[Order] Do you have a right to your own opinion?

[Yvain Wintersong]

The first discussion - didn't go so well. A lot of people said they disagreed with my thesis - which was good! But all they said was "I think there are some cases where logic doesn't work", and didn't say what those cases were. So I remain in the dark about what people believed and why they believed it. Let's try again with a more interesting topic.

Today's thesis is "No, you don't have a right to your own opinion." By that I mean that people shouldn't trust their own opinions, but should instead assume that the majority opinion is usually right. Here's my argument:

Everyone else is just as smart as you are. That's probably false - many people here seem like well-educated, high-IQ individuals. So consider the subset of people who are at least as well-educated and at least as smart as you are. In that subset, everyone else is just as smart as you are. So, in a disagreement between you and one of those people, it's 50-50 who's right. In a disagreement between you and many of those people, the odds are pretty high that those many people are right.

You may argue, "But I've considered all of the evidence. I have lots of facts supporting my position!" Indeed you do. But so do your opponents. Since we're only allowing people at least as smart as you, your opponents probably know your arguments, and have arguments of their own that are just as good. In your mind, the facts support your side. In the minds of many more people, the facts support the other side. And since they're as smart as you are, their interpretation of the facts is just as likely to be correct. If there are more of them, then the facts must tend to support the other side.

Things get even worse when you're up against people who are professionals in a field. Have beliefs about how taxes should work? What about the banking system? Free markets? Do you agree with the majority of economists? No? Who do you think knows more about the economy - you or economists?

I personally have some opinions that I have trouble with. For example, I'm agnostic, but about 80% of the world's population is religious. Although there are some studies that show smart, well-educated people are more likely to be agnostics than the general population, there are still probably more smart religious people than smart agnostic people.

I also believe in the decriminalization or legalization of most soft drugs (hard drugs I'm not so sure about). I'm pretty sure most smart people disagree with me in this, so I'm considering abandoning the opinion. Do you think that's a good idea?

Do you have any opinions that most smart people would disagree with? Do you think you're justified?

[Yvain Wintersong]

Oh, and:

OBJECTION 1: Most other people are biased about certain issues. And you're not? I'll allow this only if you can point out exactly why that might be so. For example, most people are religious, but that might just be because they're indocrinated by their families. Of course, if if you're an atheist who grew up in an atheist family, you'd have to explain why that doesn't make you equally indoctrinated.

OBJECTION 2: If we all believe only what other people believe, no one will know what anyone else really believes. I accept this. When voting in an election, you should vote for the person you personally think will be the best candidate, since the election system already takes the majority's opinion into account. If everyone just voted for the candidate who was leading in the polls, elections would be pointless. I don't necessarily advocate a change in public behavior for this, just that you personally take it into account.

OBJECTION 3: People can disagree on some issues that have nothing to do with intelligence, like morals. Then would you agree that you're probably wrong if lots of people who were at least as moral as you are, disagreed with you?

OBJECTION 4: Yvain, most people disagree with you about this issue, so by your own logic, you're probably wrong. If enough really smart people do disagree with me, I WILL admit that. Maybe. Wait, no! Actually, now I can't figure out whether I should admit it or not. MY HEAD IS GOING TO EXPLODE!

[andelarion]

Very interesting. It reminds me of a common psychological test.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_confo ... xperiments

It means that we are more prone to conform with the majority view even if we believe the view is wrong. I think I do in a way.

For example, I eat meat even though I believe it is ethically and morally wrong to do so. Am I conforming to the majority view? A recent study in Sweden said that 97% of the Swedish people eat meat. Quite a number.

[Yvain Wintersong]

The Asch experiments are indeed very interesting. Overcoming Bias, the Order's Hidden Masters, main inspirations, wrote an article on it that's worth reading.

I don't think eating meat falls into the category of something where you should conform. Because not eating meat isn't a difference in facts, it's a difference in values. You both agree on the relevant facts - beef tastes really good, but you've got to kill a cow to make it. The only difference is that you value that cow's life, while the other person doesn't. Logic (in my opinion) can't directly tell you what to value.

