A Response for Reme (which was too long to post on her blog)

Reme,

Thank you for taking obvious time out of your day to make such a thorough response. I appreciate it. Also, forgive me if my own responses to you are not as fast as one might expect. As I was telling your sister, the amount of time I have to blog these days is severely limited.

Part One: Answers to Your First Post

Let's see if I can shed some light.

About false logic:

Actually, the syllogism you used is an example of false logic. Logic is actually a school of study (probably you know this) and as such it has its own set of rules and definitions. There are many such false logical arguments. Some of the specific examples are as follows:

Ad hominem
Affirming the consequent
Argument by dismissal
Exception that proves the rule
Non sequitur

There are, literally, thousands.

If you would like to further your understanding of Logic as a science, there will be a section on it in your library. At Eastern, the three shelves we have on Logic are in with books on Psychology and Philosophy.

So, when I stated that your argument was false logic, I was in fact using a very specific definition, a definition understood and accepted as a beginning point for any logical argument. I was not, as you put it, playing word games.

However, it is important that we understand a fundamental difference between word games and proper definition. You are beginning the statement of your case by defining terminology. This is very good, but I could also make an accusation that you are simply playing word games, games that will suit your argument. While I would be wrong, it is still an accusation I could make.

The point is that we must always be wrestling with exactly what we mean, exactly what the definitions are, because unless we agree on those definitions we may not be talking about the same thing. In the future then, should I point out some issue of terminology or language, please do not think I am merely playing games. I actually would find that rather insulting, because the truth is that I am as interested in the outcome of this debate as you are. It is as important to me as anyone. To assume I am playing games is to ignore the deadly seriousness I am bringing to the table.

Yes, I recognize that your post was about definitions.

However, it is also about laying the foundation of your argument. I bring up the issue of the limits of your data to point out that there is a crack in that foundation. You need to be aware of that, and you need to acknowledge it, because your conclusions will eventually have to deal with a problem in the foundation.

This is one of the key problems with your argument, and it will continue to be critical as long as you remain convinced that one position is correct, the other is wrong, while at the same time claiming to be “weighing out the different sides.” It is easy to be critical of something you don't believe. It is much more difficult to be critical of your own assumptions. It is most difficult of all to see all arguments dispassionately, with a full lack of bias, and to judge those arguments according to their merit and not to what you would like to believe.

I highlight it here because if you can not acknowledge the flaws in your own argument, then your judgment will not be sound.

(As an aside, I fully disagree that if your logic makes no sense your argument can still be true. This is a kind of “ends justify my means” way of thinking. If your argument is true, then you should be able to reason to it logically. You should be able to account for the flaws. You should be able to hold it to the same standard science holds everyone else to. Unless of course you think your argument is somehow special, and should therefore not be tested as strenuously.)

This is the case for any and all arguments, and it is worth noting that all theories have flaws. The best theories are ones which account for those flaws the best...not the theories which pretend the flaws don't exist or that the flaws are meaningless.

It is not at all surprising you can't find a cohesive argument against climate change. I would argue you can't find a cohesive argument for it either, but I simply want to point out here that climate cuts across dozens of different specialties, and we are therefore talking about the work of thousands of scientists and researchers the world over. There is no real, working mechanism for the work of all these individuals to come together and compose one all-inclusive argument.

Also, and perhaps just as important, there is absolutely no political gain these days in arguing against climate change. The media has convinced everyone that our “house in on fire,” and anyone who says otherwise faces two dangers: first, to be called dirty names and associated with the oil industry, and the second (a far more real and critical danger), to have their funding cut. ALL scientists know exactly who is funding them and exactly what those people want to hear.

Are most “deniers,” as you call them honestly convinced that global warming is a socialist scam? I think you know propaganda when you hear it.

I suppose we could agree that the majority of people on either side are simply idiots, so completely asinine as to believe whatever the media tells them to believe. I doubt you'd find much difference between “believers” and “deniers.”

It would be better to understand the “deniers” as skeptics. Perhaps the true skeptics are only a minority of the opposition, but I would say that of the skeptics most of them are fully rational people, intelligent and incisive, and that their arguments are compelling even though they are not popular.

I have not read the work of Mr. Watts (or if I have I have forgotten it). I commend you on your detailed analysis of his background and, at least some, of his work.

However, I should caution you from this point forward that relying on any data you find on the internet is extremely suspect. Scientists don't publish on the internet (or, rather, where they do publish, you will have to pay for it...and heftily). They publish in academic journals the public never sees. The real work being done on this subject and all others is printed in places you are never likely to know, never likely to hear of, never likely to come across.

Unless, of course, you were a scientist.

And no, Scientific American and Discover magazine do not count. They are not considered scholarly journals. You nee to remember the purpose of popular science magazines. They are designed for the masses. Everything you read there is watered down and, sadly, in a number of cases, entirely inaccurate regarding the work and data that exists (the same phenomenon can be seen on television, where “science and history” channels devote much of their time to showing how “science” has proven biblical miracles or the existence of Bigfoot).

