by matthew on August 28th, 2008 • 13 Comments »
It seems that Dino’s noble experiment with Devyn has bogged down. What began as Dino’s efforts to get Devyn involved in a ‘civil discussion’ of his views has evolved into Devyn posting entry after entry with no discussion. If discussion and debate is the basis of civil intercourse, Devyn has retreated to nothing more that intellectual masturbation. The only time he was engaged in a discussion he simply ignored me. But he did reply to Tom a couple of times. That ended when Tom did not accept the gospel according to Devyn, and he was told that he was making “outrageous charges”. The discussion ended. In a response to me Tom correctly labeled Devyn’s postings as “disingenuous and agenda-driven . . . affirmation of self versus smoke.”
There is, in the north-east corner of Hyde Park, a ‘speaker’s corner’. There people of every ilk come express their opinions. Except for tourists the speakers are generally ignored by all but a few hecklers. Is that what Devyn’s postings have become? I will uphold anyone’s right to say anything they choose, but just as strongly, I will deny that they have any fundamental right to be taken seriously. This particular situation troubles me for a couple of reasons.
The first is that granting the rank of ‘sense’ to nonsense simply muddies the quest for the truth. Let me give you an example. If Bradley Smith began to post here, would you treat his postings respectfully? Bradley Smith is one of the foremost holocaust deniers in business. He has set out to elevate the claim that the holocaust never occurred to the level of legitimate debate. And how does he do it? He accumulates what he says is scientific evidence and tries to promote it as proof. He ignores all the rest. When the evidence is debunked and scoffed at, he says that the legitimate authorities who refuse to even consider the question as a legitimate ones are too stupid to understand or are pawns in a political game that choose to ignore the truth. Does any of this sound familiar?
As Cheryl pointed out this site is not a scientific journal and the criteria for posting are significantly different. She is right. And that leads to my second concern.
Devyn is clearly sincere in his efforts. But his sincerity does not make him right. He is not engaging in any kind of legitimate enquiry, yet he thinks he is. Clearly his method is wrongheaded. He cherry picks his information, ignores all the rest and refuses to engage in any discussion, civil or not. And to pretend otherwise is to do him a disservice. It is one thing to stake out a position. It is another thing to stake out a position that is contrary to the facts. It is even another thing to stake out a position using a method that is contrary to any reasonable standard, and then pretend it is something else. Those are all layable at the foot of the poster. But an equally inappropriate thing to do is pretend that it is all right to do this. The role of the community is not to elevate ‘nonsense’ to the level of ‘sense’ and treat it respectfully. The role is to label nonsense as nonsense. To do otherwise is not fair to the poster. Dino’s goal to help Devyn get a more civilized reading and commentary on his postings has not occurred. Dino, however, left the most important criterion out. The best thing that can be done, for those who choose to respond, is to give an honest response. To delude someone, however kindly done, is the most ‘uncivil’ thing of all.
Uncategorized
by matthew on August 26th, 2008 • 3 Comments »
Susan Jacoby has published an interesting book called THE AGE OF AMERICAN UNREASON that describes a pattern on anti-intellectualism and anti-rationalism throughout American history. She suggests that it poses a threat to the American system. We have a fine example in the recent post by Devyn.
He asks(after citing a letter by Trenberth written in the late 1990’s):
“How can anyone take what the IPCC seriously when everyday it seems new information is coming out about the unscientific way in which the IPCC came up with their conclusions.”
What he does is assumes that it is a rhetorical question - with an answer so obvious it does not need answering. But, here is an answer: because that is what the consensus of the experts who know do. To suggest otherwise is to ignore other questions that Devyn should legitimately address when he poses his question. They include:
1. Why was the IPCC awarded the Nobel Prize 2007 if it is so faulty? Are all of the selectors ignorant of Trenberth’s criticisms?
2. Why, after the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a study in 2007, did none , not one, scientific body that has addressed the topic reject the IPCC report that you dismiss so easily. There are at least 40 to 50 position statements by almost every well respected scientific body in the world. How many agree with Devyn that the IPCC report should not be taken seriously? None. All of these organizations published their position statements well after Trenberth’s letter. Were they all ignorant of it and its claims?
3. The latest, and more comprehensive review of the scientific literature was done in 2004. No more are being done because it is a resolved issue in the scientific world. The author, Orestes, found 928 peer reviewed studies of the topic were done. Not one, of 928, agreed with Devyn.
In order to accept the claim that Devyn makes you must adopt the extreme anti-intellectual position that he espouses. Because, in the essence, he asks the reader to abandon the collective wisdom of the scientific community. The only reason a rational person could do so is to suggest that every major scientific group in the world and almost all of its members are either too ignorant to understand that truth as Devyn see its. Or they are too corrupt and on some kind of mission to deceive the peoples of the world. There really is no other option.
The question is better asked “how can you not accept the findings of the IPCC?” And the answer - you have to reject the accumulated scientific opinions of the world, you have to assume that Devyn’s interpretation of a letter shows greater insight than do the opiinions of the scientific community. And, again, you have to assume that trained and experienced professional scientists who disagree with him are either too stupid and uninformed to see the truth, or they are all involved in some devious plot to fool all of us.
What Devyn proposes is a position that is in direct conflict with the scientific knowledge as it exists. And it perfectly illustrates the anti-intellectual and anti-rational attitudes described by Susan Jacoby.
