Similarity of anti-evolution and anti-GW arguments

[bascule]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0

 

Watching this video I see a number of arguments lodged against evolution which I've also seen lodged against global warming. For example:

 

- mainly advocated by the media

- other scientists disagree and are being suppressed by the media

- it's being pushed by a minority with an agenda

- part of a larger push towards a particular ideology

- no evidence

- not a theory, just a model

- early advocates were highly uncertain

- examples have been put forward in the past which were incorrect

- need to be skeptical and examine both sides of the argument (teach the controversy!)

 

What do you think?

[swansont]

I Agree

[Dak]

definately. i've considered linking to talkorigins when talking to GW denyers before.

 

egs:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111_1.html

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA041.html

 

 

[edit]

 

I'm not actually knowledgable in climatology, but i can still spot the bullshit, because it's identicle to the bullshit that evolution gets from creationists. thats how similar it is

 

[GutZ]

There is alot of BS and for those of us who don't have a PhD in biology, physics, chemistry, including all sub-catorgories, simultaneously.....Are often going to either believe one source or another.

 

I can't prove or disprove anything without knowledge on the subject. So if a scientist told me that chemicals have the ability to self-replicate or a Preacher guy tells me God did it....What really is a more a legitmate stance. I know science as whole and from what I have experienced proved correct, like if I throw a ball up in the air it will come down...I can even caculate it before hand from what science has told me.

 

The problem is just because one aspect of science has it correct, doesnt mean everything is correct. It's not like I can say "Oh that's labelled science so it's correct", you can't do that. The scientific community does this alot without realising it. Look at that first attack on evolution (video), it has nothing to do with evolution, but its status in science. Science claims this and it does nothing for it, it perpetuates misconceptions. Whether it's a fact, theory, model or tonka truck doesn't matter.

 

I think all these arguements work on that permisses they feed each other. You send someone a link to say "talk origins"....what does that do, those are just words. Now most people in the science community understand that there is tonnes of work and experiments behind it but show me these climate simulations, show how you constructed the experiments, don't just link people to a page that says "What they say is wrong, this is correct"...I can get that at any page, those references mean nothing to a guy like me.

 

(I am not saying that's my view or thoughts, but I write it this way for fun)

[ecoli]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2cpNjyVvqK0

 

Watching this video I see a number of arguments lodged against evolution which I've also seen lodged against global warming. For example:

 

- mainly advocated by the media

- other scientists disagree and are being suppressed by the media

- it's being pushed by a minority with an agenda

- part of a larger push towards a particular ideology

- no evidence

- not a theory, just a model

- early advocates were highly uncertain

- examples have been put forward in the past which were incorrect

- need to be skeptical and examine both sides of the argument (teach the controversy!)

 

What do you think?

 

None of these are scientific arguments... so they're basically useless and pointless.

 

Science will never prove creationism.

 

But science (and time) will eventually tell us the truth about global warming.

 

They are two very different things.

[Sayonara]

I don't think Bascule intended to say that the overall subjects are similar; it is quite clear that he refers to the strategy of the anti~ arguments which are currently being made.

[ecoli]

I don't think Bascule intended to say that the overall subjects are similar; it is quite clear that he refers to the strategy of the anti~ arguments which are currently being made.

 

I think Bascule is misrepresenting AGG opponents on this one, though.

 

There are "anti-AGG" who rely purely on research

 

And there are AGG propoents who use methods that Bascule has already described. Like certain politicians, etc.

 

I think Bascule is relying on anecdotal evidence on this one, and it's not fully representing any side of any argument.

[Sayonara]

Can you see some post or words that I can't?

 

He is comparing some of the arguments and finding them similar. This (apart from the fact that it shouldn't really shock anyone) says nothing about the people making the arguments, except where imaginary motives which you ascribe to Bascule's post crop up.

[ecoli]

Can you see some post or words that I can't?

 

He is comparing some of the arguments and finding them similar. This (apart from the fact that it shouldn't really shock anyone) says nothing about the people making the arguments, except where imaginary motives which you ascribe to Bascule's post crop up.

 

fine... then what are his motives? what is Bascule's purpose in making this thread?

 

It seems to me, that his underlying purpose is to discredit anti-AGG by attacking things other then their science. No, he hasn't stated this directly, and I doubt that he will... but then what is his stated purpose? Simple curiosity? He hasn't made that clear either.

[lucaspa]

What do you think?

 

When trying to deny data and avoid falsification of a theory, there are only a finite number of general approaches that can be tried. So, since both anti-evolutionists and GW deniers are faced with the same challenge -- their theory is falsified and they need to deny data -- of course they use similar arguments. DUH!

 

You needed to go to U-tube to figure this out?

[Sayonara]

fine... then what are his motives? what is Bascule's purpose in making this thread?

