next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
>> --Apple-Mail-329-288776435 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Flora, An excellent observation, well stated. As you point out, if there is to be any purpose at all to a "petition" of this sort one must have faith in the substance of the petition (i.e., that the signatories represent, in fact, real people and not concocted names; that they are who they claim to be; that their qualifications (if real) have some bearing on subject being discussed, etc.); in the process of the petition (i.e., that these people were not solicited in fraudulent ways); and in what organization is compiling and presenting this information (i.e., they are a credible entity that can be relied upon to gather and present their information in trustworthy manner). As my previous post on this topic pointed out, there are grave doubts that the "Petition Project" meets any of the above criteria. My concerns are with this process, and the political agenda it promotes, not with the individual signatories (none of whom, even if they are all "real", do I know). That said, an even more general and important point is made by Joseph Romm in his Salon magazine article which I take the liberty of quoting: "In fact, science doesn't work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview. "One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term "consensus" in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists. "So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly "prominent scientists" who supposedly "recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called 'consensus' on man-made global warming." "As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren't climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus. "But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does "think global warming is real"). Or, for that matter, my opinion -- even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea. "What matters is scientific findings -- data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant." http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html On 5-Jun-08, at 9:10 AM, Wild Flora wrote: > Lois, > > Chris did not make an "ad hominem argument." (I think you'll find > that the > second word is spelled with an 'e' not a 'u', by the way.) > > If the only claim being discussed were the claim that climate change > is real > (call this Claim A), then you could reasonably argue that we should > restrict > discussion to the scientific evidence on both sides of the claim. > Even so, > the scientific qualifications of the scientists conducting the > research > would be a legitimate topic for discussion as it bears on the > quality of the > evidence being assessed. > > As it happens, however, Claim A is not the only claim being made. A > Claim B > has also been made - namely, that people who believe Claim A should > reconsider because 31,000 scientists have at some time signed a > petition > stating the contrary. > > Because Claim B has been made, discussion of the characteristics of > the > scientists on the list of 31,000 is relevant as long as it bears on > the > claim that their opinion matters. It is absolutely legitimate to > raise and > answer questions such as Who are these 31,000 scientists? What are > their > qualifications? What are their motives? Do any of them have a > history of > making false or biased statements? In short, are their opinions > worthy of > consideration? > > To paraphrase the definition of 'ad hominem' in the Wikipedia, these > arguments address the substance of the argument and produce evidence > against > the claim being made. Hence they are not ad hominem. > > Flora > --Apple-Mail-329-288776435 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; = -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi Flora,<div><br></div><div>An = excellent observation, well stated. As you point out, if there is to be = any purpose at all to a "petition" of this sort one must have faith in = the substance of the petition (i.e., that the signatories represent, in = fact, real people and not concocted names; that they are who = they claim to be; that their qualifications (if real) have some bearing = on subject being discussed, etc.); in the process of the petition (i.e., = that these people were not solicited in fraudulent ways); and = in what organization is compiling and presenting this information (i.e., = they are a credible entity that can be relied upon to gather and present = their information in trustworthy manner).</div><div><br></div><div>As my = previous post on this topic pointed out, there are grave doubts that the = "Petition Project" meets any of the above criteria. My concerns are with = this process, and the political agenda it pro