Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ Dr. Curry

” So scientific overconfidence seems to be a victimless crime, with the only ‘victim’ being science itself.”

I think you need to rethink this one, Dr. Curry.

Reflect back over the last 20 odd years at the actions that have been taken by the politicians, citing the works of absolutely confident scientists as justification, and convince yourself that ‘science’ is the only victim.

Our kids are being brainwashed from kindergarten on to the point that many of them are literally scared into psychosis.

We are engaged in the process of shutting down civilization, with the stated objective of eliminating somewhere around 90% of the people.

The wretched poor of the third world are being denied access to electricity in the name of ‘controlling carbon’ and ‘fighting climate change’.

The government is assuming dictatorial powers over every aspect of our lives in the name of saving the planet from the ACO2 monster.

I could go on indefinitely, itemizing victims of scientific overconfidence, if I really believed that the ‘scientists’ involved were actually confident of the patent BS they are peddling. Sadly, they don’t have to believe it; just say it loudly, confidently, and often and invest anyone who questions them with pariah-hood, and the political mission is accomplished. The politicians will continue their march toward totalitarianism, fully justified by the absolute certainty of the scientific emergency proclaimed by the confident (Overconfident? Why YOU must be one of those deluded, anti-science ‘deniers’.) scientists. Who are funded by the politicians doing the marching. And who AREN’T funded if they do not exude ABSOLUTE confidence in the critical need for the politicians to march.

Victimless? Try to buy a 75 cent 100 watt bulb.


Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$
0
0

Dave -

I’ve worked quite a bit with international clients/students on identifying and adapting to differences in cross-cultural communicative norms.

There is quite a bit of literature that discusses the specific type of differences that you wrote about – in particular when you’re talking about cultures that are more consensus-based (as compared to American culture in particular) such as Japan and Korea in particular.

One classic article I remember discusses how Japanese executives during business negotiations with American execs would deliberately rely on American boastfulness and bluster as a way to gain information without revealing information in return.

I will say, however, that I think that the phenomenon you’re discussing is a bit more complex. One factor to consider is that in some cultures, making a “mistake” has a greater “shame” component whereas in this culture there is generally more acceptance that if you explore issues more freely you might make more mistakes but you can learn from those mistakes. There are also aspects such as that in some cultures, in a public context, you shouldn’t express your own personal opinion if it contradicts that of a superior, or someone older than you. In fact, sometimes there’s an expectation that you not even express an opinion until after the people present who are older than you have expressed theirs.

==> “It would not surprise me if younger Chinese have mastered the lesson my Chinese supervisor tried to teach me and have learned to compete with Americans in terms of faking knowledge they do not possess.”

I think it is some movement in that direction – but it is very challenging to ask someone to shift across cultural norms of communication. Even relatively young people from Korea and Japan (in particular) have a great deal of difficulty feeling comfortable freely expressing opinions in academic and business group contexts in the States. Of course, many Americans have that difficulty also, so I’m only talking in general terms.

For example, if someone is from a culture where it is considered rude and selfish to interrupt a teacher to ask questions when perhaps you are the only one in the room who doesn’t know the answer – then it can be frustrating to try to teach them that sometimes participating in class discussions is a crucial component of the prevailing instructional norm. On the other hand, imagine how difficult it might be to change the behavior of someone, who is accustomed to interrupting a teacher’s ongoing lecture to ask questions for clarification, that they would be judged as selfish and rude should they raise their hand to ask a question (that other students might already know the answer to).

I have seen similar types of struggles with the challenges across cultural norms in working with American minority students or students who grew up in rural environments trying to adapt to the communicative norm in “prestigious” American colleges and universities.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by jim2

$
0
0

Obviously, underdetermination can, will, and has happened. E.g., the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. If a physicist is working at the fringe of knowledge, things like this are bound to happen. Scientists have to puzzle their way out of dilemmas over time and usually with more work. The problem will dictate the means needed to put the phenomenon in the proper light.

Philosophers are kind of like arm chair quarterbacks. They look at what is happening and try to characterize it. But the next scientific mystery may require an approach no one has ever thought of before.

