Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming? There’s this today, following several long commentaries by VJ Torley on the pope’s encyclical, mostly negative. I don’t get the connection. Is it general distrust of science? Or of the “Academy”? Or is there something about the idea that we may be provoking a major extinction event that is antithetical to ID? Or is it, possibly, that the evidence for major extinction events in the past is explains the various “explosions” that are adduced as evidence, if not for ID, then against “Darwinism”?
I’m honestly curious. Personally, I’m really concerned about global warming, and about the more general impact the human species is having on the rest of the world’s ecology, not because I think that major extinctions are inherently tragic (I know Earth will become lifeless one day, and that major extinctions are inevitable) but because human beings evolved to live in one ecosystem, and are unlikely to be fit for a very different one. So we are on the list of potential extinctees. And a hell of a lot of human suffering will occur if our climate changes too rapidly. If there’s anything we can do to slow things down, surely we should?
OK, point taken. If scientists, by wanting a particular result, make that result more likely, despite not wanting to influence the result, then that’s a major problem for science.
Just as well there is no any such inadvertent influence whatsoever, outside quantum physics, were it is actually the object of study.
On the other hand there is plenty of evidence for confirmation bias and other sources of experimenter bias, and that is what the methodology is designed to minimise. It’s why we do blind ratings, double blind trials, use placebos, test null hypotheses, etc.
I do wonder what it must be like to be you, though, William – going through the world, believing nothing except by choice, that choice being unconstrained by any evidence, and assuming that a lot of things are the way they are because someone unintentionally intended them.
Fair enough. But, yes indeed, it wouldn’t work for me.
Allan Miller:
No, pretty much all results are intentional results, IMO, but there are different levels of intention. The subconscious ones are the most powerful, and they are often in direct conflict with our conscious intentions. And, of course, there are some rules here that even intention cannot alter, IMO.
However, I don’t believe that all people are intentional agents in their own right. I think a lot of people are just basically star-trek-like holograms manufactured to serve the intentions of actual intentional agents.
All of this, though, is waaay off-topic. Still, I don’t see much purpose in this thread, other than providing a space for anti-ID advocates to speculate negatively on the motivations of people they seem intent on characterizing as “anti-science”.
Well, sort of. I’m actually genuinely interested, though, in why ID proponents would also tend to be AGW opponents. I’d have thought the two things would be pretty orthogonal. I don’t see why thinking that living things evince a Designer should predispose anyone to thinking that human CO2 output is unlikely to contribute to global warming.
But the association seems to be there. So I’m curious.
Re. the OP (remember that?), I think it is simply politics. ID-ers are almost without exception far Right wing. AGW is seen as something supported by the Left. Since the Left is evil, nothing they support can be valid, ergo AGW is bunk.
fG
Let me fix your statement, EL (from my perspective):
“I do wonder what it must be like to be you, though, William – going through the world, believing nothing except by choice, that choice being unconstrained by any [scientific] evidence, and assuming that a lot of things
areappear [to you] the way they are becausesomeoneyouunintentionallysubconsciously intended [to perceive] them [that way.]”Taking responsibility for my experience has been the most difficult, scary, liberating, transformative and rewarding thing I’ve ever done.
EL said:
If it appears to you that pro-ID and anti-AGW views correspond, doesn’t that also indicate that anti-ID and pro-AGW views correspond? Wouldn’t you also assume those perspectives to be orthogonal? Wouldn’t it be as valid to ask why anti-IDism and pro AGWism seem to be associated beliefs?
Ever thought it might be the fact that some people find convincing evidence convincing? I.E. Those people are reality based.
Lizzie,
In order to limit CO2 emissions you’ll have to legislate/regulate and the deniers have a knee jerk opposition to all governmental interventions in society. Deny the science and you eliminate the need for the intervention.
