’t science, and few engineers do scientific work.
Keep going. I’m keeping a running tally of untrue things that have to be believed to make your ideas work, and the list just embiggened by one. As you cleanly shed your credibility with regard to talking about “scientific work.”
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2013 @ 08:35Severian: And here I thought that was the crux of the argument — the quality of the data is pronounced good by Authority.
The data is the data. You have claimed the data is “actively doctored” and “politicized crap”. We provided reasons why this is not consistent with how the data was collected.
Severian: Then how do they know it’s good?
Your claim is that the data is is “actively doctored” and “politicized crap”. We provided reasons why this is not consistent with how the data was collected.
Zachriel: Generally, before starting a research project, you should review the literature to see what has already been discovered in the field.
Severian: The way Eratosthenes and Galileo did?
Eratosthenes was a librarian who had access to much of the knowledge of the ancient world. His measure of the Earth’s circumference certainly added something new to that body of knowledge. Galileo directly argued against existing views, such as in Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo.
mkfreeberg: I just typed in W-H-Y-?-I-S-T-H-E-A-N-S-W-E-R-D-I-S-P-U-T-E-D-S-O-M-E-H-O-W-? and hit the “Post” button.
Right, and not an answer to the inquiry, which was to point to your original source. We used an atlas.
mkfreeberg: I look things up in books and I believe what I read.
Well, we presume you use some judgment.
mkfreeberg: I am behaving inconsistently.
Your position is inconsistent with your actions. Of course you rely on expert opinion. Everyone does.
The good news is that it’s easy to verify many fundamental scientific findings. You could measure the Earth’s size just as the Greeks did. You can split water into hydrogen and oxygen to determine their ratio. You might take a walk to study local geological formations and to compare to geological surveys, maybe find a few fossils. Drop a pen and a book and see which hits the ground first, or use an incline as did Galileo. Determine the period of a pendulum. Breed pease to verify the basics of genetics. Or you could take raw historical surface temperature data, and run statistical analysis, to determine the trend.
The Van of Eratosthenes
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 09:10http://heartontheleft.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/was-eratosthenes-correct-a-multi-class-science-project/
Your position is inconsistent with your actions. Of course you rely on expert opinion. Everyone does.
And…when the experts do not agree, but there is some urgency involved in arriving at the correct answer, people internalize their reasoning processes and stop relying on the experts. AGAIN: Non-partisan-thing #8, different things are different. Some assertions are disputed and some are not.
Your conclusion here relies on this often-repeated assertion that the science is settled. When that is debunked, you attempt to debunk the debunking. Well of COURSE you do; if it really is settled, then we can treat the settled science the same as we treat any other settled science, like the earth being 25,120 miles in circumference. In other words, treat different things as if they are the same, which is necessary for affirmation of your conclusion.
And so you end up saying risible things like, engineers don’t do science.
You invent new bullet points for your own list: “The authorities must be scientists in order to make the argument valid.”
You drop bullet points FROM your list that USED to be there: The authorities must be named, so your audience knows who they are.
So look: I can see you have a great deal of faith in your argument and you’ve provided multiple citations. You think you’re acting all science-y because, gosh darn it, to you it sure feels like you are. But when you’re invalidating research you don’t like because you don’t like the conclusion it happens to have reached, pretending things are there that aren’t, pretending things aren’t there that really are, pretending different things are the same, and that functionally identical things are meaningfully different, that isn’t good science. And when all these things are necessary to prop up what you’re saying, it’s probably not a good point to make.
- mkfreeberg | 02/28/2013 @ 09:43Your claim is that the data is is “actively doctored” and “politicized crap”. We provided reasons why this is not consistent with how the data was collected.
And those reasons rely entirely on…. envelope please…. authoritah!!!!
They were collected years ago for local weather forecasting. Which means they’re ok now, for global predictions, because….
Eratosthenes was a librarian who had access to much of the knowledge of the ancient world. His measure of the Earth’s circumference certainly added something new to that body of knowledge. Galileo directly argued against existing views, such as in Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo.
Uh huh. In other words, they appealed to the authorities, and found that what the authorities said was wrong, and they were right. Before you gin up your “experts can be wrong” macro, recall that your test for the validity of an appeal to authority has nothing to do with whether or not the authorities turn out to be right. Sounds like you’re arguing against yourself.
[PS you can go ahead and cite the titles of Galileo’s works in English. The ability to copy-paste Italian isn’t nearly as impressive as you seem to think it is.]
- Severian | 02/28/2013 @ 13:41mkfreeberg: And…when the experts do not agree, but there is some urgency involved in arriving at the correct answer, people internalize their reasoning processes and stop relying on the experts.
When there’s no consensus within a field, then an appeal to authority is invalid. So if some experts say the Earth is a sphere, and others an oblate sphere, you might cite experts a consensus that the Earth is rounded, but would have to allow for the lack of consensus whether it is an oblate sphere or not.
mkfreeberg: Your conclusion here relies on this often-repeated assertion that the science is settled.
At this point, we’re simply discussing your claim that an appeal to authority is never a valid argument.
mkfreeberg: And so you end up saying risible things like, engineers don’t do science.
Most don’t. However, librarians can be scientists—when they do science.
mkfreeberg: You invent new bullet points for your own list: “The authorities must be scientists in order to make the argument valid.”
Here’s the relevant criteron: * The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
mkfreeberg: You drop bullet points FROM your list that USED to be there: The authorities must be named, so your audience knows who they are.
That reminds us, what was your source for the latitude of Syene? And how do you know that Eratosthenes was a librarian? Did you read it somewhere?
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 15:12Severian: And those reasons rely entirely on…. envelope please…. authoritah!!!!
Not at all. We pointed out that much of the data was collected long before the recent political controversy you blame for tainting the data. And that data has been collected by many different means, by many scientists working in different fields, in different countries, at different times, using differing methodologies. That’s not an appeal to authority. It’s pointing to the breadth and diversity of the data.
Severian: They were collected years ago for local weather forecasting. Which means they’re ok now, for global predictions, because….
Because we know the data isn’t “actively doctored” and “politicized crap”.
Severian: Before you gin up your “experts can be wrong” macro, recall that your test for the validity of an appeal to authority has nothing to do with whether or not the authorities turn out to be right.
It has to do with the fact that experts are more likely to be right than not when speaking to a consensus within their own field. If you have evidence otherwise, then you can argue against the appeal to authority.
- Zachriel | 02/28/2013 @ 15:18Because we know the data isn’t “actively doctored” and “politicized crap”.
And you know this from… authority. Find some papyri from Eratosthenes urging other philosophers to “hide the decline,” and then we’ll talk.
It has to do with the fact that experts are more likely to be right than not when speaking to a consensus within their own field. If you have evidence otherwise, then you can argue against the appeal to authority.
Except that your precious Checklist contains nothing about “likely to be right” as a criterion of validity. See, this is one of the main reasons why I think your “data” is politicized crap — if science’s BFFs can’t quote themselves accurately when the relevant posts are right there, what reasons do I have to belive they’re trustworthy about anything else?
- Severian | 02/28/2013 @ 18:11Severian: And you know this from… authority.
We know it because it doesn’t fit the evidence, for instance, much of the data was collected before the political controversy you claim has tainted the data.
Severian: Except that your precious Checklist contains nothing about “likely to be right” as a criterion of validity.
Because “likely to be right” is not part of the how, but the why.
- Zachriel | 03/01/2013 @ 06:36Most [engineers] don’t. However, librarians can be scientists—when they do science.
That is what makes your statement risible. An engineer who doesn’t “do science” would be, of necessity, someone who’s figured out a way to do engineering without doing science.
I’m wondering, how is it you envision this working? Scientist tells the engineer “A triangle is the strongest shape” and the engineer goes oh, okay, alright…thanks dude, let me know if that ever changes okay?
That isn’t how it works. Engineers have to know what they’re doing. It’s part of the job.
- mkfreeberg | 03/01/2013 @ 23:26mkfreeberg: An engineer who doesn’t “do science” would be, of necessity, someone who’s figured out a way to do engineering without doing science.
Just so you can recognize it in the future, this is a valid appeal to authority. Most of our readers will consider this persuasive. In any case, they provide an explanation of the difference.
mkfreeberg: I’m wondering, how is it you envision this working? Scientist tells the engineer “A triangle is the strongest shape” and the engineer goes oh, okay, alright…thanks dude, let me know if that ever changes okay?
