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...
Found a couple of pages out there trying to define as a logical fallacy any argument seeking to point out anything that sounds like this: “Ah, but science has been wrong before.”
They do have a good point to make: You take your car in to a mechanic to find out why it won’t start, the mechanic will come up with some theories. Then, with a look-see and some deductive reasoning, some of these will be ruled out. It would then be silly, as well as sneaky and unfair, to say “What a bad mechanic he is, he was wrong when he said my fuel system wasn’t delivering.”
Both pages point out that such an argument “shows ignorance of how science works.” That’s a valid observation — certainly it’s true in the example of the mechanic — but it strikes me as exceedingly reckless to make a logical fallacy out of this. It strikes a blow with a sledgehammer when a jewelers’ screwdriver would be more appropriate. Which is particularly hazardous here, since the presumption they’re forming about the conversation in which the “fallacy” would be deployed, is far from guaranteed. In fact, I would say it’s almost certain to be wrong.
Their presumption is that the guy pointing out “science has been wrong before,” is the first one in the dialogue to “[misrepresent] how science actually works by forcing it into a binary conception of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’.” Now, this has not been my experience at all, especially in the case of global warming. From all I’ve seen in the conversations in which I participate — and also in the much larger collective of conversations, in which I do not — it is the alwarmist who incorrectly sees “science” as sort of a catalog of blessed beliefs, almost like scripture being blessed by a high priest in some religious order. The skeptic or denier who then takes the “yeah but science has been wrong before” angle, therefore, is engaging in a bit of flair to remind his antagonist that the scientific process is being misrepresented.
After all, these conversations are very often more about how sure we should be, than about what is to be concluded. Isn’t that just obvious? Aren’t they almost all about “the science is in” or “the debate is settled” or “all the scientists agree”?
Are they not almost all about how the virtue of skepticism, which is the backbone of science itself in all other pursuits and disciplines, in just this one should be suspended because gosh, they’re just so darn sure about this, and the fate of life on the planet depends on it. Doesn’t that previous sentence sum up just about all the arguing that’s ever being done, especially out here on the Internet.
And once the alwarmist commits this error and shows this ignorance of how science works, I personally don’t know of too many more succinct or diplomatic ways to correct him about it. Maybe it would be more direct, and perhaps in some cases a good idea, to go with the alternative rebuttal of “that isn’t how science works.” But since the discussion is often about whether it’s okay to still be asking questions, it hardly seems fair to make a logical fallacy out of what is likely just an attempt, perhaps a clumsy one, to show some tact. And it’s certainly dishonest to play make-believe that it’s the one side that has shown this ignorance about science, when it’s very likely to be the other.
Also, the authors make a second reckless presumption, also unlikely to be true: That there is no good point to be made here. I see someone compiled a short list of occasions on which one might say “science was wrong” and, once again, one sees one’s understanding is increased when one takes the time to define some specifics. In this case, the author of the list went the extra mile by annotating these events where the thing being “proven wrong” wasn’t exactly science, but “DOGMA.” Everybody knew it to be true. The scientific method had not been used to validate these “wrong” things so it is entirely inaccurate to say the-science-was-wrong. But, again: Tell the alwarmists that, for in a lot of cases this “settled science” is not science at all.
This list doesn’t take such care, using phrases like “for thousands of years, it was believed that.” But it’s still relevant and educational to read through it.
This article makes the point that all knowledge has an expiration date. Not sure I’d take it that far. Still, it’s an interesting read.
“King of the Woad” came up with a great example over here about repressed memories of child abuse. He, too, is careful to disclaim:
So there’s an example of science getting it wrong, the public knowing better, and the experts themselves having to backtrack. But the crisis blew up in the first place because the “self-correction” mechanism you refer to wasn’t allowed to function properly.
Let us ponder that “but”: The experts developed their theory in a vacuum, without the benefit of peer review. And so a question confronts us: Perhaps this example should not count?
It is entirely legitimate to say it should not, in every single way, if — and only if — an implied rule arises, and is given the respect it deserves, the word “science” should be tapered down in terms of the situations to which it is applied. If the alwarmist should be given license to counter that the Cleveland repressed-memory crisis is a pointedly different thing from what he’s trying to discuss when he says “the science is settled,” then he should be confined to using that science-is-settled thing to suppositions in which science has been followed. Is that not just common sense? Also, this has to work at the micro- level, not the macro-. You can’t go leapfrogging from “the science is settled that the lower troposphere has been warming and there is a greenhouse effect,” to “the science is settled that human activity is the primary cause” to “the science is settled that legislative initiatives will curb this warming” to “the science is settled that if those initiatives are not implemented post haste, we’re all gonna die.”
That, I think, is just common sense too. But a lot of people are not following it.
The problem, here, is drama and emotion. Everyone is bored to tears watching the scientist do real science. Everyone likes to watch the scene where the scientist, pondering the meaning of what he just saw, tears himself away from his telescope or microscope or computer workstation and leaps into his jeep to drive all night to the capitol building to tell the wise leaders that IMMEDIATE ACTION is required or we’re all DOOMED!! But it bears repeating, science has nothing to do at all with what we “must” do. Science is all about what is. One steps outside of the domain of science, usually slamming the door behind him, and forgetting the key, the minute one starts pondering the thing-to-do. With the climate change deal, a lot of people tend to forget that.
Another problem, already briefly discussed above, is the use of the word. I called this out years ago, that in classical times “science” was used to describe a process, and in more recent times it is used to describe an orthodoxy of institutionalized beliefs, and a coterie of elites maintaining them. When I review the list with the annotations about dogma-not-science, I notice an interesting pattern in history: This piece of knowledge, which is ultimately falsified, is “science” before the falsification occurs but after that event — is not science anymore. This wasn’t done, that wasn’t done, peer review wasn’t done…it was accepted by these guys over here, but not those guys over there…it was a hypothesis and not a theory.
So there is a subtle but meaningful two-step going on here: The science is never wrong, because once it is proven wrong it stops being science. Almost like the “none dare call it treason” thing. But before it’s proven wrong…we show our ignorance if we fail to accept it uncritically, since “it’s science.” Seems to me, you can insist on one or the other of those things, but not both, for if both these rules are to prevail, what you have is little more than a set of procedure-driven steps for mass-producing mistakes, and then placing unlimited weight on them.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
House of Eratosthenes: Science is Never Wrong
Science is often wrong. However, simply pointing that out isn’t an argument that a particular finding is in error. That can only be addressed by looking at the actual evidence.
