Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

[stewski]

Politically it appears increasingly popular to deny reason and push emotion above evidence!

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/16/qa-brian-cox-brings-graphs-malcolm-roberts

After Grenfell I proposed the most important question is "What evidence and reasoning was a large budget given to clad tower blocks", people have suggested insulation as a reason, I can find no evidence/calculations that in energy/financially cladding tower blocks over housing was efficient and the debate hasn't seemed to even consider the wider problem that perhaps unreason has been part of government for sometime, are lessons really learned by leaders?

Dr Cox has been vocal over concerns that people seem to increasingly discount experts and evidence in political debate, have we entered an increasingly unreasonable period or alternatively has this approach always been dominant in politics and government, the third option that evidence and reason are well handled by government seems unlikely at this point, but what do others think?

 

[stewski]

I think the question of growth in un reason is a very hard proposition in itself.
Clearly access to information has changed but the effect on leadership isn't clear, yes I can read inane tweets from world leaders, if that makes it easier to lead without reason is not entirely clear.

Charles Handy was passed on to me by a man who couldn't be more opposed to my world view, but as a professor he was hard to fault intellectually.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/74628.The_Age_of_Unreason
Along with alvin tofller and others he is endlessly readable.

In all of this, my thoughts go out to Tim Berners Lee (a great read in his own right https://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/Weaving/Overview.html)
A man developing a system to share scientific evidence couldn't possibly have predicted the effect of his work.

 

[stewski]

BTW on my phone so can't go into it right now but I've posted before, with evidence, the problem with that graph Brian Cox used.

Please explain the "corruption" in the data, as a scientist he'd likely love that!

 

[stewski]

It is the portrayal of the data - the start point is skewing the extrapolation.

Seems less wild than NASA purposefully skew results, more explanation of why you are correct and the international panels of scientists in the field are wrong may be required for me to change position!

 

[stewski]

Problem is the graph doesn't reference the long term average and uses as its start point a downwards spike caused by a number of exceptional influences on climate such as Mount Tambora the end result is a skewing of the picture it is presenting which isn't a good thing in the context of arguing with reason.

post your theory and have it peer reviewed like the many climate scientists working in the field!

 

[stewski]

It isn't a theory - also understand I'm not arguing against climate change. Find a graph that goes back a few centuries and data from the impact of stuff like the "the little iceage" and add it in and the problem with the graph Brian Cox is showing should become pretty self evident.

So you'll have no problem submitting what you are saying to peer review, as Einstein did before you?

 

[stewski]

You want someone to submit an opinion about data visualisation for peer review? And have labeled it a 'theory'?

Do you know what peer review (or refereeing is) and/or relates to?

 

[stewski]

Problem is the graph doesn't reference the long term average and uses as its start point a downwards spike caused by a number of exceptional influences on climate such as Mount Tambora the end result is a skewing of the picture it is presenting which isn't a good thing in the context of arguing with reason.

Obviously I wont speak for Dr Cox and the IPCC but off the top of my head, you insisting on using a graph of global temperature, that goes back a few hundred years, is not likely to be comparing data that it like for like in it's collection.

 

[stewski]

As Dowie says its as much a data visualisation issue - if you zoom out a little more from the data used in that first graph he uses it looks something like:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EIKE_2.gif

Zoom out a bit more and its a blip downwards quite a bit from the long term average.

The dip is ascribed to natural factors connected to the period of the "little ice age" and subsequent solar minimums + volcanic activity - but the rising edge - which doesn't cross the average until about 75% of the way along the graph is often used to illustrate a trend in climate change usually in the context of anthropogenic forcing as if climate change starts at the bottom of that dip onwards.

To illustrate it another way the same kind of data and presentation of it is used here to show the effect on glaciers - as if the start is in 1862 and climate change has progressively stripped it back in a dramatic fashion:

https://youtu.be/7Ra1qugDXsU?t=120

But when you look at the actual raw numbers the data doesn't have a linear regression like the video illustrates - and infact the 300 year average is much further up with the 1862 an unprecedented extent of glaciation in modern history (my annotations in red):

http://i.imgur.com/6UWRE6O.jpg

The point being in this context if we want to see an age lead by reason then it comes from both sides of the fence - things like this don't help to forward the case for reason when they mostly seem to be utilised to shut down debate and silence dissent using what has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture.

