Robert Gassler writes: >> The fundamental point however is being missed. As a citizen, I have values >> which I >> combine with knowledge in order to make decisions. When I visit a lawyer, >> the lawyer >> tells me what's possible and I decide what to do based on that knowledge and >> my >> own values. The same goes for doctors, auto mechanics, and economists. >> >> The same also goes for climate scientist, whose title should not be put in >> quotation >> marks.
I agree with you. My question was prompted by the highlighted quote in the New Yorker article that neither Levitt nor Dubner had any training in "climate science," the implication of which is that Levitt/Dubner's policy recommendations regarding climate change should not be given serious consideration or serious consideration compared to the policy recommendations of someone trained in "climate science." It appears that Levitt/Dubner did exactly what you recommend -- they spoke with climate scientists, engineers, etc. and others with technical knowleldge, generally informed themselves regarding the technical issues, and then advocated a policy in the political sphere consistent with their values. Therefore, you and I should be able to agree that any criticism of Levitt/Dubner based upon their lack of a climate science training is a logical fallacy. My follow up point is that if you (the generalized you) somehow believe that Levitt/Dubner's technical understanding of climate science is a misunderstanding rooted in their lack of technical training (i.e. they did not have the skill and capacity to make an informed judgment and understanding of the technical material and issues), then you have the philosophical dilemna of explaining how someone with a similar lack of technical training could know that Levitt/Dubner's understanding was wrong (or right), and the related philosophical dilemna of knowing who was an expert and whether the claimed expert was truly knowledgeable or a quack. I believe you can avoid these philosophic dilemnas if you avoid the logical fallacy made by the author of the New Yorker article. David Shemano _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