A few examples: Applying the scientific knowledge that the Earth is round to launch expeditions of exploration. Applying discoveries in nuclear physics to engineer an atomic bomb.Applying the Theory of Relativity to build a GPS network. Applying the science of genetics to engineer a virus to attack disease.
An old saw is that rocket science is easy (which was worked out by Newton in 1686); rocket engineering is hard!
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 06:37Unless you want to assert that scientific principles can be applied without being understood, your citation provides support for what I just said. You must “do science” in order to “appl[y] scientific principles.”
It’s also a repeat of my citation. So we are in agreement here. Engineering involves and relies on the application of science. Engineers must do science in order to do engineering, and your assertion that they are necessarily different fields of knowledge, is an assertion of convenience being offered for no other purpose than to prop up a weak argument.
I would further offer a counter-assertion, that even accepting for sake of argument that there is something relevantly different about the two fields and therefore it is necessary to categorize the current discussion as involving one and not the other, such that the other must be cordoned off from what we’re trying to hash out here, engineering would win and science would lose. We are, after all, in disagreement of what the climate is going to do given different inputs of current human behavior. I think the climate engineers would necessarily have to have a seat at the table, during such deliberations, it is what they do. “If this happens, that other thing will happen.” That is the supposition central to all engineering endeavors. All in all, you are not successfully arguing that engineers are speaking outside their field of experience by participating in the survey.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2013 @ 06:47mkfreeberg: Unless you want to assert that scientific principles can be applied without being understood, your citation provides support for what I just said.
Understanding the science and doing science are not the same thing. Scientists use the scientific method to make new discoveries. Engineers take these discoveries and use their ingenuity to make stuff for people.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 07:41Understanding the science and doing science are not the same thing.
Ah, thanks for clearing that up.
Okay, so your position is: The consensus refudiated by this survey, stands intact, because the survey is entirely invalid, because the survey is two-thirds climate engineers, who must not know what they’re talking about because they don’t do science even though you acknowledge they fully understand it as part of their jobs.
So your position is that understanding something is not the test we impose on people as we assess their fitness for commenting on it? Just trying to understand, here.
Your argument seems to lack cohesiveness. Seems to be a product of a cherry-picking exercise, and cooked up on the spot.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2013 @ 08:04mkfreeberg: The consensus refudiated by this survey, stands intact, because the survey is entirely invalid, because the survey is two-thirds climate engineers,
Um, no. The survey is not two-thirds climate engineers.
Nor do you have to understand Relativity to apply it when engineering a GPS system, you just need the equations. Science and engineering are different fields.
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 09:53Um, no. The survey is not two-thirds climate engineers.
Um, link. Page ten. Top.
And, um, since this is a written forum, there’s really no call for “um.” Save the rhetorical gimmicks for your next conversation with Obama.
Science and engineering are different fields.
But not meaningfully different, for this purpose. If anything, engineering is more directly related to the question at hand.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2013 @ 09:56mkfreeberg: Um, link. Page ten. Top.
That’s 2/3 engineers, not 2/3 climate engineers.
mkfreeberg: But not meaningfully different, for this purpose. If anything, engineering is more directly related to the question at hand.
Are you now saying an appeal to authority can be a valid argument, and just arguing whether engineers are appropriate authorities?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 12:25Nor do you have to understand Relativity to apply it when engineering a GPS system, you just need the equations.
Whoah. Science left the building a few posts back. We’re deep in the realms of psychology now.
As I understand it, the Z want to argue a hard distinction between science and engineering. The Scientists are Thinkers, and the Engineers are Doers. Engineers are more or less just technicians. Anyone who can factor a quadratic can be an Engineer; to be a Scientist, you have to be able to derive the quadratic equation from first principles.
Morgan wants to argue a softer distinction. Give your average joe a copy of quadratics for dummies and a calculator and you get the Tacoma Narrows at best. An Engineer has to have a pretty firm understanding of the Science in order to build anything you’d want to drive across.
Now to be fair, I can see some merit in the first position. There might be a question of virology, say, so esoteric that your average workaday family doctor can’t even begin to understand it. The GP might really be in the position of the Rocket Man in that Elton John song, “Philadelphia Freedom:” “All the science, I don’t understand / It’s just my job, five days a week.” But I doubt it.
More importantly, that leaves the Zachriel in an untenable position, vis-a-vis the comments here. If the questions of climate science are so recondite that climate engineers aren’t qualified to comment on them, what chance do we mere blog commenters have?
I’m trying to think of a situation where that would obtain — climate engineers can’t get it, but we can — that doesn’t boil down to some version of “because we said so.”
- Severian | 03/02/2013 @ 12:41Severian: As I understand it, the Z want to argue a hard distinction between science and engineering.
Actually, we’re willing to discuss the overlap, but at this point, you guys are still hung up on the very basics of appeal to authority. Some engineers do scientific research, and some scientists do engineering, especially with regard to instrumentation. An engineer in a particular field will probably know more about the science related to that field than a layperson, but probably less than a scientist in that field.
There’s a way to handle that situation when setting up an appeal to authority, but you guys haven’t shown the necessary understanding to hold that discussion. As we said, you’re still stuck on the very basics.
Severian: Scientists are Thinkers, and the Engineers are Doers.
Darwin’s circumnavigation
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/HMS_Beagle_by_Conrad_Martens.jpg
Wadi of whales
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/eeb/images/undergraduates/egypt_gingerich_bebej.jpg
Smoot’s South Pole observatory
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/projects/spectrum/SP91S1_m.JPG
Eddington’s confirmation of relativity
http://www.powerhousemuseum.com/insidethecollection/files/2012/08/Lick_Obs_1922_p3549-193b.jpg
Science involves not just theory, but observation, sometimes under very difficult conditions. Perhaps this would be closer: Engineers make things, scientists discovery things.
Severian: Engineers are more or less just technicians.
Engineering involves knowledge, ingenuity, even art. Great engineering can represent the pinnacle of human achievement.
Golden Gate Bridge
http://www.howardmodels.com/fun-stuff/golden-gate-bridge/Golden-Gate-at-Night-xlg.jpg
Empire State Building
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/NYC_Empire_State_Building.jpg
Moon landing
http://johneaves.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/apollo11moonearth.jpg?w=655
Severian: to be a Scientist, you have to be able to derive the quadratic equation from first principles.
That would be a mathematician. For instance, Einstein’s work relied on non-Euclidean geometry, tensors, and other mathematical tools, developed by mathematicians.
Severian: If the questions of climate science are so recondite that climate engineers aren’t qualified to comment on them, what chance do we mere blog commenters have?
Mkfreeberg didn’t cite climate engineers, but simply engineers. A mechanical engineer is probably going to have very little knowledge of atmospherics.
Are there any climate engineers who have actually engineered anything? Or are they climate scientists and other people trying to think out of the box?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 13:34Are you now saying an appeal to authority can be a valid argument, and just arguing whether engineers are appropriate authorities?
Two things with which you seem to be having trouble here: “Valid argument” is an inaccurate identification of the point of disagreement. Severian did a nice job of distinguishing between formal and informal fallacies, here, and argumentum ad authoritarian is a potent petri dish for both. Of course, a petri dish can be sterile, just as a stopped clock can be right. It can also be a ptomaine trap. Appeals to authority can be just about anything: Possessing good form, possessing bad form, possessing good form but full of informal fallacy, chock full of fallacies formal & informal but RIGHT.
All such scenarios are possible, and it is difficult to identify traits in the argument that would exclude any of the possibilities. That’s what makes it a weak, undesirable argument. In short: If there’s another way to argue the same point, the sincere arguer who seeks to convince, should choose the other way.
But as Severian points out, you’re left arguing the engineers are somehow unqualified. Or could be unqualified? You fault the survey for failing to eliminate this as a possibility? It looks like cherry picking, to me. I can’t recall the last dust-up I saw about whether the scientists were qualified, or trusted to confine their remarks to their expertise, last time I heard of an all-scientist survey saying the consensus was overwhelming about man-made climate change portending some kind of doom. It should be an inarguable point that if we’re imposing this qualifier on the surveys, but only selectively, then it is we who are engaging in bad science.
