Michael - Agree with all you're written here, or nearly all.
Although I think scientists who are committed to the truth do have one
advantage over the paid liars: as Mark Twain pointed out somewhere,
it's easier to tell the truth because you don't need to remember so
much.
Over the long term the scientists will win, I think. Let's hope this
is before California turns into a dust bowl or the Greenland glaciers
disappear.
On Aug 3, 5:27 pm, "Michael Tobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Andrew, of course you are right, but there is a quandary, and I think
> David's comment addresses it directly.
>
> The bad faith arguers make every effort to look as if they are arguing
> in good faith. So it's hard to tell.
>
> My recommended tactic is to avoid assuming that any given person is a
> member of the confusers of of the confused. If someone begins to
> appear stubborn, I will give up arguing with them unless they have an
> uncommitted audience.
>
> If they appear to have such an audience, I will try to take some time
> to argue with them, with the full knowledge that it is the audience,
> and not the individual, that I am trying to convince.
**** Strongly agree. Good idea.
>
> We scientists have the advantage that truth is on our side. The
> obfuscators have the advantage that they get paid for their
> participation in the debate while we, at best, get paid despite our
> participation.
>
> They (people who put politics ahead of truth with whatever their
> agenda) also have the advantage that liars can be more creative than
> truth-tellers, as David Mamet points out:
>
> "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.
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
