David, I think that people could make the same charge if I were to challenge you on bankruptcy law -- of which my training consisted in working in the law school cafeteria.
If someone challenges climate science (without quote marks), they should have some scientific grounds. For example, if you were a statistician & you found a flaw with their statistical technique that would be legitimate. On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 11:07:53AM -0800, David B. Shemano wrote: > 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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