If I conclude, uncharitably, that you’re merely manufacturing reasons to ignore the survey you don’t like, then you are running afoul of this rule and in so doing engaging in the bad science you seek to condemn. If I conclude more charitably, that you are simply bringing an honest desire to qualify these surveys to make sure we are gathering only the opinions that are truly qualified, we are still left with the problem that you’ve shown you don’t understand engineering, since your comments only make sense if engineers can get by with far, far less of a command of the scientific concepts than what I personally know they must have, in order to do their jobs.
Either way, your argument is flawed. Now here is the second problem you’re having: It is true I have had to take some of your argument seriously, just for argument’s sake, to demonstrate the flaws in the remaining part of it. That doesn’t mean you get to play a game of gotcha. That just means your argument has multiple flaws and not just one, and to inspect both it has been necessary for me to concede things as part of a hypothetical. You’ve yet to demonstrate understanding of this basic concept — conceding things, temporarily, for sake of a hypothetical, to see where it takes us.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2013 @ 14:59As we said, you’re still stuck on the very basics.
Ok, I’ll make it even easier on you. Forget appeals to authority. Poof! They’re gone.
Now, you’ve been arguing two propositions ad nauseam: that the opinions of engineers aren’t valid when it comes to climate science, and that anyone — even us! — who looks at the evidence you present can see the truth of Global Warming.
If both of those are true — and you’ve asserted both dozens of times — that leaves only a few possibilities:
1) We’re smarter than engineers, and can understand evidence they can’t.
2) The engineers are working off different evidence than you present here.
3) Both we and engineers understand the evidence just fine, but are lying about it for some unknown reason.
4) Your evidence isn’t nearly as convincing as you think it is.
5) You’re excluding engineers based on some ad hoc criteria.
None of which are particulary good for your argument.
- Severian | 03/02/2013 @ 18:05mkfreeberg: Severian did a nice job of distinguishing between formal and informal fallacies, here
Severian: An Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy of the form “X is true because person Y says so.”
That would be a fallacy. The valid form of an appeal to authority is that an unbiased expert speaking to a consensus within their field of expertise is more likely to be right than not. This is the form that is used in everyday life by just about everyone.
mkfreeberg: All such scenarios are possible, and it is difficult to identify traits in the argument that would exclude any of the possibilities.
Which is why we provided a list of the most important attributes.
mkfreeberg: That’s what makes it a weak, undesirable argument.
If several professional doctors say that you have cancer, then you should probably consider some course of action to address the problem.
mkfreeberg: you’re left arguing the engineers are somehow unqualified.
They are certainly qualified in engineering.
mkfreeberg: You fault the survey for failing to eliminate this as a possibility?
It’s not the survey’s fault. The survey is the survey. It’s your fault for using the survey to represent a fallacious appeal to authority. The cited authority is not making a statement within their area of expertise.
By the way, what was your source for the latitude of Syene? And how do you know that Eratosthenes was a librarian? Did you read it somewhere?
- Zachriel | 03/02/2013 @ 18:51Which is why we provided a list of the most important attributes.
Which is inadequate. And that isn’t my opinion, it’s yours, since you found it important to add a bullet point on to the list, and take away another bullet point that was on the list.
They are certainly qualified in engineering.
Yes, I can see the paradigm you’re trying to set up here, but it just doesn’t work. It’s a bit like saying the physicist who has calculated how gasoline burns at a certain octane level and at a certain density of atomization and compression, is qualified to say what the horsepower output of an engine is going to be, but the engineer who designed that engine, is not. Again, you just don’t seem to understand the discipline. If one works in engineering, but lacks the skills and background to say “if this happens, then this other thing will happen,” then one is not qualified to do the engineering work.
- mkfreeberg | 03/02/2013 @ 18:57mkfreeberg: And that isn’t my opinion, it’s yours, since you found it important to add a bullet point on to the list, and take away another bullet point that was on the list.
We’ve provided multiple citations that appeals to authority can be valid arguments, including a textbook on logic, a professor of philosophy, university courses, and an encyclopedia.
philosophy.lander.edu: Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should be believed when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.
mkfreeberg: It’s a bit like saying the physicist who has calculated how gasoline burns at a certain octane level and at a certain density of atomization and compression, is qualified to say what the horsepower output of an engine is going to be, but the engineer who designed that engine, is not.
As usual, you are confused and have it exactly backwards. That’s an engineering question. The physicist can only say that some energy will be wasted. It takes detailed testing to determine the efficiency of a particular engine.
You have been repeatedly shown where you misunderstand, but nothing seems to move your position. Very odd.
mkfreeberg: Again, you just don’t seem to understand the discipline.
Do you think these people understand engineering?
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers: Engineering Is Not Science
http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/tech-careers/engineering-is-not-science
National Society of Professional Engineers: What is the difference between science and engineering? Science is knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system that can be validated and communicated to other people. Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 07:33http://www.nspe.org/Media/Resources/faqs.html
philosophy.lander.edu: Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should be believed when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.
And, me, yesterday at 14:59:
All such scenarios are possible, and it is difficult to identify traits in the argument that would exclude any of the possibilities. That’s what makes it a weak, undesirable argument. In short: If there’s another way to argue the same point, the sincere arguer who seeks to convince, should choose the other way.
So there’s no disagreement here about the weakness of the appeal to authority. Even those who believe in it concede that it is a weak argument, and others are preferable. Except y’all, it seems.
Do you think these people understand engineering?
What did you not like about the analogy with the gas-ignition scientist and the automotive engineer, offering opinions about the power output of the engine? Would you agree the engineer is better qualified to offer that answer, or at least, equally qualified?
Science is knowledge based on observed facts and tested truths arranged in an orderly system that can be validated and communicated to other people. Engineering is the creative application of scientific principles used to plan, build, direct, guide, manage, or work on systems to maintain and improve our daily lives.
Conceding for the sake of argument there is some meaningful differentiation between engineering from science, and that “confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world,” we should include the engineers and exclude the scientists. We are having a debate on what we should do to the climate, or stop doing to the climate, to avert a catastrophe. We’re either capable of doing such a thing, or we aren’t. If we aren’t, the whole discussion is moot. If we are, then it is an engineering problem.
Agreed?
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 07:42mkfreeberg: All such scenarios are possible, and it is difficult to identify traits in the argument that would exclude any of the possibilities.
The scientific method has the same problem. There are heuristics to help, but ultimately, you have to use judgment. You do realize that the scientific method is of the form:
If p then q, q, therefore p: fallacy.
If p then q, q, therefore p is supported: the scientific method.
mkfreeberg: Even those who believe in it concede that it is a weak argument, and others are preferable.
“Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should be believed when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.”
Saying there are other arguments that might be stronger doesn’t mean that expert opinion is weak or without value.
mkfreeberg: What did you not like about the analogy with the gas-ignition scientist and the automotive engineer, offering opinions about the power output of the engine? Would you agree the engineer is better qualified to offer that answer, or at least, equally qualified?
The analogy is fine. It’s an engineering question. Your analysis was exactly backwards, which again shows your lack of understanding.
mkfreeberg: Conceding for the sake of argument there is some meaningful differentiation between engineering from science, …
“Engineering Is Not Science”
mkfreeberg: … and that “confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world,” we should include the engineers and exclude the scientists.
Typically, they collaborate on complex questions. But if the problem is to build a rocket, most of the science is already worked out. Rocket science is easy; rocket engineering is hard.
mkfreeberg: We are having a debate on what we should do to the climate, or stop doing to the climate, to avert a catastrophe.
This thread wasn’t about climate science, but your faulty appeal to authority.
mkfreeberg: If we are, then it is an engineering problem.
Engineers will be crucial in revamping the energy economy, but the problem also entails scientific, economic, and political dimensions.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 08:02Instead of arguing that appeals to authority are always fallacious, you should admit the obvious, then move on to how they may be argued against.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” — Galileo
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 08:10“Engineering Is Not Science”
Right. And, from your own link:
So. Conceding for the sake of argument there is some meaningful differentiation of engineering from science, and that “confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world,” we should include the engineers and exclude the scientists. We are having a debate on what we should do to the climate, or stop doing to the climate, to avert a catastrophe. We’re either capable of doing such a thing, or we aren’t. If we aren’t, the whole discussion is moot. If we are, then it is an engineering problem.
