[ExI] Testimonial of the form (i) [WAS Re: Global Warming Skeptics as Interview Subjects?]

[Richard Loosemore]

Lee Corbin wrote:
> James writes
> 
>> Lee;
>>
>> Like any issue, there are those whose motives are unimpeachable (whether
>> they're factually right or wrong), and those whose motives are biased.  This
>> is the sole point of my posting - that neither side is completely free from
>> bias, and we should avoid making sweeping statements that try to paint
>> everyone on one side with a single brush.  Maybe the media and the
>> politicians can make use of such mud-slinging, but anyone who has the skills
>> of critical thinking should be more concerned with uncovering and evaluating
>> the facts for themselves.
> 
> Very good.  I can hardly ask for more.
> 
> But I can, actually.  While it is great to participate in discussions
> where people (i) admit their biases when they are able, (ii) sincerely
> wish to know the truth, (iii) are willing to expend a modicum of
> effort,  THEN some progress can be made. 
> 
> I'm after further ideas and further information. Scanning lists of 
> skeptics or believers does some help, but this thread has so far
> exposed some weaknesses of relying merely on this. But we
> can do more.
> 
> 1. we can give narratives of the formation of our own beliefs;
>     any asymmetries can be revealing
> 2. we can search for well-pedigreed pundits on this issue
>     (well-pedigreed amounting to having a history of non-
>     ideological and non-political serious inquiry)
> 
> That's all I've been able to think of right now. I strongly welcome
> any testimonials of the form (i) and will write one myself.  And we
> (collectively) must surely be able to point to *some* examples of (ii).

The formation of beliefs, on issues such as the global warming debate, 
is simple if you use the scientific method:  test all the claims made by 
tracking back to sources and doing some fact-checking and cross-examination.

What happens when you do this is that (usually) one set of opinions 
collapses in self-contradiction and/or lies.  Lomborg's book is a 
perfect example:  take any one of his claims, start tracking it back to 
source, do the cross checking, etc., and you very quickly find the 
arguments fall apart.  The text is replete with exaggerations, extreme 
distortions, omission of crucial facts, irrelevancies and statistical 
sleight of hand.

Do the same to the data and opinions generated by those who believe that 
global warming is (likely to be) anthropogenic, and you find that the 
web of facts surrounding their claims simply does not fall apart, does 
not contain huge omissions, and gets stronger and more self-consistent 
the more you look at it.

The same can be done with any other issue, scientific or political.

Your option (2) above is just comparing the size of megaphones:  that's 
the pseudoscientific method.


Richard Loosemore