
Calling bullshit - roye
http://callingbullshit.org
======
acjohnson55
Admirable, but misguided. Fact-based argument has never been effective. The
Greeks knew this. We keep forgetting it at our own peril. We know how to think
critically; most of us simply choose not to.

The audience who would see this kind of course/site are likely people who
pretty much already have their head screwed on the right way. It would be much
better to train them in effective rhetoric so they can counter the bullshit in
real arguments.

We keep forgetting that people tend to support policies and politicians for
largely social and psychological reasons, not because of facts and ideology.
The former are where the real battle is fought.

I spend a lot of time debating with people who disagree with me politically.
It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate. So stop trying. Instead, make
your point based on common morals, do it with compassion and generosity of
spirit, and don't allow the goalposts of the debate to be moved. Throw in like
two of couple of your choicest facts and sources, but don't expect them to
help. Move on and repeat.

~~~
ci5er
> It's nearly impossible to have a factual debate.

You contextualize this as related to politics. But, I've noticed, in certain
fora, that it's nigh-on impossible, even for something as measurable as energy
production. And that's just inputs and outputs where the units of measurement
are already agreed to! :-O

What's the difference? What causes some topics to be amenable to rational
debate (or even discussion that doesn't go off the rails) and not? Politics,
economics (because it's related to politics?), and religion - no. No
rationality to be had there. Anything that have to do with harmful invisible
vapors (vaccines, electromagnetics, radiation, environmental toxins) and
health - no. Any form of "alternative lifestyle", including digital nomadicism
(!) - no. Law - all over the map. Computer programming - all over the map.

In fact, right now, I'm trying to think of something that humans debate
rationally, and I'm having a difficult time thinking of one (I'm sure they
exist - but I'm only lightly caffeinated so far).

Regardless of my inability to think of topics that we (humans) _can_ debate
about rationally, why do some topics "work" for rationality and some not?

> Move on and repeat.

Why? You just said it almost never helps.

~~~
acjohnson55
> Why? You just said it almost never helps.

Yeah, great question! I didn't really address that part.

What I really meant is that I almost never "win" the argument. I've overtly
changed someone's mind before, but that's like 10% of the time, at best. So
making that my goal wouldn't be a good idea.

More often, I can get the other person to expand their point of view, even
just a little bit. I can gain some credibility in their minds as someone they
may disagree with, but can respect. And it opens the door to the perception
that maybe the point of view I represent isn't directly opposed to their
tribe. For people I tend to debate repeatedly, I can tell there's a shift over
time.

Not to mention the fact that I'm not always right. I learn a lot from people
who aren't already inclined to mindlessly Like everything I post. Debating
people makes me a better thinker and persuader.

But I think most importantly, I do it for the audience. I suspect that in many
of these debates, the lurkers are much less entrenched in their point of view
than me or the person I'm debating with. Those are the people I really want to
move. And that's a big reason why it's _crucial_ to be civil, sincere, and
avoid blowing up on people. Nothing turns off a neutral onlooker like someone
being an asshole, even if it's righteous.

~~~
ci5er
That makes a ton of sense. I almost always forget that there is an audience --
and that the audience, because they aren't in participant mode might well be
less in their chosen position. Thanks!

[ It still baffles me why people would take on a non-rational position on
(say) power generation. It's just engineering and physics. Anyone can look up
the math in any library - it doesn't really even change that often! ]

~~~
linkregister
Even the most fundamental comparison between two energy production techniques
requires hours or days to calculate all relevant aspects: cost, production
cycle, transmission, and storage. It isn't that surprising that anything that
requires that much work could be considered as an article of faith.

Most people take the analysis provided to them by their trusted authorities:
newspapers, magazines, television, public figures, esteemed friends and
family; and form their world view based off of that. "Team" membership and
identification also are prominent.

~~~
ci5er
I think "Team" membership is key -- it tells which opinions they are likely to
listen to. Any team can rustle up a credentialed opinionator that didn't do
the math themselves (or will say anything, just, because) to round arm the
rubes with talking points to unleash onto Reddit (or wherever). It would be a
quite the dance spectacle, if it didn't make my stomach hurt. And, the worst
thing is? My brain is just as broken (for the purpose of thinking rationally)
as any of theirs! :-O

------
natural_capital
I really like this idea, though struggle to understand the effectiveness.

My guess is that the type of person who falls victim to 'bullshit' theory or
messages is not the kind of person who is willing to dedicate time to an
online course about learning to be more critical in thought. 'Bullshit'
thinking has been largely successful because its an effortless pathway to
establishing an opinion on something (queue System 1/System 2 thinking).

Conversely, the people who would be willing to read this sort of content are
likely the people who are already reasonable skeptical about what they take as
face value.

