

Be Scientific (Skeptical) about Scientific Research - solipsist
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/clarices_pieces_be_scientific.html

======
codex
The author argues for skepticism but is quick to dismiss global warming,
apparently on the basis of a single webpage. Should not one also be skeptical
of the skeptics, too?

~~~
anamax
> but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single
> webpage

Actually, he didn't. FWIW, he provided more evidence in support of his global
warming skepticism than he did in support of his other skepticism, skepticism
that you didn't question.

But, I'll play along. How much support should he have given for each of his
arguments to satisfy you?

~~~
Kaya
The author claims unequivocally that global warming is a hoax. Submitted as
evidence is a page which one-sidedly discusses troubling, suspicious, and
unseemly behavior by some climate scientists. That is bad, but not proof of a
hoax--not by a long shot. Such a strong claim supported by such a weak source
makes it appear (at least to the skeptical) that the author may not be equally
skeptical of all sources or points of view. Confirmation bias is a known bug
in the wetware which makes it hard to be truly objective about anything, try
as we might.

Had the author made a weaker claim I'd have read the rest of the article with
much less skepticism!

~~~
anamax
Huh?

Telling us how he could have satisfied you wrt a different argument is
interesting but he question was "How much support should he have given for
each of his arguments to satisfy you?"

Note that he suggested skepticism wrt multiple things, suggesting that general
skepticism is a good idea, yet you're only discussing one of them.

Suppose we conclude that skepticism wrt global warming is unwarranted. What,
if anything, does that say about his general conclusion?

~~~
codex
It is not my intent to invalidate the author's thesis. I attempted to point
out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply skepticism consistently
to all sources in order to free oneself from unconscious cognitive bias. As
evidence, I use the author's treatment of global warming, where the evidence
supplied is far too poor to support the conclusion. It's not a matter of
quantity--it's just a blog post, after all, and I would have been tolerant of
_zero_ support for his claims. But if the author does supply support, it
shouldn't be so crappy to as to suggest that does not apply a skeptical
viewpoint to his own sources.

~~~
anamax
> I attempted to point out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply
> skepticism consistently to all sources in order to free oneself from
> unconscious cognitive bias. As evidence, I use the author's treatment of
> global warming

Likewise, I use your treatment of his examples. As I pointed out, he provided
better support for his global warming skepticism, which you rejected, than he
did for his other skepticism, which you accepted.

------
bugsy
Agree with the article. Here I now await my downvotes from the groupthinkers.

~~~
Yzupnick
You should be downvoted for adding nothing to the discussion.

~~~
bugsy
What I add to the conversation is the observation that groupthinkers enforce
conformity with downvotes.

I read the article and agreed with it. It is a topic I have thought about
quite a bit, the weird cult thinking about "science" where science thinking
means agreeing with groupthink that has been promoted by corporate interests
and special interest groups through their puppets in media and government.

Those who question the agenda or ask for evidence are called morons who don't
understand science.

True science is nothing to do with any of that. The scientific illiteracy we
hear about is coming from the groupthinkers that claim they respect science.

~~~
tensor
There is an enormous amount of scholarly articles written on the topic. Unless
you have read a good majority of them, you are not speaking from any sort of
position of knowledge.

I personally have not read a majority of them, and as such I defer to the
conclusions of those who have, the climate research community.

What you are demonstrating is precisely _group think_. You do not have a
professional depth of knowledge on the topic, but will quickly claim that
those who do are all incorrect. The fact that you've thought a lot about it
does not mean anything. Even if you've read a handfull of cherry picked
articles, it does not mean you have any sort of expertise on the matter.