 

It seems to me, that his underlying purpose is to discredit anti-AGG by attacking things other then their science. No, he hasn't stated this directly, and I doubt that he will... but then what is his stated purpose? Simple curiosity? He hasn't made that clear either.

 

Perhaps it would be better to ask him that, rather than make things up and then try to justify attributing them to him.

[lucaspa]

Science will never prove creationism.

 

But science (and time) will eventually tell us the truth about global warming.

 

They are two very different things.

 

They are very similar things.

 

Science falsified creationism. YEC was falsified by 1832.

 

Science has falsified the hypotheses 1) the earth's temperature is constant and 2) human activity has no effect on global temperatures.

 

Remember, ecoli, ALL the people who urge acceptance of GW (including me) started out as accepting the 2 hypotheses above. The data convinced all of us that those hypotheses were false.

 

What you are doing is using another argument also used by creationists -- sometime science will know the truth about origins (meaning that creationism is right). You think sometime science will know the truth about GW, meaning that GW deniers are right.

 

Unwittingly, you just strongly supported Bascule's hypothesis: anti-evolutionists and GW deniers use the same arguments.

[lucaspa]

I can't prove or disprove anything without knowledge on the subject. So if a scientist told me that chemicals have the ability to self-replicate or a Preacher guy tells me God did it....What really is a more a legitmate stance.

 

Sigh. I really hate to see you bringing science down like this. All you have done is make science another Authority for the fallacious Argument from Authority.

 

The point about science is that you CAN get knowledge on the subject. Science only works with knowledge that is the same to everyone under approximately the same circumstances. Therefore, you CAN look up the articles, you CAN go make the same measurements of temperature or ice thickness in glaciers, etc. You choose not to, but you could.

 

OTOH, if a person tells you that he has a personal experience of God, you can't necessarily have the same experience.

 

The problem is just because one aspect of science has it correct, doesnt mean everything is correct.

 

Of course not. Over 99.999+% of all hypotheses have been shown to be WRONG! That's what science does: shows hypotheses/theories to be wrong.

 

What advocates of global warming state is not that anthropogenic global warming is correct because it's science, but it is correct because that is what the data shows. And you too can look at the data if you take a little time and effort. This isn't "authority", it's DATA.

 

Now most people in the science community understand that there is tonnes of work and experiments behind it but show me these climate simulations, show how you constructed the experiments, ... (I am not saying that's my view or thoughts, but I write it this way for fun)

 

The problem is that when you do try to show an anti-evolutionist or GW denier the experiments, then they won't read them! I've just had this experience with a GW denier. Demanded to see some data to back up my claim that GW was real. So I sent him 5 PDF's of articles from Science. He admits he won't read them. He has a plethora of excuses from too busy to the bizarre one that the articles are "biased"! Yes, you heard me correctly. He asked for scientific studies, I provided them, and then he says the scientific studies are "biased".

 

Talkorigins has the data, but anti-evolutionists don't want to look at it. They want to deny the data. Same with GW deniers.

[lucaspa]

I think Bascule is misrepresenting AGG opponents on this one, though.

 

There are "anti-AGG" who rely purely on research

 

And there are anti-evolutionists who supposedly "rely purely on research". Micheal Behe and William Dembski are two.

 

Again, the tactics are the same. When you look in detail at the "research" for either the anti-evolutionists or GW deniers, you find the methodology obviously flawed, conclusions not backed by the actual data, and sometimes out and out fraudulent.

[Sayonara]

Talkorigins has the data, but anti-evolutionists don't want to look at it. They want to deny the data. Same with GW deniers.

 

...which is why their denials are so funny/frightening/weird. They don't know the details of what they are supposed to be denying.

[lucaspa]

fine... then what are his motives? what is Bascule's purpose in making this thread?

 

I would say the purpose is to show that people who don't like what the scienfific data is saying are forced to use similar arguments to deny that data.

 

It seems to me, that his underlying purpose is to discredit anti-AGG by attacking things other then their science.

 

Please stop projecting. This is what anti-GW people do. For instance, there is a famous story on the internet by anti-GW people comparing the energy efficiency of Bush's and Gore's houses. The idea is that, since Gore does not have an energy-efficient house and is not a "good environmentalist", then the data on GW presented in An Inconvenient Truth is not valid.

 

Compare that to the creationist attacks on Darwin. One of my favorites is the charge that Darwin stole the idea of natural selection from Blythe. Since Darwin is a thief, then somehow all the data supporting evolution and falsifying special creation must be wrong!

 

Again, similarity in arguments/tactics.

[lucaspa]

...which is why their denials are so funny/frightening/weird. They don't know the details of what they are supposed to be denying.

