People who deny climate change are broken

[anotherfilthyape]

Broken is not, by definition, negative. Part of what makes these conversations interesting is that it can mean different things to different people.

 

Ad hominem is not a factor here. Nobody is saying, "because deniers are broken, they are wrong." Your assertion is misplaced, and you appear not to properly understand how the ad hominem fallacy is applied in practice.

 

People's mental biases and resistance to facts is very much an issue of psychiatry and psychology. Human minds are the source of the issue, so that is where study is most properly conducted. Why would you suggest otherwise?

 

I do understand how the ad hominem fallacy is applied but if you want to thrive in that the term "broken" can be understood in different way by different people then you are not doing good science and the fallacy is nothing but a fallacy of amphibology...

 

The biases people have are a subject in general, specific biases are not important.

[iNow]

I do understand how the ad hominem fallacy is applied but if you want to thrive in that the term "broken" can be understood in different way by different people then you are not doing good science and...

...and I'm not doing science at all in this thread, nor in many others. I'm having a conversation with other intelligent people who come together here based on a shared appreciation of the methodology of science and the way it helps us to better understand our world.

 

Now, back on topic...

 

 

People who deny climate change are broken.

Agree? Disagree?

[anotherfilthyape]

...and I'm not doing science at all in this thread, nor in many others. I'm having a conversation with other intelligent people who come together here based on a shared appreciation of the methodology of science and the way it helps us to better understand our world.

 

Now, back on topic...

 

 

People who deny climate change are broken.

Agree? Disagree?

 

How can anyone agree or disagree when the terminology is not clear? I thought you wanted to conduct the conversation towards doing science, that is one of the main goals of this site... For instance when you say "broken" I think "traumatized" or "with no money to survive" and I do not see how an opinion could be of any worth on that matter if we take "broken" to mean "traumatized" and if it means "with no money to survive" it has no value for psychology or psychiatry...

[michel123456]

...and I'm not doing science at all in this thread, nor in many others. I'm having a conversation with other intelligent people who come together here based on a shared appreciation of the methodology of science and the way it helps us to better understand our world.

 

Now, back on topic...

 

 

People who deny climate change are broken.

Agree? Disagree?

 

Oh, I thought it was:

 

Agree? Disagree? Discuss.

 

(emphasis mine)

 

obviously iNow (read Iknow) don't want to discuss anymore. He only wants confirmation of his own convictions. For him all the people who agree with him are mentally healthy, all the others are broken.

 

Well in this case I prefer being considered broken than agreeing with that fascist behaviour.

Edited May 6, 2012 by michel123456

[iNow]

It's iNow. It is not iKnow. Thanks for calling me a fascist, though. That's always helpful.

[michel123456]

I didn't call you a fascist, I said that the phrasal lowering of people with whom you disagree and the denial of discussion is a fascist behaviour.

[John Cuthber]

I didn't call you a fascist, I said that the phrasal lowering of people with whom you disagree and the denial of discussion is a fascist behaviour.

And, in doing so you ignored the fact that missing the word discussed out was rather more likely to be a slip of the pen (so to speak) than a change in policy.

 

The irony being that you chose not to answer the question, nor to discuss the topic.

It's also just plain wrong to say " He only wants confirmation of his own convictions." in response to an offer to "Agree? Disagree?"

Did you only read the first half or something?

 

Meanwhile, back somewhere near the topic.

It's difficult to come to an absolute conclusion about this because of a number of factors. By far the biggest is that the term "broken" isn't defined, so here's my take on it.

Firstly, we are all "broken". We all do things that have no real logical basis. We cannot generally explain why we prefer one piece of music over another- and yet we do generally have preferences.

We follow hunches. Granted that we usually stop doing so if the evidence against them is strong enough, but it usually takes something pretty convincing.

We really don't like changing our outlook.

 

 

Since we are all broken the question is not an ad hom.

It's a (not as clear as it could be) assertion that "People who deny climate change are, in that regard, slightly more broken (i.e. illogical) than the rest of us".

Which is hardly even controversial these days.

 

 

Incidentally, there's another reason why this (and the related thread on religion) might not be an ad hom.

It's not a slur to tell the truth.

 

To claim that it is an insult, you first need to prove that it's false (otherwise it's protected as free speech). It would worry me if the mods were to close this down without being able to show the falsehood of the assertion. A different bunch of mods might not see is as a an ad hom, simply because they saw it as clearly true. Closing it down would be their imposition of their beliefs on the forum and I'm not sure that's their role.

