On Oct 25, 8:44 pm, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Michael Tobis wrote:
>
> > What is it that distinguishes denialism from skepticism? Is there a
> > spectrum or is there a clear distinction?I think there's a clear
> > distinction, but perhaps not in the way you were
> hoping.
>
> Denial is when someone doesn't accept the obvious truth of what you are
> telling them. (reasonable) Skepticism is when people agree with you that
> it's all a bit dodgy.
I see your point but I don't agree. It is a matter of intent. People
advocating what they believe in an intellectually honest way have a
different intent from people seeking to make it more difficult for
others to think clearly.
Both groups exist. It is both necessary and decent to treat the first
group with respect.
The second group takes advantage of this necessity by posing as the
first group. Their objective is not to advance their own opinions. In
extreme cases, they actually have none. Their objective is to insert
more confusion and uncertainty into the situation than is warranted. In
the present case, they challenge climate science not because they
especially have any opinion about it, certainly not because they have
any relevant expertise, but because they are motivated to avoid a
policy. Attacking the science is just a version of the stage magician's
trick of drawing the audience's eye away from the action.
It is easy to know which sort of argument you are having **if you are a
participant**, as any of us who have actually tangled with this sort of
pseudo-argument can attest. It is much harder to decide **as an
observer**, especially as an observer not well-informed in the issues
at hand, and this difficulty is the root principle that motivates the
activity of pseudo-argument.
There is no monopoly on this sort of toxic argument on the left or the
right.
The tragedy is that legal, political and journalistic cultures
celebrate this sort of clash. That science succumbs to it in the short
run is doubtless truer than it ought to be, but at least we don't
celebrate it, and in the long run our respect for truth still manages,
on the whole, to overrule our respect for power and position.
My point in starting this perhaps ill-advised thread was this. I think
we need to beware of the short run advantage that our respect for truth
gives to those antagonists who are indifferent to truth.
At some point once engaged by such an antagonist, we need to recognize
that we are not in a serious discussion but rather are falling into
traps set by people who, let's charitably say, do not share the values
of science.
Let me offer a germane quotation that came up under a very different
topic:
---
"Law, politics and commerce are based on lies. That is, the premises
giving rise to opposition are real, but the debate occurs not between
these premises but between their proxy, substitute positions. The two
parties to a legal dispute (as the opponents in an election) each
select an essentially absurd position. "I did not kill my wife and Ron
Goldman," "A rising tide raises all boats," "Tobacco does not cause
cancer." Should one be able to support this position, such that it
prevails over the nonsense of his opponent, he is awarded the decision.
...
"In these fibbing competitions, the party actually wronged, the party
with an actual practicable program, or possessing an actually
beneficial product, is at a severe disadvantage; he is stuck with a
position he cannot abandon, and, thus, cannot engage his talents for
elaboration, distraction, drama and subterfuge."
David Mamet in "Bambi vs Godzilla: Why art loses in Hollywood",
Harper's, June 2005.
---
Once we are engaged in a fibbing competition, we are lost. We are out
of our depth. What we should do is disengage.
--
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