Agreed?
This thread wasn’t about climate science, but your faulty appeal to authority.
This thread is about the survey, and how the survey confounds the meme that says the science-is-settled. The survey is about the questions I’ve listed. Right?
Engineers will be crucial in revamping the energy economy, but the problem also entails scientific, economic, and political dimensions.
It’s difficult to think of an engineering problem that doesn’t entail scientific dimensions. Your own definition makes it clear that engineering is the application of scientific principles. And, whether you grasp this or not, competent engineering requires a rugged and robust understanding of all the principles that apply. They don’t just do what they’re told, and if it turns out to be the wrong thing, hide behind the “I was just following orders” excuse. There are other occupations in which that is appropriate, but in a technologically advanced society someone’s got to understand all the concepts, to such an extent that they can develop and refine best-known-practices for getting the work done, with an understanding of how it all fits together.
I’m not sure how or why such individuals, if they’re successful in their fields, would not be included in such a survey; certainly, can’t see how or why such a survey would be invalidated for having failed to exclude them. You still haven’t put forward the justification for this being a good idea. And you have yet to demonstrate you understand how engineering really works, or what it’s all about. I’m getting the impression that if we could reveal what it is you think engineers do and how they operate, and envision it actually working that way, what we’d find is that there wouldn’t be any reason for having it at all and that your understanding is very far from reality.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 08:17mkfreeberg: Conceding for the sake of argument there is some meaningful differentiation of engineering from science, and that “confusing the two keeps us from solving the problems of the world,” we should include the engineers and exclude the scientists.
Thought we answer this question.
Engineers will be crucial in revamping the energy economy, but the problem also entails scientific, economic, and political dimensions.
mkfreeberg: We are having a debate on what we should do to the climate, or stop doing to the climate, to avert a catastrophe. We’re either capable of doing such a thing, or we aren’t. If we aren’t, the whole discussion is moot. If we are, then it is an engineering problem. Agreed?
Only partly. Much of the problem is one of engineering, that is, applying what is already known to conserve and to produce green energy. However, climate scientists will continue to refine their understanding of climate so they can project trends based on various human responses. In addition, new science involving materials and methods may be necessary. Who knows, maybe scientists will develop safe and clean fusion power. There are also political and economic dimensions, as we have already pointed out.
mkfreeberg: This thread is about the survey, and how the survey confounds the meme that says the science-is-settled.
As most of the participants weren’t scientists or had any acknowledged experience in climatology, they don’t constitute a valid appeal to authority on climate science.
mkfreeberg: It’s difficult to think of an engineering problem that doesn’t entail scientific dimensions.
Building a bridge is not a science experiment (we hope!). It’s an application of known science.
mkfreeberg: Your own definition makes it clear that engineering is the application of scientific principles.
Yes.
mkfreeberg: And, whether you grasp this or not, competent engineering requires a rugged and robust understanding of all the principles that apply.
As Severian pointed out, knowing how to apply quadratics doesn’t mean you know how they are derived or why they are valid mathematical tools.
But as we pointed out above, an engineer in a particular field will probably know more about the science related to that field than a layperson, but probably less than a scientist in that field. There’s a way to handle that situation when setting up an appeal to authority, but to have that discussion, you have to accept the basics of a valid appeal to authority: “Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, should be believed when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.”
Alas, we did try to move the discussion forward.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 08:43It’s cute the way you continue to just recite your understandings of the situation, and act as if you are directly addressing the concerns or directly answering questions.
Building a bridge is not a science experiment (we hope!). It’s an application of known science.
This looks like an acknowledgement of the very point I was making. The engineer must have an understanding of all the scientific principles that are pertinent to what he’s trying to do. In fact, it becomes a bit silly to argue scientists have some business replying to the survey when the engineers don’t, when part of the engineering discipline is to settle everything into a set of knowns, not only as individual units but as part of a more complex system. Part of the scientific discipline on the other hand, once the unknowns are settled into knowns, is to move on to the next unknown.
More concisely: If the engineer is doing his job well, he understands exactly how his “experiment” is going to turn out. If the scientist is doing his job well…generally, he doesn’t. So, again: Conceding for sake of argument there is meaningful difference between these two things, such that one is qualified to comment on what the Earth’s climate will or won’t do, based on what the humans are & aren’t doing — the conclusion we would then reach is that the engineers should be included and the scientists should be left out.
What did you think about my analogy involving the gasoline engine? I mean, seriously, I’m trying to self-critique that and find a meaningful difference between providing the power rating of the engine based on all the relevant variables, and providing a forecast of what the climate will do based on hypothetical situations of human activity. In BOTH cases it seems just as much an engineering problem as a scientific one, in fact moreso.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 09:23mkfreeberg: The engineer must have an understanding of all the scientific principles that are pertinent to what he’s trying to do.
As we said, an engineer will probably know more about science *in his field* than a layperson, but probably less than a scientist in that field. As Severian pointed out, knowing how to apply quadratics doesn’t mean you know how they are derived or why they are valid mathematical tools.
mkfreeberg: In fact, it becomes a bit silly to argue scientists have some business replying to the survey when the engineers don’t, when part of the engineering discipline is to settle everything into a set of knowns, not only as individual units but as part of a more complex system.
Because engineers, as a rule, don’t use the scientific method and don’t do scientific research, so can’t authoritatively speak to the methods. They apply scientific knowledge, but they are not scientists. They use mathematics, but they are not mathematicians.
mkfreeberg: If the engineer is doing his job well, he understands exactly how his “experiment” is going to turn out.
That’s because the engineer relies on the foundations laid by scientists and mathematicians. They are a secondary source.
mkfreeberg: I’m trying to self-critique that and find a meaningful difference between providing the power rating of the engine based on all the relevant variables, and providing a forecast of what the climate will do based on hypothetical situations of human activity.
The gasoline engine is a known quantity that was constructed by human engineers, and can be put on a testing machine for a direct measure of horsepower. The Earth’s climate, while a ‘heat engine’, was not constructed by human engineers, and entails complex interactions that are still difficult to unravel. It’s a scientific problem, with hypotheses, observing with multiple methodologies, revising of hypotheses, and so on. Even a cursory look at the literature shows that climate is a scientific question. You seem very confused about science.
For example, unraveling the mechanics of planetary motions was a scientific problem. Orbiting an artificial satellite using those mechanical principles is an engineering problem.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 09:50Maybe one day, in the far future, climate science will be as developed as Newtonian mechanics. Then, when you have a climate problem, you won’t call a climate scientist, but a climate doctor (engineer). Because of a weak sun, she might prescribe more greenhouse gases, and perhaps a slight rearrangement of ocean currents. A more serious case might involve moving the planet closer to the star, or even putting in an artificial sun. Meanwhile, understanding climate is still a scientific question.
Science explores the unknown. Engineering harnesses the known.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 10:04Because engineers, as a rule, don’t use the scientific method and don’t do scientific research, so can’t authoritatively speak to the methods. They apply scientific knowledge, but they are not scientists. They use mathematics, but they are not mathematicians…the engineer relies on the foundations laid by scientists and mathematicians. They are a secondary source.
In the case of a 32-bit register set by the hardware and therefore affecting the behavior of a driver, I’m afraid we aren’t going to get an awful lot of useful information out of the computer scientist who understands one is one, zero is zero, and the fundamentals of computer math, and how the voltage differences are used to represent the one and the zero. If we were to task him with a question involving bits 14 and 16 set to one, and here’s your spec for where the bit fields are located and what they do, now what’s the driver going to do — certainly the computer scientist would have a head start on the problem, versus some guy pulled in off the street.
But for a “valid appeal to authority” we would really take that to the engineer. The computer scientist is not the guy we would be seeing about that. So: Trying to figure out what the climate will do in response to such-and-such being done, or not done, by us today — you seek to assert that the engineer is a “secondary source” and thus not fit to comment, whereas the scientist is really the guy who should have exclusive professional standing to comment.
To assert this, you must first necessarily assert that climate science is fundamentally different from all other sciences.
