I find it ironic that Eddie spent the first part of a post denying that he had resorted to credentialism and then put out that sentence. Now I was taught that the greatest expert on any narrow subject was a PhD student working on it for his dissertation. That Eddie was taught quite differently explains much. He’s certainly in love with institutional authority.
2 Likes
Then, if you accept that teaching, you would agree that Crockford, when working on the evolution of bears and dogs for her dissertation, was the greatest expert on that subject at that time. I don’t think Michael Okoko would agree with that. You’ll have to sic your old teachers on Michael, to set him straight.
Note also that by your principle, then Judith Curry, at the time she was writing her Ph.D. in climate science, would have been the greatest expert in her narrow topic. I doubt Michael would agree with that, either.
It also seems implied by your principle that someone who has not written a Ph.D. on a certain narrow topic is not the greatest expert on that topic. So Michael has never, at any point in his life, been as great an expert in the area of climate science on which Judith Curry wrote her dissertation, as she was while working on it. That follows, does it not?
Without invoking any formal argument from either authority or credentials, I would like to ask you a general question. Other things being equal, and under normal circumstances, is it likely that someone with only a bachelor’s degree in science, and that degree consisting almost exclusively of studies in biology and biochemistry, would have enough knowledge of the very complex field of climate change to jump into debates and dismiss someone with 170 peer-reviewed papers in the field as a purveyor of “nonsense”? Or under most circumstances, would it be wiser for the life science student with the bachelor’s degree to assume a more modest, less judgmental attitude toward the conclusions of people who have been working for more than 20 years in a field he does not know?
Just asking…
1 Like
Yes you did. You said she was right about polar bears because of her background:
You’re also still describing her as an evolutionary theorist, not a zoologist - and you’re still talking about credentials, not making counterarguments based on evidence.
Though perhaps it’s is too much of a stretch to say you’re committing the fallacy of argument by authority, on the grounds that while you’ve introduced the authority, you refuse to state any argument.
2 Likes
It seems likely that she was. Of course there were likely other people working on the same subject.
No idea who Judith Curry is, so no comment. But are you accepting or rejecting the principle? Can’t tell. Perhaps as usual you accept it when it’s to your advantage and reject it when it isn’t.
The general question seems to be about authority and credentials, which is ironic. Let’s just accept that your bias lies against the mainstream of climate science and that you are geared to accept and magnify the credentials of those you agree with while rejecting and minimizing the credentials of those you don’t. As a Christian, you should probably look to your own faults before criticizing others, and my advice is that you have a lot to look to.
3 Likes
Which evidence did you find most convincing?
Not if the position isn’t consistent with the evidence.
1 Like
Which, I note, you have not answered. Here it is again:
I don’t see why it should be hard to answer, especially since its form is generalizable to fit almost any academic fields. For example, it could have been:
I also heard professors enunciate the principle. It’s a very broad rule of thumb, often true but with many exceptions. There are plenty of Ph.D. dissertations in which the research methods, logical reasoning, and knowledge of the subject matter are substandard. Certainly that is true in the Arts subjects, and I’d be surprised if it were never true in the science subjects.
Regarding Crockford, I haven’t read her dissertation and have no opinion on its quality or on where she ranked among world scientists on dog and bear evolution, but you know the evolutionary literature better than most people here and can probably quickly find her dissertation online, read parts of it, and give us your view as to whether she was in fact, at the time she was working on it, the world’s expert on the rise of polar bears from brown bears and dogs from wolves, or even in the group of top experts. This evaluation would be especially interesting in light of Michael Okoko’s charge that polar bears (I paraphrase some of his comments to me) “aren’t her field”.
Yet the book I recommended that Michael Okoko read does not take a stand regarding the question of global warming as such. It does argue that the way the question of global warming was applied in connection with polar bears led to predictions about bear survival that were later falsified. That is, granting for the sake of argument the causal relationship that many people drawn between manmade CO2 levels and the disappearance of summer Arctic ice, the fact that the polar bear numbers did not move (in most areas, and overall) in the direction predicted meant that the overall global warming narrative, even if entirely true in itself, led, when applied by some people to the field of polar bear studies, to some bad science.
Also, I have not taken a stand against the “mainstream” view that warming is real and that it is caused at least in part by human activity. I have some reservations about some of the sub-claims, and certainly some objections to some of the proposed political and economic policy measures (which take the discussion beyond the science itself into the realm of human values, where climate scientists are no more “expert” than any intelligent and thoughtful lay person), but I have never opposed the main notion that human activity can have destructive effects on the environment and that changes in human activity could have beneficial effects on the environment. Indeed, two of my Bibles in my early twenties were works by The Club of Rome which proposed that thesis.
