For a “Nullius in Verba” you sure seem to value verbosity as an end in itself, seemingly unbothered by an absence of data or facts (see? satire.)

I know what satire is. And I understood your technique. You’re still trying to find an argument to support your belief in Argument from Authority ad Populam, and this attempt sought to suggest that the only possible explanation for Argument from Authority ad Populam to fail would be some sort of a ridiculous paranoid delusion involving Hitler and mind control rays or the equivalent. The insinuation, of course, was that anyone like us who asserted Argument from Authority ad Populam to be a fallacy must be just such a delusional paranoid.
I don’t mind unflattering comparisons if they’re sufficiently clever and make a valid point, but I don’t think this one is or does.

As intellectual arguments go, it is unimpressive. And I kind of suspect that if I tried such tactics here, my comments would never see the light of day.

I’m not impressed at Tim Lambert using it, either.

I just wanted you to know that. The technique doesn’t work, and doesn’t make your position look good. There are obviously many other reasons why Argument from Authority is widely considered to be a fallacy besides the possibility of invasion by a world-wide army of mind-controlling Hitler clones, and it would be more graceful if you conceded the point, and switched to presenting well-founded empirical evidence instead.

I appreciate that this is a harsh way of putting it, but it would be a great shame if conversation here devolved. Such conversations between opposing positions are precisely how the 18th century philosophers thought the printing press would bring about the Enlightenment. A curiously recursive discussion, is it not?

http://thepoorman.net/2008/04/28/corn-ethanol-is-the-worst-thing-since-sliced-hitler/

Also, “Orbital Mind Control Lasers” is an accepted internet tradition, alongside slightly more well known tropes like tin foil hats and cats requesting cheeseburgers. Here is Tim Lambert using the phrase. For more, try Google.

Ah! Godwin’s law strikes again! You know the convention…

“Orbital mind control lasers…”

Is this intended to be representative of the level of argument that backs up your position?

I’ve answered your question on a number of occasions previously, but I don’t see any point in responding again this time. This sort of thing is not moving the debate forward, and it’s not even very entertaining.

You know, the other reason for encouraging free debate on matters of controversy is that if you silence a view, people might suspect that there’s something to it, while if you let them air their arguments in public, and they turn out to involve Hitler and mind control lasers, it’s a lot less likely they’ll be taken seriously. Well done!

Back atcha. The dramatic irony here is very thick. I don’t know how you explain what has happened in the scientific community when even Richard Lindzen is duped into accepting the consensus. What is going on? Orbital mind control lasers taking over scientists’ minds? Stealth totalitarians taking over the academy? How did everyone get to marching in lockstep like that? Is there a secret scientific Hitler out there stopping people from getting tenure by overturning the scientific consensus? I never got anything but vague answers from you on this, and some talking points cribbed from Steve McIntyre.

…maybe the Enlightenment didn’t quite get it right by allowing free debate.

Um, no. The argument is that the Enlightenment didn’t quite get it right by assuming the man on the street would always be sufficiently informed by the press. People have been worried about that at least since Walter Lippmann’s *Public Opinion* back in the 20′s (And Orwell was worried about it too). Not a new line of discussion…

The irony is that it’s only unconscious biases that could give you the impression that I’m losing arguments. You usually seem not to notice if I succeed in making a point; the only way I can tell if I’m getting through is that you quickly move on to another topic and don’t mention it again. It doesn’t matter, because I’m not trying to ‘win’. I’m trying to understand, and be understood. I know perfectly well that I’m not going to convince anyone here, but I do think it would help if you understood why other people think as they do; people like me. If you can understand an opponents best argument argued as well as it can be (without you having to believe it) then it’s much easier to have a constructive debate.

Unconscious biases are a large part of what science is about; they are precisely what much of the scientific method is designed to deal with. Double-blind randomised trials? What possible difference can it make to the experiment what the observer knows about the set-up? If you regard mention of bias in a discussion about science as “babbling”…

I’m trying to get across some important principles of science here, in response to persistent ‘babbling’ about non-science concepts like authority and consensus, or people (apparently) thinking maybe the Enlightenment didn’t quite get it right by allowing free debate. I’m trying to teach a bit of critical thinking.

This tendency towards “intellectual tyranny in the name of science” has been noted before, and others far better at it than I have tried to explain the difference.
“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool.”
And yet, as he also notes (and gives examples of), we still keep on fooling ourselves, even scientists. “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” A priori belief, I would have said, but it’s close enough.

Definitely not! Social Darwinism is left-wing, not right.
(Although I’m not exactly right-wing, either. It’s all relative, I guess.)

Nevertheless, it is a most interesting thought, which I will pursue for a little…

“Why labor to give anyone critical thinking skills or an informed history curriculum if the just end result is that “fittest shall survive” in any case?”

Because “critical thinking skills” are precisely what I’m talking about. Critical thinking, and the ability to withstand it, is ‘fitness’ in this case.

My analogy was to the basics of evolution by natural selection, not to “might makes right”. If that’s what you understand natural selection to be, then it’s not me that’s the Social Darwinist around here. ‘Fittest’ can mean the fastest, or the most intelligent gazelle, or the most cooperative family of gazelle’s, too. A loving mother’s sacrifice can be just what evolution implies.

Social Darwinism is precisely the trap I’m warning against. Social Darwinists believed that they knew what constituted ‘fittest’ (and somehow, the definition always seemed to encompass themselves) and regarded any behaviour contrary to it as opposing this natural progress, weakening the race. Their concept of fitness therefore needed a little help, since it kept on losing out to weakness when left to its own devices.

Likewise, there is a danger of believing that you know what constitutes the ‘truth’ (which definition always encompasses one’s own opinions) and any behaviour contrary to them, that results in one losing debates and believers, to be contrary to the natural progress of knowledge. One’s concept of ‘good science’ therefore needs a little help, since it keeps on losing arguments when left to its own devices.

That’s an error. Everybody has unconscious biases and wrong beliefs. We are all susceptible to misinformation, error, prejudice, etc. That’s why we need information flowing as freely as possible, to maximise the chances that the criticisms and attacks made upon us will catch out our own mistakes before they take root, or propagate. The Intellectual Darwinist believes that in a free fight, lies would naturally beat truth, as the Social Darwinist believes the more violent and cruel will beat the friendly and altruistic. In the short-run, this can happen. But in the long run, truth and kindness will win out. That’s how they came to exist.