SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
So, it has come to this! Universities are now offering courses on how to argue against climate change denialists! (Note, even mentioning such courses could be illegal in Florida, but fortunately this is in Australia.)
Starting 28 April, 2015, the University of Queensland is offering a free Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) aimed at “Making Sense of Climate Science Denial”.
You know you've made it when they start teaching about you in college! Well done, climate change deniers!!!
And a MOOC? Hmmm, is there a "certificate" one might earn?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
University Offering Free Online Course to Demolish Climate Denial
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 53 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Tax reform means "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that fellow behind
the tree."
-- Russell Long
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Sunday April 26 2015, @02:31PM
Most people know very little about any paticular topic and have only an appeal to authority to fall back on if challenged. Not that that will stop them from stringing together half-remembered arguments into ridiculous monstrosities. But, accepting that, I think much higher of those who accept the authority of scientific consensus on a scientific topic rather than Rush Limbaugh or other extremists, much less the fossil-fuel industry's PR flaks.
Knowing how little any one person can truly know for themselves, one of the most important skills we can develop is the ability to recognize which authorities can be most trusted on any particular topic.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:20PM
Let's see...
You're saying that knowing whose dogma to accept is really the best thing and that those that disagree are extremists, or worse, flacks. You add no one, or almost no one can really know the truth and so misunderstanding and faith are good... presumably again so long as they agree with you.
That sure doesn't sound very scientific.
Check this out ... here [biblehub.com]. It sure seems like you're making a religious arguement. Maybe call those that disagree with you blasphemers?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Touché) by Ryuugami on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:44PM
Yeah, it's really unbelievable that some people accept scientific consensus from the so-called "climate scientists", when it's obvious that those who study a field for a lifetime are the ones least qualified to talk about it.
What's next? Accepting medical advice from "doctors"? Legal advice from "lawyers"? It truly is a slippery slope!
If a shit storm's on the horizon, it's good to know far enough ahead you can at least bring along an umbrella. - D.Weber
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:05PM
Yeah, it's really unbelievable that some people accept ecclesiastical consensus from the so-called "priests", when it's obvious that those who study a field for a lifetime are the ones least qualified to talk about it. It's like taking advice on the stars' effects from astrologers!
What's next? Accepting medical advice from "doctors"? Legal advice from "lawyers"? It truly is a slippery slope!
If appeal to authority is the best arrow in your quiver...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @08:20PM
Priests don't rely on science or reason, and science does not rely on consensus. However, people who aren't experts in a scientific field will often rely on people who are experts in a scientific field because they see that, although actual evidence is required, when there is scientific consensus, there is usually consensus for an actual reason, so relying on it is the way to get the closest to the truth given the knowledge that we have at this point.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @10:33PM
Your argument is circular. Consensus of scientists != science. But it's ok because they're scientists. Whatever that means.
So believe in the scientists because they're not using science? Help!
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2015, @06:21PM
My argument is, "While something is not correct simply because scientists say so, I have observed that when I do not understand a subject, I am better off accepting the scientific consensus on the subject." How you could fail to understand something so simple is beyond my comprehension.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @04:11AM
A priest is not typically qualified to speak on the subject of cosmology. Your argument is a strawman.
If appeal to authority is the best arrow in your quiver...
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article [iop.org]
You are welcome to personally verify the studies yourself if you so desire.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @04:47AM
You should ask yourself why someone felt the need to produce such a work or why it was disseminated so widely?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @03:34PM
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday April 26 2015, @05:53PM
The whole value of science is in repeatable experiments that work the same way regardless of initial belief. When the advocates of science abandon this for appeals to authority... "Trust us... It's too complicated for you. We're scientists" ...then something is wrong.
In the absence of actual science, of reproducible experiments, the appeals to authority are just popularity contests. Most people who trust the scientists don' know them. Not even a list of names. They trust a celebrity (95% of the Hollywood a list agrees...). Or a politician... (I agree with al gore). And in that context, it comes down to whether you like Hillary or Ted or or Mike or Rand more. Each will point to something sciencey. Science== religion.
97% of the users still use the green place. How can 97% of the experts be wrong?