The gasoline engine is a known quantity that was constructed by human engineers, and can be put on a testing machine for a direct measure of horsepower. The Earth’s climate, while a ‘heat engine’, was not constructed by human engineers, and entails complex interactions that are still difficult to unravel. It’s a scientific problem, with hypotheses, observing with multiple methodologies, revising of hypotheses, and so on. Even a cursory look at the literature shows that climate is a scientific question. You seem very confused about science.
I’m a bit confused about your science and I’m not entirely convinced you’re any less confused. You seek to define a meaningful difference in that the gasoline engine is a known quantity that was constructed by human engineers whereas the Earth’s climate was not constructed by human engineers. Now, this is actually a dodge: The engineers have to be able to speak authoritatively about what the engine’s power rating will be, long before it is ever constructed, and that was the point I was making. That’s why I say if any profession is more qualified to speak to what the climate will do more than its counterpart, it is the engineers who should be included and the scientists who should be excluded.
But, it seems there is this outstanding question and you’re leaving it settled in this useless, third-state “kinda true kinda false” answer: Do humans affect the climate, in the same way they affect gasoline engines by building them? To say yes doesn’t work with our practical experience in reality. To say no, doesn’t fit your theories. To decisively settle this one way or the other, separates your theories from reality — which, the more I look at how you’re mulling this over, the more I think that’s probably appropriate.
It seems to me that your rebuttal to this specific point about engineers speaking with greater weight about what a system will do when the inputs are changed, is simply to avoid it. It further seems to me that you’re the one who is confused about science; it’s as if you’re saying the engineers know what they know only because the scientists tell them what’s so, and the scientists figure this out by doing measurements with their science-y understanding of how to properly measure things, something the engineers would not know how to do. Maybe I’m misinterpreting your comments here, but I honestly can’t find any other way to make them work. And, of course, when I interpret them that way, they just don’t work.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 10:12Okay, this resolves the question I suppose, but it leaves huge gaping problem:
Maybe one day, in the far future, climate science will be as developed as Newtonian mechanics. Then, when you have a climate problem, you won’t call a climate scientist, but a climate doctor (engineer). Because of a weak sun, she might prescribe more greenhouse gases, and perhaps a slight rearrangement of ocean currents. A more serious case might involve moving the planet closer to the star, or even putting in an artificial sun. Meanwhile, understanding climate is still a scientific question.
Science explores the unknown. Engineering harnesses the known.
Huge gaping problem being, and I think this is what Severian was pointing out about this unworkable corner into which you have painted yourself: We must include scientists and exclude engineers because we want to get hold of the people who know. We don’t want ANYONE responding to this survey who’s missing some vital bit of knowledge of what they’re talking about.
The scientists are the ones who know what they’re talking about, and the engineers don’t know what they’re talking about (“secondary source”), because the matter deals with an unknown and not a known.
So we must talk only to the scientists. Because we’re trying to get hold of people who really, really know what they’re talking about…with regard to this thing nobody really knows.
Is there any part of this argument you’re trying to put forward that I’ve missed, in rounding up and cataloging that set of assertions, as I’ve laid them out, above? Or are you ready now for my verdict on whether I find this to be sensible, and convincing, or not…
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 10:22mkfreeberg: But for a “valid appeal to authority” we would really take that to the engineer. The computer scientist is not the guy we would be seeing about that.
Glad we finally resolved that. Appeals to authority can be valid when they meet certain criteria.
mkfreeberg: The engineers have to be able to speak authoritatively about what the engine’s power rating will be, long before it is ever constructed, and that was the point I was making.
That’s right. The power rating is an engineering problem, not a scientific one. The basic physics and mechanics of heat engines were worked out long ago.
mkfreeberg: it’s as if you’re saying the engineers know what they know only because the scientists tell them what’s so, and the scientists figure this out by doing measurements with their science-y understanding of how to properly measure things, something the engineers would not know how to do.
Engineers rely on the knowledge developed by scientists. They didn’t invent the knowledge; they learned it in a book. They were trained on basic scientific methodology in their degree program, of course, but they don’t practice science in their day-to-day work. Engineers and scientists will often collaborate for this reason, especially when dealing with state-of-the-art in either field.
mkfreeberg: We don’t want ANYONE responding to this survey who’s missing some vital bit of knowledge of what they’re talking about.
You can survey anybody you want. You can ask the general public about evolutionary biology. That doesn’t make it a valid appeal to authority.
mkfreeberg: So we must talk only to the scientists. Because we’re trying to get hold of people who really, really know what they’re talking about…with regard to this thing nobody really knows.
To say there are many unknowns in climate science is not to say there is nothing known. With any active scientific field there are open questions. That’s what makes it interesting for those with a scientific bent.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 10:39It’s like you’re saying, there’s a third-state between “known” and “unknown.” But you don’t seem to recognize an appeal to authority can be valid, and at the same time fallacious.
So to get to the answer you want to produce, and see standing alone after all other answers have been satisfyingly debunked, we need to see this shade-of-gray nuance where it doesn’t exist, and then not see it when it’s really there.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 10:50Zachriel: The power rating is an engineering problem, not a scientific one. The basic physics and mechanics of heat engines were worked out long ago.
But if someone claims the engines puts out more energy than is put into it, then physicists might have a say. If you say it runs on water, chemists might have a say. Valid fields of study certainly do overlap. That’s one of their signature strengths.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 10:52mkfreeberg: It’s like you’re saying, there’s a third-state between “known” and “unknown.”
In science, of course there is. In science, nothing is known with absolute certainty, and most of everything is unknown.
mkfreeberg: But you don’t seem to recognize an appeal to authority can be valid, and at the same time fallacious.
If it’s valid, it’s not fallacious, by definition. An appeal to authority can be valid and *wrong*. That’s because an appeal to authority is an inductive argument, and all such claims are tentative.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 12:05Glad we finally resolved that. Appeals to authority can be valid when they meet certain criteria.
One does begin to wonder why they keep trying to sneak that in there.
As I’ve said, “science” — and engineering too for that matter — left the building long ago. We’re almost totally in the murky twilight of psychology now.
For instance: As Severian pointed out, knowing how to apply quadratics doesn’t mean you know how they are derived or why they are valid mathematical tools.
Not even close to what I actually said, which was:
A hypothetical. My best guess at the position you all were trying to argue at that particular point in time. Whether I was right, or whether that’s your position now, is anyone’s guess, as you can’t seem to present your thoughts honestly from comment to comment.
I’m really trying to figure out the thought here. Must we agree about Appeals to Authority as well? What does that to the discussion at hand? Which, as Morgan pointed out, is “This thread is about the survey, and how the survey confounds the meme that says the science-is-settled. The survey is about the questions I’ve listed.” (If there is such a thing as a valid appeal to authority, surely that qualifies, hmmm?)
But of course there’s a way to do this without Appeals to Authority. It’s simple: both here and elsewhere, you’ve maintained that anyone who looks honestly at the evidence you’ve provided will conclude there is Global Warming. You also claim that the engineers in this survey have no standing to comment on the matter. Which seems to indicate that you subscribe to one of five possibilities:
1) We’re smarter than engineers, and can understand evidence they can’t.
2) The engineers are working off different evidence than you present here.
3) Both we and engineers understand the evidence just fine, but are lying about it for some unknown reason.
4) Your evidence isn’t nearly as convincing as you think it is.
5) You’re excluding engineers based on some ad hoc criteria.
Which one is it? Or did I miss one? If so, fill in the blank: 6) ____________.
- Severian | 03/03/2013 @ 12:09In science, nothing is known with absolute certainty, and most of everything is unknown.
And that leads right back to my point. If most of everything is unknown, what’s up with this search for the authorities who might know about it?
If the point of it is academic command of the concepts, engineers fit the bill or else they are not good engineers.
If the point of it is looking for “good” conclusions to be drawn about what the unknown might be once it is, in the future, known, then you’re asking the scientists to comment on something outside of their discipline and thus defeating the exercise. A scientist can suck large at forming the most likely theory and still be a good scientist, because “likely” is not the objective. They want to form the theory that inspires the most productive experiments, which is not necessarily the most-likely one. The engineers, on the other hand, must be tasked with achieving something as close to certainty as possible.
This is bait and switch. Which brings me to…
If it’s valid, it’s not fallacious, by definition.