~~~
simonbarker87
I think everyone, engaged and skeptical or otherwise can miss falsehoods if it
aligns with their values/beliefs already. Taking something like this should,
in theory, give you tools to make sure that even if you really want to believe
what you are reading/hearing because it aligns with your world view (or worse,
comes from a source you respect and trust) then you can still determine how
honest or accurate it is.

~~~
matwood
The latest SGU (Skeptics Guide to the Universe) podcast touched on your point,
and how everyone is susceptible to false hoods particularly when those
opinions make up a persons identity. Someone who identifies as 'liberal' or
'conservative' is more likely to fight facts that go against their beliefs.
One possible solution presented, was to always attempt to self identify as a
skeptic who is okay changing opinions as new facts come in. It is not an easy
thing to do because 1) it's a lot of work and 2) you're outside of most of the
big popular groups.

~~~
mcguire
Self identifying as a skeptic is easy. Changing opinions as new facts come in
is hard.

------
arethuza
From the "patron saint of reason and common sense" I can recommend Carl
Sagan's "Baloney Detection Kit" from superb _The Demon-Haunted World_ :

[https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-
detection-k...](https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-
kit-carl-sagan/)

~~~
tronje
In fact, that's one of Calling Bullshit's sources:

[http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html#Spotting](http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html#Spotting)

~~~
arethuza
Oh dear - I should have read that page more carefully.

Anyway here is one that isn't on their list:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Thing...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things)

------
lowbloodsugar
My wife took a Critical Thinking course at college. Changed her life, and as a
result, my life and our kids'. Blows me away that only 90 people per year at
that institution took that course. Meanwhile, back in the public school
system, we have examiners mistaking their own opinions as fact. [1]

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13348672)

~~~
alexandercrohde
Really? My college experience was very different. All the professors talked
about how essential "critical thinking" was.

And to this I asked:

\- Is there even a definition of "critical thinking"?

\- (As a psychology major) Is there evidence that this is a sound objective
concept (rather than something everyone thinks only they have)?

\- Is there any objective measure of critical thinking? If not, how can you
have any objective reason to believe your courses increases critical thinking?

And to this they said various forms of "I don't know." I guess they had never
really thought about it critically.

~~~
lowbloodsugar
I think you are making the same point. There was just _one_ course, with just
one professor, on critical thinking at this college, and then there are 1000
where the professor assumes that you know, indeed that they know, what
critical thinking is. In fact most don't. My alma mater didn't have a critical
thinking course.

------
jankotek
I am not sure I like this site. It uses strong language, but avoids anything
controversial and provided case studies are pretty shallow.

Nothing like some Youtube channels, where presenter spends one hour
deconstructing some study, to its sources and sources of the sources.

~~~
DonHopkins
How To Deconstruct Almost Anything: My Postmodern Adventure, by Chip
Morningstar, June 1993.

"Academics get paid for being clever, not for being right." \-- Donald Norman

[http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html](http://www.fudco.com/chip/deconstr.html)

~~~
csallen
Wow, thank you for sharing this. It's one of the more entertaining essays I've
read, especially since I've recently come into contact with some of the
literary critics and deconstructionists he's writing about.

------
onion2k
This seems like a similar idea to Julian Baggini's "Edge of Reason"[1]. In the
book he investigates how we've become very bad at using reason (in the
philosophical sense of the word) to examine things around us. I'm about 1/2
way through and I've been finding it very interesting indeed.

[1]
[http://yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?k=9780300208238](http://yalebooks.co.uk/display.asp?k=9780300208238)
\- There's a brief interview with the author that introduces the book on
there.

------
wvh
I'm sorry to be this negative, but people simply don't care. They don't care
because thinking critically and trying to grasp subtle nuances and balance
complex opinions about the world will not directly improve their lives.
Convenient truths and easy emotions feel more comfortable and as if they have
a direct "return on investment". Most people prefer simple truths, certainty
and connection to/identification with a group over uncertainty, doubt and
existential loneliness. (Or at least that's what I see, as somebody who is
somewhat on the autistic spectrum and doesn't easily connect with a lot of
this group-think.)

