Be Scientific (Skeptical) about Scientific Research | Hacker News Reader

Be Scientific (Skeptical) about Scientific Research

americanthinker.com

19 pointssolipsist18 comments

The author argues for skepticism but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single webpage. Should not one also be skeptical of the skeptics, too?

Yes, they should. All people making claims should be subject to scrutiny over vested interests, exaggerations, distortions and unwarranted attacks on other people in the same field. The same standards should be applied to all.

These days it seems like most self-described skeptics are morons. I'm not sure how we got to this point, but it's highly troubling.

Absolutely not true. For example, the folks from the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast and related community are very objective.

> but is quick to dismiss global warming, apparently on the basis of a single webpage

Actually, he didn't. FWIW, he provided more evidence in support of his global warming skepticism than he did in support of his other skepticism, skepticism that you didn't question.

But, I'll play along. How much support should he have given for each of his arguments to satisfy you?

The author claims unequivocally that global warming is a hoax. Submitted as evidence is a page which one-sidedly discusses troubling, suspicious, and unseemly behavior by some climate scientists. That is bad, but not proof of a hoax--not by a long shot. Such a strong claim supported by such a weak source makes it appear (at least to the skeptical) that the author may not be equally skeptical of all sources or points of view. Confirmation bias is a known bug in the wetware which makes it hard to be truly objective about anything, try as we might.

Had the author made a weaker claim I'd have read the rest of the article with much less skepticism!

Huh?

Telling us how he could have satisfied you wrt a different argument is interesting but he question was "How much support should he have given for each of his arguments to satisfy you?"

Note that he suggested skepticism wrt multiple things, suggesting that general skepticism is a good idea, yet you're only discussing one of them.

Suppose we conclude that skepticism wrt global warming is unwarranted. What, if anything, does that say about his general conclusion?

It is not my intent to invalidate the author's thesis. I attempted to point out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply skepticism consistently to all sources in order to free oneself from unconscious cognitive bias. As evidence, I use the author's treatment of global warming, where the evidence supplied is far too poor to support the conclusion. It's not a matter of quantity--it's just a blog post, after all, and I would have been tolerant of zero support for his claims. But if the author does supply support, it shouldn't be so crappy to as to suggest that does not apply a skeptical viewpoint to his own sources.

> I attempted to point out that skepticism is not enough; one must also apply skepticism consistently to all sources in order to free oneself from unconscious cognitive bias. As evidence, I use the author's treatment of global warming

Likewise, I use your treatment of his examples. As I pointed out, he provided better support for his global warming skepticism, which you rejected, than he did for his other skepticism, which you accepted.

Indeed. It baffles me how many people think being skeptic means believing the opposite of what's commonly believed.

Agree with the article. Here I now await my downvotes from the groupthinkers.

Please do not dare people to downvote you.

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=75

You should be downvoted for adding nothing to the discussion.

What I add to the conversation is the observation that groupthinkers enforce conformity with downvotes.

I read the article and agreed with it. It is a topic I have thought about quite a bit, the weird cult thinking about "science" where science thinking means agreeing with groupthink that has been promoted by corporate interests and special interest groups through their puppets in media and government.

Those who question the agenda or ask for evidence are called morons who don't understand science.

True science is nothing to do with any of that. The scientific illiteracy we hear about is coming from the groupthinkers that claim they respect science.

There is an enormous amount of scholarly articles written on the topic. Unless you have read a good majority of them, you are not speaking from any sort of position of knowledge.

I personally have not read a majority of them, and as such I defer to the conclusions of those who have, the climate research community.

What you are demonstrating is precisely group think. You do not have a professional depth of knowledge on the topic, but will quickly claim that those who do are all incorrect. The fact that you've thought a lot about it does not mean anything. Even if you've read a handfull of cherry picked articles, it does not mean you have any sort of expertise on the matter.

What? What kind of cognitive dissonance allowed you to equate

Agree with the article. Here I now await my downvotes from the groupthinkers.

with an actual argument.

Here, let me translate your comment for you:

Me too! Also, if you don't like my worthless comment, fuck you!

> What I add to the conversation is the observation that groupthinkers enforce conformity with downvotes.

No, you didn't add that. What you added was "only meanies will disagree with me".

And, even if you had added that, it's not all that interesting without specific support.

After all, they didn't actually laugh at Einstein but they did laugh at Bozo the Clown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com