 

That's part of the reason their denials are so frightening/weird. I would say that "don't know the details" is something different: they often don't know what the theories actually state. So we've got 3 things that are frightening/wierd (I find very little humor in the situation):

 

1. Opponents don't know what the theories really are.

2. They refuse to look at data supporting the theories (and falsifying their theory).

3. They don't allow the issue to be settled by science, but attempt to force their view on everyone else by political means.

[ecoli]

Please stop projecting. This is what anti-GW people do. For instance, there is a famous story on the internet by anti-GW people comparing the energy efficiency of Bush's and Gore's houses. The idea is that, since Gore does not have an energy-efficient house and is not a "good environmentalist", then the data on GW presented in An Inconvenient Truth is not valid.

 

That's funny...

 

The reason I've heard this 'argument' be used, is to point out what a hypocrite Gore is... not to disprove anything in his movie.

 

And you say I'm projecting?

 

 

Again, the tactics are the same. When you look in detail at the "research" for either the anti-evolutionists or GW deniers, you find the methodology obviously flawed, conclusions not backed by the actual data, and sometimes out and out fraudulent.

 

I think I'm having trouble getting my point across.

 

I realize that both arguments use fallacious logic, I'm not an idiot in that regard. My point is that few of the items that bascule mentioned have to do with the actual science and research. They seem to me like layman arguments being used.

 

Let me explain:

 

- mainly advocated by the media

The media's been right and wrong before, and so it is indeed fallacious; Bascule's right. But this doesn't have anything to do with the research.

 

- other scientists disagree and are being suppressed by the media

Conspiracy theory that had nothing to do with the science.

 

- it's being pushed by a minority with an agenda

inverse Bandwagon fallacy... nothing to do with science.

 

- part of a larger push towards a particular ideology

bandwagon... nothing to do with science

- no evidence

This has to do with purposefully ignoring the science.

 

- not a theory, just a model

Lack of understanding about what science is anyway.

- early advocates were highly uncertain

There is always uncertainty in early models... so again, a lack of understanding about scientific princibles

 

- examples have been put forward in the past which were incorrect

which doesn't invalidate current models... doesn't address the science

- need to be skeptical and examine both sides of the argument (teach the controversy!)

 

hmm... not sure what to do with this one. It's certainly true, a healthy skepticism is always a good thing, but it doesn't directly address the scientific debate.

 

 

My point is, that all of these are cases of logical fallacies, Bascule is certainly right about that. My problem, is that, none of these fallacies reveal flaws in the scientific arguments of anti-AGG (forget about creationism, which obviously doesn't have any scientific support).

 

The position that: Anti-AGG causes global warming are wrong because they make fallacious arguments about pro-AGG arguments doesn't work to disprove the anti-AGG position. The reason for this should be obvious... they don't have anything to do with one another.

 

And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument, I know Bascule is not making the above argument... in fact nobody in this thread has done so, I believe.

 

The purpose of this thread is to attack fallacious logic, and rightly so. But I don't want anybody to make the mistake that attacking the opponents position in a way that doesn't disprove mention their science has any bearing on the overall scientific discussion, as it relates to the anti-AGG position (whether it's sunspots, volcanoes or aliens).

 

I realize that there are flaws in the anti-AGG science, but I want to make sure that nobody in this thread thinks that this thread has anything to do with that.

 

I didn't mean to hijack the thread for that purpose, and I apologize for not being clear about it earlier.

[bascule]

fine... then what are his motives? what is Bascule's purpose in making this thread?

 

In both cases, the overwhelming majority of the arguments rely on fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

It seems to me, that his underlying purpose is to discredit anti-AGG by attacking things other then their science.

 

The implication is that the other side (in regard to both issues) isn't using science at all, but is rather engaged in an anti-science smear campaign.

[bascule]

My point is, that all of these are cases of logical fallacies, Bascule is certainly right about that. My problem, is that, none of these fallacies reveal flaws in the scientific arguments of anti-AGG (forget about creationism, which obviously doesn't have any scientific support).

 

Well, two things here:

 

1) Critics of the GCM forcing weights placing CO₂ as the primary forcing are yet to find an alternative set of GCM inputs which are able to successfully reconstruct the instrumental record.

 

Lindzen and his ilk have no alternative theory to present: they are merely trying to poke holes in existing theory. That's fine, and the purpose of the peer review process, but when you're MO is to attempt to discredit the prevailing theory, proposing an alternate hypothesis, but are completely unable to substantiate your hypothesis, it doesn't lend you much credibility.

 

2) There's an immense disparity between the views of the climate science community and the science community and large, which overwhelmingly ascribe to the theory of anthropogenically forced climate change, and the public as a whole. As the other thread points out, at least in America 71% of the public thinks anthropogenic forcings are negligible. This is not a scientifically defensible position, yet it's the predominant one among the public at large.

[swansont]

That's funny...