It's laudable to fight this, just very prone to disillusion.

~~~
ThomPete
It's not necessarily that they don't care, it's that not everything that
matters to one person matters to the other.

The things which do matter to them however they care deeply about. And so it's
much more accurate IMO to talk about misaligned perspectives rather than
whether people don't care about the truth.

------
willvarfar
Bullshit is a numbers game, just like spam. Spam doesn't particularly try not
to look like spam or avoid spam filters because the target audience isn't
employing decent countermeasures.

Maybe marketing can be elevated to the same standard as phishing, where effort
is put into deceiving our filters?

If so, this would be a very useful course for a marketeer to attend ;)

------
t_g
Reminds me of a good book I read in my ethics classes:

[https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-
Frankfurt/dp/0691122...](https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-
Frankfurt/dp/0691122946)

~~~
FabHK
Not surprisingly, that's also one of _Calling bullshit_ 's sources:

[http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html#Introduction](http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html#Introduction)

(Funny little story, btw: The NYT reviewed that book, without being able to
ever mention its title or, well, subject :-)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/books/between-truth-and-
li...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/14/books/between-truth-and-lies-an-
unprintable-ubiquity.html?_r=0)

------
rchaud
I agree with the spirit of what this is trying to promote, but its target
audience likely considers themselves to be "critical thinkers" already and
feel its everybody else who needs this kind of course.

That said, why does it have to be set up like a college course? Not only did
looking at the site bring back memories of freshman year crit analysis
courses, the way in which their proposed structure is laid out is completely
out of sync with the way in which people absorb information today.

Fake news is shared widely because it's easy and doesn't require much mental
exertion of the sharer/reader. The people most likely to share this kind of
provocative "viral" content do not even have a working common-sense bullshit
meter. Yet the well-meaning people behind the course think they're ready move
from 200 word blog posts with a black-and-white view of the world to college-
level reading?

I'd suggest looking at the UX/UI of an app like Google Primer (bite sized
lessons on digital marketing) and see if that model can be applied here.
Probably not Primer is designed to provide on-the-go info while this is
designed as an actual college course.

------
closed
This looks fairly similar to the psychology course, "Everything is Fucked"
[1]. EiF has a stellar syllabus, while this one seems a bit lighter (maybe
it's for fewer credits). Seems like a pretty useful course, in any event.

I'm definitely curious about Susan Fiske's article, about how social networks
encourage unmoderated academic "trash talk" [2]. Andy Gelman has a pretty
negative critique of the article here [3].

[1] [https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-
fucke...](https://hardsci.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/everything-is-fucked-the-
syllabus/)

[2]
[http://callingbullshit.org/readings/fiske2016mob.pdf](http://callingbullshit.org/readings/fiske2016mob.pdf)

[3] [http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-
he...](http://andrewgelman.com/2016/09/21/what-has-happened-down-here-is-the-
winds-have-changed/)

edit: why the downvote?

------
d_theorist
Yes. Yes. Yes.

This is exactly what public education systems should be teaching. I'd almost
say that next to basic literacy and mathematics, this is the most valuable
subject to teach. It lays the groundwork for so much else.

~~~
jdimov11
Bullshit.

------
galfarragem
'Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive, but what they
conceal is vital.' \-- Aaron Levenstein

Or putting in other words: analysis is an art not a science.

------
kornakiewicz
I wish this kind of courses were mandatory for all undergraduates in our post-
truth era.

~~~
ThomPete
Can we stop with the claims about a post-truth era?

It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in
actual truths.

It's that we have just realized that interpretation is not the same as truth
and have now been made aware that there are other interpretations of the facts
than our own.

We don't live in a post-truth world, we live in a world were the truth is
confused with difference of opinion.

~~~
krapp
>It's not like people suddenly decided to disregard truth and not believe in
actual truths.

"post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means
that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of
political arguments for many people. See Karl Rove's quote about the "reality-
based" community (which may or may not be apocryphal) versus the American
empire which simply creates whatever reality it likes.

~~~
coldtea
> _" post-truth" doesn't mean people have decided to disregard truth, it means
> that factual truth is no longer a relevant factor in in the effectiveness of
> political arguments for many people._

It mostly means:

"Some people can't accept Trump got elected, so when e.g. criticism of him
being sexist/rapist etc because of some comments back in the day is discarded,
they call it a post-truth world. At the same time, it's not post-truth when
the same people discard allegations of rape for Bill Clinton and his wife
helping with cover up".

