Pages

 

Recent Pages by LudwigVanQuixote (Mad Prophet Ludwig):
A Prophecy Concerning Republicans A Prayer to God on Election Day Disney buys Lucasfilm, plans to release 'Star Wars: Episode 7' in 2015 McCains's Opposition File On Mitt Romney A review of Prometheus

Jump to bottom

18 comments

1 freetoken  Thu, Dec 2, 2010 10:40:17pm

Rohrbacher is a notorious SoCon and wingnut from SoCal, who has never done anything more than bluster.

Alley is one of the sharper knives in the drawer, and always has been. It was a good choice to put him on this panel.

2 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:42:57am

re: #1 freetoken

Rohrbacher is a notorious SoCon and wingnut from SoCal, who has never done anything more than bluster.

Alley is one of the sharper knives in the drawer, and always has been. It was a good choice to put him on this panel.

Alley is brilliant and a great researcher, but a third party, who isn't very bright, or well informed, will think that somehow he lost.

3 Obdicut  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:25:02am

re: #2 LudwigVanQuixote

It represents a basic fallacy, really: many people believe scientists can really be challenged by ordinary, lay people with no understanding of their fields. I don't know why this is. It is obvious to me whenever I have to do something in a field that's not my own that I'm out of my depth and there's all sorts of knowledge and assumptions I don't have. I don't know why most people have the weird, illogical arrogance to assume that they can challenge an expert on the basics of their field.

This isn't to say scientists are absolutely trustable in all ways, but the scientific field is one of the few where the combination of peer review and other professional mechanisms means that no idea is ever left unchallenged. A lay person attacking a scientific position is attacking something that has already been attacked by much more capable people with much greater expertise.

4 yasharki  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:35:24am

re: #3 Obdicut

I don't know why most people have the weird, illogical arrogance to assume that they can challenge an expert on the basics of their field.

Sure you do, they are advancing an agenda from which they can profit, financially or politically. There's no reason, or logic involved. What's bugging me out is why aren't there safeguards against such blatant fraud.

5 freetoken  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:37:44am

BTW, here is the same Rohrbacher over 3.5 years ago at a Congressional meeting:

FLV Video

As you can see, he doesn't change his tune very quickly.

He will always play the TEACH THE CONTROVERSY type of approach - as long as there is even a single voice (regardless of expertise) contrary to the scientific data Rohrbacher will claim that the answer to the question of what is causing global warming is in dispute.

6 freetoken  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 3:40:42am

re: #4 yasharki

What's bugging me out is why aren't there safeguards against such blatant fraud.

A Congressman can, when speaking in Congress, say what he wants. There are rules of conduct, I think, about foul language and addressing a fellow Congressperson, but there evidently is no rule that says an elected Representative has to speak the truth.

7 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:40:27am

That's the same in Russian news items on the global warming - often people just don't know what they're reporting about. They will write something like "some scientists say that there will be global warming, yet others predict new ice age" as if there was any contradiction between these two predictions.

8 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 4:50:35am

This is a very interesting video, on many levels.

I do want to point out one important (psychological) difference between the two men.

Alley is a scientist. His argument are predicated on the idea that science and scientific facts can and will convince his challenger to accept what is reality. This of course is how it should be- science must be able to withstand rigorous challenge.

Rohrbacher assumes a very different posture- he wants Alley to agree with him, notwithstanding the science. Rorhbacher was not addressing the real science at all.

This is an a way related to a kind of projection- 'See me as I want you to see me' (that is, Rohrbacher as an equal to Alley), which is of course, absurd. Rohrbacher has neither Alley's credentials or experience.

The two were not really addressing each other. Alley came to present the facts. Rohrbacher came to present a conclusion.

9 andres  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 5:03:40am

re: #3 Obdicut

It represents a basic fallacy, really: many people believe scientists can really be challenged by ordinary, lay people with no understanding of their fields. I don't know why this is.

I'll tell you my theory: because they have a very basic notion of the field.

As a programmer, my biggest headaches don't come from newbie users (who tend to defer to more knowledgeable people), nor knowledgeable users from the field(s) (while they tend to be very pushy, they also are very understanding on the limitations), but from users with a very basic knowledge that believe that, since whatever they do at the basic level works, it works on any setting, and are unfazed at explanations on why it's more complex than what they know.