I never said or implied to Michael Okoko that I thought there was no warming or that warming had not affected Arctic ice. And I told him very clearly that the thesis of the book in question did not challenge the claim of warming. (If Crockford has doubts that warming is real, she must have expressed them elsewhere than in the book I was talking about.) I did not tell him that I thought all of Crockford’s thought on the issues connected with warming were correct or sound. I told him only that she made a good argument in one particular book for her very narrow thesis about polar bear numbers. And for saying that, I was subjected to repeated long lectures by him about the incompetence of climate change deniers, evolution deniers, anti-vaxxers, etc. – none of which denials were endorsed in the book! The inability of some people here to do something as simple as staying on topic where the topic is the thesis of a particular book is absolutely astounding.
When I went to school, a standard part of education was the “book report”. We were often asked to report on what was in a book, accurately, in succinct form, without offering an evaluation of the book. It was a good exercise in that it forced me, from elementary school onward, to describe accurately what an author said. Maybe that’s why I, who had read the Crockford book, knew that it didn’t say all the wild, extreme things that Michael Okoko was quick to impute to Crockford. Maybe his elementary and high school teachers should have made him do more book reports.
That could be said of a good number of people posting here. For example, the dismissal of trained and highly published scientists as “cranks” by Michael Okoko certainly seems to be a form of “rejecting and minimizing” the credentials of people Michael doesn’t agree with. I trust you will chastise him and others the next time they exhibit this tendency. Or do agnostics and atheists get a pass when they do such things, but Christians don’t?
But you don’t have any degrees in science, while you dismiss many more someones with many hundreds more papers in the field when it comes to evolution and climate change.
How does that work? Do you get a special exemption for yourself?
2 Likes
I agree it’s nor cricket, but we have no control over private conversations. We don’t follow Side Conversations as closely, so use @moderators if you really need us. I’m still sorry I didn’t find this sooner, as there may not be much I can do about it now.
@Michael_Okoko Whether or not this cricket, it is rude. It’s the Internet equivalent of rallying a mob in front of someone’s home, throwing rocks, and “calling them out” to fight. Not cool, and I do not like seeing anyone treated this way.
Sharing details of a private discussion with permission is beyond my purview, but also not cool. You may owe @Eddie an apology, but I’ll leave that up to you.
If you and Eddie had made some prior agreement about having a public discussion, things would be different. Likewise, you could present your case and ask Eddie to respond without “calling out” or sharing private details.
I’m fine with disagreements, but treating others badly is never necessary.
/fnord
3 Likes
PS: I will entertain some public discussion of my moderation comments here, but anything referring to specific people should be a private message to the Moderators.
Which is why I don’t claim to be able to settle disputes when highly trained scientists disagree with each other. Rather, I record the fact of scientific disagreement between certified, well-published specialists, so that people can read both sides, study the arguments, learn the subject matter, and come to their own conclusions. Daniel Okoko, on the other hand, presumes to judge which scientists are right, not only in the fields where he is trained but also in fields where he isn’t trained. He presumes to know that Judith Curry writes “nonsense” and that other climate scientists who disagree with her write impeccable science, but in fact he doesn’t and can’t know this; he is simply going along with the majority opinion. He presumes to make the judgment that Susan Crockford knows nothing about polar bear science when he is not in that field himself and isn’t in a position to know how much each participant in the debates knows.
If he were to take the more modest position that he doesn’t know enough to judge, and is siding with the majority to play it safe, since it’s more probable that the majority is right than the minority, that would be an intellectually honest position to take. It’s his claim to stand above all the participants, both in climate science and polar bear science, and declare which ones are competent and which are not, which are cranks and which are not, and which are right and which are wrong, that I’m firmly challenging.