More particularly, science is a process of constructing models of empirical phenomena, then testing those models against new observations. All models are approximations, and are therefore wrong to some degree, but some are more useful than others.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 09:02Simply pointing that out, isn’t lots of things.
But it is an entirely legitimate retort, when the other person commits the logical fallacy of “such-and-such is not to be doubted because science says so.” So it seems we are in agreement about that.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2013 @ 09:04mkfreeberg: But it is an entirely legitimate retort, when the other person commits the logical fallacy of “such-and-such is not to be doubted because science says so.” So it seems we are in agreement about that.
We are in agreement about that. Anyone who claims that science is infallible or that “such-and-such is not to be doubted because science says so” is wrong and needs to be reminded that all scientific claims are considered tentative. On the other hand, some facts are “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.”
That is not to say an appeal to authority is always invalid. Consider a claim, X. Someone cites a valid appeal to authority supporting X. Your saying authority can be wrong does not undermine the support. It’s implicit that authority can be wrong, but they are more likely right than not when speaking to a consensus within their own, valid field of study.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 09:45An appeal to authority is valid when…
Oh, I dunno. I’m reminded of the “League of Aryan Scientists” or whatever it was declaring Einstein’s theory of relativity invalid, as “Jewish science.”
Let’s see:
* The cited authority has sufficient expertise.
— Yup, they were all physicists with PhDs, granted by real universities in the pre-Nazi era, and in a system that was, at the time, the most rigorous in the world. Johannes Stark, one of the leaders of the “Aryan Physics” movement, was a Nobel laureate.
* The authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.
— Certainly; physicists opining on physics
* The area of expertise is a valid field of study.
— Physics
* There is adequate agreement among authorities in the field.
— Hundreds of ’em. Any physicist in Germany in the Nazi period would agree that relativity is wrong.
* There is no evidence of undue bias.
— Again, every single German scientist in the period agreed. Every single peer-reviewed journal in Germany said the same. If someone did claim that relativity was correct, that person was ousted from his position and not allowed to publish. No articles suggesting relativity was correct appeared in the whole of Germany during this period.
[And because you all are determined to miss the point, let me pre-rebut your inevitable cut-and-paste of “The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.” Evidence of the truth or relativity was either a) not allowed to be published, or b) massaged in some way to confirm the model of the Aryan Physicists. This, as we’ve been endlessly trying to point out to you drones, is what seems to be happening with “global warming” data]
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 10:06Yes, this matches my experience. Especially with your fifth bullet, “there is no evidence of undue bias,” said discussion then take off in the direction of: I see “undue bias” on the one side, and on the other side, no there is no such bias and you make a mistake in perceiving it.
That, and your third: “The area of expertise is a valid field of study.” The skeptic/denialist assertion is often one of, “climate may be a valid field of study, climate change may be a valid field of study, but what legislation should be enacted is certainly not that.” The alwarmists then contest that, which they have every right to do of course. But at that point they’re not arguing about science anymore.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2013 @ 10:08Severian:
* 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.
It’s not a physics question, so no, they didn’t have the expertise. Nor is there a valid field which judges the ethnic characteristics of scientific theories. Nor was there such a consensus within the scientific community. However, there was substantial evidence of bias, not only among many German scientists, but society at large.
The appeal to authority is patently invalid in every respect.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 10:17It’s not a physics question
Nope, wrong. It was entirely a physics question, carried on in leading field journals by qualified physicists. The discussion wasn’t “Einstein is a Jew, therefore wrong;” it’s “relativity — a Jewish notion — is wrong, and here’s why, with the math.”
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 10:22mkfreeberg: I see “undue bias” on the one side, and on the other side, no there is no such bias and you make a mistake in perceiving it.
A legitimate claim of bias can undermine an appeal to authority, but claiming bias and showing that it has affected the scientific findings are different matters.
mkfreeberg: The skeptic/denialist assertion is often one of, “climate may be a valid field of study, climate change may be a valid field of study, but what legislation should be enacted is certainly not that.”
That’s correct. Legislation is policy, which has to balance various costs and benefits. Science may be used sometimes to evaluate the effect of policy, but policy has to include non-scientific judgments about values, what people consider important.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 10:22Severian: Nope, wrong. It was entirely a physics question, carried on in leading field journals by qualified physicists.
Saying so doesn’t make it so. The “Jewishness” of a theory is not a problem in physics. There is no such valid field of study. There was no consensus in any scientific field. And there was strong evidence of bias. The appeal fails on every level.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 10:25There was no consensus in any scientific field. And there was strong evidence of bias. The appeal fails on every level.
You are incorrect. Look again: “The discussion wasn’t “Einstein is a Jew, therefore wrong;” it’s “relativity — a Jewish notion — is wrong, and here’s why, with the math.”
Since you’re unfamiliar with this episode in the history of science, I’ll direct you to a standard modern work on the Nazi period, Richard Evans’s The Third Reich in Power. See here , for example:
So yes, there was a consensus — every single physicist in Germany who made a public statement on relativity claimed it was wrong. Every single physics teacher in the Third Reich claimed it was wrong, and taught that it was wrong, and could show you the data and the lab work to prove it was wrong. One could attend high school, college, and even graduate school in Germany and know that relativity was wrong. You could read it in the leading scientific journals in Germany. You could see their data, and even check their math for yourself.
To recap: The argument was NOT “relativity is Jewish, therefore wrong, full stop.” The argument was “relativity is wrong, and here’s why.” They had data. And math. And every single public utterance by every single physicist in Germany. And every article in every leading German scientific journal.
These are facts in the history of science. Saying they’re not doesn’t make it so.
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 11:26Severian: The argument was “relativity is wrong, and here’s why.”
There’s nothing about Jews in that argument.
Severian: So yes, there was a consensus — every single physicist in Germany who made a public statement on relativity claimed it was wrong.
There was no consensus that relativity was wrong. Turns out most physicists were not in Germany.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 12:03So you’re saying it never happened or something? Looks like there’s an article about it, these guys were German from what I can tell, and they have the credentials Severian claims. The founder even has a Nobel prize to his credit.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2013 @ 12:23Zachriel There was no consensus that relativity was wrong. Turns out most physicists were not in Germany.
Seems to me you are expanding the goalposts of defining consensus when the initial discussion was that of consensus in members of the “League of Aryan Scientists.” Do you agree, based on the references above, that there was a consensus in Germany during the above-mentioned time period?
- Captain Midnight | 01/25/2013 @ 12:25So you are claiming that “every public utterance by a physicist,” “every scientific journal,” and “the curriculum of every university, through the PhD level” does NOT constitute a scientific consensus in Germany?