I think the deniers also have a somewhat better understanding of just what eliminating carbon from our energy production will entail than the green half of the debate. The standard of living possible from renewable energy isn’t going to equal that possible from the high density energy of fossil carbons and the deniers don’t want to give it up. The green side wants to believe we don’t have to give up anything at all. Though the green side probably doesn’t think about it in this way, they certainly don’t want the vast group of people in between the two sides to start considering what society will lose as it returns to an 18/19th century energy budget.
William J. Murray,
Certainly OT, but I think you’ve left the piste and are crashing through the brushwood while convinced you are still carving graceful turns. The experiments we get little kids to do with peas and blotting paper – they’re intentional results? Discovering that the linkage in DNA is 3′ 5′ – that’s an intentional result? That genes in diploid organisms segregate 50/50? That the uridine in RNA is methylated in DNA? The photoelectric effect? Oh yeah, these are artefacts of ‘different levels‘ of intention!
Pure hokum.
Elizabeth,
While WJM may say he goes through the world like that, and may well believe that he goes through the world like that, it is pretty obvious, on his approach to both the ID and AGW questions, that he does not.
No, that doesn’t follow, William.
If all A is B, it does not follow that all ¬A is ¬B.
If all cats are mammals, it doesn’t follow that all non-cats are non-mammals.
What I’m curious is is why most ID proponents seem to be anti AGW.
A higher proportion of ID proponents seem to be anti AGW than would be expected under the null that the two views unrelated.
But if ID is good science, why should it only be adopted by those who are also anti-government intervention? What’s the political connection, and why should there be one?
Or should we be assuming that those smart enough to see the merits of ID are also smart enough to see through the science of AGW?
I think the motivation may also be simply contrarian. If there is a consensus view, it would be more than some people could swallow to accept it precisely because it is the consensus. Of course, the Only True Skeptics(TM) do not apply this view impartially – the consensus of their religious tradition tends to be rebelled against far less often – as witness the main source of objectors to gay marriage.
Elizabeth,
Okay, it doesn’t follow necessarily; but the point is that we’re talking about UD and the ID advocates you know of; that certainly doesn’t mean that all or even most ID supporters are skeptical of AGW claims. You’re just noticing a local correspondence.
However, that apparent local correspondence does, in fact, go both ways. Most anti-ID advocates here appear to be AGW advocates; isn’t that also an interesting correspondence of two apparently orthogonal issues, as you say?
Well, I believe it does mean that and hence it now means that.
Well, you’d have a point, if it wasn’t also apparently true of the Discovery Institute.
And ID is pretty well “local” to those two domains.
Still, it would be interesting to know what, say, Ann Gauger thinks about AGW.
This is a common misconception about AGW science.
You need to separate the two subjects:
1. Can we accurately predict the climate decades into the future?
vs
2. Can we have a high degree of certainty there is such a thing as AGW?
The answer to the first one is, no not very accurately. The answer to the second one is yes. Those two statements do no entail any contradictions.
Allan Miller,
And the inverse correlation could be characterized as anti-ID advocates/AGW supporters being conformist in nature, which, considering their apparent advocacy of consensus, could be reasonable.
Lizzie:
Allan:
It’s also obvious on his approach to the “waking up with a full bladder” problem.
William is as deluded about himself as he is about the nature of reality.
“Can someone familiar with the thinking at Uncommon Descent explain why there is such opposition to the idea of Anthropogenic Global Warming?”
Envy.
ID is opposed to any science that gets more press than their “science” does.
I am being facetious but I think that there is a kernel of truth to it. If they can cast doubt on any publicly accepted science, they think that it casts doubt on other publicly accepted science (ie, evolution).
But what I do find interesting is the inconsistency in the arguments they use. One of the pillars of their fight against evolution is that we have not directly observed any large scale evolutionary events. Yet when they argue against AGW they point to the magnitude of temperature changes that occurred over thousands and millions of years, all of which have been postulated from indirect evidence.
William J. Murray,
Sure. We all swallow exactly what we are told to swallow. Unlike the religious, the Only True Skeptics.
You never see science-supporters arguing about science. Ever.