Incorrect. If an argument possesses good logical form such that the conclusion can be confidently and logically derived from its premises, but the premises are granted greater weight than they merit, the argument suffers from informal fallacy even though it meets the criteria for “valid.”
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 12:27Severian: As I’ve said, “science” — and engineering too for that matter — left the building long ago.
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy. Appeal to authority is a “criterion of truth”.
Severian: Not even close to what I actually said, which was: As I understand it, the Z want to argue a hard distinction between science and engineering. The Scientists are Thinkers, and the Engineers are Doers. Engineers are more or less just technicians.
False on all three counts. We do not argue a hard distinction. Science involves doing, and engineering involves thinking. Engineering if far more than just technique, but involves knowledge, ingenuity and even art.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 12:39mkfreeberg: And that leads right back to my point. If most of everything is unknown, what’s up with this search for the authorities who might know about it?
Because while much of the universe is a mystery, some of it is not.
mkfreeberg: If the point of it is academic command of the concepts, engineers fit the bill or else they are not good engineers.
Engineers are not experts in the methodologies of science.
mkfreeberg: If an argument possesses good logical form such that the conclusion can be confidently and logically derived from its premises, but the premises are granted greater weight than they merit, the argument suffers from informal fallacy even though it meets the criteria for “valid.”
If the premises of an appeal to authority are given greater weight than they merit, such as choosing engineering as authorities on scientific matters, then the argument is not valid.
In any case, do you accept that appeals to authority can sometimes be valid arguments?
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 12:45In any case, do you accept that appeals to authority can sometimes be valid arguments?
Yes, but you need to refer back to my previous clarification that the word “valid” has a very specific meaning. It refers to good structural form. It seems you have a much broader definition in mind. Or, even worse, and I suspect this is the case, you are being selective about when “valid” means you can take an argument to the bank, and when “valid” simply means the argument has cleared the first hurdle. That would be another bait-and-switch: You show the argument has good form although it rests on lousy premises, you declare the argument “valid,” and then — switch — denounce anybody refusal or sluggishness to accept the argument as gospel truth, as “hand waving.” In fact, throughout this thread as well as the “primer caps” one, it seems that sleight-of-hand is all you’ve had to offer.
Engineers are not experts in the methodologies of science.
It’s just like any other liberal dictum: It creates a fictitious world in which so many of the exigencies of everyday life are no longer present, and nobody’s ass chafes from any pains — but, as a consequence of this, things don’t work. You previously said Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition since, by peeking in the water wells and doing his math, he “did science.” Okay, so your definition of scientist is so broad that one becomes one simply by experimenting, as long as he sticks to sound, scientific methods. And then I’m presuming you’re staying consistent with this as you declare the engineers to be outside of it?
Okay, well, if that’s the case, you’re full of it. What a bizarre conversation that would be:
Engineer: Engineering!
Bob: Yeah, hi this is Bob over in testing. I found a bug in our internal software tool. When I do this, it does this-thing instead of that-thing.
Engineer: Whoah, that’s bizarre. Here, let me remote in to your console and see for myself…
++pause++
Bob: See?
Engineer: Shuckey darn! You’re right! Well, that’s certainly all cocked up. Any idea why it does that?
Bob: I was hoping you could tell me.
Engineer: This your first week on the job or something, buddy? Engineers only deal with the known. Go talk to Ray, or Chuck, over in our science department. As soon as they get a line back to me on what the bug is and tell me how to fix it, I’ll write some code okay? In the meantime, see-ya-bye.
++click++
Dude…dudes…that is one, fucking, fat, useless donut-eating engineer right there.
Engineers do science. As long as some unknowns have to be translated into knowns in the course of implementation — which is pretty much always the case — engineers must do science in order to do their engineering. And, within the implementation, no there aren’t going to be any scientists around to do it for them.
Not according to my definition of “doing science.” According to yours.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 14:19mkfreeberg: Yes, but you need to refer back to my previous clarification that the word “valid” has a very specific meaning. It refers to good structural form.
We are using it in its normal sense of an unbiased expert speaking of a consensus within the expert’s field of expertise. Now that we have once again addressed semantics, do you agree that an appeal to authority can sometimes be a valid argument?
mkfreeberg: You previously said Eratosthenes was a scientist by definition since, by peeking in the water wells and doing his math, he “did science.”
Yes. Other scientists travel to Arctic wastelands in the quest for evidence of transitional organisms, others swab the gums of sharks for bacteria.
mkfreeberg: Engineers only deal with the known.
We were clearly referring to known scientific principles. There is nothing within your example that requires any new scientific principles.
mkfreeberg: Engineers do science.
You might want to explain that to the various professional engineering associations we cited above. They seem to be misinformed.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 14:39We are using it in its normal sense of an unbiased expert speaking of a consensus within the expert’s field of expertise. Now that we have once again addressed semantics, do you agree that an appeal to authority can sometimes be a valid argument?
You’re asking me to agree that experts have fields of expertise, and can speak within them? Okay. This doesn’t seem like an agreed understanding that can move the argument forward in any way, or help settle anything…
There is nothing within your example that requires any new scientific principles.
Oh, now we have new scientific principles. Why are we indulging in this latest moving of goalposts, now? Greenhouse gas effect, cosmic rays, vapor, aerosols, climate-sensitivity, are you saying some within these are “new scientific principles”?
Again, we see your position is unworkable. To declare this the dominion of science and not engineering, you have to say it is new and unknown. But then, to say the scientists possess superior knowledge that is worthy of bouncing the engineers from the survey, or declaring the survey invalid should they not be so bounce, you have to say the scientists are speaking about knowns. Confronted with the obvious contradiction, you need to engage this bit of intellectual pixie-dust that an unknown can have a known-ish tint about it, or a known can have an unknown-ish shade about it.
I’m afraid your “valid argument” has at least the appearance of laboring to simply baffle, dazzle, or just plain tire people out in order to convince them. And of course that would not be valid at all.
An appeal to authority is valid when
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
A Corporal comes back stateside after completing his second tour in Iraq, in the summer of ’03, and says, damn straight we need to get that Saddam Hussein guy out of there.
He has sufficient expertise.
He is making a statement within his area of expertise.
The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
There is adequate agreement among the authorities in the field (true at the time).
There is no evidence of undue bias.
Might as well just say it’s so. But of course, back here in reality, you know we do not put the military under military authority, it’s under civilian authority. Civilians have just as much say in the voting process as soldiers do, even though the soldiers may lose their lives according to the decisions made.
But I’m sure you can see, there’s something fallacious going on here. “Who are you to say, this guy has completed two tours in Iraq, knows what he’s talking about, might lose his life in this operation. How dare you disagree.”
But, I would say, if someone did want to disagree, it wouldn’t be proper to dismiss that disagreement as hand waving. Even if the Corporal does fulfill your five bullet points. Along with the sixth one you arbitrarily got rid of — we would know who he is when he speaks.
Of course, he probably doesn’t qualify for that new one you cooked up…must be a scientist.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 15:05mkfreeberg: You’re asking me to agree that experts have fields of expertise, and can speak within them? Okay.
This: Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, it’s reasonable to tentatively accept these opinions when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds. Do you agree?
mkfreeberg: Greenhouse gas effect, cosmic rays, vapor, aerosols, climate-sensitivity, are you saying some within these are “new scientific principles”?
Climate systems are much more than just “greenhouse gas effect, cosmic rays, vapor, aerosols, climate-sensitivity”. It’s a complex dynamic system that has its own emergent properties that are still not completely understood.
mkfreeberg: To declare this the dominion of science and not engineering, you have to say it is new and unknown.
The study of Earth’s climate is a scientific question. Even a cursory look at the literature would reveal that.
mkfreeberg: A Corporal comes back stateside after completing his second tour in Iraq, in the summer of ’03, and says, damn straight we need to get that Saddam Hussein guy out of there.
He has sufficient expertise.
He is making a statement within his area of expertise.
The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
There is adequate agreement among the authorities in the field (true at the time).
There is no evidence of undue bias.
Sorry, that is incorrect. A corporal’s area of expertise, which is usually somewhat limited, is not grand strategy. Can’t imagine why you are having so much trouble with this. It usually only takes a day or two in a university classroom.
mkfreeberg: Civilians have just as much say in the voting process as soldiers do, even though the soldiers may lose their lives according to the decisions made.
