![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Experts and global warming: followup
Jul. 14th, 2011 08:37 am(edited from comments I left on my Facebook thread)
I think the critical point, as outlined in the article (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/), is that if you want to attack a consensus viewpoint, you have to look for *systemic* problems with how the field is approached.
For instance, in the case of diet science, Michael Pollan presents the valid systemic observation that traditional nutrition science focuses on the effects of specific chemicals or classes of chemicals in isolation, whereas to make meaningful diet recommendations you need to consider the effects of the full complement of compounds in any given food.
When it comes to climate science, I don't think I *know* any actual climate scientists personally. This means that anybody who is likely to respond here ultimately owes their knowledge to some set of experts or other. The question then becomes "how do you select the correct expert to which to appeal?"
---
To clarify, I'm not endorsing the article on the basis that I think we should blindly accept whatever the scientific community tells us.
It *is* valid to say, e.g., that you aren't going to accept anything as true if you haven't experienced it first hand. All this information comes through a human filter, humans are fallible, etc. What I am saying is that an argument based on general skepticism applies equally well to those who argue that global warming isn't happening as to the climate science community in general.
Personally, I'm trying to get away from engaging when someone wants to argue about factual information. I'm also working to overcome the occasional impulse to attempt detailed defenses of the climate science literature, which I have not read (and by "read" I mean done a comprehensive literature review; not just read a couple papers and called it done). I *will* be happy to ask anybody who attempts a detailed attack to ask them what their sources are and on what basis they see the sources as superior. I try to keep an open mind about it, too: maybe they know something about their sources (or mine) that I don't.
If I ever get around to doing that comprehensive literature review, the situation would be different and I might feel better about taking the bait.
I think the critical point, as outlined in the article (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/on-experts-and-global-warming/), is that if you want to attack a consensus viewpoint, you have to look for *systemic* problems with how the field is approached.
For instance, in the case of diet science, Michael Pollan presents the valid systemic observation that traditional nutrition science focuses on the effects of specific chemicals or classes of chemicals in isolation, whereas to make meaningful diet recommendations you need to consider the effects of the full complement of compounds in any given food.
When it comes to climate science, I don't think I *know* any actual climate scientists personally. This means that anybody who is likely to respond here ultimately owes their knowledge to some set of experts or other. The question then becomes "how do you select the correct expert to which to appeal?"
---
To clarify, I'm not endorsing the article on the basis that I think we should blindly accept whatever the scientific community tells us.
It *is* valid to say, e.g., that you aren't going to accept anything as true if you haven't experienced it first hand. All this information comes through a human filter, humans are fallible, etc. What I am saying is that an argument based on general skepticism applies equally well to those who argue that global warming isn't happening as to the climate science community in general.
Personally, I'm trying to get away from engaging when someone wants to argue about factual information. I'm also working to overcome the occasional impulse to attempt detailed defenses of the climate science literature, which I have not read (and by "read" I mean done a comprehensive literature review; not just read a couple papers and called it done). I *will* be happy to ask anybody who attempts a detailed attack to ask them what their sources are and on what basis they see the sources as superior. I try to keep an open mind about it, too: maybe they know something about their sources (or mine) that I don't.
If I ever get around to doing that comprehensive literature review, the situation would be different and I might feel better about taking the bait.