That IS what you’re claiming, right?
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 12:36There’s nothing about Jews in that argument.
Nice try, though. Here it is in my original phrasing: “The discussion wasn’t “Einstein is a Jew, therefore wrong;” it’s “relativity — a Jewish notion — is wrong, and here’s why, with the math.”
The Aryan Physicists wanted to claim that relativity was wrong because it was Jewish, full stop. But, being scientists, they were unable to do this. Thus they were forced to massage some experimental data, and throw out others, and engage in all other kinds of distortions to prove relativity wrong as science.
They did this. The scientific consensus in Germany, subscribed to by every single professional physicist in the country, was that relativity is demonstrably, scientifically false.
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 12:40mkfreeberg: So you’re saying it never happened or something?
No, that’s not what we said. According to your citation, it was a nationalist movement, and persecution was rampant.
Captain Midnight: Seems to me you are expanding the goalposts of defining consensus when the initial discussion was that of consensus in members of the “League of Aryan Scientists.”
A consensus of the “League of Aryan Scientists” is not a consensus of physicists. Rampant persecution as cited by mkfreeberg undermines further any such appeal. As to whether relativity is correct, that is based on its scientific merits.
In any case, as pointed out above, an appeal to authority doesn’t prove a claim, merely supports it absent other information.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 12:47“The League of Aryan Scientists” = “every single working physicist in Germany, plus all their journals and apparatus.”
So: IS every single physicist in Germany, their journals and apparatus, a consenesus of physicists in Germany?
Yes or no?
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 12:51Well then, I’m not sure what’s being debated here. You said “turns out most physicists were not in Germany” and my citation seems to indicate this operation was in Germany, the members of it were German, and they were real live physicists with the proper credentials in place. Additionally, it could have been plausibly argued at the time that there was no “evidence of bias” at work.
So now you’re saying an appeal to authority “merely supports” a claim but doesn’t “prove” it. This doesn’t impress me as any measurable kind of a thing, in fact that’s the whole problem with appeal-to-authority in the first place, it is designed to work through emotion. You say “so-and-so says such-and-such a thing” and if the other person is persuaded by this, or chastened from putting his good name by a statement that says something else, that’s more or less an emotional response and not a rational one. Because it is emotional, it is subjective.
And yet, you seem to be trying to put some sort of code in place. If your five bullets apply, and no valid exceptions are found, then somewhere there are some “rules” that say something is to be concluded from this. But realistically, that’s up to each participant to decide for himself. So I guess the correct response is, well, yeah you can figure this stuff out for yourselves in whatever way it makes sense to you.
- mkfreeberg | 01/25/2013 @ 12:53Severian: So: IS every single physicist in Germany, their journals and apparatus, a consenesus of physicists in Germany?
You can’t call it a scientific consensus when there is rampant persecution and forced emigration, as noted by mkfreeberg. In any case, it wouldn’t be a consensus in the field as it excludes the majority of physicists. Not sure why you keep arguing the point when it’s apparent it doesn’t meet the fundamentals of a valid appeal.
As for relativity, it has to rise or fall on its scientific merits. There were many scientists who had difficulties with the theory, indeed, still do; but the theory continues to pass new observational tests. Don’t forget: All models are wrong, but some are useful.
mkfreeberg: So now you’re saying an appeal to authority “merely supports” a claim but doesn’t “prove” it.
From our first comment: Science is often wrong.
From our second comment: It’s implicit that authority can be wrong, but they are more likely right than not when speaking to a consensus within their own, valid field of study… The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
mkfreeberg: This doesn’t impress me as any measurable kind of a thing, in fact that’s the whole problem with appeal-to-authority in the first place, it is designed to work through emotion.
It has nothing to do with emotion. It has to do with that fact that brain surgeons probably know more about brain surgery than the average person.
mkfreeberg: So I guess the correct response is, well, yeah you can figure this stuff out for yourselves in whatever way it makes sense to you.
That’s right. Everyone who has brain surgery needs to become a brain surgeon.
In fact, everyone relies on authority in nearly every activity of the modern world. Most people don’t instruct their pilot before boarding an airliner, or even have a rudimentary understanding of aerodynamics.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 13:12Seems to me that scientific consensus is used today as a way to end scientific debate. It’s a “shut up” effort to declare that the “science is settled.” Case in point here.
- Captain Midnight | 01/25/2013 @ 13:12Not sure why you keep arguing the point when it’s apparent it doesn’t meet the fundamentals of a valid appeal.
You’re not answering the question. The question is, “every working physicist in Germany,their journals, and apparatus” is “a consensus of physicists in Germany,” yes or no? How it got that way is immaterial; it either IS a consensus or it is not.
Yes or no? Baby steps.
- Severian | 01/25/2013 @ 13:44Severian: You’re not answering the question. The question is, “every working physicist in Germany,their journals, and apparatus” is “a consensus of physicists in Germany,” yes or no?
We did answer. The answer is no. The reasons were given above.
Captain Midnight: Seems to me that scientific consensus is used today as a way to end scientific debate. It’s a “shut up” effort to declare that the “science is settled.”
There is substantial evidence to support theories of anthropogenic climate change.
Captain Midnight: Case in point here.
It’s simply an appeal to authority. One of those 24 contrary papers could be correct.
- Zachriel | 01/25/2013 @ 15:58We did answer. The answer is no.
So, to recap: every single working physicist in German, all their public announcements, all their leading scientific journals, their entire academic apparatus, etc., was NOT “a consensus of physicists in Germany.”
That IS your claim, right?
So you’d say that when it came to relativity in Germany, 1933-1945, the science wasn’t settled, despite the fact that every article that appeared in every peer-reviewed German scientific journal claimed it was, and despite the fact that every single public pronouncement on it by a German scientist said it was?
That does seem to logically follow, no?
And so: Despite the lockstep conformity of the entire German physics establishment, 1933-1945, the science in Germany was NOT settled regarding relativity. Yes or no?
- Severian | 01/27/2013 @ 04:48Severian: So, to recap: every single working physicist in German, all their public announcements, all their leading scientific journals, their entire academic apparatus, etc., was NOT “a consensus of physicists in Germany.”
That is correct, because people were not free to disagree, you can’t claim a valid consensus. Let’s assume, arguendo, the German scientific establishment had freely reached a consensus that relativity was incorrect. Did you have a further point?
