[Osx-nutters] Denial

[Stefano Mori]

David Cake wrote:

>> There's a real difference between acknowledging that we all have  
>> some bias, and simply dismissing people because we believe they  
>> are completely biased.
>
> 	Oh, I don't dismiss everyone because they are completely biased.
> 	But there is a point where you apply a level of doubt that makes  
> people more or less no longer having a presumption of innocence.


I'd rather try to listen to as many people as I can, and then  
question. The more views I can take on board and think about, the  
broader and more informed I can become. Because having more views  
makes it easier to think about which are the good ones and the bad ones.

If you prejudge which are the good views, then your views will be  
more a reflection of your prejudgment than what are the good views.

I think it's obvious that there can be reasons for bias on both  
sides. That doesn't mean that the nature of the bias is the same, or  
that the bias is of equal distortion on both sides, but it does mean  
that I can't just "allow or deny" on the basis of the source. All  
sources are potentially biased, and your weasel words about who is  
likely to be more biased don't help, because that is a prejudgement  
which mostly reflects your own bias.

Basically, don't judge before you've thought about a view, judge it  
after you've been open to it and taken it seriously and thought about  
it. And keep doing that with each new view or source.



>> It was that dismissive tone that people used when referring to  
>> climate skeptics that I found alarming. Before people started talking
>> that way, I had no reason to doubt AGW. I believed it was real and
>> happening and a serious serious problem.
>
> 	So, lets pick a particular example, of a single person.
> I am extremely dismissive about notable climate skeptic Stephen  
> Millroy, of junkscience.com. Now, I'll admit that some of my  
> reasons for behaving that way about Millroy have nothing to do with  
> his stance on climate science. For example, one reason I am  
> dismissive of his advocacy is because I know he was an advocate for  
> tobacco companies in the 70s, I know he had access to some of their  
> research then and was paid by them to put a positive spin on this  
> to the public. In short, his advocacy for tobacco companies in the  
> 70s makes it very clear that this is a man who will misrepresent  
> scientific facts in return for money.
>
> So, because he lied for money then, I am dismissive of his  
> contributions (for which he receives money) now. Because I am  
> dismissive of him, you take his words with more weight.

It makes me curious about who is right and who is wrong. If I am  
dismissive of a person, it could be two reasons at least:

1. the person speaks untruths.
2. I hold certain untruths dearly and I don't want to hear the truth.

So whenever one person dismisses another, my first task is to figure  
out which is which.

That's why the dismissive tone against climate skeptics drew my  
attention.



> Can you see how this makes you look as if you are taking up a  
> contrary position purely to be contrary? The underdog, right or wrong?


I can see how it makes me look like this to people who don't like  
that I'm not immediately on their side.

Stefano