Uncategorized
by matthew on August 23rd, 2008 • 9 Comments »
Welcome to Citizen Wausau. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!
I find it to be interesting that a site that encourages conversation will allow a blogger to control the feedback that appears. For example - you will find a response that I wanted to add to Devyn’s entry on “spinning . . .”. It was in response to Devyn’s response to Tom. In it he made a couple of factual claims that simply incorrect. Devyn has chosen to simply ignore my comment. In essence his entries are now nothing more than propaganda that cannot be answered. Dino has commented how this forum is more civil than the WDH site and that Devyn can expect help with his writing. Dino further says that Devyn has adopted his position and, although he (Dino) doesn’t agree he wants him to continue writing. I’m afraid that there has to be a distinction between opinion and fact. Take for example that lengthy discussion abour mosh pits etc. That was opinion. Everyone is entitled to his or her own. On that we can all agree. Devyn’s entries are something different. He posts about matters of fact, and he asserts things that are not true. Here is the response that he would not post:
“Dino,
There is a need for civil discourse in any forum, but a false impression or idea, however civilly expressed, demands a rebuttal. For example, Devyn cites in his response to Tom, some scientists that are supportive of the position Devyn holds. Two scientists are Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. Let’s agree that an inaccuracy, however civilly expressed, is still an inaccuracy. Equally, significant facts that are not reported need to be expressed. With that in mind, let’s begin. With facts:
Beliunas and Soon are scientists. That’s a fact.
They are most notorious for publishing a study that claimed that the 20th century was not the warmest on record.in Climate Research, a legitimate scientific journal . That’s a fact.
Devyn cites these two, among others, as not receiving money from the petroleum industry. That’s not a fact. The study they published was funded by a foundation that received almost 100% of it’s funding from the American Petroleum Institute. That’s a fact. They were paid for their efforts and costs by a group that received its money from the petroleum industry. When the study was done, Baliunas was a senior research scientist for the Marshall Institute which received funding from ExxonMobil. This was a paid position.. At the time Baliunas was a paid board member of nine organizations that were funded by ExxonMobil. She and Soon were both paid contributing editors of World Climate Report, a journal funded by the Western Fuels Association.. At the time the report was published both Soon and Baliunas were receiving, in a variety of ways, money from the petroleum industry. That’s a fact.
These facts do not demonstrate that the study was faulty. That’s a fact. But they do cast doubt on the claim that Baliunas and Soon did not get money for the petroleum industry.
On to the study itself:
Baliunas and Soon studied the work of others and compared the data to reach their conclusion about the warming trends (or lack thereof). That’s a fact.
The Study was published in Climate Research in 2003. That’s a fact.
Almost immediately there was a backlash in the scientific community. That’s a fact.
The other editors of the journal resigned to protest the publication of the study. That’s a fact.
The editor in chief of the journal, Otto Kinne, investigated how the study came to be published. That’s a fact. He found:
The editor who approved the publication, Chris de Frietas, was a vocal opponent of the ideas of global warming. That’s a fact.
The other members of the peer review panel, of which de Frietas was a member, were not notified of the selection for publication. This was in direct violation of the journal’s policy. That’s a fact.
Upon completing his investigation Kinne reported to the readership about what had happened. That’s a fact.
He said that de Frietas had circumvented the peer review process not only for this study but for several others that were also critical of global warming. That’s a fact.
Kinne apologized to the readers of the journal saying that the Baliunas, Soon et al study did not meet the journal’s criteria for publication and should have never been published. That’s a fact.
None of these events prove that the study was inaccurate. They do however indicate that the usual credibility attached to peer reviewed publication do not apply here.
More facts:
Baliunas and Soon cited the work of other scientists in their study. Thirteen of the surviving authors cited published a joint statement that Baliunas and Soon had misinterpreted their data and that their studies indicated the exact opposite to what Baliunas and Soon claimed. Not one of the cited authors came to Baliunas and Soon’s defense. That’s a fact.
Because of the controversy two scientists, Osborn and Briffa, replicated the study using the accepted scientific procedure. It was published in the journal, Science, in 2006. Their results directly contradict the Baliunas, Soon results. That’s a fact.
These facts do indicate that the study is inaccurate. The authors of the cited documentation state that Baliunas and Soon misapplied and misinterpreted their data and a similar study, done under accepted principles of scientific rigor, produced exactly the opposite results.
Devyn has chosen a position. You are right. And he has to right to hold to that position. But, as a matter of intellectual integrity, he also should be willing to acknowledge the reality of the facts. No matter how civil a person’s prose is, the deliberate ignoring of the facts is not an intellectually honest act. Perhaps the best lesson from the Baliunas, Soon et al study is that it is better to adapt one’s opinions to fit the facts rather than remold the facts to fit one’s opinions.
It is more suprising that Devyn would refer to Baliunas and Soon since this incident is very well known in the scientific community. It does not require a lot of searching to uncover what happened. It stands as a model of poor science and even more dubious publication practices.”
So, my question is - where does the role of truth come into play? My opinion is that if truth is not the paramount value, then any factual discussion becomes meaningless. By allowing a poster to post inaccurate information and then censor responses, a model is created where the reader cannot be certain he/she is engaged in the full conversation or just those parts that the original poster wants the reader to share. Is that conversation and discussion or is it lecture?
Uncategorized