- Zachriel | 01/27/2013 @ 12:11Let’s assume, arguendo, the German scientific establishment had freely reached a consensus that relativity was incorrect
I’m not assuming anything just yet, comrades. Words mean what they mean. And so you claim, for the record, that “the expressed opinions of all working physicists, in all their peer-reviewed journals,” is NOT a consensus.
Did you have a further point?
So then, a “scientific consensus” can be wrong?
- Severian | 01/27/2013 @ 20:53Severian: And so you claim, for the record, that “the expressed opinions of all working physicists, in all their peer-reviewed journals,” is NOT a consensus.
Not when they are given under dire threats, no. There is strong evidence of undue bias, including forced emigration.
Nor did you provide an example of “all working physicists”.
Severian: So then, a “scientific consensus” can be wrong?
Zachriel: All models are approximations, and are therefore wrong to some degree, but some are more useful than others.
Zachriel: The proper argument against a valid appeal to authority is to the evidence.
Zachriel: It’s implicit that authority can be wrong
Zachriel: In any case, as pointed out above, an appeal to authority doesn’t prove a claim, merely supports it absent other information.
Zachriel: It’s simply an appeal to authority. One of those 24 contrary papers could be correct.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 05:55An 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.
How about just simplifying that to, “An appeal to authority is valid when it is not an appeal to authority, but modified by the authority to be an appeal to the evidence.”
Can’t help noticing, that if all five of your bullets apply, this should be an easy thing to do.
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 06:58mkfreeberg: How about just simplifying that to, “An appeal to authority is valid when it is not an appeal to authority, but modified by the authority to be an appeal to the evidence.”
Huh?
mkfreeberg: An appeal to authority is valid when it is not an appeal to authority …
That’s a direct contradiction.
mkfreeberg: but modified by the authority to be an appeal to the evidence.
An appeal to authority is an argument that relies on the opinion of experts in the field rather than the evidence, because most people don’t have the detailed knowledge of the evidence to reach valid conclusions in most fields, and because experts are more likely right than not when they meet the criteria above. It is implicit that the experts have arrived at their consensus opinion through their collective knowledge and study of the evidence. That’s what’s meant by a valid field of study.
A simple example might be using an encyclopedia to find out the radius of the Earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
There also has to be a consensus, or the expert should make clear that there is still plausible debate within the field concerning the subject. In addition, any appeal to authority must yield to the evidence. So if a scientist contests the current consensus—and has evidence to support their claim!—, then the consensus must be reevaluated. That’s an everyday occurrence in science.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 07:22Okay, so you want to come up with some rules by which we should do our thinking, but you say “Huh?” when you are given simple sentences to read.
Seriously though, this is looking like a bunny trail. You’re saying, appeal to authority is valid even though it doesn’t really prove anything, just makes something more likely because these experts should know what they’re talking about. The valid response to appeal to the authority is appeal to the evidence. To which I say…why can’t we simply insist on the authorities appealing to the evidence? Should be easy.
In response to which, you spray some more ink and kick it off with a “Huh?” Real enlightening.
I’m not clear on whether you’re reading from some kind of arguing-rulebook, or writing one, making it up as you go along. I’m also not clear on why anyone should accept it. The only point I can see is to shift the burden of appeal-to-evidence, away from those who ought to be qualified to do it, on to people whose opinion you don’t find so endearing. What other point is there?
I would also point out that it’s not a binary condition, whether or not the “authority is making a statement within their area of expertise.” These days it happens very often that authorities make statements that apply to areas that overlap with their areas of expertise, partially inside and partially outside. Like, climate scientists talking about what the climate will do in a hundred years, and what policies we should make about it, for example. This is where “science” has been shown to be most fallible, consensus or not.
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 07:31mkfreeberg: You’re saying, appeal to authority is valid even though it doesn’t really prove anything, just makes something more likely because these experts should know what they’re talking about. The valid response to appeal to the authority is appeal to the evidence.
Yes, but keep in mind that evidence doesn’t “prove”, but supports a claim.
mkfreeberg: To which I say…why can’t we simply insist on the authorities appealing to the evidence?
Of course they do.
mkfreeberg: I’m also not clear on why anyone should accept it.
You do accept it, every day. Even scientists rely on authority within their own field of expertise. Look at all the citations at the end of most any scientific paper.
mkfreeberg: These days it happens very often that authorities make statements that apply to areas that overlap with their areas of expertise, partially inside and partially outside.
Yes, and that is part of evaluating an appeal to authority.
You seem to make too much of it. You can still argue the evidence. Einstein was a patent clerk when he wrote many of his most important papers.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 07:59Of course they do.
Then it seems we have no disagreement here. It is valid to make an “appeal to authority” and it is valid for someone to come back and say “that isn’t good enough for me, walk me through the reasoning.” What you call “hand waving.”
Your argument, frankly, comes off looking like an attempt to sell the idea that the person sitting in judgment of the argument, will come to the correct conclusion more often by allowing appeal-to-authority, contrasted to when he is unwilling to do so — effectively, that we will come to better conclusions by doing less thinking for ourselves. It also impresses me not quite so much as a matter of scientific thinking and reasoning, but a matter of personal preference. Thanks, I’ll pass. “Scientist Bob says such-and-such” now & then might not be good enough for me.
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 08:04mkfreeberg: The only point I can see is to shift the burden of appeal-to-evidence, away from those who ought to be qualified to do it, on to people whose opinion you don’t find so endearing. What other point is there?
On matters of brain surgery, for instance, it’s reasonable to rely on brain surgeons, rather than your bartender or the average person on the street. Few can learn the specialty in enough detail to plausibly substitute their own opinion for that of a consensus of experts in the field.
Everyone relies on authority, even scientists. The end of almost any scientific paper is full of citations to previous findings that the researchers probably haven’t independently verified.
mkfreeberg: Like, climate scientists talking about what the climate will do in a hundred years, and what policies we should make about it, for example.
Policy is separate from the scientific question, and requires balancing various values. That’s why we have emphasized what can be shown empirically. When pressed, you always avoid this, as you presumably feel it might conflict with your preconceived notions. But the facts don’t change because of those notions.
mkfreeberg: Then it seems we have no disagreement here. It is valid to make an “appeal to authority” and it is valid for someone to come back and say “that isn’t good enough for me, walk me through the reasoning.”
That’s reasonable.
mkfreeberg: What you call “hand waving.”
That wasn’t handwaving. Handwaving is rejecting an argument out of hand.
mkfreeberg: Your argument, frankly, comes off looking like an attempt to sell the idea that the person sitting in judgment of the argument, will come to the correct conclusion more often by allowing appeal-to-authority, contrasted to when he is unwilling to do so — effectively, that we will come to better conclusions by doing less thinking for ourselves.