That’s right, because they are the ones who are affected by political decisions. But voting on the theory of gravity doesn’t change the scientific facts.
mkfreeberg: How dare you disagree.
We didn’t agree or disagree. We merely said he doesn’t represent a proper authority concerning grand strategy.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 18:04it’s reasonable to tentatively accept these opinions when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds. Do you agree?
Sure. Since you have the word “tentatively” in there.
Climate systems are much more than just “greenhouse gas effect, cosmic rays, vapor, aerosols, climate-sensitivity”. It’s a complex dynamic system that has its own emergent properties that are still not completely understood.
Which brings us back to your unworkable dilemma. You have identified scientists as exclusively (or supremely) qualified to comment, because they know. But you have defined their proper field of knowledge as the unknown. Either one of these make sense, but together they’re jibberish. A thing is known, or else it is not known. You’ve been using the phrase “empirical observations” more than once, so this should be just obvious.
Also, there is another among you who has made the point that the scientists are more likely to be right about this. Now if we’re talking knowns, and the engineers know their stuff, then that, too, becomes just nonsense.
If you are trying to say the scientists are more acclimated to the scientific process — something like, we have this expanding blob of knowledge swelling up within the universe, and our brave noble scientists are on the periphery of it, advancing forward, grappling with puzzles everyday that would be foreign to the rest of us — I’m down with that. But then, when engineers have to figure out why something is broken, using scientific processes but you don’t think it should count because these efforts do not involve “new scientific principles,” then this doesn’t work because you’re using sleight-of-hand, changing what we’re talking about in midstream. Engineers and scientists are kindred spirits, in using the scientific method to figure out what’s up.
I agree with your comment that engineers do not generally deal with the discovery of the unknown; that is more of a scientific domain. If that applies to the climate, then that means we are discussing an unknown. Your criteria then end up being silly, because they end up being criteria that might define who knows the most, and with the greatest certainty, about an unknown.
If it works, it’s a great system for figuring out who’s capable of un-scientific arrogance.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 18:17Zachriel: Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, it’s reasonable to tentatively accept these opinions when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds. Do you agree?
mkfreeberg: Sure. Since you have the word “tentatively” in there.
All inductive arguments are tentative. In this case, evidence is always an argument against an appeal to authority. Glad we settled that.
mkfreeberg: You have identified scientists as exclusively (or supremely) qualified to comment, because they know.
Not supremely, or even exclusively. As we indicated, valid fields of study typically overlap. So an engineer who says he has built a perpetual motion machine will run up against the claims of physicists.
We have also said, repeatedly, that engineers will probably know more science related to their field, than laypersons, but less than scientists in that field. But knowing science, and having professional experience evaluating scientific claims are not the same thing.
mkfreeberg: A thing is known, or else it is not known.
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way in science. In science, nothing is known with absolute certainly, but that doesn’t equate to having no knowledge.
mkfreeberg: I agree with your comment that engineers do not generally deal with the discovery of the unknown; that is more of a scientific domain.
We agree, and grant that there’s no perfect division between science and engineering. Engineers sometimes do scientific work, and scientists sometimes engineer, especially instrumentation. More often, though, they collaborate, because they are quite different specialties. While there is some overlap, engineers generally do not have professional experience evaluating scientific claims. That’s why it’s said that “engineering is not science.” It’s why “rocket science is easy; rocket engineering is hard.”
We should just be satisfied that you agreed that Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, it’s reasonable to tentatively accept these opinions when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.
- Zachriel | 03/03/2013 @ 18:50Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way in science. In science, nothing is known with absolute certainly, but that doesn’t equate to having no knowledge.
Sure, if by “science” you mean something that is separated from reality itself. Which would not be useful as a scientific pursuit. Yes, I understand about forming theories and setting up experiments to validate them or refudiate them. But science works with logic, and with logic you have knowns and unknowns, one or the other. If you’re kinda-sorta-pretty sure, then it’s an unknown. But no, even in science you don’t have something that’s a known and an unknown, simultaneously.
It has been said that liberals are Plato and conservatives are Aristotle. Perhaps this is an example of that. But you haven’t resolved the dilemma: Science is settled, because the scientists have reached consensus, and they get to pull rank because they’re scientists, but we are not on their turf unless we’re dealing with the unknown, which makes the search for a top-dog authority rather pointless. If it’s an unknown, and you’re pulling rank because you know it so well, then that makes you not only arrogant but more prone to error than the others. Even if you’re a scientist.
In any field of knowledge and reasoning, it’s ALWAYS important to keep an accurate inventory of what you don’t know. One’s opinions lose a lot of value if one cannot maintain this.
- mkfreeberg | 03/03/2013 @ 20:14Zachriel: Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way in science. In science, nothing is known with absolute certainly, but that doesn’t equate to having no knowledge.
mkfreeberg: Sure, if by “science” you mean something that is separated from reality itself. Which would not be useful as a scientific pursuit. Yes, I understand about forming theories and setting up experiments to validate them or refudiate them. But science works with logic, and with logic you have knowns and unknowns, one or the other.
Science works with logic (hypothetico-deduction), but science is not logic. Scientific claims are tested against evidence, and consequently, all scientific claims are considered tentative and subject to revision in the light of the evidence. Claims are supported, not proven.
A simple example is Halley’s comet. A very bold prediction that strongly confirmed Newton’s Theory; however, the reappearance of Halley’s Comet could have been an incredible coincidence, perhaps even a different comet. Or maybe Newton’s Theory only applies within certain domains. For instance, Newton’s Theory gave inaccurate answers for the precession of Mercury’s orbit; therefore, Newton’s Theory was wrong, was always wrong, will forever be wrong. Yet, it’s still taught as science today.
“Conclusions of science are reliable, though tentative.”
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 05:33http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIcharacteristics.shtml
Yes, it’s tentative by nature. That does not mean that something can be known, and simultaneously not-known. That would be a contradiction existing in nature, which is not a possibility.
The understanding that a contradiction cannot exist in nature, has been an irreplaceable asset in the progress of science. Most deductive reasoning works this way: I have found an apparent contradiction, it cannot represent an actual contradiction so my perceptions must therefore be errant in some way. The Alexandria/Syene water well observation falls into this. Eratosthenes therefore falls into Aristotle’s school of thinking; he would have been a conservative thinker. For if his mind was open to contradictions actually existing in nature, the conclusion’s obvious: Straight up in Syene, seven degrees off back here, oh well, why ask why, drink Bud dry.
The parallax experiment is another example: The two “stars” are this far apart in September and that far apart in March — an apparent contradiction, and yet, a genuine contradiction cannot exist. So let us ponder what might be skewed about our observations.
Your “science” depends on the compendium of information possessing an attribute (known, so scientists can be experts about it, and disclaim all others as not-experts) and simultaneously possessing the opposite attribute (unknown, so it can be legitimately placed in the domain of “science,” while the engineers are condemned for speaking outside their discipline). As such, it becomes a pseudoscience. Meanwhile, back here in reality, if the thing is known so well that we can stop debating it because “‘all the scientists agree” — then, by your own explanation of how engineering and science work together it becomes the proper knowledge domain wherein an engineer can comment. Certainly, we don’t need to worry about invalidating surveys that fail to exclude the engineers. It’s no longer an unknown, after all.
You know, in recent times we seem to get back here an awful lot, to this spot: A, and yet not-A, now don’t you go complaining about unworkabilities and contradictions or else if you do, you show you’re a troglodyte who’s not sufficiently sophisticated to tease out the nuances. It says a lot that the climate change racket spends more than its share of time here.
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2013 @ 07:48mkfreeberg: Yes, it’s tentative by nature. That does not mean that something can be known, and simultaneously not-known.
That’s because you are treating knowledge as a binary condition. Scientific knowledge may be reliable, but not certain.
Azimov on the world is flat
http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
mkfreeberg: The parallax experiment is another example: The two “stars” are this far apart in September and that far apart in March — an apparent contradiction, and yet, a genuine contradiction cannot exist. So let us ponder what might be skewed about our observations.
Those are observations, not contradictions. They can only be a contradiction to a specified hypothesis. (Historically, the problem has been lack of observed parallax.)
mkfreeberg: Your “science” depends on the compendium of information possessing an attribute (known, so scientists can be experts about it, and disclaim all others as not-experts) and simultaneously possessing the opposite attribute (unknown, so it can be legitimately placed in the domain of “science,” while the engineers are condemned for speaking outside their discipline).