If there's a difference in facts that produces that difference in values, though, it's a different story. If you believe that cows feel pain, but other people don't, and that's the reason you disagree, then the issue is worth investigating with logic.

(I'm in the same position as you, by the way - I don't like eating meat, but it's really hard not to do it.)

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

[quoquot;Yvain Wintersong"]But all they said was "I think there are some cases where logic doesn't work", and didn't say what those cases were.[/quote]

I thought it was quite clear and expressly mentioned on several occasions (unless I'm interpreting things into the posts that weren't in them): emotional and subjective problems (though not all of us agreed on that they could be classed as problems, myself included).

OBJECTION 1: Most other people are biased about certain issues. And you're not?

Actually, "And you're not?" doesn't invalidate this objection at all. It highlights the importance of discussion. If everyone was just 100%ly involved with facts, then, no, one would 'not have a right to one's own opinion', but the moment subjectivity plays into it, it becomes almost necessary for people to have differing opinions, so the bias can be eradicated, especially if it's subconscious. Either the person you debate with or yourself will walk out of that discussion further enlightened.

OBJECTION 3: People can disagree on some issues that have nothing to do with intelligence, like morals. Then would you agree that you're probably wrong if lots of people who were at least as moral as you are, disagreed with you?

Morals can't be found on a single linear scale. Some people find things morally necessary that you and I might find appalling and vice versa, even though we may have the same amount of moral involvement. As such, there is no easily definable way of saying "at least as moral as" - and the entire thing promptly falls to tatters, since the only one that can really say anything on the matter is yourself, and then we'd be basing whether you can have an opinion or not on your own, well, opinion.

And: I like your objection 4. *reminded of the Democracy In Shireroth Paradox (ooh, shiny name), where if the Kaiser listened to his underlings, democratic aspects would not steal their way into Shireroth... but instead already be evidently in place.*

Anyway, on to the main subject matter: I think own opinions are pivotal. If we all conformed, we would be inviting stagnation, since a majority opinion can only change one individual at a time, and one individual at a time will never change in a system wherein you're not allowed to have your own opinion. Additionally, people are blind. This includes you, too, of course, and me, and others, but it's an inherit problem of mankind's attempts to find information - sometimes, the glasses you dropped in the darkness of the street are sought under the nearest lamp post instead of where you dropped them. This goes hand in hand with the matter of bias above - I daresay one's rarely aware of one's bias. Geocentrism and heliocentrism seem like a good example. One was able to explain the world in a geocentric fashion for a long while and remained mostly blind at large to the simpler (and more correct) heliocentric variant.

Anyway, the Asch experiments are neat. Where do chronic devil's advocates fall in that, though?

[Yvain Wintersong]

I thought it was quite clear and expressly mentioned on several occasions (unless I'm interpreting things into the posts that weren't in them): emotional and subjective problems (though not all of us agreed on that they could be classed as problems, myself included).

I thought you made it clear that was what you were talking about. Some other people I'm still not sure about. For example, Prodigy just said "there are some situations that make ABSOLUTELY no sense", and Maksym said "Human behaviour and life in general are not logical." Would've liked to have heard more about those two points.

Actually, "And you're not?" doesn't invalidate this objection at all. It highlights the importance of discussion. If everyone was just 100%ly involved with facts, then, no, one would 'not have a right to one's own opinion', but the moment subjectivity plays into it, it becomes almost necessary for people to have differing opinions, so the bias can be eradicated, especially if it's subconscious. Either the person you debate with or yourself will walk out of that discussion further enlightened.

I agree discussion with these people is your best option. If you can find an obvious bias in your opponent, you point it out, and your opponent thinks about it, sees the light, and concedes, that's great. But...have you ever tried it? In my experience, our brains are wired to see bias in a person we disagree with, regardless of whether it exists - and to very rarely see or admit to major biases in ourselves. If you and I disagree, usually I'll think you're biased, you'll think I'm biased, and no matter how clearly you relate my biases to me, I'm going to continue thinking the problem lies with you.

In that case, I ought to concede that, whatever evidence I think I have for you having the bias, you claim to have equal evidence that I have the bias. So in the first objection, I'm saying that, instead of assuming I'm less biased than average, I need to assume I'm just as biased as my opponent and work from there.