Thinking for yourself and becoming expert enough in a scholarly field to replace the judgments of specialists are quite different things. Nevertheless, we have always been open to discussing the evidence.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 08:43Policy is separate from the scientific question, and requires balancing various values. That’s why we have emphasized what can be shown empirically. When pressed, you always avoid this, as you presumably feel it might conflict with your preconceived notions. But the facts don’t change because of those notions.
It isn’t a subject that interests me, frankly. I’m wanting to see the argument stated about why we think the global temperature might increase as much as 5 degrees C over the next century, but in response to this you kept infinite-looping back to the very first conclusion offered. Something about “baby steps.” Meanwhile, I’m still waiting for the argument to be made.
That wasn’t handwaving. Handwaving is rejecting an argument out of hand.
What it was, was forming objections to the reasoning you didn’t want me to form. That is when you called it hand waving. Now you’re trying to manufacture this alternate reality that your opposition didn’t have anything to say about it, when the truth is, you just wanted less resistance for the statements you were making than you were encountering.
We seem to be having a difference of opinion about whether to accept what science has to say, as an institution, and how much skepticism should be shown. It’s clever to make this look like a discussion about the conditions under which the skepticism should be shown. Your position is, evidently, the only time the public can show any resistance against accepting the statements uncritically, is when they out-scientist the scientists and find errors.
It’s a nice position to have, if it works for you. I have a different take on it.
Thinking for yourself and becoming expert enough in a scholarly field to replace the judgments of specialists are quite different things.
And yet, I’ve seen you repeatedly impose a standard fitting for those who would attempt the latter, on those who merely seek to do the former.
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 09:09[…] example, they have lately been trying to sell us on the validity of Appeal to Authority, a well-known logical […]
- “Valid” | Rotten Chestnuts | 01/28/2013 @ 10:13Isn’t this the wrong thread for climate change?
mkfreeberg: I’m wanting to see the argument stated about why we think the global temperature might increase as much as 5 degrees C over the next century, …
Five-degrees is on the high end of the range of estimates.
mkfreeberg: … but in response to this you kept infinite-looping back to the very first conclusion offered.
Each step depends on the previous steps, so stop when you can’t go any further.
* CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and will directly contribute about 1°C per doubling of CO2. Are you okay with this?
* The increase in temperature due to CO2 will cause the atmosphere to absorb more water vapor. Are you okay with this?
* Water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Are you okay with this?
* While the lower atmosphere is saturated with water vapor as far as its effect as a greenhouse gas, the upper atmosphere is dry, and this increased water vapor will cause a further increase in temperature. This phenomenon is called “climate sensitivity”. Are you okay with this?
* There are a variety of measures of climate sensitivity, which we have cited numerous times. Here’s a review paper:
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 10:24Knutti & Hegerl, The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes, Nature Geoscience 2008.
mkfreeberg: What it was, was forming objections to the reasoning you didn’t want me to form. That is when you called it hand waving.
We wouldn’t use the term in that fashion.
mkfreeberg: We seem to be having a difference of opinion about whether to accept what science has to say, as an institution, and how much skepticism should be shown.
Skepticism is valid, even encouraged. Simply rejecting scientific conclusions without reasonable objections is not.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 10:32Isn’t this the wrong thread for climate change?
I’ll be the first to admit, it’s skating on thin ice extending an invitation to you to re-activate the “thread that will never die” in another thread. And, I notice you’ve taken pains to make it as perilous as possible. Yes, you’re correct it’s probably inappropriate, or at the very least counterproductive, to replicate all that detail here; but this thread is concerned with how the dogmatic-minded misuse the word “science.” So no, it wasn’t exactly off-topic. But yes, I’d be crossing the line to take the bait on that.
Let’s return to topic. I’m repeatedly seeing a “holding pattern” on the climate change issue, and with other issues involving science, as well as with public policy, taking the form:
Conservative: [something with measurable, objective value to it, like “If that plan works in this case, it will be for the first time” or “If it becomes more expensive to do something, we should expect fewer people to do it” or some such]
Liberal: Because of [blank], your argument is not valid.
And [blank] is something entirely arbitrary. It’s usually some kind of rule; “rejecting scientific conclusions without reasonable objections is not valid.” This lacks objective/measurable value, because the question instantly pops up, unavoidably: Who is to say it is unreasonable? How do we determine that? Well, we already know that. That’s the escape hatch for the liberal, when all else fails; hocus-pocus, and the attacking argument is declared invalid.
How about, just for a change of pace, come up with an idea that makes life easier for people when it is tested, and not just when a liberal politician gives a speech about how helpful it’s going to be for all kinds of people– in theory?
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 13:59mkfreeberg: How do we determine that?
By looking at the evidence.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 15:51Liberal: Because of [blank], your argument is not valid.
And [blank] is something entirely arbitrary.
That’s what I was trying to get at with my pedantic insistence on the notion of “consensus.” When it comes to Global Weather, especially, we are constantly lectured that “the science is settled” because “a consensus of scientists says so.”
But as I pointed out, there is at least one case in which every single scientist working in a field pronounced an aspect of science settled. If, as a physics-minded youngster in Germany in the 1930s, you somehow heard something about this newfangled “relativity” idea, you could consult every single peer-reviewed journal in the country, talk to every single professor in every single university, and not only see NO proof that relativity was right, but ironclad mathematical proof it was wrong. You could see their data and poke around their lab work to your heart’s content. The League of Aryan Physicists wasn’t lying; they were committed to a model that was incorrect. Instead of adapting their model to fit the experimental data, they massaged, spun, distorted, “normalized,” etc. the data to fit the model’s assumptions, one of which — “Jews can’t be right about anything” — turned out to be wrong.
But this, we are told, is not “consensus.” Because it doesn’t allow for dissent, you see. But then when you do dissent about Global Weather, and point out some of the many troubling things about the assumptions of the model and the data collection methods, you’re informed that “the science is settled” because “a consensus of scientists” said so.
In other words, it turns out that a “consensus” is not “the publicly expressed opinion of every expert working in the field;” it’s “those experts’ opinions who agree with mine.”
Which is why the very notion of science being “settled’ by “consensus” is bullshit, and why all such arguments deserve Einstein’s reply to the League of Aryan Physicists: When informed that a group of “100 Aryan scientists” signed a petition declaring his theories invalid, Einstein joked, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
For whatever reason, our leftists have this psychological tic — they want to drape the mantle of objective scientific authority over their personal preferences. And so we have to sit here and try umpteen times to prove that “appeal to authority” is at best one tool in the box of legitimate inquiry, and that the test of an authority’s authority has to be something more than “he agrees with all the other people who agree with him, who agree with me.”
