[Vision2020] Warning from Copenhagen

[Jo Campbell]

> Chas,
>
> First, it would be easier to debate about a topic with you if you  
> refrained from putting words in my mouth. For instance you claim  
> that I said that “Scientists have no infallibility, on empirical cla 
> ims or otherwise” which is an absurd claim that I did not, would not 
>  make. What I said is that when it comes to empirical claims, we sho 
> uld defer to the judgments of scientists. They do not need to be inf 
> allible in order for us to take their advice. Consider the science o 
> f medicine. Doctors are not infallible either. But you’d be better o 
> ff listening to your doctor when it comes to matters of health than  
> you would be listening to Gary or me. This is not a “shocking admiss 
> ion,” it is just common sense. You’d be better off listening to a  
> lawyer when it comes to legal advice, a gardener when it comes to ad 
> vice about gardening, etc.
>
> Second, you write: “Having dispensed with consensus as possessing re 
> levance to the argument, Gary (and I) move on to the next claim, whi 
> ch is that your scientists have impressive credentials. My opposing  
> scientists also have impressive credentials - effectively rebutting  
> your point.” This is just another example of you putting words in my 
>  mouth. If you can find one place where I ever used the phrase “impr 
> essive credentials,” or where I made this “point” in other  
> words, I’ll buy you a hat.
>
> My point is not that the folks who accept global warming have more “ 
> impressive credentials” than those that don’t. It is that there  
> are A LOT more experts who accept global warming than there are who  
> don’t. I’ve been told that among climatologists, for instance,  
> over 90% accept the thesis of man-made global warming. That is signi 
> ficant in my book. Again, there is no claim that there is universal  
> consensus, or that scientists know anything, nor am I making any cla 
> ims about truth at all. But when you have an issue and 90% of the fo 
> lks in the know say “Theory A is true,” then it is rational to  
> accept theory A. Listing some of the 10% who favor theory B cannot b 
> e a reason for either thinking that theory B is true or for undermin 
> ing your support for theory A or for thinking a genuine “debate”  
> exits.
>
> Third, you write that “The law of gravity is testable by everyone wh 
> o has ever lived.” This is false. There are natives who have never e 
> ven heard of the law of gravity, so it is not even believed by every 
> one, and it certainly is not “testable by everyone.” The law of  
> gravity applies to all times and places but no one has experienced a 
> ll times and places. How does the fact that when you dropped your ke 
> ys yesterday they fell to the ground prove that the same thing will  
> happen tomorrow? All the law of gravity has going for it — relative  
> to the kinds of issues we are talking about here — is that there is  
> universal consensus. But you also say that “Consensus demonstrates n 
> othing except that a lot of people agree.” Well, if that is true, th 
> en we have no reason to believe the law of gravity, which is absurd. 
>  You can’t suppose that there is some way of saving the empirical cl 
> aims you like from your argument. There are not. Your argument has a 
> bsurd consequences. That was my point.
>
> Lastly, you claim that “there is no absolute consensus among scienti 
> sts about many things, the cause(s) of global warming” being one of  
> them. Again, this is false. Perhaps among scientists, there is no co 
> nsensus but among scientists in the know – climatologists – there  
> is near consensus. I’m not suggesting that ALL of them accept it, bu 
> t a HUGE majority accept it. Also, I’m not saying that folks who den 
> y global warming are somehow intellectually irresponsible. Folks can 
>  believe what they wish. But when it comes to matters of public poli 
> cy, basing one’s decisions on the overwhelming opinion of people in  
> the know strikes me as the right way to go. Look, there is always de 
> bate in matters of science, as you note. But often we have to make p 
> olicy decisions in spite of this fact. In cases where 90% of the exp 
> erts hold one view over another, that is significant. To expect more 
>  than 90% consensus is, given our agreement about the lack of certai 
> nty in empirical matters, to essentially say that science has nothin 
> g to offer when it comes to public policy.
>
> Joe Campbell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090701/e65d760a/attachment.html