reconcile.md 3.0 KB
how are we to reconcile this I look at the conversations going on in the domain of climate science at least what i'm still being exposed to of it and I see the same old attitude which, I know from experience in any number of other domains, is not conducive to discerning truth, critical thinking, critical reasoning, problem solving, integrity of information, and so on I know that, over time, the margin for error is high enough that we have a snowballing problem we can't have accurate measurements if there's such a high tendency towards making errors especially in a domain of esxceeding complexity how do we reconcile that? I've always seen this ttype of attitude and this quality od dialogue where there's a real interest in the debate, int eh discussion and it would afford everyone with a great degree of perspective new knowledge and undeerstanding and a methodology for discerning truth in areas that are complex but we haven't been able ot benefit from that instead we have this childish nonsense which becomes some sort of an exclusionary dance of fashionable people I can't really stand it and it offends my sense of reason it is disgusting to see and, even though I considered myself ac limate activist and someoe who was concerned about climate change and global warming, that attitude always bothered mei it always disgusted me and repelled me from the mvoement and from its advocates what brought things over the edge was whenever those people would apply that same attitude in other areas of liife I could see that it was a habit of their persona and not just something bound to the domain of lcimate science or climate activism it's somethign much more serious and I wasn't able to consolidate it so I ended up looking for other answers of course that takes you through the run fo the mill conspiracies and a lot of tin hattery that can't be cited or trusted but it also rboguht you to specific individuals who are accredited, sometimes in a directly relevant field, sometimes in a field whic his an overarching prerequisite for the field of focus and in all cases, that same mentality would pervade the environment whenever a discussion was being had between these individuals and mainstream climate scientists it was always the same exclusionary tactics, and unwillingness to look at the information no steelmanning of arguments, just cherry picking and pretending to not hear one another but particularly from teh side of the mainstream climate science advocates I don't think I ever felt satisfied in assuming that they even understood the arguments being put forward against them it seemed as though they had arrived with a prejudice towards the other side and had already decided that they weren't willing to engage the debate except to dismiss the other side and ridicule them it was not something tha tI felt I could learn from I did, however, feel i was learning something when the denialists or skeptics argued their own evidence and would attempt to refute the arguments and evidence being brought forward by the alarmists exit