Morals can't be found on a single linear scale. Some people find things morally necessary that you and I might find appalling and vice versa, even though we may have the same amount of moral involvement. As such, there is no easily definable way of saying "at least as moral as" - and the entire thing promptly falls to tatters, since the only one that can really say anything on the matter is yourself, and then we'd be basing whether you can have an opinion or not on your own, well, opinion.

You're right, I concede. I was trying to turn my subjective feeling of "don't just assume you're more moral than anyone else" into an argument, and I failed. I may bring that back from the dead as an Evil Zombie Argument if someone brings up a specific, easily analyzed moral argument, or I hear about a more effective way to untangle the logical and subjective aspects of morality.

Anyway, on to the main subject matter: I think own opinions are pivotal. If we all conformed, we would be inviting stagnation, since a majority opinion can only change one individual at a time, and one individual at a time will never change in a system wherein you're not allowed to have your own opinion. Additionally, people are blind. This includes you, too, of course, and me, and others, but it's an inherit problem of mankind's attempts to find information - sometimes, the glasses you dropped in the darkness of the street are sought under the nearest lamp post instead of where you dropped them. This goes hand in hand with the matter of bias above - I daresay one's rarely aware of one's bias. Geocentrism and heliocentrism seem like a good example. One was able to explain the world in a geocentric fashion for a long while and remained mostly blind at large to the simpler (and more correct) heliocentric variant.

I mostly agree with you about the stagnation, as I tried to explain in Objection 2. I don't understand what you mean by the second part, about blindness.

But now Objection 2's got me annoyed. Because it's suggesting to me that in certain cases, even though you acknowledge that the majority's more likely to be right, you should continue to act as if you believe in your own opinion. I need a theory to explain when those cases are and why they come up. I'm going to try to see if I can work that out, but it's 2 AM here so I'll do it tomorrow.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

I thought you made it clear that was what you were talking about. Some other people I'm still not sure about.

Oh! It sounded like you were saying that no one had been specific. I'm sorry.

[...] But...have you ever tried it? In my experience, our brains are wired to see bias in a person we disagree with, regardless of whether it exists - and to very rarely see or admit to major biases in ourselves.

This is true. Now, I'm in the 'fortunate' position of being grossly picky about my friends, so I don't usually have many conversations with people who're chronically incapable of noticing when they're biased, simply because I hold the bar that high... but even so, there are still plenty situations where it just isn't obvious. I try to combat it a bit by trying to be very reflective, myself, but I'm no ubermensch, either, and so I often hit my limits. Such is the nature of the keyword 'try', I s'ppose.

So in the first objection, I'm saying that, instead of assuming I'm less biased than average, I need to assume I'm just as biased as my opponent and work from there.

Yes.

No, really, that's what I was trying to say, too. Except I draw the reverse consequence. Instead of trying to figure out if I am biased, I let the opponent decide if I'm biased, and the opponent decides if I am biased. While this can lead to a stale mate as described, if both sides are honestly interested in a resolution, there will at least be reflection, and even if no agreement can be reached, both people debating might glean something of the discourse.

On the other hand, if you both assumed you're 'just as biased as your opponent', the subject won't arise, and the bias will never be tackled. You might believe you're biased, but you'll never figure out in what way. And that discussion then promptly won't lead anywhere. Instant mutual intellectual KO.

Now, of course your opponent can be biased in regards to analysing your bias, and then we have recursion, of course - but all the more reason to speak about it.

Essentially, what I'm trying to say is (1) that since you don't have perfect introspection, you must indeed assume things, which leads us back to opinions, and the necessity of having them: In your opinion, you have so and so much bias. (2) that since you don't have perfect introspection, and there is no such thing as infinite regression, your opponent will not have perfect introspection and infinite regression, either, and you can only help them by adding your (equally biased) insights and offering alternative views for consideration.

In the end, objectivity might get distilled out of it, if you're lucky.

I may bring that back from the dead as an Evil Zombie Argument if someone brings up a specific, easily analyzed moral argument, or I hear about a more effective way to untangle the logical and subjective aspects of morality.

Please do.