Or, as I'd put it:, both party voters could not give a rats arse about the
truth, but the Democratic party has a better stronghold on academics,
columnists, intellectuals and "hi-bro" journalists, etc., the sort of people
who would just single out the others' disregard of the truth as "post-truth".

~~~
battlebot
Well said. I would add that journalistic ethics have reached a new low.
Astoundingly new low. On the other hand, I was not alive in the 1890s during
the era of "yellow journalism" where everyone with a printing press was
turning out nothing but bullshit on an hourly basis and hawking it to
unsuspecting rubes.

Turns out there is good money in just making up crap and printing it.

~~~
jerf
I remain unconvinced that journalism has reached a new low, rather than our
ability to detect its shoddiness has reached a new high.

The only two things I could identify as uniquely a problem today that weren't
problems in the past are A: the money is coming out of journalism faster than
it can adapt to it and B: the incredibly immediate pressures to be first and
get the most clicks. The latter being a thing that has always been present to
some degree, since journalists have always made money by attracting eyeballs
in one form or another, but the immediacy of the pressure today I'd say is a
quantitative change that becomes a qualitative change by sheer size.

But I'm still unconvinced this is a new low, rather than one that we're
detecting. Journalism has some nasty stuff in its history. It certainly hasn't
reached a new low if you step outside of the United States. The press still
hasn't quite reached Pravda lows, but I will conceded it is currently engaged
in a full burn towards it.

~~~
ThomPete
Completely agree. It's a sign of health not sickness that we are experiencing
this change.

What people often forget is that at the same token lies can be spread so can
corrections to those lies.

------
fizwhiz
> Advertisers wink conspiratorially and invite us to join them in seeing
> through all the bullshit, then take advantage of our lowered guard to
> bombard us with second-order bullshit

This made me chortle

------
RichardHeart
The idiots of the world fight ferociously to spread their "100 percent
correct" views, while the smart (HackerNews) remain relatively silent in fear
against the masses of idiots flooding all mediums. Carl Bergstrom and Jevin
West had the courage to scream loudly back, speaking smarts to stupid. Better
marketing for good ideas! Bravo!

Marketing opinion. This page:
[http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies.html](http://callingbullshit.org/case_studies.html)
should be made homepage content, for it is their most compelling and clear
value statement and takes little space. It took me too long to find naturally,
and I didn't feel fulfilled on the bullshit pitch till I did. If you don't
want to move it, perhaps call them examples instead of case studies, if you
want to reach a general audience.

Serendipity. These professors made a course/website "bullshit" the title.
Which I think's funny because I just uploaded a youtube video in a
tophat/leopard print about how smart people should be more aggressive
spreading their ideas.

------
mhartl
_For better or for worse, the term_ bullshit _has no exact synonym in the
English language; we use the term because it precisely describes the phenomena
we are studying._

Interestingly enough, the claim about _bullshit_ lacking an exact synonym is
false. Not only does _bull_ by itself mean precisely the same thing, but in
fact its use predates the compound formation by three centuries. The use of
_shit_ in _bullshit_ is an intensifier, as in _shitstorm_ or _shitfit_ ,
though presumably the rather evocative image of bovine excrement was also a
factor.

From the Google dictionary:

    
    
        bull (3)
        bo͝ol/
        noun informal
        noun: bull
    
            stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
            "much of what he says is sheer bull"
    
        Origin
        early 17th century: of unknown origin.
    
    
        bull·shit
        ˈbo͝olˌSHit/
        vulgar slang
        noun
        noun: bullshit
    
            1. stupid or untrue talk or writing; nonsense.
    
        Origin
        early 20th century: from bull (3) + shit.

------
supergreg
> we are proposing to teach it at the University of Washington in the near
> future

I call BS.

------
sfifs
This is a really good effort! In analytics and data science world where I
work, it's difficult to train our junior people to think through all the
reasons their conclusions might be misleading. The cases are likely to be very
helpful to get the thinking process started.

~~~
battlebot
My biggest concern about data science is that a lot of people who lack basic
skills at doing science are racing into the field. My other concern is that
this happened because an article said that there would be a huge demand for
data scientists in the future, a matter I am also skeptical of. Repeat after
me: Correlation is not causation.

~~~
sfifs
Actually I find that commoditization of computing power and dirt cheap storage
combined with the rise of digital as an advertising and sales medium are
primarily responsible for the rise in demand. Some of the demand comes from
beyond the tech sector in companies like mine which are in the traditional
consumer goods busines.

There's a lot of depth of analytics required when you're spending a billion
dollar marketing budget that goes well beyond correlation causation basics.

------
mulmen
There are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, statistics and big data.

