I was thinking more Feynman than 'cultural cognition', or associatied cognitive dissonance - central as they are to the human condition, the 'need to be right' and to will to impose that on others. Start with identification of the enemy and end with genocide and totalitarian repression.
'In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. An accusation of hubris often implies that suffering or punishment will follow, similar to the occasional pairing of hubris and nemesis in the Greek world. The proverb "pride goes before a fall" is thought to sum up the modern definition of hubris. It is also referred to as "pride that blinds", as it often causes someone accused of hubris to act in foolish ways that belie common sense.' In a scientific context it applies to scientific conservatism - too great a confidence in your conclusions and a failure to be open to reflection and falsification - a resistance to and angry rejection of new ideas. In a very modern sense it applies to misguided scientists and greenies thinking that science gives them a casting vote on policy and economics - and that any other idea is immoral, insane, ignorant and self serving. I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy. Richard P. Feynman I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to change that here and there. Richard P. Feynman It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn't get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man. Richard P. Feynman The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. Richard P. Feynman The idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another. Richard P. Feynman We are at the very beginning of time for the human race. It is not unreasonable that we grapple with problems. But there are tens of thousands of years in the future. Our responsibility is to do what we can, learn what we can, improve the solutions, and pass them on. Richard P. Feynman Hubris is the assumption of truth - that some ideas have been so conclusively validated that they are beyond criticism except by uninformed rednecks. Let's take Newton as an example of assumption of truth. Newtonian laws are a nice approximation - but they are not exact. They fail at high velocities - they do not by any means provide a complete explanation of relativistic space and time. I think evolution is similar - works well enough in a Newtonian universe - but might fall over if we ever understood the nature of time in a relativistic universe. Climate science is in this boat - if we start with a catalogue of what we don't know, partially know, can't know and don't want to know -it puts a severe limit on what is known. But people don't want to know that. They have to fall back on logical positivism - which is the antecedant of post modernism and relativism - because for reasons involving the human condition we need to think we know what the future holds. Is this the central objection to chaos theory? Populations, economies, nervous systems, hearts and climate are all chaotic and this doesn't bear thinking about? All the people in your linked blog are still thinking in terms of proximate cause and effect. Newtoniam thinking in a chaotic universe. If I say that this categorically and emphatically isn't right and you are a fool for believing it - it is an example of hubris. If I say that climate might not be a complex and dynamic system - and pigs might fly - it leaves open the door to truth. On Sep 19, 5:29 am, Eric Swanson <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, it does look like a La Ninio is in the works. That's part of the > natural short term variability. In addition, that's why one needs to > look at longer time periods, instead of monthly data, such as you > point to from Spencer and Christy's web site. The AMSU temperatures > time series doesn't go back in time very far and there's some question > to me regarding the validity of Spencer & Christy's earlier work with > the MSU. After all, remember that I found an apparent discrepancy in > their data over the Antarctic. Christy and Spencer's method of > combining the AMSU with the MSU data requires a model, which only adds > another source of possible error. Even Roy Spencer admits that there > is a Greenhouse Effect: > > http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/comments-on-miskolczi%E2%80%99s-2... > > As for the IPCC's definition of climate, they rely on earlier work. > To quote from your link, they mention the "statistics of weather", as > did I: > > "Climate is generally defined as average weather, and as such, climate > change and weather are intertwined. Observations can show that there > have been changes in weather, and it is the statistics of changes in > weather over time that identify climate change. While weather and > climate are closely related, there are important differences..." > > Your comment about hubris applies to you as well, I think. Here's a > long blog post to show the problem: > > http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/17/scientists-react-to-a-no... > > E. S. > ..................................... > On Sep 17, 5:02 am, Robert I Ellison <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Try this one for daily temps - and compare for at least this century - > > heaps of fun. Unlike you guys. 2010 was trending to be the warmest > > ever. > > >http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/ > > > Have a look at this one - a very pretty picture - a big, big La Nina > > in the central Pacific and a planet cooling off. Frigid, nutrient > > rich and quite acidic water rising from the briny depths in the > > Humboldt Current. I predict a huge increase in biological > > productivity across the Pacific. > > >http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2010/anomnight.9.16.2010.gif > > [cut] > > > > > Study the NESDIS NOAA SST anomaly linked to above and combine it with > > an understanding of the state of the ocean indices below - and you > > might just get an appreciation of natural variation. > > >http://ioc-goos-oopc.org/state_of_the_ocean/ > > > The world is full of fools and charlatans - defined here as post > > modernist types who have forgotten in their hubris, or never ever > > understood, the need for an appropriate intellectual openness and > > modesty.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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