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday April 28 2015, @04:02AM
You're the only one mentioning dogma. We're not talking religion, philosophy, or even politically-motivated "economics". We're talking science. A discipline which, while still undeniably fraught with human fallibility, is steeped in a long tradition of distrust. If a consensus emerges among scientists that X is true, it's because lots of knowledgeable, skeptical people whose professional competence depends on distrusting even their own assumptions have been convinced by available evidence and/or their own experiments that X is indeed true. And that none of the many people who have challenged X have been able to formulate a strong enough argument, nor collect compelling enough evidence, to refute the consensus. It's not flawless, but it's probably the single most effective method ever developed to ferret out some semblance of the truth from the morass of preconception and self-delusion that is the collective body of human knowledge.
Most people lack the mental discipline to even begin to critically analyze the claims made by a competent scientist, much less perform a relatively unbiased experiment themselves. Calling upon them to decide the truth for themselves is absolutely ludicrous - they don't have any means to do so *except* appeal to authority, and "gut instinct" (a seriously defective instrument, as shown by... basically the entire history of beliefs that have been overthrown by scientific advancement). If there's a real controversy there will almost always be a heated disagreement within the scientific establishment. Where appeal to authority breaks down as a valid argument is precisely when the "authority" is not actually authoritative - politics, philosophy, diet fads - most any field where scientists typically aren't invited to the discussion, and "facts" are subjective to non-existent. There's much argument to be had over what we should DO about X, and drawing your own conclusions there may well be justified. But once the scientific establishment has reached consensus as to the realities and implications of a thing, it's extremely unlikely that some armchair prognosticator can provide better information except by blind chance.
(Score: 3, Troll) by VLM on Sunday April 26 2015, @04:46PM
recognize which authorities can be most trusted on any particular topic
The believers misunderstand at least some of the disbelievers.
They hear I'm an unbeliever and its immediately all "don't you want Jesus to save you" oh no wait thats the other disbelief I have. No they "I don't believe the atmosphere changes over time" "I don't believe the sea level changes over time" "I don't believe the earth can be (microscopically) modified by humans." and such.
However what I actually disbelieve in is putting awareness ribbons and bumper stickers will have any effect, politicians making speeches but not actually changing anything will have any effect, anything I do will have any effect (in a zero sum economic sense the steak I don't buy will lower steak demand and thus price by a millionth of a percent thus some poor dude who couldn't afford my steak will now afford it and eat it for me, so why don't I just eat the damn steak myself, especially since I can afford it and its delicious and who eats it won't affect the environment). Also I don't believe any of it happens fast enough to matter, at least not to intelligent people who live in intelligent locations with a dose of dumb people in dumb geography will always find a dumb way to F themselves up without climate change.
I know a large fraction of disbelievers simply troll, and once anything from the color of the sky to the smell of a flower is politicized to one side it becomes socially / politically impossible for the "other guys" not to self identify as the other side out of pure political spite (and probably a little fear of being labeled as a sympathizer to the other political party).
But semi-anonymously its safe enough for me to say that the supporters are pretty much a giant chat roulette sausage rubbing festival in terms of real world effect even in their wildest dreams, and I feel too much ridicule toward self important yet impotent folks like that to support their activity. So sure I deny the whole thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @02:25PM
I don't buy will lower steak demand and thus price by a millionth of a percent thus some poor dude who couldn't afford my steak will now afford it and eat it for me, so why don't I just eat the damn steak myself
I'll accept that the affect of one person individually choosing to not have a steak will have an insignificant effect, but surely you aren't suggesting that it will have literally 0 effect.
With basic economic analysis of supply-demand curves you can see this is not true. Assuming infinitely precise increments, if the demand drops .0000000001%, the price will drop $.0000000001 but the number sold will also drop by .0000000001.
Incidentally, by the same argument you propose, you can't hunt a species to extinction. If you hunt one tiger, a second tiger which would otherwise have starved will be able to eat and thus live. Hunting a second one won't matter either, by the same argument. Continue as long as you like, as there will always be another tiger.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:07PM
But, accepting that, I think much higher of those who accept the authority of scientific consensus on a scientific topic rather than Rush Limbaugh or other extremists, much less the fossil-fuel industry's PR flaks.
Doesn't sound like thinking to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 26 2015, @06:58PM
It must be an unusual topic for you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @02:29PM
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @03:41AM
Most people know very little about any paticular topic and have only an appeal to authority to fall back on if challenged.
An appeal to authority is not inherently wrong, it's only fallacious when the authority itself is not relevant to the argument. Citing one's scientific credentials is a perfectly valid reason to claim that one is more knowledgeable in their domain than the general public.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @03:40PM