Are recent times an increasing age of unreason?

[Irish_Tom]

I guess if you ignore all the contributions that aren’t an anonymous conspiracy theory about climate science ignoring more plausible explanations and a simple request to join the discourse and address the people you accuse?

I’ll try and break this down into very simple components:

Your original OP posited that “it appears increasingly popular to deny reason and push emotion above evidence!” and “Dr Cox has been vocal over concerns that people seem to increasingly discount experts and evidence in political debate.”

@Rroff then posted, with evidence, why he thinks the example you gave from Dr. Cox makes the task of having a reasoned evidence-based discussion harder — because statistics can be skewed to make one’s argument stronger by changing the frame of reference.

Note that @Rroff isn’t denying climate change, he isn’t discounting Dr Cox as an expert. He isn’t denying reason, nor is he pushing emotion above evidence.

@Rroff isn’t even discounting the evidence Dr. Cox presents in the video. All he is saying is that it doesn’t paint the full picture and because of this, it doesn’t help when one is trying to have a reasoned evidence-based discussion.

My motive for refuting such nonsense is far from ulterior its the point of starting this thread!

Here’s the thing — @Rroff’s post isn’t nonsense, he makes a very valid point and wasting time trying to refute it detracts from the original debate we all thought you wanted to have.

If you had responded with “that’s an interesting point, let’s explore how that pertains to the questions in my OP” we could have all continued with this valid and relevant discussion.

Instead, you’ve turned into a dog-with-a-bone, getting more and more worked up about how @Rroff should put his views directly to Dr. Cox's Facebook page.

That doesn’t achieve anything within the context of this thread, and ironically it comes across as emotive rather than reasoned.

Can’t you see that by getting your knickers in a twist about this single point, the whole thread has become ‘unreasoned’? You’re single-handedly proving your own hypothesis.

 

[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.

Rroff initially posted this following on from an issue where a politician claimed that NASA has corrupted climate data.
When he explained what his problem was I said the below.

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!

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.

When he explained he saw it as wider issue with climate science (has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture) as quoted above, I asked him to clarify his position as below.

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...

On numerous occasions I have asked him (not unreasonably I think) to address people he accuses of wilful misrepresentation of data directly and stand by his position.
I have also repeatedly suggested more plausible explanations but why not just ask the Science advocate you believe to be misrepresenting data?
As we all agree NASA didnt corrupt the data and graphs/data with further timelines are entirely available (albeit with likely very different accuracy).

Try actually quoting what was said instead of emotive "dog with bone" nonsense!

 

[stewski]

I know you don't like my 'posting style', I don't like Dr Cox's face, both are irrelevant to this discussion!

 

[Irish_Tom]

When he explained he saw it as wider issue with climate science (has to be intentional representation of the data towards a specific picture) as quoted above, I asked him to clarify his position as below.

I would say @Rroff has clarified his position pretty categorically but you've chosen to ignore it. He's also responded within the frame of reference of your original OP, something you seem unwilling to acknowledge:

I have some conflict internally as I'm a strong believer that we should be making dramatic changes as a civilisation especially in terms of the type and nature of housing with reduced environmental impact and better resilience to climate change in terms of things like flooding, etc. and more attention paid to localised renewable generation of power to reduce the amount that is being used from less environmentally friendly sources regardless of who is right and wrong about climate change, etc. but I think, though well intended, that kind of representation of data is potentially harmful in the long run as if people understand the full context they will likely feel somewhat lied to and be less trustful of those presenting that data and more likely to ignore things like that in the future.

You jumped straight on - disagreeing with a perceived authority figure = must be conspiracy theorist angle from the very start, constantly trying to use put-downs to belittle my posts while all the time bemoaning the death of reason - Zefan pretty shrewdly had you to rights.

I get it as well, don't like it though I support the overall goal - but the reason I brought it up was the context of this thread and that the way it feels dishonest works against an age lead by reason (and it was used as part of the example in the OP).

I'll give you points for the tangental line of questioning LOL. He is right though - things like inferred slights through comparison to authority figures, re-appropriation of things people have posted in a different context that better supports what you are saying than they originally wrote it, etc. doesn't help any kind of debate or reason and comes across as more emotionally driven.

