
Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming - gaika
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:pyBTmzXP0DkJ:www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html+chriton+aliens&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us&client=firefox-a
======
jcl
He makes some good points, but I think he exaggerates his evidence. In
particular, while the Drake equation and TTAPS equation both have unknown
terms, at least some of the TTAPS equation terms can be estimated through
observation and experimentation -- a far cry from "none of the variables can
be determined. None at all." Insisting that a line of inquiry be abandoned
simply because it is difficult to measure exact values seems contrary to the
investigative spirit of science. Of course, Crichton is correct that we should
not be drawing firm conclusions from fuzzy numbers.

Likewise, just because many scientists share a consensus about something
doesn't mean they are necessarily wrong; scientists share a consensus on the
ineffectiveness of Laetrile, the relative harmlessness of aspartame, and the
unlikelihood of cell phones causing cancer. These things are hard to prove
absolutely, and may even be incorrect in specific circumstances, but in
absence of better evidence, a consensus is the best we can have.

I found this juxtaposition funny:

 _There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of
thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra.
[...evidence of pellagra as dietary problem...] They continued to deny it
until the 1920s._

Also this one:

 _When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics' essays on his web page
and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright
infringement and made him take the pages down. [...] Speeches contained on
this site are the property of Michael Crichton and may not be reproduced,
copied, edited, published, transmitted or uploaded in any way without express
permission._

~~~
SapphireSun
Other people in this thread make other very good points, but I think this one
needs to be said.

If I have a single unknown variable in an equation, and I have no way of
estimating it, or knowing its variability, or anything, then anything I put
down will most likely be wrong and will likely be off by several orders of
magnitude.

Let me give an example. You are playing a first person shooter and you are
told that you are going to pick how much ammo you'll need for the entire game
at the beginning of the game and that if you pick too much "bad things will
happen". How do you possibly decide? You can estimate based on other games you
played, but if you look at all of them, you'll realize that they all need very
different amounts! The number you pick when you start the game will be
completely arbitrary and will have VERY different effects on the gameplay.

Let me give another example, you are playing the stock market on a day trading
scheme. You want to know if you'll profit, so you look on google finance and
see a chart that is trending very slightly up but with a lot of variability.
You say, well it looks like it is going up RIGHT NOW! Indeed you execute the
trade and then you realize this: You have no idea when the end of the spike
is. You have no idea when to pull out, and indeed the time you do will have a
heavy financial impact.To paraphrase from the show House MD, there is a right
answer. You may have no way of knowing what the right answer is, but you'll
still be wrong if you're wrong.

This is the point that the guy was trying to make. When you know nothing, the
only thing you can do is manipulate the equation to suit your perception. In
the end you will only deceive yourself.

~~~
dejb
> If I have a single unknown variable in an equation, and I have no way of
> estimating it, or knowing its variability, or anything, then anything I put
> down will most likely be wrong and will likely be off by several orders of
> magnitude.

Actually if you know nothing about the variable then you will almost certainly
be off by an infinite number of orders of magnitude (log(infinity) =
infinity). Saying that you might be wrong by several orders of magnitude
implies that you do know quite a bit about the range of the variable.

By definition most judgements are based on incomplete information. Otherwise
no judgement is needed. So the argument that an action should or should not be
taken because the evidence is not 100% complete is spurious.

~~~
wlievens
Most of the Drake Equation factors are fractions in the range [0, 1]. So you
do know a lot about the range of the variable.

~~~
mindslight
But that's just self-deception facilitated by using a linear instead of a log
scale. It's easy to choose a conservative "really small" number of 1% or .01%,
but what's to say that you're still not off by many orders of magnitude?

~~~
yummyfajitas
In simple terms, this bound tells us that the probability that aliens exist
lies somewhere in [0,1].

~~~
dejb
By definition all probabilities lie in this range. It doesn't change the fact
that within this range of R (Real Numbers) the number of logarithms are
uncountable.

In simple terms... for every real number >1 (let's call that number x) the
number 1/x also exists. Mind blowing huh!

.. Also I was primarily talking about the TTAPS equation which seemed to be
the main focus of the parent's threads.

------
nazgulnarsil
this is really depressing. are all of you asleep at the wheel? this essay is
NOT ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. global warming is only the latest in a long line of
scientific studies that have become corrupted due to the influence of
politics. The details of the current case are not important. Whether or not
anthropogenic global warming is true is not important. What is important is
the way scientists are behaving. If scientists are reduced to squabbling
children as soon as there is some blood in the water what hope does the rest
of humanity have?

This essay is one of genuine concern over the direction of humanity. And as
the best hope we have for a rational future, concern over the direction of
science.

~~~
olavk
He does take sides in the debate though, by framing Lomborg vs. Scientific
American as Galileo vs. The Church. Since we know Galileo was right, the
reader is of course supposed to assume that Lomborg will also turn out to be
right in the face of blind dogma. Therefore Crichton doesn't have to address
the actual criticism towards Lomborg.

However if Lomborgs book is indeed bad science, then the strong rebuttal from
scientfic circles is fair.

By the whole framing of the issue Crichton imples that it is SA and the
"consensus" which is politicized. However Lomborg is himself a political
figure (advisor for the right-wing Danish goverment in environmental matters).
That does not make him wrong, but it implies we have to look at the actual
content of the rebuttal to determine who has the better case.

------
aston
Oddly enough, I was at this speech. I left with a lot more respect for
Crichton as a scientific thinker, and I almost read the book he was
publicizing at the time, Prey.

~~~
Prrometheus
Being a libertarian is good practice for developing this kind of skepticism,
as governments often use specious statistics to support their current agenda.
Second-hand smoke is one such area, as Crichton mentions. Anti-drug campaigns
are also horrible for pulling numbers out of thin air.

~~~
davidw
It's also good to be skeptical of libertarians denying externalities:-)

~~~
corentin
Libertarians don't deny externalities; they just recognize that some of them
can't be measured.

~~~
dejb
Just because something can't be accurately measured using current technology
doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

~~~
corentin
Which is what I just said...

~~~
dejb
We all seem to be in furious agreement then as that was what the parent post
to yours also said.

------
Tichy
I faintly remember discussing another Crichton article of the same gist on HN?

While I did not make it to the end, I feel there are two strategies at work in
this article:

A) Talk so much that your opponent loses the ability to focus and becomes
vulnerable for injection of any meme you slip into the speech.

B) Draw random analogies and take advantage of the flaw of the human brain,
that is "addicted" to drawing analogies if there are none.

Because ultimately he says "look, there were false things that were believed
by a lot of people. Global warming is believed by a lot of people, therefore
it must be false". That is simply a logic error. I wonder if Crichton was
aware of that (and since he was intelligent, I suppose he was), because if so,
I consider the article a disgusting, dishonest attempt at manipulation.

~~~
dejb
As most good story tellers are he was surely a skilled manipulator of human
thought and emotion.

------
bprater
I had always wondered how that whole global warming thing happened.

------
Prrometheus
Ya'll are a smart crowd. What do you say to the argument that being skeptical
about anthropogenic Global Warming is like being skeptical about gravity or
evolution?

~~~
1gor
I say it is a silly argument.

