>> Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments applied to research articles only, as that was the context.
Russell, I determine the context because this current row was triggered when Brent quibbled with a comment I made. The context is not peer reviewed articles. The context is any material available to the general public. And the question is to what extent the general public should be fed actual scientific facts about climate change and to what extent they should rely on figures about consensus amongst scientists. >> >> It would still be a logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true >> >> because of who said it, rather than what was said. >> I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here. Liz is under the misconception that I argue that climate change advocates only use this consensus figure. My argument is not that, it is that when they use this consensus figure they commit a logical fallacy. It relates to my argument that climate change advocates are as prone to logical fallacy and conspiracy theory as climate change deniers. This relates to the study that was pulled from the journal which in my view is as politically orientated a study as there can be. It only investigates those conspiracies dreamt up by climate change deniers and has nothing to say about how conspiracy theories are used to deflect attention from science generally. Ofcourse, when climate change advocates portray a climate change denier who is challenging the actual science as being 'in the bed of oil barons', they are doing precisely the same thing. When they dismiss what the climate change denier argues because '97% of scientists agree' they commit a fallacy. This latest row was trigger by nothing more controversial than that. > Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2014 10:18:34 +1000 > From: li...@hpcoders.com.au > To: everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: If you can't disprove the science, you can always try suing > > On Tue, Apr 08, 2014 at 11:50:07PM +0000, chris peck wrote: > > >> Absolutely. But people without any form of research training would find > > >> it > > very difficult indeed. > > > > All attempts to write about science for general consumption are > > worthless are they, Russell? For example, you spent 5 years > > translating Bruno's book to what end? No end? I mean if what you say > > is true you should make absolutely clear to everyone you can that they > > should not buy the book unless they possess the requisite > > qualifications which few people are going to have. > > Amoeba's Secret is not a peer reviewed research article, but rather > already written for mass consumption (-ish, as my son would say). My comments > applied to research articles only, as that was the context. > > Of course, I never implied that people without research training > cannot apply themselves to understanding research articles - I believe > our own Stephen P. King would be a suitable counterexample, IIUC, but > just that it is very hard for someone to do so, and requires a lot of > determination, so they are few and far between. > > > > I don't think you really believe that. I think you believe that core > > issues about a science can be communicated to lay people sufficiently > > well for them to make rational decisions about them. > > Of course. But then naturally those decision makers will need to take those > expert opinions on trust, as they don't have the ability and/or > inclination to read the primary literature. > > > > > Besides which, its just the logic of the situation that even if it where > > impossible to understand anything about climate science without a PHd in > > it, statements about consensus would still be empty. It would still be a > > logical fallacy to proclaim something to be true because of who said it, > > rather than what was said. > > I think Liz has clarified what is actually being claimed here. > > > > > >> Sadly, there are very few politicians with that sort of training though. > > > > Most politicians have training in Law. A far more subtle and far harder > > discipline than science. You should give them more credit. > > > > I'm not sure about most, but certainly more than those with science > training. > > I do not underestimate the intellectual capacity required to study > law. I'm married to one. As for being more subtle and harder, I think > that depends on the student. For me, studying law would be much more > difficult than studying science, as there is far too much rote > learning for me. I would say the converse is true in my wife's > case. My son is somewhere in between, but I suspect that ultimately > he might end up studying law though, as he;d have an easier job of it. > > -- > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret > (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
