Actions speak louder than words.

You assume incorrectly. Perhaps my entry was not as clear as it could have been.

“I’ve seen enough evidence of AGW to convince me, we have a problem, Houston,,,” means, human civilization has a problem, not that there is any problem with the interpretation of GW as human caused.

Sheesh! I REALLY should have more than a measly 3 cups of coffee before posting.

GAry 7

Skeptic: Definition of:One who withholds judgement until after they have seen the evidence. I’ve seen enough evidence of AGW to convince me, we have a problem, Houston,,,

Agreed entirely. Assuming, as I take it,. that you mean the Anthropogenic Global Warming idea is at best dubious and not scientifically supported & that the Global warming skeptics are right to question it.

I wish the BA was more willing to question the AGW political orthodoxy & I hope the genuine skeptics who rightly question the AGW are not considered as “deniers /denialists” in this book.

On the contrary, it seems to me it is the AGW mob who are the ones in denial over what the evidence – & the Climategate scandal – is actually saying.

MAth has Proofs:

Science has EVIDENCE.

Skeptic: Definition of:

One who withholds judgement until after they have seen the evidence.

I’ve seen enough evidence of AGW to convince me, we have a problem, Houston,,,

Gary 7

One of the guys from Mythbusters said that. He also said “Science plus beer equals Good.” These are two of my favourite sayings. All that I have learned about life I learned from Mythbusters.

I’ve always assumed that their antivax stance is born of the “big pharma = corporations = right wing = bad” mindset. Hate to say it, but when it comes to alternative med woo, my sense is that the left (being more welcoming to the tree huggers*/earth mothers) seems to be a bit more susceptible.

*It bears noting that I consider myself an environmentalist. I just don’t buy into the “crystal power/energy vortex/etc.” codswallop.

What he’s saying is to first start with the assumption that the other person’s beliefs and assumptions are true, try to understand how they came to the conclusion they came to, and empathize with their viewpoint (as much as possible). THEN, ask them to do the same for you and introduce the knowledge that you have that you feel provides additional insight and ask them what they think about it and how that affects their assumptions.

That is still not helpful. And btw, both sides claims may very well be true, as truth depends only on your choice of axiom and not facts.

Socrates method applies when you have two sides in a court setting, not one consensus (accepted facts, science) or more than two groups in a normal social setting (opinions in general). And it got him poisoned, because such dialog was “corrupting the minds of the youth”. Test failed.

[Well, not really. You would need statistics to know. But then again it is fair to put anecdote against anecdote, isn't it? ]

Is this kind of empathize first approach against “skepticism”

Er, I think you have to talk with the (former?) president of JREF skeptics on your use of labels.

Ah but what is reality? That is the question!

No, it’s not! Only if you look for confirmation, as cryptoinductivists, instead of testing for falsification, as scientists, is it a question. In science it is settled.

The best account for how to test for reality I know of is displayed by quantum physicist David Deutsch in “The Fabric of Reality”. In ch 4, “Criteria for reality”, I can excerpt testable criteria:

From a parable of Dr Samuel Johnson refuting the solipsist idea of the non-existence of the material world by kicking a stone: generally, “if something can kick back, it exists“.

This is of course part and parcel of mechanics, already in Newton’s laws as “action – reaction”, and more generally in quantum mechanics as “observation – observables”. So we already know that there are real things, test passed. We also know that everything we observe in the QM sense must be real.

["Unless it's an illusion", you may say philosophically.

Then you can extend the simplest criteria to get rid of illusion, while still keeping testability. It involves looking at autonomous complexity and quantifying it with computer science. Computer simulations/illusions eventually yield to complexity. I refer to the book, if you are so inclined.

But note that the simplest criteria is enough if you are a scientist, as you can pick the parsimonious theory.]

You’re missing the point of the quote. When Pascal says “on that side it is usually true” he’s not saying the person who you’re trying to correct already has a correct opinion. What would be the point of what Pascal is saying if that were the case? What he’s saying is to first start with the assumption that the other person’s beliefs and assumptions are true, try to understand how they came to the conclusion they came to, and empathize with their viewpoint (as much as possible). THEN, ask them to do the same for you and introduce the knowledge that you have that you feel provides additional insight and ask them what they think about it and how that affects their assumptions.

The term “denialist” gets thrown around WAY too much and, as a whole, does more harm in helping people understand reality than it does good (causes people to go into defensive mode). What Pascal is saying is that people respond more positively to empathy than they do to pure reason. It’d be nice if people always responded positively to reason, but we don’t live in that world so we need to humanize our approach to these kinds of things.

Of course, there are people who do deserve the term “denialist”. Some people will stare reason and empathy in the face and spit on it. I agree that those kinds of people are frustrating (and scary). But be careful not to judge someone as being that kind of person without first trying to empathize with them.

I try to take this kind of approach with people and information, and is generally why I don’t identify myself as a skeptic since most skeptics I’ve met seem to think empathizing in this manner is merely placation and is counter productive. Perhaps I’m suffering from hasty generalization here. Taking this approach also has the benefit of exposing yourself to information and perspectives you otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to.

An interesting question comes out of this: Is this kind of empathize first approach against “skepticism” (however that is defined)?

“When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true. …People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.”

Basically he’s saying that if we want to convince someone with a different viewpoint about the validity of our argument, it is generally easier if we first understand the way they view things from their perspective and agree that given their background and experiences that their opinion (more often than not) is reasonable. But then present to them your perspective, experiences, and additional information that helps them to understand things from your perspective. Basically, start with common ground. It’s a kind of intellectual olive branch.

Starting from the perspective of I’m right, you’re wrong handicaps the discussion from the get go. Remember it’s not about *who* is right, it’s about *what* is right. Nobody owns truth. Truth is something that we must accept when we see it (no matter the source).

There should also have been a red flag shooting up when, at length, he cited Gavin Menzies as an authority on Chinese history (a statement about as outrageous as calling Velikovsky an authority on astrophysics). Check page 82; Specter bought Menzies’ claims wholesale, when they’re essentially completely rejected by the experts in the field. What does that say about his critical thinking, by the way?

How odd is it that a book on denialism doesn’t contain anything of note on creationism, tobacco, or climate change? Indeed, in the exchange he had in Slate with Chris Mooney, he said:

“…It’s nice of you to notice approvingly that I skipped over the climate and evolution “debates” in Denialism. A few people have seen that as a failing — but my intention here was to address issues where there is some common ground and see whether I could shift it a bit. … If people want to believe…that the protracted, increasing, and devastating warming of the Earth is just nature doing its thing—I guess I feel I have more useful battles to fight.”

Apparently, preventing the corrosion of science education or the long-term collapse of our biosphere is less important to Specter than getting greenies off of organic food.

David Michaels’ book Doubt Is Their Product, although technically focusing on industry manipulation of regulation, still manages to be a better book on the general phenomenon of denialism than Specter’s, and I don’t think he was trying.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-ellis/a-question-of-harm—the_b_349061.html