- Severian | 01/28/2013 @ 16:07…and…turning to our friends the liberals, to interpret what it says, for purposes of figuring out if the statement or challenge is valid.
This notion of statements being “invalid” reminds me of political correctness…a practice in which, by simply naming it with the adjective “political,” one tacitly acknowledges that we’re talking about an alternative reality here, You can’t say “true” and “false,” you have to say “valid” and “invalid” — tacitly acknowledging, you may find something to be true yet invalid, or false yet valid. So you aren’t talking about accuracy at all. You’re talking about your own fondness of what is being pointed out.
If liberals could perceive reality as it exists, without passing judgment on it and filtering it as each smidgen of it rolls in, they wouldn’t be liberals…
I’ll take my information unfiltered, thank you. I don’t see it as a contaminant. If it’s false, I’ll figure it out on my own.
- mkfreeberg | 01/28/2013 @ 16:09Severian: That’s what I was trying to get at with my pedantic insistence on the notion of “consensus.” When it comes to Global Weather, especially, we are constantly lectured that “the science is settled” because “a consensus of scientists says so.”
It’s a strong appeal to authority as the authority includes every major scientific organization in the world. However, they certainly could be wrong. But it takes more than saying they could be wrong to show that they are wrong.
Severian: But as I pointed out, there is at least one case in which every single scientist working in a field pronounced an aspect of science settled.
No, you didn’t. Not every scientist working physics was in Germany.
Severian: The League of Aryan Physicists wasn’t lying; they were committed to a model that was incorrect.
You keep referring to to the “League of Aryan Physicists”.
We offered to accept, arguendo, the German scientific establishment had freely reached a consensus that relativity was incorrect, an offer you spurned. But they still never constituted the entire physics community.
Severian: But then when you do dissent about Global Weather, and point out some of the many troubling things about the assumptions of the model and the data collection methods, you’re informed that “the science is settled” because “a consensus of scientists” said so.
Well, no. We always respond to questions about the evidence. Not every dissent has equal merit. You have to have evidence to support your claims. Otherwise, you’re just handwaving.
Severian: In other words, it turns out that a “consensus” is not “the publicly expressed opinion of every expert working in the field;” it’s “those experts’ opinions who agree with mine.”
No. If there is significant dissent within a field, then there is no consensus, by definition. But just because someone somewhere says the Earth is flat doesn’t mean there is a controversy in the field of Earth science.
Appeal to authority is such a standard part of argument, it’s hard to understand why you are still having troubles with it.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 16:41mkfreeberg: This notion of statements being “invalid” reminds me of political correctness
Um, no. Validity is a very specific term. It means that a conclusion is entailed in its premises. We were discussing how to form a valid argument, were we not? Soundness is a related term,
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 16:54Um, no. Validity is a very specific term. It means that a conclusion is entailed in its premises.
Umm, no. Conclusions entailed in their own premises are tautologies. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume you meant to say “A deductive argument is one that, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.”
Which is what we are disputing here. You constantly order us to accept your conditional statements as objectively true. You say that an appeal to authority is “valid” if and only if it conforms to certain conditions, several of which are entirely subjective. Here’s your list again, with the relevant words bold:
* 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.
Every one of these requires a further question: As determined by whom, exactly?
I showed you an incident in the history of science in which every working physicist in Germany — pay attention — would have publicly assented to the proposition “relativity is false.” This certainly meets all your list’s criteria for a valid appeal to authority in Germany. Similiarly, I could appeal to St. Thomas Aquinas, the “angelic doctor,” to support my contention that angels exist — it would not have occurred to a single living soul in medieval Christendom to doubt that was a valid appeal to authority.
It’s not the concept of appeal to authority I’m having trouble with — it’s your very obviously tendentious use of the term that bugs me, and your constant attempts to simply bully the rest of us into according objective, universal validity to your subjective preferences.
- Severian | 01/28/2013 @ 17:19Severian: You say that an appeal to authority is “valid” if and only if it conforms to certain conditions, several of which are entirely subjective.
They are not entirely subjective, but they do require judgment. In particular, the strength of an appeal to authority will depend on the questions of sufficiency, adequacy, undue, and so on. So you might attack an appeal to authority by claiming there is insufficient consensus, or that the scientist is unduly biased, or speaking outside his field of expertise, hence not meeting one of the criteria.
This is not something we just introduced. For instance,
Which addresses whether they are speaking within their field of expertise. And,
Which addresses the breadth of the consensus.
Severian: I showed you an incident in the history of science in which every working physicist in Germany — pay attention — would have publicly assented to the proposition “relativity is false.”
It requires a consensus of experts in the field and without being unduly biased. You seem to be arguing there was no undue bias in Nazi Germany. That indicates you don’t want to admit to basic concepts that might require judgment, such as “undue”. Indeed, you chose the example because you know there was undue bias.
Severian: It’s not the concept of appeal to authority I’m having trouble with — it’s your very obviously tendentious use of the term that bugs me, and your constant attempts to simply bully the rest of us into according objective, universal validity to your subjective preferences.
Our use of the term is completely conventional, and there should have been no need to belabor the point.
- Zachriel | 01/28/2013 @ 18:20You seem to be arguing there was no undue bias in Nazi Germany. That indicates you don’t want to admit to basic concepts that might require judgment, such as “undue”.
I am arguing that a German who, in 1933, knew nothing of physics would not see undue bias re: relativity if he consulted German authorities in physics, precisely because the “consensus of scientists” in Germany had proven, with lab results and data and everything, that relativity was wrong, and these were the only sources he had at his disposal. Which I have spelled out in some detail over several posts. This indicates you don’t want to admit to basic concepts like reading comprehension, or following the thread of an argument.
Our use of the term is completely conventional, and there should have been no need to belabor the point.
See, there’s that “should” word again. I don’t think it means what you think it means. There are, by my rough count, a dozen posts in this very same thread arguing that your use is not conventional, and is in fact deeply idiosycratic. To wit: “an appeal to authority is valid if and only if that authority agrees with the consensus of scientists, who are all scientists that agree with me.”
For all the time you spend accusing us of “handwaving” and ignoring pesky facts, y’all sure do expend a lot of effort pretending things didn’t happen. I’m honestly baffled by this. What, do you think that if you just make the same assertion one…more….time… we’ll cave in and say yes, that’s it, your own personal double-secret-probation definition, whatever it happens to be this time, is the one and only true scientific one?