Allan,
Don’t forget — William is probably the most skeptical person on this site.
I thought I was the most skeptical person on this site, but I am willing to cede title to William. The rest of you I still say are mere poseurs, who confuse being irrational with being skeptical.
I think it’s because they “know” they are sinners and destined for hell; and want to be sure the rest of us go with them
There are religious and political reasons for denial of both evolution and ID, but those are also related to the sort of authoritarian black-and-white thinking that keeps them from recognizing probabilities and their meanings. Their “science” in both cases involves attempting to poke holes in the science and to assert that bias is the basis for most scientists accepting both.
They want stability by decree from God, and many would in fact be thinking of the promise after the flood that the earth would remain fairly stable. Then there’s “crank magnetism,” which I suspect mostly involves spreading the distrust around, as in, why trust science on AGW when it’s “lying about evolution”? If science is agenda-driven in one area, why is it to be trusted elsewhere (anti-trinitarian Newton excepted, along with anyone else deemed properly “godly”).
Put more simply, they have an agenda to paint science as untrustworthy, since it has contradicted their “truth.”
Glen Davidson
Good to see you back Glen.
Thanks, good to be back.
Glen Davidson
Mung,
It’s not a competition, you know!
Mung,
But anyways … I am actually the most skeptical person on this site. I possess the Orb of Skepticism, and the Tinfoil Wand of Oyeahreeeelly. Which pretty much clinches it.
A lot of what I see here (with a few notable exceptions – Mung, KN, Glen, Neil) appears to me to be ideological certainty posing as lip-service skepticism. When someone can ask “but why would scientists lie?” with a straight face, skepticism has clearly taken a back seat to consensus conformism.
William J. Murray,
Well – why would they? Oh yeah, fat salaries, corporate shills, Atheist Liberal Conspiracy yadda yadda yadda. Assertions with no proof. Take Darwin for example. He was right in the pocket of BigCorp, and needed to find a principle to bolster his incipient Aytheist Konspiracy. Lucky he found one he could get other people to swallow.
But a better question would be how can scientists lie? An individual scientist could, but the entire body? The whole structure of science is geared towards eliminating individual manipulation of results, and to have regard to what the data says, not what you want it to say. You can choose to disbelieve that, but you would have a hard time explaining consilience or the total lack of whistle-blowing. But hey, evidence doesn’t bother you much.
It’s certainly not a matter of ‘consensus conformism’, else how do paradigms ever change; how does science ever advance? The consensus became a consensus for a reason. You can hardly start with a consensus.
I know you don’t believe that, but I have worked in science. Either I know whereof I speak, or I too am a liar. Or something else you choose to believe.
William J. Murray,
This is, in any case, just vague waffle. On which specific topic are your noted posters ‘true skeptics’, where the rest are blinded by ideological certitude? All of ’em?
Allan Miller said:
It’s statements like this that just ooze a complete lack of skepticism and rational thought and the utter pie-in-the-sky religious-zealot quality idealism on display by so many here.
I wonder if Allan also thinks that religious institutions are genuinely interested one’s spiritual well-being; that the government is looking out for the best interests of average citizens; that the media is primarily interested in disseminating the truth. Does Allan think that all advocacy groups and lobbyists have exactly the intentions that are summarized by their name and mission statement? Are the oil companies and other corporations really working to make the world a better place?
Or, does Allan draw his skeptical line just where it fits his ideology and politics?
I think a better name for this site would be The Gullible Consensus-Conformist Atheist Zone.
How would a scientist lie, indeed.
You see in others only what you are yourself. If you would act dishonestly in a situation you assume others also would so act. Your views therefore say more about you then “scientists”.
I could ask the same about faith healers.
Some do. Would you like a list?
Some is. Perhaps not Fox.
Who built the foundations for the computer you are using? You or some liar scientist?
Typically other scientists determine that a lie has been told. Whereas in your world all lies are true if you believe hard enough.