 

The reason I've heard this 'argument' be used, is to point out what a hypocrite Gore is... not to disprove anything in his movie.

 

And you say I'm projecting?

 

And the implication from that is you can ignore what he says because of the hypocrisy.

 

 

My point is, that all of these are cases of logical fallacies, Bascule is certainly right about that. My problem, is that, none of these fallacies reveal flaws in the scientific arguments of anti-AGG (forget about creationism, which obviously doesn't have any scientific support).

 

The position that: Anti-AGG causes global warming are wrong because they make fallacious arguments about pro-AGG arguments doesn't work to disprove the anti-AGG position. The reason for this should be obvious... they don't have anything to do with one another.

 

And before you accuse me of making a strawman argument, I know Bascule is not making the above argument... in fact nobody in this thread has done so, I believe.

 

The purpose of this thread is to attack fallacious logic, and rightly so. But I don't want anybody to make the mistake that attacking the opponents position in a way that doesn't disprove mention their science has any bearing on the overall scientific discussion, as it relates to the anti-AGG position (whether it's sunspots, volcanoes or aliens).

 

I realize that there are flaws in the anti-AGG science, but I want to make sure that nobody in this thread thinks that this thread has anything to do with that.

 

I didn't mean to hijack the thread for that purpose, and I apologize for not being clear about it earlier.

 

No, pointing out fallacious logic doesn't disprove the opposing view. But it raises the question of where the valid criticism is. These are the kind of tactics you use when you are wrong, by taking advantage of the general population's lack of critical-thinking skills.

[lucaspa]

That's funny...

 

The reason I've heard this 'argument' be used, is to point out what a hypocrite Gore is... not to disprove anything in his movie.

 

And why do we care if Gore is a hypocrite? In order to discredit the movie. Look at the last line of the argument: direct link to the movie.

 

If the point is only that Gore is a hypocrite, then we have a wry commentary on human nature. Certainly one that does not need all the space and deception devoted to it. The thrust of the argument is that Bush is the better environmentalist. Why should we care if this is so? Because we are supposed to listen to the environmentalist on environmental issues, right? And therefore we don't listen to Gore but to Bush.

 

 

My point is that few of the items that bascule mentioned have to do with the actual science and research. They seem to me like layman arguments being used. My problem, is that, none of these fallacies reveal flaws in the scientific arguments of anti-AGG (forget about creationism, which obviously doesn't have any scientific support).

 

The point is that anti-AGG proponents use the arguments against the AGG research! Not that people against anti-AGG (accept AGG) use these arguments. And both anti-evolutionists and anti-GW use layman arguments because the actual research refutes their position.

 

The position that: Anti-AGG causes global warming are wrong because they make fallacious arguments about pro-AGG arguments doesn't work to disprove the anti-AGG position.

 

You missed the point. The research data already refutes the anti-AGG position, just as the data refute the position of anti-evolutionists. The point is that the anti-AGG people use these tactics because their position is refuted by the data.

 

I realize that there are flaws in the anti-AGG science, but I want to make sure that nobody in this thread thinks that this thread has anything to do with that.

 

I haven't done that. What Bascule is puzzled about is WHY both anti-AGG and anti-evolutionists tend to use variations on the same types of arguments.

 

I gave you the reason: because the scientific data falsifies their position. Therefore they must resort to fallacious arguments.

[ecoli]

And why do we care if Gore is a hypocrite? In order to discredit the movie. Look at the last line of the argument: direct link to the movie.

 

If the point is only that Gore is a hypocrite, then we have a wry commentary on human nature. Certainly one that does not need all the space and deception devoted to it. The thrust of the argument is that Bush is the better environmentalist. Why should we care if this is so? Because we are supposed to listen to the environmentalist on environmental issues, right? And therefore we don't listen to Gore but to Bush.

No, the irony is that Gore's environmental policies are better than Bush's, despite the fact he doesn't practice what he preaches.

That's all it's supposed to mean. At least to me.

[lucaspa]

No, the irony is that Gore's environmental policies are better than Bush's, despite the fact he doesn't practice what he preaches.

That's all it's supposed to mean. At least to me.

 

Well then, you took away the logically correct message: the wry commentary on the irony of the human condition. Congrats.

 

However, I have had 5 overtly and devoutly anti-AGW proponents post or circulate that article as a reason not to trust Gore or the movie An Inconvenient Truth. NONE of them acknowledge the irony you noted as the intent of the message (I tried). The intent of the message was to do an ad hominem attack on Gore as a way of discrediting AGW.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm very happy that you did not fall for the fallacious ad hominem argument. And I'm pleased that you can't see the fallacious argument and therefore think the motives were pure. It's just that I have been beaten up with this article too many times not to know that the intent of the author was the fallacious argument.

[White Rabbit]

What's, what's 'AGG'?