To be clear I'm not denying climate change here - if you look at the last part of the data - since 2010 especially there has been a worrying change that certainly shouldn't be ignored.

Back to the context of government I think one of the problems is you can manipulate statistics to support almost any argument or position and this has eroded people's trust in facts and reason.

Are you trying to suggest Dr Cox falsely represented the best data we have on the planet regarding climate change to 'shut down' (your awful word) debate with someone who just happened to believe NASA had tampered with the data, but they actually have another point he doesn't know about, but you do?

Because Brian Cox seems pretty open to new thinking, just send him a quick message to help him see his folly on this one:
https://www.facebook.com/ProfessorBrianCox/
Perhaps he'll come back to you and your thinking wont be wasted.


Or alternatively join all the others who troll around the internet spreading FUD under a banner of 'balance' against the evils of science and evidence being used to 'shut down' people...

 

[stewski]

Has reason ever been a big part of politics? If reason ruled all, we would be ran by technocrats- industry and technical specialists. Rightly or wrongly, a huge part of politics is winning people over emotionally with some grandiose vision. We then act disappointed when for whatever reason, the dream doesn't come to fruition. Disillusionment sets in and the tide changes, we boot them out of office and a new arrangement forms, with slightly different ideals from before.

I think the fundamental thing is that we all want different outcomes, and have different visions for the society we'd like to see. There are usually injustices whichever direction is chosen, which generate emotional responses, which someone claims to have a cure for. The cycle repeats.

A theoretical ideal would be if our goals were more aligned, and we were in agreement about what was, and wasn't desirable. This is done for many subjects such as free speech, property rights etc (there are elements which oppose these, but generally speaking they are minor in significance in Britain). But we struggle to get past fundamental disagreement about the role of the state in important areas such as welfare, industry, taxes, and so on. The emotional pleas result from friction and conflict in these, and other areas.

I wish I could disagree!
There seems to be little to no hierarchy when information is presented via media, C4 news purposefully had a 'debate' on drugs policy between Peter hitchens and someone who leads an international ngo studying world health in the field!

One side of the 'debate' is from someone who works for an organisation that has made a living out of selling emotive stories regularly shown to be lies!

 

[stewski]

Yes, do you? As your suggestion is rather misplaced. Ditto to the use of the word 'theory'.

Oh good so you know, Peer review is not restricted to scientific published papers and understand that I (and very few others) would lend what roff has said the word theory a scientific meaning but may offer it in the more general usage.

Frankly if the 'theory' he offers continues to be used to spread fud and isn't presented to those he believes wilfully misrepresent data I'd push the word towards the conspiracy end of it's meaning!

 

[stewski]

Not really wanting to go around in circles but he's not proposed a theory and has simply made a criticism re: how some data has been presented. To go off on one about peer review etc.. is misplaced that's all. I thought the point was obvious but seemingly not, no doubt you could pick a fight over this for the next two pages but I'm not particularly interested.

Traditional post FUD run away, the presenters facebook is right there, publish away, he might learn something about data collection of the earth average temperature over the last few hundred years or change the discourse who knows!

 

[stewski]

On that facebook page is a long discussion on exactly this topic, it really wouldn't be difficult to express a valid point and get feedback on it.
Obviously on the Senators outlandish NASA "corrupted" the data statements responses are more like this:
I suspect a less outlandish and more considered point will be treated with less disdain.

 

[stewski]

In this thread, OP posts asking whether or not we're entering an "age of unreason" and then lays down an incredible display of "unreason" when someone points out that - although they agree with the OPs point - some of his opening argument has some obvious flaws. I realise that isn't what you mean by "age of unreason" but the irony is amusing.

Moving to GD as this is far from SC material.