Sometimes the consensus is simply right. Ever considered that?
William, from the preface of Instant Enlightenment:
William, to Allan:
Now Keiths, you know that William has disclaimed that book! He’ll no doubt accuse you of quote-mining next, as you did not include the rest of the book and all subsequent statements from him as “context”.
OMagain said:
Sure! However, I’m still skeptical of the consensus. I’m also skeptical of the non-conformist. I’m actually, you know, skeptical of all claims. If it’s someone I have experience with and have found trustworthy, then I’m somewhat less skeptical of their claims.
William, you keep talking about scientists lying, and yes, some do, but the entire scientific process, although not perfect, is geared to weed these scientists out. But much of what you call lies is just bad, or biased, science. Do you think that the scientists who claimed to have discovered cold fusion were lying? No, they just jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.
But you have repeatedly claimed that no amount of evidence will cause your beliefs to change because they are not based on the assumption that they are correct. I’m sure that this makes se sense to you, and if it helps you get through life, more power to you. But I have a hard time distinguishing this from willful self deception.
Science is not a someone. You can be skeptical of science all you like, but unless you actually put some effort in to correct what you see as wrong it’s just whining.
And I’ve never seen you put that effort in nor show any interest. You just seem to want to tell experts why they are wrong about something you are not an expert in.
William want’s others to act (scientists to make evidence based claims) in a way that he himself does not act and makes a point of being proud that evidence matters not a whit to him. Yet if a scientist lies apparently that’s a bad thing, but you’d think he’d think it was a good thing (the scientist has a belief not supported by evidence, just as William does) from the way William talks.
Makes you wonder.
OMagain said:
Well, by this principle, you see in me only what you see in yourself, OMagain.
Sounds like your skepticism lines right up with your political ideology.
Charles Babbage, who also wrote: “On the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God, as manifested in the Creation”. Now, since he built the foundations of the computer, should I also believe what he says about God?
I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say here; should I:
1. Not be skeptical of scientific claims?
2. Not be skeptical of scientific consensus?
3. Believe that scientists don’t lie?
4. Believe that money, politics, ego and various kinds of pressure are not capable of being a corrupting influence in science?
What exactly are you saying is not a reasonable degree of sketicism?
Arcatia said:
Why should I believe that?
When I say scientists lie, it’s nothing more than an assertion of what should be a trivially acceptable maxim: people from all walks of life lie. Scientists are not immune to it; nor are they probably less likely to lie than the general population. Indeed, they may more reason to lie than a lot of people, given the kind of pressures they are under to produce certain kinds of results.
Unwarranted conclusions is another reason to be skeptical of scientific claims. Bad science, fraudulent science, psuedoscience, politically motivated science, ideologically driven science – all reasons to be skeptical.
I don’t know what existence/reality is; I admit this to myself. I collect views that seem to help generate behavioral/experience patterns that seem to benefit me in the way I prefer. I don’t consider any of those views true; I only act as if they were true, and I only act that way as long as they appear to deliver to me the kind of experience I prefer.
So, what would I be deceiving myself about?
Omagain said:
The only existential truth in my world is, “I experience”. Everything else is up for debate and worthy of skepticism.
1. that you have consistently taken that position on this board.
2. that a rational human being CAN consistently take such a position. It seems to me psychologically impossible, at any rate, to believe or not believe things based on any principle like that.
Yes, let’s watch the world burn because scientific evidence that we’re boiling it cannot convince people like you who don’t make decisions based on evidence.
William gets out of bed to pee. nuff said.
walto said
Well, I’ve reiterated that position here for a long time, and have consistently corrected others when they incorrectly infer otherwise.
Well, the good thing is that even if I am fooling myself about it, I’m still experiencing a very enjoyable life in accordance with what I prefer. So, even if I’m lying to myself about not lying to myself about how I hold beliefs and behave, the end result is still what I was hoping to achieve.
That’s only true if what you were hoping to achieve is a true belief, rather then one you have forced yourself to believe.