It’s not engineers we condemn. Engineers have a right to their opinion, and if they have evidence, then that is always pertinent. The problem is when you cite engineers as authorities on a specific scientific field to contradict actual scientists working in that field.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 08:13The problem is when you cite engineers as authorities on a specific scientific field to contradict actual scientists working in that field.
Ever notice how much time science spends repeating itself? It looks more and more like science couldn’t argue its way out of a paper bag. Hey, speaking of…
Engineers have a right to their opinion, and if they have evidence, then that is always pertinent.
Again, you maintained, for 400 or so posts, that we — Morgan, Texan99, Captain Midnight, Philmon, and myself — could see irrefutable evidence of Global Warming just by looking at your .gif and consulting your bibliography. And yet, professional engineers, of whatever discipline, cannot.
So let’s do some science. We explain this apparent contradiction by ________ ?
- Severian | 03/04/2013 @ 08:32Severian: Ever notice how much time science spends repeating itself?
Actually, incredible as it may seem, we’ve made progress in this thread. Mkfreeberg has agreed to this statement of an appeal to authority: Proper experts and authorities render valuable opinions in their fields and, ceteris paribus, it’s reasonable to tentatively accept these opinions when we are unable to come to a conclusion on more secure grounds.
Do you agree or disagree?
Severian: Again, you maintained, for 400 or so posts, that we — Morgan, Texan99, Captain Midnight, Philmon, and myself — could see irrefutable evidence of Global Warming just by looking at your .gif and consulting your bibliography. And yet, professional engineers, of whatever discipline, cannot.
We’re discussing appeals to authority. Perhaps another thread can be established for discussing the scientific evidence.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 08:45What I notice, over the several hundreds of post, is this constant leitmotif of “ah, but there is a difference between [blank] and [blank].” Like, science and engineering.
When a logical rebuttal is offered that shows there’s no meaningful difference, we get back yet another “ah, but there is a difference between [blank] and [blank].” Software engineers using the scientific method to find a bug, don’t count, because there have to be new scientific concepts involved.
It’s never quite defined how the differences are meaningful. It is often provable that the differences are not meaningful, at which time we continue to get back yet another “ah, but there is a difference between” statement.
Got that link to the cuttlefish handy?
- mkfreeberg | 03/04/2013 @ 08:46mkfreeberg: there is a difference between [blank] and [blank].” Like, science and engineering.
There is.
mkfreeberg: When a logical rebuttal is offered that shows there’s no meaningful difference, we get back yet another “ah, but there is a difference between [blank] and [blank].”
You say you have shown a logical rebuttal, but you haven’t. Engineering is not science. Engineers do not professionally evaluate scientific claims.
mkfreeberg: Software engineers using the scientific method to find a bug, don’t count, because there have to be new scientific concepts involved.
Everyone uses induction, including a kid learning to stack blocks. That doesn’t make them professional scientists.
mkfreeberg: It is often provable that the differences are not meaningful, at which time we continue to get back yet another “ah, but there is a difference between” statement.
Curious. How come the professional engineering associations we cited above are confused on this point?
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 08:53We’re discussing appeals to authority.
Ok, so let’s do some more science: I’ll grant, for the sake of argument, that appeals to authority are so valid, they give Aristotle wood in the afterlife. Totally, completely valid, in every way.
Now: The engineers in the survey have access to the same data and authorities, no? And they claim they can’t see Global Warming. We explain this apparent contradiction by _________ ?
- Severian | 03/04/2013 @ 09:00Severian: The engineers in the survey have access to the same data and authorities, no? And they claim they can’t see Global Warming. We explain this apparent contradiction by _________ ?
Twofold: 1) Engineers are not generally aware of all the data and methods available to climatologists. Indeed, most scientists don’t have access to all the climatological data. For instance, most biologists would have only tangential knowledge of climate science. There may be some overlap, but not nearly as much as, say, oceanography or planetology. 2) Most engineers do not have professional experience at evaluating scientific claims.
As we mentioned above, you can account for a wider variety of scholarship by weighting the opinions based on the distance from the field in question.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 09:26As we mentioned above, you can account for a wider variety of scholarship by weighting the opinions based on the distance from the field in question.
Uh huh. So if that’s the case, why did you spend 400+ posts, in two or three different threads, trying to convince us of the truth of Global Warming by endlessly linking your little .gif and your cut-and-paste bibliography?
Seems to me you’re digging the hole deeper here, guys. For instance, you claim that
So the .gif and the bibliography wouldn’t do it, even for most scientists.
And then you claim that
So what chance do I, a lowly blog commenter, have? Especially with just a .gif and an unlinked, inaccessible (since I don’t live in a university library) bibliography to work with?
Put succinctly: I don’t have the data, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to understand it anyway, since it lies beyond the competence even of engineers.
Sounds like we’re back to “trust us, we’re experts.” Which is fine, I guess, if you choose to outsource your thinking like that, but it still leaves the question: If you knew all along it couldn’t be done — since we’re not ourselves climate scientists — why did you waste everyone’s time in two or more threads, stretching over months, arguing that it could?
- Severian | 03/04/2013 @ 09:59Severian: So if that’s the case, why did you spend 400+ posts, in two or three different threads, trying to convince us of the truth of Global Warming by endlessly linking your little .gif and your cut-and-paste bibliography?
We were appealing to the evidence, not authority.
Severian: Engineers are not generally aware of all the data and methods available to climatologists. Indeed, most scientists don’t have access to all the climatological data.
It’s part of making you aware of the evidence.
Severian: So what chance do I, a lowly blog commenter, have?
You can certainly understand the basic evidence. That wouldn’t make you a scientific authority, merely informed.
Severian: Put succinctly: I don’t have the data, and even if I did, I wouldn’t be able to understand it anyway, since it lies beyond the competence even of engineers.
Most people don’t spend their lives proposing scientific hypotheses, setting up complex observations and then analyzing data, but there’s nothing to prevent you from doing so, and thereby becoming a scientist. Other people like to dance.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 10:07We were appealing to the evidence, not authority.
And you just said I couldn’t understand the evidence, since I don’t have professional expertise at evaluating scientific claims. Hell, I’m not even an engineer, and since even they can’t understand it….
I’m really starting to see what Morgan was talking about, this habit of asserting A-yet-not-A that y’all have going. Like here:
So I can understand the basic evidence, but not the scientific evidence, but if I became a scientist, then I could understand it. Meanwhile you spent 400+ posts making [me] aware of the evidence…. evidence that I can’t really understand. Makes sense.
Either way, though, both I and the engineers have the same evidence. We’ve both reached the same conclusion. Here again, you’re faced with the same problem — either a) you’ve got evidence that neither the engineers nor I am aware of but could understand, in which case you wasted 400+ posts doing…. something; or b) you’ve got evidence that we can’t understand, which makes the whole thing pointless.
In either case, it’s not looking good for “science.” Unless c), you’re once again trying to arrogate political power to yourselves with the old “trust us, we’re experts” trick…
- Severian | 03/04/2013 @ 10:27Severian: And you just said I couldn’t understand the evidence, since I don’t have professional expertise at evaluating scientific claims.
We said no such thing. Someone can have a passing understanding of the evidence without having expertise in a field. Many people, for instance, have a passing understanding of Newtonian Mechanics, but don’t qualify as mechanical engineers.
- Zachriel | 03/04/2013 @ 14:36[…] persuade toward the same outcome, assuming such an argument could be assembled at all. The way I said it was “I choose to internalize my reasoning processes,” to which the other side […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/16/2013 @ 04:58[…] Frog philosopher who likes it rough to come up with a zillion better explanations for this fact. Common sense works just fine. Could it be, perhaps, that the reason there were so many capital crimes on the […]
- Explaining Academia: Michel Foucault | Rotten Chestnuts | 12/17/2016 @ 11:19[…] (do we still have that many?) who came over here from House of Eratosthenes probably remember this fun little exchange, with the infamous Cuttlefish Collective. If you don’t feel like wading through all that […]
- Bio-Marxism | Rotten Chestnuts | 09/24/2020 @ 08:04