Your position is, asking someone who has an issue with a scientific presenter 'shutting down debate' with a person who believes NASA faked data on climate change to post their issues to the presenter's open web pages for review and right to reply, is not of a high enough standard for 'Speakers Corner' on OCuk? Wow.

 

[stewski]

In this thread, OP posts asking whether or not we're entering an "age of unreason" and then lays down an incredible display of "unreason" when someone points out that - although they agree with the OPs point - some of his opening argument has some obvious flaws. I realise that isn't what you mean by "age of unreason" but the irony is amusing.

Moving to GD as this is far from SC material.

If you are moving this based on the above, you can at least explain what you or roff believed/stated the 'obvious flaws' in my post are, that would be reasonable no?
Specifically what rules of SC is this not worthy of?

 

[stewski]

As Dowie says its as much a data visualisation issue - if you zoom out a little more from the data used in that first graph he uses it looks something like:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/EIKE_2.gif

Zoom out a bit more and its a blip downwards quite a bit from the long term average.

The dip is ascribed to natural factors connected to the period of the "little ice age" and subsequent solar minimums + volcanic activity - but the rising edge - which doesn't cross the average until about 75% of the way along the graph is often used to illustrate a trend in climate change usually in the context of anthropogenic forcing as if climate change starts at the bottom of that dip onwards.

To illustrate it another way the same kind of data and presentation of it is used here to show the effect on glaciers - as if the start is in 1862 and climate change has progressively stripped it back in a dramatic fashion:

https://youtu.be/7Ra1qugDXsU?t=120

But when you look at the actual raw numbers the data doesn't have a linear regression like the video illustrates - and infact the 300 year average is much further up with the 1862 an unprecedented extent of glaciation in modern history (my annotations in red):

http://i.imgur.com/6UWRE6O.jpg

The point being in this context if we want to see an age lead by reason then it comes from both sides of the fence - things like this don't help to forward the case for reason when they mostly seem to be utilised to shut down debate and silence dissent using what has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture.

To be clear I'm not denying climate change here - if you look at the last part of the data - since 2010 especially there has been a worrying change that certainly shouldn't be ignored.

Back to the context of government I think one of the problems is you can manipulate statistics to support almost any argument or position and this has eroded people's trust in facts and reason.

The implication of the above post is that Dr Cox and others who represent Science via the media have/are wilfully misrepresenting climate data, apparently requesting the person making this serious claim (about Dr Cox) gives him (Dr Cox) the right to reply, rather than spreading unsubstantiated FUD is not worthy of speakers corner. This is in fact the entire point of this thread!

 

[stewski]

Now look what you've done Zefan

 

[stewski]

Seems less wild than NASA purposefully skew results, more explanation of why you are correct and the international panels of scientists in the field are wrong may be required for me to change position!

Some unreason above?

 

[stewski]

For comparison a valid OCuk 'speakers corner' thread: https://forums.overclockers.co.uk/threads/the-trump-presidency.18758345/page-666

 

[stewski]

There is a whole mass of information from unverified sources these days. Seemingly there is so much of it, that people have difficulty identifying what is genuine or not. You can spout out anything and if it's forceful enough, or argued well enough, someone will believe it, even if they can't provide any credible evidence.

It is an interesting point, the development of the world wide web was effectively motivated by a need to make academic publishing/discussion more widely available and to provide hyperlinks for referencing.

Take the case in point on this thread, someone has a position regarding the intellectual rigour of Dr Cox's presented data and even puts the effort to detail those issues whilst suggesting a wider problem of 'shutting down' debate from science in the media (supposedly "it works both ways" with no description of what the posited "both ways" are). When asked to simply follow a hyperlink to the source of his issue (in this context) and state/defend their case, they disappear. Making the Suggestion that giving Dr Cox and others the right to comment/review what is a theory in the popular not scientific sense (that science and the media are wilfully misrepresenting climate data) is also deemed unreason on this forum by a 'mod'.

Now lets take a quick look at the quality of discussion across the rest of SC!