~~~
fiatjaf
You forgot academic papers, peer-reviewed literature and consensus among
scientists.

~~~
0xfeba
Yes, what good has ever come of any of those...

------
kingkawn
It isn't about identifying bullshit so much as coming up with a subjective
preference set to carry out and seek out that leads to a better world
regardless of the circumstances.

~~~
Chris2048
"a better word" is theory-laden, and can't be separated form personal, selfish
biases, and "circumstances".

~~~
kingkawn
yes, it is implicit in my comment that this perspective can be intellectually
dismantled if you prefer, but the original point of course is that indulging
this urge gets less than nothing done for my idea and makes no progress at all
on yours while still consuming your time.

------
cafed00d
This reminds me of Jon Stewart's swan song of "Bullshit is everywhere"[1]
message.

Sigh, I miss Jon Stewart.

[1]. [http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ss6u07/the-daily-show-with-
jon...](http://www.cc.com/video-clips/ss6u07/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-
uncensored---three-different-kinds-of-bulls--t)

------
dood
Looking at the name I thought this was going to be some kind of wiki-
encyclopedia of bullshit, where people could submit reasons why any given
thing is bullshit.

Am a little disappointed actually, that would be a handy reference. Though
naturally such a thing would almost immediately devolve into arguments about
the degree to which anything is bullshit, but that could still be valuable.

------
Paul-ish
The criticism of this course in principle is ironic to me. A lot of people are
saying "This course is pointless, the people who would take this course don't
need it." Which seems to imply... that they wouldn't take the course. Which
would, by their own logic, imply they probably need it.

We all have blind spots, we just have different blind spots.

------
rebuilder
Ok, so it's not "this course" in the "you can go here to take this course"
sense, but in the "there may be a course held somewhere some day" sense?
Because I was interested but baffled when I tried to find the course or info
about where to take part on that site.

------
Dowwie
Is this a MOOC? I don't see lecture videos.

I laughed hard after reading Week 3:

Week 3. The natural ecology of bullshit. Where do we find bullshit? Why news
media provide bullshit. TED talks and the marketplace for upscale bullshit.
Why social media provide ideal conditions for the growth and spread of
bullshit.

------
TeMPOraL
From
[http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html](http://callingbullshit.org/syllabus.html):

> _but recently a fake news story actually provoked nuclear threats issued by
> twitter._

Nuclear threats issued by Twitter. What a world we live in.

------
OJFord
> _For better or for worse, the term bullshit has no exact synonym in the
> English language_

Perhaps only in British use (?) - but 'rubbish' and 'nonsense' can both be
used to replace 'bullshit', other than qua faeces.

------
dajohnson89
This "bullshit" meme is getting tired. It seems like a cutesy way to say
something like "not rigorous" or "deceptive". Which a good introductory course
in logic (informal and formal) will help in spotting.

------
abrax3141
[https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/humor/fionavar/flame_school](https://www.ibiblio.org/pub/docs/humor/fionavar/flame_school)

------
gcatalfamo
I think this is an effort towards the people that don't need such effort. The
people really needing this course will never willingly read - or understand -
such educated content.

------
booleandilemma
90% of everything is crap.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law)

------
perseuswiki
more supplementary readings:

"SILENT RISK :NASSIM NICHOLAS TALEB" ( pdf )

[http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SilentRisk.pdf](http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SilentRisk.pdf)

and

"Taleb: The Intellectual Yet Idiot"

[https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-
idiot-13211e...](https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-
idiot-13211e2d0577)

------
yarauuta
Everything around you is bullshit. Click here, follow/upvote us, we are not.

Shallow "facting" does not help the the cause.

------
tomp
> In this course we aim to teach you how to think critically about the data
> and models that constitute evidence in the social and natural sciences

I call bullshit on the existence of "social sciences". Even the best attempts
at controlled, reproducible experiments were laughable, so at most we can call
them "social _studies_ ".

------
quotha
If you can't call callingbullshitdotorg bullshit, you've learned nothing!

------
curiousgal
Isn't this just a collection of things to read rather than a course?