Don’t you at least have some blurry NOAA .gif to link or something?
- Severian | 01/28/2013 @ 19:16Red-dot science, I think the term is.
And the question remains: Decided by whom?
What is “undue”? What is “bias”? What’s a “valid” field of study, and who determines how much expertise is “sufficient”? Your answer, as far as I can puzzle it out, is “the consensus of scientists,” which, as this entire thread has endeavored to prove, is no answer at all.
- Severian | 01/28/2013 @ 19:22Severian: I am arguing that a German who, in 1933, knew nothing of physics would not see undue bias re: relativity if he consulted German authorities in physics, precisely because the “consensus of scientists” in Germany had proven, with lab results and data and everything, that relativity was wrong, and these were the only sources he had at his disposal.
Yes, if someone is told lies, they may believe the lies. Someone can be led to believe that there is a consensus when there is no such consensus, and can be led to believe there is no bias, when there is bias. Is there bias? Yes. It doesn’t meet the criteria.
Not sure why you continue to belabor the point. An appeal to authority is not infallible even when it does meet the criteria.
Severian: To wit: “an appeal to authority is valid if and only if that authority agrees with the consensus of scientists, who are all scientists that agree with me.”
Of course that is not our position, a strawman.
Severian: What is “undue”? What is “bias”? What’s a “valid” field of study, and who determines how much expertise is “sufficient”?
Those are standard terms of judgment, and they are certainly subject to examination. In your Nazi example, there is bias that affects the findings.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 05:14Not sure why you continue to belabor the point. An appeal to authority is not infallible even when it does meet the criteria.
I continue to “belabor the point,” as you so charmingly put it, because I want to see just how far down the rabbit hole goes. Anyone who came upon this discussion for the first time would be quite puzzled right about now: Weren’t they supposed to be talking about the misuse of the word “science” in contemporary discourse?
And yet now we’re discussing the “infallibility,” or not (your word), of an appeal to authority. Just like the process Morgan describes here:
The notion that kicked off all these discussions, going back lo these many months, is the same that kicks off all such discussions: Leftists’ constant, underhanded attempts to cloak their personal policy preferences in the mantle of scientific authority. The Alwarmist makes three claims, which he insists are logically linked and inevitable, based on “settled science:” There is man-made global warming. We’re all gonna die. We must implement programs XYZ immediately. The conservative makes the counterclaim that only one of these is subject to the scientific method, and further, the scientific method has revealed some serious flaws with it.
At which point, of course, we’re back to our old friends “settled science,” “the scientific consensus,” “peer-reviewed,” etc. The leftists continue to squirt their digital squid ink — 500 posts and counting, now, I believe — and while we spend umpteen comments discussing what might or might not have happened in Germany in 1935, leftists continue to insist that we’re all gonna die, and that we must implement programs XYZ immediately, because science.
And a conservative, trying to point out how tendentious that is, will refer to this thread and the One that Wouldn’t Die, and the causal reader, who just wants to get a sense of the thing, will throw up his hands in frustration about twenty comments in: “These guys are talking about Nazis and angels and shit! Meanwhile, the scientific consensus is that….”
A.k.a. The Cuttlefish Maneuver. Which I think we’ve proven by now is all you’ve got.
- Severian | 01/29/2013 @ 07:46Severian: Weren’t they supposed to be talking about the misuse of the word “science” in contemporary discourse?
Sure. Can’t really have that discussion without understanding the nature of an appeal to authority. For instance, mkfreeberg brought up the excellent point about when scientists talk partly or wholly outside their field of expertise.
Science usually refers to the knowledge obtained and tested through the scientific method. That’s how most people use today.
Very odd to think that science is never wrong or subject to dispute.
Severian: Leftists’ constant, underhanded attempts to cloak their personal policy preferences in the mantle of scientific authority. The Alwarmist makes three claims, which he insists are logically linked and inevitable, based on “settled science:” There is man-made global warming. We’re all gonna die. We must implement programs XYZ immediately.
Wow! Those underhanded Leftists! Those alarming Alarmists!
Severian: The conservative makes the counterclaim that only one of these is subject to the scientific method, and further, the scientific method has revealed some serious flaws with it.
We’re happy to discuss the evidence that humans are having a substantial impact on the planet. Humans won’t die out due to climate change, but will continue to adapt. Policy has to balance the projected damage from climate change with continued economic development. By the way, not all conservatives agree with your scientific assessment. You really need to avoid such sweeping overgeneralizatons.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 12:02It’s not science if the statements cannot be challenged.
Now you’ve acknowledged the statements can be challenged, in theory, but if and only if the challenges meet some threshold. Just speaking for myself, I’m a bit unsure about whether this threshold involves more than: “The Zachriel like it.” Okay, not that unsure. Your words over at our other place where we specifically look in to the fallacious arguments liberals make:
I read this, then, as a comparison between Captain Midnight’s comments, and a unilateral and unjustified dismissal of the form and shape of “the Earth doesn’t move.” But what CM said was actually:
I am taking your counter-rebuttal, then, to be one of:
1. Assuming this is practically indistinguishable from a childish rant of “the earth does not move” (or, for a more real-world example, “the earth is no older than six thousand years [because my book tells me it isn’t]”), of course this doesn’t rise to the level of a “valid” statement and thus is unworthy of reply;
2. If it is, as a practical matter, distinguishable from earth-does-not-move, then after having collaborated among yourselves, you have found yourselves unable to figure out how it is meaningfully different. Which means you are on record as being unable to figure out what CM was trying to say, beyond the plain fact that he was objecting to your conclusion.
But this is not the first time, by a long stretch, that we’ve seen you characterize challenges to claims as “hand waving” that are actually quite a bit more complicated, capable, and better-thought-out. Indeed, the thread-that-wouldn’t-die seems to take a circular form of:
{Someone who isn’t Zachriel]: There is a perceptible gulf between what your evidence shows, and what you are saying it shows.
[Zachriel]: That’s hand waving. Hand waving is not an argument.
You therefore seem to be in a holding pattern, of using real “hand waving rebuttals” against rebuttals that are only perceived, only by you, to be hand waving.
- mkfreeberg | 01/29/2013 @ 12:21mkfreeberg: It’s not science if the statements cannot be challenged.
That’s right. All scientific findings are considered tentative and subject to being revised or discarded in the light of evidence.
mkfreeberg: Now you’ve acknowledged the statements can be challenged, in theory,
Our very first statement on this thread was “Science is often wrong.” Please try to read for comprehension.
mkfreeberg: … but if and only if the challenges meet some threshold.
