He thought his beliefs about global warming were based on science. Science proved him wrong |310|

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't agree with you on global warming or anything else you've said on this thread, but this is true, mainstream materialist scientists are very nasty about pro psi or non materialistic scientists.
That's the thing, Roberta. Establishment, be it political, scientific or media, tends to practice character assassination against dissidents, rather than let ideas do the battle.
 
Hhhhm.. I wonder what Cohn or Dawkins would say about Stapp, Sheldrake or Beauregard...... Or Behe.....

A more apt analogy is "Hmm... I wonder what Radin, Sheldrake or Mossbridge would say about one of their 'skeptical' colleagues in parapsychology who denied that there was statistically significant evidence for psi?"

Edited to change "Stapp" to "Radin" and "Beauregard" to "Mossbridge" as I don't know that Stapp is best described as a parapsychologist, and I have no idea who Beauregard even is.
 
A more apt analogy is "Hmm... I wonder what Stapp, Sheldrake or Beauregard would say about one of their 'skeptical' colleagues in parapsychology who denied that there was statistically significant evidence for psi?"

I don't think thay would call them lunatics, woo-peddlers, pseudo-scientists, etc. Open-minded scientists tend to be more respectful of their opponents then the establishment ones.
 
I don't think thay would call them lunatics, woo-peddlers, pseudo-scientists, etc. Open-minded scientists tend to be more respectful of their opponents then the establishment ones.

The point is, they are, like the majority of climate scientists in their field, best placed to judge which of their dissenting colleagues are disreputable.
 
The point is, they are, like the majority of climate scientists in their field, best placed to judge which of their dissenting colleagues are disreputable.
In any case, it's not an apt analogy. If you say there is consensus in climate science, then the dissidents are in minority, just like pro-psy scientists vs. establishment academia.
 
In any case, it's not an apt analogy. If you say there is consensus in climate science, then the dissidents are in minority, just like pro-psy scientists vs. establishment academia.

It's a perfect analogy. "Climate science" corresponds with "parapsychology".
 
In most cases, people employ arguments from authority, whether or not that authority holds the whip hand or not. Exceptions occur in some cases where people rely only on personal experience, but apart from that, there's no recourse but to authority.

As far as I know, no one here is a climate scientist, but even if someone were, and put forward only arguments based on their own experience, that wouldn't be sufficient to persuade everyone. That's why scientific papers quote other scientific papers, why PhD theses quote references, why even in non-scientific discussions, people will call on authority.

So: scientists rely heavily on authority, just like laypersons: on authority that can as well be wrong as right. As far as I know, there's only one discipline where one can have some hope of definitely proving one is right without appealing to authority, and that is pure mathematics--though even there, I believe there can be exceptions, according to Kurt Goedel at any rate. Outside pure mathematics, the whole edifice of science rests on authority: more so than even data; history is replete with examples of data being ignored on the basis of authority.

One can find authority figures for or against any proposition. Not unnaturally, CAGW proponents find their authorities in one place, and CAGW skeptics in another. This says nothing about the truth of CAGW either way, regardless of whether the person offering an opinion is or is not a climate scientist.

That some climate scientists are devious bastards doesn't mean they are wrong; the fact that millions bask in their reflected glory doesn't make them wrong, either. Despite all the lying and manipulation of data, they could still conceivably be right.

But you know what? We can all argue till the cows come home, but in the end, nature will provide the verdict. Until and unless that verdict comes out in favour of CAGW, I'll remain sceptical about it--especially the "C" or catastrophic bit.
 
No it isn't. :D Pro-psy scientists are dissidents against the establisment, just like AGW skeptics.