Scientists drive this process, not philosophers.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$
0
0

Wow – missed this:

==> “I am, however, confident that those like Lewandowsky and closer to home, Joshua, are not a force for good in either reconciling opposing points of view or advancing our understanding of the universe.

That’s impressive. Not a force for good! Too funny.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by AK

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Starkey

$
0
0

An evaluation of Good or bad is time and perspective dependent

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Bob Ludwick

$
0
0

@ Fernando Leanme

The linked article is good, but if you EVER have an opportunity to see the video of Dr. Harvey’s lecture on the ‘Abilene Paradox’, take it. It conveys the same principles as the document you linked, but Dr. Harvey’s taped lecture is rolling on the floor funny. Peanut oil to jet fuel was one example, and the ‘trip to Abilene’ that inspired him was presented, believably, as his personal experience while visiting his in-laws in West Texas one summer.

I tried to buy the video, but the only copies I could find were in the $900 range. I called Dr. Harvey to see if he had any copies (this was 15 years or so after I had seen the video) and he didn’t have any. At least none he was willing to part with.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$
0
0

Nice article, JeffN – thanks for the link.

Some questions for you, though:

==> “Social scientists responded that it is “bullying” to check their work:

Weren’t the people who conducted the replication studies social scientists? Didn’t they publish in a social science journal?


Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$
0
0

Interesting quote:

==> “there’s no reason to think that replicators are any more motivated to “fail” to replicate original findings than are original authors, as a group, to “succeed” in finding evidence of an effect in the first place. ”

Valid point. Of course, corollary – a point that many of my much beloved “skeptics” seem to have trouble grasping – might be that the replicators, as a group, would not be any less motivated to fail to replicate the original findings than the original authors would have been to find the effect in the first place.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by jim2

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joshua

$
0
0

Also interesting:

Psychology has long been a punching bag for critics of “soft science,” but the field is actually leading the way in tackling a problem that is endemic throughout science.

and

According to the Science article on the special replication issue, several authors of original studies described the replication process as “bullying.” But a different view was offered by another researcher, Eugene Caruso of the University of Chicago, who reported in 2013 that priming subjects by exposing them to the sight of money made them more accepting of societal norms. This result also “failed” to replicate. Caruso acknowledged that the outcome “was certainly disappointing at a personal level,” but added, “when I take a broader perspective, it’s apparent that we can always learn something from a carefully designed and executed study.”

Could it be that JeffN – a “skeptic” was painting with a broad brush?

Say it ain’t so!

Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by edbarbar

$
0
0

Eh, the Chinese Premier is worried about pollution, not CO2.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by harkin

$
0
0

Imagine if the scientists at CERN had said ‘Higgs exist, take our word for it – we won’t release the data because people will try and find something wrong with it”.

Comment on Challenges to understanding the role of the ocean in climate science by tonyb

$
0
0

Precisely. A growing middle class want to have a clean environment in order to enjoy their newly prosperous lives

tonyb

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Don Monfort

$
0
0

Is little joshie the conscience of the skeptics, or just a trolling twit?


Comment on We are all confident idiots by Wagathon

$
0
0

Instead of a bombogenesis to replace a polar vortex the Left now has Kool-Aidogenesis to explain why global cooling is caused by America’s CO2.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Wagathon

$
0
0

In the worst pause in global warming we’ve seen we could end up in the deep freeze. This disruptive lack of global warming means the Left’s private jets may be grounded left and right. A hiatus in long term global warming like this means transportation will be disrupted; train schedules will be disrupted; and, people will have more time to parody Mathew McCaughey. The people’s government in Washington will be all a kilter. So we’re talking about this cataclysmic pause in global warming leading to a massive disruption that may peak over today or tomorrow but it won’t end there: This hiatus in long term global warming could ripple effects lasting through to 2016. Some global warming scientists believe this could be perhaps the most miserable hiatus we ever experienced and the ripple effect may well be with us until 2035. But, that’s just more alarmism.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joseph

$
0
0

Being skeptical of the efforts of vested interests to undermine the mainstream position of scientists is not engaging in conspiracy related thinking period.

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Rob Starkey

Comment on We are all confident idiots by Joseph

$
0
0

And it isn’t paranoia either. It’s common sense..

Viewing all 148656 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images