How's that for quoting what was said?

I know you don't like my 'posting style', I don't like Dr Cox's face, both are irrelevant to this discussion!

Your posting style is fundamentally relevant to this discussion because it's in direct conflict with the approach that you advocate in your OP.

 

[stewski]

I would say @Rroff has clarified his position pretty categorically but you've chosen to ignore it. He's also responded within the frame of reference of your original OP, something you seem unwilling to acknowledge:









How's that for quoting what was said?



Your posting style is fundamentally relevant to this discussion because it's in direct conflict with the approach that you advocate in your OP.

I'm not sure how quoting far later emotive posts from Rroff furthers your position?

I agree Rroff (far later and rightly imho) admitted, he is conflicted about the things he is saying, perhaps he could choose to send a private message to the people he is accusing of staged managed wilful misrepresentation, in any case ignoring more plausible explanations and denying people the right to reply, whilst spreading unsubstantiated FUD is the heart of this issue!

Good to see an attempt to adopt a less emotional posting style from you though Tom, so progress is possible...

 

[Irish_Tom]

I'm not sure how quoting far later emotive posts from Rroff furthers your position?

My position is that:

a) Your posting style is in direct conflict with the approach that you advocate in your OP
and
b) @Rroff has clarified his position but you chose to ignore the majority of it.

The posts I quoted further this position because they show examples of you ignoring what @Rroff said, by going off on a tangent about "sending a private message to the people he is accusing of staged managed wilful misrepresentation" when you could have been having a debate about the issues you originally raised.

I don't believe my posts have been emotional and your final sentence isn't going to get a rise out of me.

 

[stewski]

My position is that:

a) Your posting style is in direct conflict with the approach that you advocate in your OP
and

Define 'posting style'.

b) @Rroff has clarified his position but you chose to ignore the majority of it.

No I haven't in fact I have repeatedly responded to it, with explanations that I would think are more plausible than a climate science conspiracy involving 10s of thousands of scientists that dont all agree and are spread across our planet! Also I have urged him to take his thoughts (which I did not initially class as wild as Nasa corrupted the data) to the people he is accusing and or peer review, just as virtually everyone who had such monumentally important positions to prove had to do before him!

The posts I quoted further this position because they show examples of you ignoring what @Rroff said, by going off on a tangent about "sending a private message to the people he is accusing of staged managed wilful misrepresentation" when you could have been having a debate about the issues you originally raised.

The posts you quote are undeniably emotive from Rroff, my replies (generally) to those specific posts were me asking him to back up what he said about me with quotes or evidence, it is a matter of record that there was no evidenced reply!

I don't believe my posts have been emotional and your final sentence isn't going to get a rise out of me.

What is a 'posting style' why did you bring it up on this thread and then suggest you weren't specifically talking about this thread.
What are the 'motives' of 10's of thousands of individual scientist developing a graph over a period spanning the time human activity could likely affect climate?

I've said before and will repeat it, if you feel you have a special insight to scientific debate of this magnitude join the discourse/publish and be damned and expect people in the field to take a rigorous look at your proposal, who knows maybe you will change the discourse maybe their response will fully satisfy your curiosity!

 

[stewski]

For all anyone knows Cox could agree with Rroff thank him and adopt a longer time line in every debate regarding humans affecting climate with politicians who claim NASA corrupted the data after realising the evidence doesn't support their position!

There is an easy way to find out!

 

[Irish_Tom]

Define 'posting style'.

As I said in my OP, your posting style is some kind of 'pseudo-Socratic method' whereby you continually question people, often subtly changing the question or the frame of reference, to perpetuate a continuous argument that usually goes off on complete tangents from the original theme of the thread (just like you're doing now).

This position isn't just based on this thread, it's is based on countless other threads where you've played 'mental gymnastics' with the likes of @dowie and others. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to go hunting all over the forum to provide evidence of this.

As I stated earlier; it's a shame because quite often you have interesting or valid points that I agree with, they just get lost in the walls of text and the cycles of repetitive questions/arguments.

No I haven't, in fact I have repeatedly responded to it, with explanations that I would think are more plausible than a climate science conspiracy involving 10s of thousands of scientists that don't all agree and are spread across our planet!