It is the job of the mods to ensure that the rules are followed to a reasonable degree- for example that people don't post insults.

However I don't see it as their role to say what is factually wrong (and therefore an insult) where that decision very much debatable.

Happy to discuss this, but not in this thread. If anyone feels strongly about it, I'm sure they will start a new thread ( hopefully not including the phrase "People who ... are broken").

Edited May 6, 2012 by John Cuthber

[michel123456]

And, in doing so you ignored the fact that missing the word discussed out was rather more likely to be a slip of the pen (so to speak) than a change in policy.

 

The irony being that you chose not to answer the question, nor to discuss the topic.

It's also just plain wrong to say " He only wants confirmation of his own convictions." in response to an offer to "Agree? Disagree?"

Did you only read the first half or something?

 

(...)

 

" He only wants confirmation of his own convictions." is my conviction.

 

But fair enough, at the question "Agree? Disagree?", I disagree.

Iknow cancelled the "Discuss" part, so I don't discuss it.

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

michele123456,

Give it a rest. Whether iNow added, 'discuss', at the end or not is not particularly pertinent given that this is a discussion forum. The 'discuss' stipulation goes without saying.

[iNow]

And, in doing so you ignored the fact that missing the word discussed out was rather more likely to be a slip of the pen (so to speak) than a change in policy.

Indeed. IINM, it was like 3am when I posted that. The discuss part (as hypervalent_iodine was so correct to suggest) was seen as implicit. No reason to call me a fascist as a result, nor to continue using the wrong username to describe me even after I've clarified.

 

I KNOW that I don't know everything, and that's part of why I like participating here the way I do. I learn a tremendous amount being around all of you, and I have a powerful degree of fun being able to so openly and honestly go back and forth on sensitive topics with a group of rather intelligent people. This is not something I generally can do offline... Both because I'm not always surrounded by such bright people, and also because (as is obvious here by this exchange alone) these conversations can quickly rub people the wrong way at the times and the consequences in real life (loss of friends, enemies at work, disconnect with loved ones, etc.) are simply not worth it.

 

Anyway, my username is iNow. I don't believe calling me a fascist was at all appropriate. I genuinely want to hear what others think, and it's not fascist to challenge their reasoning as specious or flawed. My proposition that some folks may be broken is not due solely to the fact that they disagree with me. It's more related to the reasoning they use to arrive at such strongly held positions, and the way evidence (when available) is so often twisted or ignored outright.

 

 

Since we are all broken the question is not an ad hom.

It's a (not as clear as it could be) assertion that "People who deny climate change are, in that regard, slightly more broken (i.e. illogical) than the rest of us".

Which is hardly even controversial these days.

Thank you, John. This is very clear, and well aligned with my intent.

 

Incidentally, there's another reason why this (and the related thread on religion) might not be an ad hom.

It's not a slur to tell the truth.

Thank you, again. Quite right.

 

 

To repeat, it has never been my intent to suppress discussion on the topic, quite the opposite really. Perhaps we can now return to said on-topic discussion?

[swansont]

Broken is not, by definition, negative.

 

Seriously? Damaged/not in working order is not a negative? Do you buy broken items for the same price as non-broken items?

 

It poisons the well. Begs the question.

 

Rage is a human trait, too. That doesn't mean we don't see it manifest in some groups more often or easily than in others.

 

You are moving the goalposts. You didn't frame "broken" in this way. You merely said that the trait existed, not that it was manifesting itself more easily or more often. You didn't present any evidence, either. That's a big problem when you don't define the discussion ahead of time.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

To claim that it is an insult, you first need to prove that it's false (otherwise it's protected as free speech). It would worry me if the mods were to close this down without being able to show the falsehood of the assertion. A different bunch of mods might not see is as a an ad hom, simply because they saw it as clearly true. Closing it down would be their imposition of their beliefs on the forum and I'm not sure that's their role.

It is the job of the mods to ensure that the rules are followed to a reasonable degree- for example that people don't post insults.

However I don't see it as their role to say what is factually wrong (and therefore an insult) where that decision very much debatable.

I disagree. "Broken" implies some objective standard of correct functioning of humans. Humans have always been illogical, and yet they have prospered, so apparently the demands of natural selection have not required logic as part of our normal functioning. Similarly, a computer is not broken if it fails to make you pancakes.

 

Free speech is not protected on SFN. You are protected from suppression of your speech by the government. We are not the government.

 

Seeing as how imatfaal's prophecy in post #19 has come true, and iNow has not changed his argument, this discussion has come to its end.