So, yes, Mr. Watts is probably, to be put it rather unkindly, full of shit. Then again, perhaps he's not. Either way, he's not publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals, which means that his work and therefore his conclusions are suspect.

It also means, however, that if you wish to present a coherent case based on the actual work being done, you will need to be reading something other than what you find on the internet.

I have not read Mr. Keleman's article, but I trust your reference is an accurate portrayal. However, there are two points worth noting, not one.

First, what Mr. Keleman's statement articulates, that dishonest practice in the scientific community will endanger a scientific theory, because people will be likely to question and disbelieve the results.

Second, and what I pointed to earlier, is that such dishonesty exists on all sides.

Supports of the climate change argument as you state it generally accuse all skeptics as people who have sold out to the oil industry. And then follows the assumption that, somehow, supporters are incapable of the same kind of mistake.

In reality, dishonesty, manipulation, and unethical practices are found on all sides. We need to remember that all of us our human, and as such capable of making the same mistakes, and the same rationalizations to justify those mistakes.

It is for this reason that science aims always for unbiased and rational thinking. It is why we must subject our theories to the most rigorous testing. Why we must avoid false logic. Why we must not turn away from the holes in our argument, but attack them with great vigor to see if they bring our theories crumbling down.

It is, obviously, why I have great trouble with your already-made-up mind. If you are honestly seeking the truth, your mind will be open. If you have made up your mind, you are merely seeking consensus.




Part Two: Answers to Your Second Post

First, I think we need clarifications.

Your comparison of NASA's data and God confuses the line between belief and faith. I may have faith in God, which is not reliant upon actual data. This is part of the definition of faith, that there is no actual evidence. But belief is different. Yes, I can “believe” in NASA's data.

You bring up the issue of whether such data is accurate, which you and I both agree that it is (or, at least, that it is most likely to be so). However, you once again make a false logical conclusion. You suppose that because the data is accurate the conclusion must also be so. This is, to put it mildly, ridiculous.

Let me offer a ridiculous example. Someone goes onto my roof with a sprinkler and turns it on. I look outside and see water falling and the ground wet. There is absolutely no question that, yes, indeed, water is falling and the ground is wet. My facts are accurate. I conclude that it is raining. Except, in fact, it is not. My conclusion is wrong even though my data is correct.

The fact that I agree with NASA's data does not mean I must also agree with NASA's conclusion.

Let me give another example to illustrate why. NASA points to an increase in CO2. It extrapolates on all the effects of CO2 increase, one of which is a heightened increase in temperature (how increased...well, who knows, but an increase). NASA makes a conclusion that CO2 has caused climate change and that is all there is to it.

Except, another scientist points out that in the same time period we have seen an increase in sun spot radiation and solar flares, which also causes temperature increase.

And another scientist points out the growth of cities and the increase of ambient heat, which also causes temperature increase.

Is NASA's conclusion wrong?

Actually, we don't know if it is or not. Because NASA has not accounted for all the data in our example. It has only studied one part of the whole.

Understand, I use this example as merely a tool to point out that focusing on one element and only one will lead you to making conclusions that do not account for all the data. And a compelling argument must account for them.

Yes, belief is relevant to policy making, but I think it would do you a world of good to re-read this particular paragraph and then perhaps cross-reference it with some Calvinist sermons. The language you use here is entirely self-righteous, and the tone is eerily similar to those hellfire/brimstone speeches about how God is real whether you believe in Him or not, so the pious must save the disbelievers from damnation, even if they don't want to be saved.

No, I wasn't intentionally laying some trap for you. And, in fact, you will not hear me arguing for balance in scientific debates. I do not believe in balance in science.

A lot of people think there should be balance, that we should, say, teach all sides of an issue. For example, that we should teach Creationism along with evolution. This is patently absurd. We do not teach the theory that the Earth is flat along with the knowledge that it is round. Balance, in science, is overrated.

However, once again you have confused the issue. No, we should not be looking for balance. And you are correct that science is not a democracy. But then you seem to invalidate that very concept when you say that science has come to a consensus on climate change (as if there had been some sort of vote, some sort of record with which to validate your claim of consensus in the first place). You continue to give validity to the concept that because a lot of people believe something it must be true.

Science is not about consensus. I can not stress this enough. This is exactly why we don't need balance in science. Because science does not seek consensus. It seeks truth.

At some point you will have to let go of the concept that just because all the “leading scientists” you hear about agree about climate change that their conclusions must be true.

There was consensus that blacks were not even human.

There was consensus that a woman's brain was inferior to a man's brain.

There was consensus that the Sun rotated around the Earth.

There was consensus that Newton's theories of gravity were accurate.

There was consensus that species were immutable.

As far as science goes, consensus is worthless. And people pointing to consensus as the basis of an argument are (once again) making a false logical argument. It is nothing more than a curtain to hide behind because you have not made a better argument.