10 calochortus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 10:13:27am

I think this brings us to some interesting questions of how the mind works and how people form and hold beliefs. When someone disagrees with us-especially when its a matter that seems extremely clear to us-we assume that they are misinformed or uninformed. We present facts and if they fail to convince the opposition we assume that they are stupid or evil. Might be true and it might not, but neither one helps us.

There is always the possibility that our belief, reasonable as it seems, is wrong and we are the ones missing the point, so it is good to run this particular exercise in reverse as well.
So, I'd recommend asking people what would convince them. If the answer is nothing, there's no point in talking. If the answer is X,Y, and Z, then there is a basis for discussion. It is always wise to check on that, though. I have heard someone say she would be convinced if "X" but when the person debating her said, "suppose I could show studies by the organization you mentioned that show X", her response was "I wouldn't believe you." Obviously that conversation wasn't going to go anywhere.

11 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:02:59am

re: #10 calochortus

I wrote this last night, and I think it's important to point out how scientists tend to interact with each other. One of the biggest insults you can make is to insult the intelligence of your interlocutor. You can argue that a scientific idea is wrong or unfounded until you are blue in the face. Such things happen all the time - and people are usually able to distinguish between attacking an idea and attacking the man.

Even hinting that your interlocutor is unqualified or stupid is begging for a real fight. There is a huge unspoken etiquette about assuming your interlocutor is both bright and capable. Scientists rarely talk science with those who really want to "debate" them in the non technical world. They transfer those rules when they do.

Dr. Alley isn't intimidated by the GOP moron at all. Alley however, like most scientists, falsely assumes that people who ask scientific questions want actual answers and will think through them without being spoonfed like they are children. Alley actually, in his mind, is trying to not be insulting by inferring that the congressman is a moron, by over explaining things which Alley would consider obvious.

Dr. Alley is making the false assumption that others are as smart and evidence/reason driven as he is. Most scientists do this. They are actually assuming, by their outlook, the best in others.

In the world of science, you don't explain basics over and over, because to do so is to imply that your interlocutor is too dumb to follow. Its an insult.

In the world of politics, they bank on the listener being too dumb to think things through.

In the world at large, many are too dumb to follow.

12 calochortus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:34:23am

Ludwig, I do know how scientists interact with each other. Ideally, they are logic and evidence driven. In real life that is moderated by the fact we're all human. I do think Dr. Alley did a fine job of explaining the issues.

However, that wasn't really what I was talking about. The question is whether those on side of science-as-we-know-it wish to be effective in speaking to the public at large. "Many are too dumb to follow" may be true (or not), but I don't think it will be helpful to just dismiss them. Don't we want to speak to them in ways they can understand? To do that, I think we need to listen to what science deniers' actual issues are-not the talking points, but the reason that average people without a science education don't believe.

13 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 11:54:24am

re: #12 calochortus

Ludwig, I do know how scientists interact with each other. Ideally, they are logic and evidence driven. In real life that is moderated by the fact we're all human. I do think Dr. Alley did a fine job of explaining the issues.

Of course you do and I know that. I should have phrased that in a way that did not imply you did not. I apologize.

However, that wasn't really what I was talking about. The question is whether those on side of science-as-we-know-it wish to be effective in speaking to the public at large.

Which is why I said what I did. That is what I was really addressing.

"Many are too dumb to follow" may be true (or not), but I don't think it will be helpful to just dismiss them.

I'm not dismissing them. I'm saying that if we want to get through to them, we can't talk to them like they are other scientists or think like other scientists.

Don't we want to speak to them in ways they can understand?

Yes, and what they understand, has to be repeated very slowly, with the things we think are obvious filled in.

To do that, I think we need to listen to what science deniers' actual issues are-not the talking points, but the reason that average people without a science education don't believe.

The actual issue has always been fear from the oil companies that they loose money. To the politicians it is apparent. To the "man on the street" denier it is vaguer fear of "draconian" restrictions on their lifestyle. He gets that notion spoon fed to him by a propaganda machine fueld by the fossil fuel interests. Because of this the politicians and the propaganda shills are never going to admit they are being shills and the man on the street will not hear otherwise from them.