Nope. I hold myself to the same standard of behavior that I wish Michael Okoko would consistently observe. Thus, I did not claim, even in our private conversation, to know who was right about climate change, Curry or her opponents. (I did say something about Michael Mann’s methods, reporting criticisms of those methods that highly competent scientists – including some who are on Mann’s side regarding global warming – have made, but I did not argue that he was wrong to believe the earth is warming or that human activity has contributed to it.) I did not even claim that the polar bears could not still be in danger. I only pointed out that Susan Crockford makes a strong argument in her book that certain very specific predictions offered by some polar bear experts did not come true and that the public should be aware of this fact. That position is entirely compatible with granting that polar bears may still be in danger in the future, and indeed, in her book Crockford indicates the potential dangers (e.g., if not just the summer ice pack but the late spring ice were to vanish). I make no judgment whether or not the polar bears are out of danger. I make no pretense of being able to settle that question. The irony is that Michael complains that Crockford’s field of expertise is not polar bears, and yet offers his own opinion (he, who knows much less about polar bears than Crockford) about the subject. I wish science professors would train their students not to act like oracles of all scientific knowledge in all scientific fields, but to adopt a position of intellectual modesty concerning fields about which they know little to nothing. But I guess I am asking for too much.
But in my statement I specified that the scientist, in good conscience, believes that her position is consistent with the evidence. As long as she believes that, she has the right and duty to argue for it. Of course, if she believes it’s not, then she should not argue for it. But she shouldn’t stop arguing for a position she believes is consistent with the evidence merely because you don’t believe it’s consistent with the evidence. As a trained professional, she’s entitled to professional judgment, and has no obligation to kowtow to other professionals, either individuals or collectives.
Rhetoric doesn’t matter as much as evidence. Bothsidesism is not a good thing.
Arguments? Why? Shouldn’t they study the evidence instead?
Would that be evidence, finally?
Unlike you, Michael does examine the evidence for himself. Evidence trumps training every time.
Why don’t you take that intellectually honest position on evolution and climate change?
The evidence tells us.
But nothing about evidence. Odd.
What specific evidence did she cite that you found to be strong?
How would you possibly have an informed opinion if your approach is evidence-free? How do you know her conscience?
Belief doesn’t enter into it.
It’s all about people and rhetoric, right? No evidence allowed in your head.
1 Like
If what is on her blog fairly represents what’s in her book and you consider it evidence for her claims, then you have been duped man.
Latest polar bear population data by regions show population decline in four places, stability in 7 and increase in two. Other areas are data deficient. Overall, based on the places with available data, there was a decline in polar bear population size. Climate change was the most likely cause in those regions that saw a dip in numbers, while in places with stable or increasing numbers other factors overshadowed the effects of ice-free period lengths. Crockford’s arguments are just unconvincing.
Many cranks invite others to criticize their work.
This doesn’t apply to me. I vetted some of her claims and found them wanting, then I called her a crank.
There is overwhelming evidence that CO2 emissions from human sources is the most likely cause of global warming, but Judith denies this and thinks natural variability explains its better. In her own words:
And
That’s nonsense and contradicts available data.
Scientists can judge their productivity by looking at publication records. However, scientists judge hypotheses and claims by looking at evidence. Judith’s publication record doesn’t absolve her from the nonsense she spouts. In addition ever since she resigned from the last institute she worked at and took a full swing into the cranksphere she has stopped publishing papers.
2 Likes
I look at evidence when possible Eddie. That’s the secret. Try it sometime.
2 Likes
I did tell him I would take our discussion public, but he didn’t respond to that. I should have waited for his consent. On that note, I apologize for this @Eddie.
2 Likes
I’d just like to drop in here now, to remind everyone that Susan Crockford was cited to show that a prediction of climate change had been falsified, 30 years before date. Somehow it got to be 2050.
1 Like
Sorry but I don’t really agree with this. If you don’t share any personal information or private matters of a sensitive/financial character, continuing an otherwise completely formal discussion in public - on a scientific topic neither person is actually directly involved in - can’t in my view be something you owe anyone an apology for.
If @Eddie had shared some sort of private information, like a personal email or a private individual’s identity, or a story of a personal or sensitive character, and @Michael_Okoko had brought that public without permission I would agree. But as far as I can see, this has been a rather dry exchange about what is or isn’t scientifically supported.
Michael has not even quoted anything of Eddie’s primate messages, but basically just paraphrazed the topic of their discussion and continued in public.
That does not merit any apology in my view.
4 Likes
You are right, but since he is displeased with me bringing our private chat to the public without his consent, I agree that was rude. At best, I should have created the thread without tagging him. With the apology out of the way, we can deal with Crockford and company.
4 Likes
That’s the tell. ID works that way too.
2 Likes
Thank you. I accept your apology for not consulting me first. I think this would make a good ending to this “discussion which never should have occurred.” I recommend that the moderators close the discussion. @Dan_Eastwood , what do you think?