Raghu writes: >> The New Yorker reviews Super-Freakonomics and has this priceless >> quote: "Neither Levitt, an economist, nor Dubner, a journalist, has >> any training in climate scienceĀor, for that matter, in science of any >> kind." >> >> What, journalism is not considered scientific anymore? >> >> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert
I have asked this question before in different contexts. I am a lawyer, not a "climate scientist." Just a citizen in our partial social-democracy asked to support or oppose various political positions. Therefore, as I am not a "climate scientist," on what basis do you believe I (or any other non-climate scientist) can conclude that climate change is occurring, that CO2 emissions contribute to global warming, that geoengineering solutions are not feasible, etc.? Are you taking the techno-elitist view that only "experts," who are determined to be experts by other experts in a self-perpetuating cycle, are allowed to advocate or oppose political positions? In fact, on what basis could a non-economist (such as a climate scientist) criticize Levitt/Dubner's economic arguments? I can understand criticizing Levitt/Dubner for being wrong on facts, but why attack them on their professional credentials? Is not such an attack an example of ad hominem, appeal to authority, and other logical fallacies? David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