You have ignored him because at no point has he suggested there's a 'climate science conspiracy involving 10s of thousands of scientists'. That view is entirely your own projection of his concerns about the correct use of data visualisation to support one's argument.

Also I have urged him to take his thoughts (which I did not initially class as wild as Nasa corrupted the data) to the people he is accusing and or peer review, just as virtually everyone who had such monumentally important positions to prove had to do before him!

Indeed you have, multiple times, but what benefit does that have to this particular debate other than to derail it and go off on yet another tangent?

The posts you quote are undeniably emotive from Rroff, my replies (generally) to those specific posts were me asking him to back up what he said about me with quotes or evidence, it is a matter of record that there was no evidenced reply!

You've accused him of suggesting there's a 'climate science conspiracy involving 10s of thousands of scientists' because he questioned the approach used when presenting some data. How about you back up that accusation with quotes and evidence.

What is a 'posting style' why did you bring it up on this thread and then suggest you weren't specifically talking about this thread.

As above. I brought it into this thread because I thought it was ironic that in your OP you advocate for reasoned debate and then fail to have one.

What are the 'motives' of 10's of thousands of individual scientist developing a graph over a period spanning the time human activity could likely affect climate?

I've said before and will repeat it, if you feel you have a special insight to scientific debate of this magnitude join the discourse/publish and be damned and expect people in the field to take a rigorous look at your proposal, who knows maybe you will change the discourse maybe their response will fully satisfy your curiosity!

I don't really know how to answer this as it's not my position. Again, another random tangent — for the record, @Rroff has not once in this thread denied climate change.

All he has said is that using selective data to strengthen one's argument isn't congruent with reasoned debate.

For all anyone knows Cox could agree with Rroff thank him and adopt a longer time line in every debate regarding humans affecting climate with politicians who claim NASA corrupted the data after realising the evidence doesn't support their position!

There is an easy way to find out!

That may well be, but I don't see how it benefits the questions raised in your OP.

Do you actually want to discuss the themes you originally raised or are you happy to keep going around in circles about something completely different?

 

[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.

EDIT: And to be clear I'm not suggesting Brian Cox is some heinous villain at the centre of this - he just happened to use a chart I've long been critical of due to the manner it portrays the data and the way it is often used - in many cases in a far worse way than what Brian Cox did - and I doubt he even was the one that chose to use it - it was probably all carefully stage managed by a production team.

My criticism isn't specific to Brian Cox - many others as in your later link use the same start point as at face value it is very hard to refute and in that respect they are probably well intentioned as climate change is a very real and immediate problem regardless of the ins and outs of it but it is not a particularly constructive practise for debate and education of the subject.

There is nothing particularly controversial in what I'm presenting the numbers are all there for anyone to see and interpret - https://xkcd.com/1732/ has a reasonably decent presentation of it though the scale they are using smooths the dips and peaks out - but it references the longer term data and shows more than one possible outcome from that data.

On numerous occasions I have asked Rroff if he is specifically suggesting climate science and Dr Cox are wilfully mis representing data and if so would he retract that, he never has agreed to retract that position (implicit in posts above) and he and others have repeatedly discussed 'well intentioned' motives for climate science to mis represent data, has never agreed that more plausible explanations exist or contacted the people he is accusing/stood by his position.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Do you actually want to discuss the themes you originally raised or are you happy to keep going around in circles about something completely different?

On numerous occasions I have asked Rroff if he is specifically suggesting climate science and Dr Cox are wilfully mis representing data and if so would he retract that, he never has agreed to retract that position (implicit in posts above) and he and others have repeatedly discussed 'well intentioned' motives for climate science to mis represent data, has never agreed that more plausible explanations exist or contacted the people he is accusing/stood by his position.

I guess we have our answer…

 

[stewski]

As I said in my OP, your posting style is some kind of 'pseudo-Socratic method' whereby you continually question people, often subtly changing the question or the frame of reference, to perpetuate a continuous argument that usually goes off on complete tangents from the original theme of the thread (just like you're doing now).


This position isn't just based on this thread, it's is based on countless other threads where you've played 'mental gymnastics' with the likes of @dowie and others. And no, before you ask, I'm not going to go hunting all over the forum to provide evidence of this.