That is why it is so important to point out how much money can be made by going green and that we are not talking about changing our way of life as much talking about changing how we get our power.

The other side of that is pointing out that death by starvation, thirst, plague or social unrest caused by lack of food water and shelter, is not a good lifestyle change either.

14 calochortus  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 12:12:08pm

Ludwig, no need to apologize-we write not just to each other but are read by a wider audience so a little extra explanation doesn't hurt. You have not offended me in any way.

I think we probably agree on a great deal here and are just phrasing things differently. My only novel addition is the question of why many people,even when spoon-fed the scientific evidence, still dismiss it. I think there has to be a different approach for those people, and the logical way to find it is to ask what evidence they would need. It still might not work, but I believe it to worth a try.

I never cease to be amazed at the number of people who think using energy, water, etc. more efficiently is going to destroy their lifestyle. Of course, I once stayed at a resort where apparently one of the chief ways they demonstrated the luxury of their establishment was through wasting water, electricity, unnecessarily replacing barely used soap with a fresh bar... It was an astonishing (and uncomfortable) experience. So I guess that meme is out there.

15 researchok  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:14:52pm

re: #10 calochortus

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

All too often people assume they understand the milieu in which scientists work, if for no other reason than they took a few science and math college courses years ago.

When politicians 'talk science' they are really talking politics. People need to know and understand that.

Unless and until people work in a post graduate environment, they are in fact only familiar with academic based science. I submit it would serve people well if they understood how science and research really works as well how scientists address each other, criticize each other's work, etc.

16 Mad Prophet Ludwig  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 1:29:28pm

re: #15 researchok

re: #11 LudwigVanQuixote

All too often people assume they understand the milieu in which scientists work, if for no other reason than they took a few science and math college courses years ago.

When politicians 'talk science' they are really talking politics. People need to know and understand that.

Unless and until people work in a post graduate environment, they are in fact only familiar with academic based science. I submit it would serve people well if they understood how science and research really works as well how scientists address each other, criticize each other's work, etc.

It would be wonderful if they could get a basic concept of that. However, would they sit still long enough to hear the explanation, and would they process it. The issue seems more and more to be the simple fact that people are looking at issues that they simply will not even try to understand.

The question becomes, how do you force those unwilling to look, to look, before it is too late. By the time it becomes so obvious to everyone in the developed world that there is an undeniable problem, we will have already committed to an utter disaster.

17 lostlakehiker  Fri, Dec 3, 2010 7:41:25pm

re: #3 Obdicut

It represents a basic fallacy, really: many people believe scientists can really be challenged by ordinary, lay people with no understanding of their fields. I don't know why this is. It is obvious to me whenever I have to do something in a field that's not my own that I'm out of my depth and there's all sorts of knowledge and assumptions I don't have. I don't know why most people have the weird, illogical arrogance to assume that they can challenge an expert on the basics of their field.

This isn't to say scientists are absolutely trustable in all ways, but the scientific field is one of the few where the combination of peer review and other professional mechanisms means that no idea is ever left unchallenged. A lay person attacking a scientific position is attacking something that has already been attacked by much more capable people with much greater expertise.

Most people wouldn't be so quick to insist that they can play chess "just as good" as any "so-called grandmaster". Don't they realize that somebody like Alley is at a bare minimum the equivalent in his own field to a chess grandmaster?

I guess not. Or maybe it's galling to find yourself in a position where you're being told, ever so politely, to go play because the grownups are talking.

18 Steve Dutch  Mon, Dec 6, 2010 4:31:26pm

re: #3 Obdicut

It represents a basic fallacy, really: many people believe scientists can really be challenged by ordinary, lay people with no understanding of their fields. I don't know why this is. It is obvious to me whenever I have to do something in a field that's not my own that I'm out of my depth and there's all sorts of knowledge and assumptions I don't have. I don't know why most people have the weird, illogical arrogance to assume that they can challenge an expert on the basics of their field.

The magic phrase they use is "Self-Appointed Experts"


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
3 days ago
Views: 121 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
2 weeks ago
Views: 283 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1