It isn’t enough to say you don’t like a result.
mkfreeberg: I read this, then, as a comparison between Captain Midnight’s comments, and a unilateral and unjustified dismissal of the form and shape of “the Earth doesn’t move.”
It was not a comparison to Captain Midnight’s comments, but a direct reply to your misunderstanding as to why criticism also has a burden of support. More below.
Captain Midnight: Yes, an increase of temperature in the lower atmosphere is the signature of greenhouse warming, but that in itself doesn’t demonstrate the water vapor multiplying
That is correct. But it does answer the question concerning the existence of greenhouse warming, that is, that the greenhouse effect is increasing.
Captain Midnight: So the posting and reposting of the nifty NOAA image (also on page 8 of the above pdf, but it’s been waved about enough times) doesn’t prove what Zachriel thinks it proves.
It shows exactly what we said it showed. Notably, mkfreeberg continues to try to reinterpret our comments so that they fit into his limited number of boxes.
mkfreeberg: 1. Assuming this is practically indistinguishable from a childish rant of “the earth does not move”
Not sure why you’re carrying this discussion across blogs. Anyway, it’s not a childish rant. Galileo marshaled evidence that the Earth moved, but it was not definitive. Someone might object and say that if the Earth were moving, we should feel it moving. That’s a valid attempt to address Galileo’s position. Handwaving would be to reject Galileo’s position out of hand without reference to the evidence.
mkfreeberg (caricature):
{Someone who isn’t Z]: There is a perceptible gulf between what your evidence shows, and what you are saying it shows.
[Z]: That’s hand waving. Hand waving is not an argument.
More precisely: Someone says there is no evidence that humans are changing the climate. We point out that humans have been adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, while pointing to the warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere, which is a signature of greenhouse warming. Then they say that doesn’t mean everyone is going to die. We remind them we didn’t say everyone was going to die. Then they say that means they’ll have to change their behavior and government tyranny! We remind them that we didn’t suggest draconian measures, indeed, believe that draconian measures would be counterproductive.
Then someone says there is no evidence that humans are changing the climate…
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 13:19Notably, mkfreeberg continues to try to reinterpret our comments so that they fit into his limited number of boxes.
If by that you mean, I don’t accept your contention that challenges to claims have to meet the same standards as the claims themselves, you are correct. But that doesn’t have anything to do with a number of boxes…
Not sure why you’re carrying this discussion across blogs.
Because your example of “the Earth doesn’t move” shows, if anybody here is trying to fit something into a limited number of boxes, you would be that party. Severian, Captain Midnight AND Phil have repeatedly shown there is a definable gap between what would be needed to support your claims, and what would be needed to provide support. Over at our OTHER blog you have criticized Severian explicitly for “hand waving,” thus comparing his challenge to “the Earth doesn’t move” even though that was not at all the point he was making.
Please try to read for comprehension.
- mkfreeberg | 01/29/2013 @ 14:00mkfreeberg: If by that you mean, I don’t accept your contention that challenges to claims have to meet the same standards as the claims themselves, you are correct.
Ah, but that’s not we said. And it’s not what you said. You said criticism doesn’t carry a burden of support like every other claim.
mkfreeberg: If by that you mean, I don’t accept your contention that challenges to claims have to meet the same standards as the claims themselves, you are correct.
What we said was that you demonstrably and repeatedly misread our comments and that this may be due to your prejudgment of our position. As a simple example, you just said recently “Now you’ve acknowledged the statements can be challenged, in theory …”, when, in fact, our very first comment, our *very first sentence* on this thread was “Science is often wrong.”
mkfreeberg: Over at our OTHER blog you have criticized Severian explicitly for “hand waving,” thus comparing his challenge to “the Earth doesn’t move” even though that was not at all the point he was making.
You’re still misreading our position, even after we corrected you before. We did not compare anyone’s position to “The Earth doesn’t move”. Rather, *in response to you*, we showed valid objections to the claim “The Earth moves” and vacuous objections that ignore the data.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 14:42You said criticism doesn’t carry a burden of support like every other claim.
Never said they were to be entirely exempted from carrying a burden of support. You seem to be seeing this part of it in purely black-and-white terms. I said, it isn’t science if it can’t be challenged; and, I’m observing that one way or another, you’ve found a way to completely invalidate all challenges.
The point that I made is that challenges do not have to carry the same burden of support as the claims themselves. In point of fact, the pattern you’ve shown seems to be imposing a greater burden on the challenges, than the claims. I’ll stand by the statement that their burden of support, although it exists, must be necessarily lesser since it isn’t reasonable to expect people to fill in the evidence for you, that is missing from your claim, as they point out the gaps in your claim. Severian’s challenge, which you have explicitly held up as an example of this “hand waving,” is in fact a good example of this.
- mkfreeberg | 01/29/2013 @ 15:07mkfreeberg: Never said they were to be entirely exempted from carrying a burden of support.
That’s okay. It’s easy to misstate a position. We’ll take your latest statement as a correction.
mkfreeberg: I said, it isn’t science if it can’t be challenged
We agree, as we have previously.
mkfreeberg: I’m observing that one way or another, you’ve found a way to completely invalidate all challenges.
Not at all. Captain Midnight has attempted to rebut our arguments. We think that his arguments are wrong, but he is making the attempt, and we have responded accordingly.
mkfreeberg: The point that I made is that challenges do not have to carry the same burden of support as the claims themselves.
All claims have the burden of support. Challenges are often of a different sort than positive claims, but the burden is still there, or you should simply remain agnostic or skeptical.
mkfreeberg: In point of fact, the pattern you’ve shown seems to be imposing a greater burden on the challenges, than the claims.
Not at all. Each claim stands or falls on its own merits.
mkfreeberg: I’ll stand by the statement that their burden of support, although it exists, must be necessarily lesser since it isn’t reasonable to expect people to fill in the evidence for you, that is missing from your claim, as they point out the gaps in your claim.
It depends on the critical claim. If you argue the world is flat, then you have to provide evidence. If you argue that Galileo’s evidence is not determinative, then you have to show why.
mkfreeberg: Severian’s challenge, which you have explicitly held up as an example of this “hand waving,” is in fact a good example of this.
Severian not only didn’t respond to the evidence, but misstated the claim he was criticizing. Considering how long he has been arguing the point, it would seem he could at least restate our position correctly.
- Zachriel | 01/29/2013 @ 15:42