~~~
Cafey
In the disclaimer (bottom of page) it says it is indeed not yet a real course
but will eventually be offered at the university of washington.

------
geodel
> So, the aim of this course is to help students navigate the bullshit-rich
> modern environment by identifying bullshit, seeing through it, and
> combatting it with effective analysis and argument.

I am calling bullshit on this.

~~~
jamesrcole
Why?

------
artur_makly
glad to see the groundswell!

However I made a more efficient approach at solving this :
[http://TrumpTweets.io](http://TrumpTweets.io)

The manifesto :
[http://TrumpTweets.io/manifesto](http://TrumpTweets.io/manifesto)

~~~
dwaltrip
How does this facilitate positive changes in the world? I could be wrong, but
I'm not seeing it.

It feels like preaching to the choir. It is also fairly antagonistic, which
people generally respond defensively too.

It looks like it was pretty fun to build though!

~~~
artur_makly
read the manifesto :
[http://trumptweets.io/manifesto](http://trumptweets.io/manifesto) we are just
getting started.. those are just test samples. working on better content
though.. try it out though.

------
DonHopkins
..."other tools of persuasion" like posing as your own fan on message boards
to defend and flatter yourself, after you're criticized for claiming that
women are "treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that
children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just
easier this way for everyone."

[http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-
sockpuppe...](http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adams-plannedchaos-sockpuppet/)

Scott Adams, talking about Scott Adams in the third person, while pretending
not to be Scott Adams:

\- [0] plannedchaos -21 points 4 months ago

If an idiot and a genius disagree, the idiot generally thinks the genius is
wrong. He also has a lot of idiot reasons to back his idiot belief. That's how
the idiot mind is wired.

It's fair to say you disagree with Adams. But you can't rule out the
hypothesis that you're too dumb to understand what he's saying.

And he's a certified genius. Just sayin'.

~~~
dashundchen
Scott Adams is also a MRA who equates being a woman with being mentally
handicapped. [http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-
rights/](http://comicsalliance.com/scott-adam-sexist-mens-rights/)

He is a climate change denier with the senseless circular reasoning, that if
he can't understand the science of climate change himself, why should he ever
trust climate scientists and other experts in the field, because their models
are complicated.
[https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744](https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/status/814133681711263744)

Later in the thread, when presented with any scientific explanation of climate
change, he reverts to repeating "how can I trust it?", all the while accusing
climate scientists of having a financial incentive to push climate change, not
providing proof himself.

~~~
mistermann
I don't think he is a denier, I honestly believe he is poking fun at the
supremely confident masses who are _absolutely sure_ climate change is
_precisely as the scientists say_ , and that anyone that disagress in the
slightest is a denier/idiot/whatever. He also happens to be correct, the
general public doesn't understand the intricacies of climate change.

I'm no denier either, but you'll have to pardon me if I choose to not join the
unthinking hordes who insist we _must do something now_ , and no we _will not
think_ while we are doing this. Dissension is _explicitly not allowed_.

Oh, is that not _exaaaaaaaaaaaactly_ what the message is? Of course not, but
there is some truth there. There are highly trained scientists who don't fully
support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak. I believe it is not
an intellectually honest conversation, and I'm old enough to remember other
situations where dissent was not allowed and it turned out not so good.

Also, don't forget that Scott is a humorist author, and part of his schtick is
to deliberately cause outrage, especially with people who take themselves way
too seriously.

~~~
yongjik
> There are highly trained scientists who don't fully support the party line,
> and they are not allowed to speak.

Name one.

~~~
mistermann
Judith Curry

[https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-
transition/](https://judithcurry.com/2017/01/03/jc-in-transition/)

Look at how this mildly (at best) informed senator encounters facts that don't
support his hypothesis, look at how he, an amateur, speaks to a top scientist!

I believe many if not most scientists are at least partially _lying_ to
people, and by lying I don't mean they are accidentally mistaken, I mean that
they _know_ that some of what they are saying is speculative, but they pass it
off as established fact. I look forward to stopping thinking this way when the
scientific community admits to this.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0)

I suppose (sigh) that I must pre-emptively add that no, indeed, she wasn't in
fact _literally_ prevented from speaking. I'll leave it as an exercise to the
reader to decide for themselves whether all is well in this situation.