I agree the same posters have repeatedly directed posts at me with little to no rigour in what they are saying often specifically about me and not dissimilar to the psuedo psychology above, a clique shall we call it.

Indeed you have, multiple times, but what benefit does that have to this particular debate other than to derail it and go off on yet another tangent?

Asking someone to simply direct a science question to the science advocate you accuse of mis representing data is a tangent?

As above. I brought it into this thread because I thought it was ironic that in your OP you advocate for reasoned debate and then fail to have one.

I brought the questions up in this thread, because I see a number of people incapable of having one!

Do you actually want to discuss the themes you originally raised or are you happy to keep going around in circles about something completely different?

I'm happy to discuss the question in the OP (as I have with numerous others) are you or are we discussing nebulous opinions on posting style?

 

[Irish_Tom]

I agree the same posters have repeatedly directed posts at me with little to no rigour in what they are saying often specifically about me and not dissimilar to the psuedo psychology above, a clique shall we call it.

Maybe if everyone spent a little more time reading and considering what other people are saying and spent less time playing intellectual one-upmanship we'd make more progress.

Asking someone to simply direct a science question to the science advocate you accuse of misrepresenting data is a tangent?

It is when it's repeated ad nauseum and it doesn't benefit the debate in any way. It's a side-point and a distraction.

I'm happy to discuss the question in the OP (as I have with numerous others) are you or are we discussing nebulous opinions on posting style?

For the record, the thread was already derailed by the time I joined it, so while I may be guilty of perpetuating the tangential argument I don't feel particularly responsible for going OT in the first place.

However, I'm glad we're getting somewhere.

Here's my contribution to the thread in the context of the OP:

I think it's difficult to say we live in a world of 'unreason'. If anything, we're more informed now than at any time in history.

The problem we face is that (as we've seen in this thread) data and statistics can be interpreted and presented in different ways to support conflicting viewpoints.

You only have to look at Brexit and the £350m/week for the NHS — only last week Boris Johnson repeated this figure despite it being discredited by just about everyone else including the ONS.

*Technically* Johnson is correct in that £350m is the gross figure but, in reality, we pay nowhere near that amount 'net'.

Equally, on the Remain side, all of the figures bandied about before the referendum that were labelled 'project fear'.

If both sides can present conflicting 'evidence' then it makes it much harder to know who to believe.

Politicians have always used emotion to further their arguments (whether backed up by data or not) and then, as @Dolph has said, these issues are compounded by social media and echo chambers when they reach the wider public.

 

[stewski]

If Boris would be compelled to post his detailed objections to the ONS and others over EU contribution data, would that too, be a distraction?

 

[Irish_Tom]

If Boris would be compelled to post his detailed objections to the ONS and others over EU contribution data, would that too, be a distraction?

You can't help yourself, can you?

And I thought we were making progress…

 

[stewski]

For me, unreason is holding a belief with little to no interest in exploring the evidence to support or deny it.

Boris likely believes the ONS data unfairly represents a situation, he may even think people using that data are stage managed and well intentioned (who knows), if he is un willing to discuss with the people he accuses of this, the actual evidence and reasoning behind using specific data sets and ignores reasonable explanation of their data, that would be unreasonable, no?

 

[stewski]

You can't help yourself, can you?

And I thought we were making progress…

We are and this is a discussion not opinions on posting styles.

 

[Trusty]

This thread is really weird.

 

[stewski]

Amen

 

[stewski]

@Rroff I'll say: I have/would not accuse your position of being one of climate change denial, later you have explained that you have at least attempted to get feedback (from those who may even work in the field) about your position and until apparent point blank refusal to discuss the subject with the people directly involved, I did not say that what you have suggested was wildly unreasonable.

I will also say, I mentioned that your points would likely gain more consideration from the Likes of Dr Cox (than NASA corrupted the data) and I'll add, aside from his face there doesn't appear to be anything scary about him. I'm not sure what is to lose in getting a straight answer. I can see you are rightly conflicted about the effects of questioning the IPCC data/graph, I'm just not sure how perpetuating the perceived issue (and motives) anonymously elsewhere, whilst ignoring the individual(s)/organisations in question, is a lesser problem!