[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Chris Gehlker]

On Aug 14, 2007, at 5:10 AM, Stefano Mori wrote:

>
> On 2007-Aug-14, at 03:25, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>
>> I have met many people, some of them in bars, who believe that the
>> problems associated with alcohol are vastly over stated. They offered
>> this opinion even though they weren't be paid by and association of
>> distilleries, breweries and vintners. Now by Stefano's reasoning I
>> must be skeptical of anyone who asserts that alcohol is a social
>> problem because so much is spent researching the issue and because so
>> many  medical people and social workers are invested in the issue.
>
> Be skeptical of those who say that the skeptics are only in it for
> the money, that the skeptics are so well funded that they are
> influencing public opinion, and that their influence is so bad that
> we must stop them, deny them any press coverage, and even put them on
> trial. See how much money they have, those skeptics, they must a be
> big bad evil force and meanwhile our poor underfunded scientists can
> hardly be heard because, um... oh wait, how much money is being
> allocated to them due to fears of climate change?
>
> We are all invested in what we do. Coal miners don't want their mine
> shaft closed even though cheaper coal is available elsewhere. People
> being invested in what they do isn't a problem so long as what they
> are doing is good quality and right for the purpose.
>
> So leveling accusations at skeptics that they are invested in big oil
> doesn't get you very far in deciding who's right, because the AGW
> people are invested in what they do too. Everybody is invested.
> Everybody has an ego. So if you want to figure out who's right, look
> at whether what people are saying makes sense, not what their
> material interests are, because we all have material interests.

You really need  to go back an read the Newsweek article. You are  
assuming a symmetry that is wholly at odds with what was reported.  
Only one side is paying bounties  for getting certain results. Only  
one side is hiring PR people who do no research. Enthusiasm != fraud.
>
> And if you find that they are not making sense, and all these paid
> pros are in agreement about the non-sense, then recognise that it'll
> take a long time for it to all shake out because of material
> interests. Departments don't just close one day with a sign on the
> door, "Oops, we were wrong".

But you seem to have concluded that they are not making sense a priori.
>
>
>> It seems to me that Stefano's reasoning can be applied to any area of
>> empirical enquiry. The fact that researchers  in any area reach
>> consensus is prima facie evidence that they are engaged in a
>> conspiracy to fake or misinterpret the evidence.
>
> They reached a consensus about their predictions of the future. Right
> there it stopped making sense, and they stopped being scientists.
> Please see the latter part of my earlier post about empirical
> forecasting.

So if there  is a  consensus  that a higher percentage of smokers  
will get lung  cancer than will non-smokers the people who reached  
the  consensus stop being scientists?

--
And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those  
who could not hear the music.
-Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, philosopher (1844-1900)