~~~
DonHopkins
People like that usually have interesting discussions on their talk pages.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry)

Characterizing her as "not allowed to speak" or somehow oppressed and silenced
by mainstream scientists is totally off base, since she herself has said: "I
flat out don’t care; my feelings aren’t hurt, I don’t feel like my
professional status is being jeopardized or challenged or whatever. I flat out
don’t care at this point."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-
Sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Judith_Curry#Collide-a-
Scape_on_The_Judith_Curry_Phenomenon)

~~~
mistermann
Did she go on to say all was well in the scientific community?

Judith herself obviously has quite a backbone and seems to be able to take
this environment on, the more important point is: is there some truth to what
she says? Is there in fact a lack of complete honesty in the scientific
community, are some people "strongly encouraged" to not say certain things
whether not it has a solid grounding in science?

~~~
DonHopkins
Is there some truth to what you say? "There are highly trained scientists who
don't fully support the party line, and they are not allowed to speak."

If you don't mean "literally speak", then what exactly do you mean? What
qualifies as "speaking"? Testifying in front of Congress on live national
television? Writing an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal? Boasting of having a
total of 12,000 citations of her publications, and a blog that gets on average
about 12,000 ‘hits’ per day, and 300-400 comments? None of that counts as
speech?

First, define "speech", then list the names of highly trained scientists who
aren't allowed to speak because they don't fully support the party line.

~~~
mistermann
Let's approach it this way, in an attempt to clarify _where_ it is we
disagree: do you believe there is a single instance in recent scientific
history of peer pressure being used to encourage/discourage certain ideas
within the scientific community?

Don't forget, sometimes you don't see certain things because they have been
eliminated, and a natural reaction might be to assume that they never existed.
The idea that disagreements occur in professional environments I don't think
is very controversial on HN, but what I seem to be hearing today is that HN
believes that these disagreements do not occur in the field of science. There
is certainly a very long history of disagreement in science, it is one of the
primary strengths of the scientific method. And yet now, it has disappeared?
That would certainly appear to be the case, all I'm saying is, I doubt that is
the actual reality.

~~~
DonHopkins
Please stop trying to move the goalposts, and go back and 1) define what you
mean by "not allowed to speak", and 2) list more names of scientists who are
"not allowed to speak".

~~~
Chris2048
Please prove the goalposts have been moved...

------
dccoolgai
Yes. Bullshit is ruining everything. There needs to be some kind of grassroots
movement to stop it.

~~~
placebo
You need to want to know what is true first, to care enough to take the
trouble of knowing how to detect bullshit. I think the reason why bullshit is
flourishing is because those that actually give a damn are the minority. The
majority is composed of the useful idiots and those that manipulate them. Of
course reality is never black and white, and it is much more nuanced than I've
stated here, but I think that's the general gist of things

~~~
TeMPOraL
A big problem is that for most people, _truth_ has no direct or measurable
value in lives. Information is mostly used as social objects - something to
talk about and share with other people. It doesn't matter whether e.g. that
GMO-causes-cancer paper is solid or a hoax, what matters is that as the story
circulates, you can play the relative status game with your friends by showing
who's more into GMO-causes-cancer belief.

In the areas where "getting things right" has a direct impact on someone's
life, people turn out to be surprisingly good at catering for their own
interests (though not perfect, and the whole advertising industry is based
around the desire to screw people in this area).

------
fiatjaf
This is a course on being intelligent, it seems. If you are able to teach
people how to be intelligent without making them actually intelligent (= to
know a lot of things) then it is magic.

~~~
pferde
Isn't "to know a lot of things" just being wise? Being intelligent, to me, is
more about being able to process information, arrive at conclusions - or, in
simple words: to think well.

You could be wise without being intelligent (someone who learned a lot by rote
learning, but doesn't understand much of it), or vice versa, although the
latter is somewhat questionable - an intelligent person will likely use the
intelligence to know more and more things. :)

Edit: heck, even D&D had separate wisdom and intelligence stats. :)

------
SFJulie
The trollometer Plumpfmeter 2.1 can actively be turned into a bullshit
detector by using a post anaphylactic reaction using the original designed
[http://la.buvette.org/tech/reseau/prumpleffer-2.html](http://la.buvette.org/tech/reseau/prumpleffer-2.html)
based on deep machine learning with the latest green powder AI.

Don't get trolled or bullshited again, buy Plumfmeter the only and original
protection that really works.*

* Will make you famous, less gullible and totally smart without effort or learning __

 __Recommended by our best customers: Trump.inc, NSA, EU parliament,
EvilCorp.gmbh.