Here's a fuller attempt to explain the analogy:

Parapsychology, like climate science, is a specialised scientific discipline. Within both disciplines, there is a majority who hold a consensus view. In the case of parapsychology, that there is strong statistical evidence for psi; in the case of climate science, that the planet is warming due to human causes. With respect to both disciplines, there are "skeptics" who claim that the consensus within the discipline is wrong. With respect to both disciplines, some of those "skeptics" are part of the discipline - e.g. Wiseman in the case of parapsychology; Lindzen in the case of climate science - and some are from outside the discipline, and unqualified, e.g. Sam Harris in the case of parapsychology, and Andrew Bolt in the case of climate science.

So, if you accept that mainstream parapsychologists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about psi, then it's "peculiar" that you do not accept that mainstream climate scientists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about global warming.
 
Here's a fuller attempt to explain the analogy:

Parapsychology, like climate science, is a specialised scientific discipline. Within both disciplines, there is a majority who hold a consensus view. In the case of parapsychology, that there is strong statistical evidence for psi; in the case of climate science, that the planet is warming due to human causes. With respect to both disciplines, there are "skeptics" who claim that the consensus within the discipline is wrong. With respect to both disciplines, some of those "skeptics" are part of the discipline - e.g. Wiseman in the case of parapsychology; Lindzen in the case of climate science - and some are from outside the discipline, and unqualified, e.g. Sam Harris in the case of parapsychology, and Andrew Bolt in the case of climate science.

So, if you accept that mainstream parapsychologists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about psi, then it's "peculiar" that you do not accept that mainstream climate scientists who accept the consensus in their discipline are well placed to reject the skepticism about global warming.
Neither Sheldrake, nor Stapp, nor Parnia, nor Haisch are parapsychologists. They are from different science fields, where they are considered dissident minority. This is why I don't consider your analogy valid :D
 
Neither Sheldrake, nor Stapp, nor Parnia, nor Haisch are parapsychologists. They are from different science fields, where they are considered dissident minority. This is why I don't consider your analogy valid :D

So, replace any names you dispute as being parapsychologists with those you don't.
 
So, replace any names you dispute as being parapsychologists with those you do.

P.S. I'm only accepting your claim that Sheldrake is not a parapsychologist for the sake of argument. I'd say there's a good case to be made that he is qualified as a parapsychologist.
 
So, replace any names you dispute as being parapsychologists with those you do.
Still won't work. As we know AWG proponents avoid debating skeptics and try to silence them, just like mainstream science refuses to debate psy-proponents and tries to silence them.
 
P.S. I'm only accepting your claim that Sheldrake is not a parapsychologist for the sake of argument. I'd say there's a good case to be made that he is qualified as a parapsychologist.
Whether he is qualified as parapsychologist or not, his degree is in biology.
 
You seem to be angling at trying to deny the analogy by denying the existence of any parapsychologists whatsoever, which is obviously nonsensical. No point beating my head against a brick wall.
 
So: scientists rely heavily on authority, just like laypersons: on authority that can as well be wrong as right.

But normally the authority scientists rely on is work that has been published after peer review. Of course, that process isn't infallible, but peer-reviewed work has a very different status from self-published articles, talks and TV interviews. That's why I am curious to know whether there are any recent peer-reviewed papers arguing against anthropogenic global warming.
 
You seem to be angling at trying to deny the analogy by denying the existence of any parapsychologists whatsoever, which is obviously nonsensical. No point beating my head against a brick wall.
Nope. Not at all denying the existance of parpsychologists, it's total nonsense, I just don't subscribe to your false analogy, with which you are trying to justify your pro-AWG advocacy.
 
But normally the authority scientists rely on is work that has been published after peer review. Of course, that process isn't infallible, but peer-reviewed work has a very different status from self-published articles, talks and TV interviews. That's why I am curious to know whether there are any recent peer-reviewed papers arguing against anthropogenic global warming.

All you're doing is switching the emphasis to peer review; but as we all know, papers that challenge a status quo are much more likely to be rejected, whereas those that support it are often published after little criticism. Peer review often functions to filter out dissidents, rather than to genuinely foster novel ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top