I don't understand what you mean by the second part, about blindness.

I'm trying to say that experts on any given subject may be relying on models that are established, but incorrect, and as such that no one can ever say for sure that experts are more knowledgable than oneself. Of course, they probably mostly are, but even a miniscule margin of error makes it a good idea to discuss rather than accept things if your opinion differs.

But now Objection 2's got me annoyed. Because it's suggesting to me that in certain cases, even though you acknowledge that the majority's more likely to be right, you should continue to act as if you believe in your own opinion. I need a theory to explain when those cases are and why they come up. I'm going to try to see if I can work that out, but it's 2 AM here so I'll do it tomorrow.

I don't think so. After all, just because you can have your own opinion does not mean you are obliged to have your own opinion. ...that is, if I'm understanding the conundrum you're dealing with correctly (and I bet I'm miles off).

[Chrimigules]

Two Words: Groupthink

[hypatias mom]

A lot of really scary and deadly movements have thriven on allowing "the experts" or the majority to do one's thinking for the individual. One should never check his thoughts, morality, or sense at door when making up one's mind. That way lie totalitaianism, mindless acceptance, and oppression.

I realize I have biases, but I try to see situations as clearly as possible and, using my intellect, aided by my experience, moral and civic values, I evaluate situations as clearly as I can. No one else sees things exactly the same, and evaluates life situations through their own prism. I try to avoid becoming just one of the herd in any endeavor or belief system. Many horrors have been perpetrated in the name of perfectly logical-sounding biases, beliefs and faulty logic.

[Andreas the Wise]

I'll change tack and develop a few of the earlier arguments in a slightly different way.
The first objection I thought of was stagnation, but more so in the terms of ideas. If everyone believes the same, then it never changes. Someone daring to have their own opinion is how we get new ideas. And even if you end up sticking with your opinion, you'll be strengthened in that. For example, I'm a Christian, and I've had various discussions with atheists. It's never convinced me to go atheists, but it has challenged me to think about a lot more areas of my faith, and now many of the doubts I might have had, by being challenged and required to argue them, I've become much more convinced of them and Christiantiy as a whole.
That brings me to my second objection - what if the majority is wrong. I thought, with the discussion on logic you'd all be happy to see there are absolutes in life, and in morality, but perhaps not (consider though, that throughout time basically all peoples, apart from a few wackos, have had the same moral views. Oh, we've disagreed on how much, but we've agreed on basic things like you should be unselfish, you shouldn't kill etc. (how much might be you only have to be unselfish to your family, or you only shouldn't kill people from your nation etc). Try to imagine a totally different moral position and you rapidly find it's never been taken up.) But I'd better not turn this into a discussion on morality, so let's take something we can agree on an absolute or what's right ... say multiplication. 3x5=15. Even if the majority say that 3 groups of 5 is 16, you shouldn't agree with them, you should stand firm saying that the answer is 15. Ok, its a very simple example, cause I can't think of a better one at the moment, but you get the idea. That raises the question then, what am I disputing with this. I'm saying that you shouldn't hold the wrong opinion. But that you shouldn't trust that the majority is right either. Perhaps hold this as more than as a disputation that the majority are right than anything else.
Third, I'd agree with the thing about biases, but wouldn't say we all necessarily have the same bias. While our opponent may point out some bias, we also need to aware of our own. A lot of arguments dissapear when you realise the bias of both sides is what's arguing, not anything real.

Finally, I always get worried when people tell me how I have to think. Even if its just to say trust the majority. As was raised before, that's how dictators work. This is a terrible example, but I'll make it hypothetical not to offend anyone. Say Mr Dictator decides that the best thing for the country is to kill off all people with red hair. Say he presents convincing arguments, and everyone in the country believes he's right except for you. Doesn't mean you should agree to kill people just because he said so ...

But is the debate over whether we should have our own opinion, or whether we have the right?

[hypatias mom]

It was phrased as "have a right," but I feel it is a God-given right for people to find the right way to think, regardless of the majority. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's day. The whole world was wrong except for one or a small number of people, but that didn't make the rest of the people right, just united in error. Whether we are given leave to choose, we still need to hold on to our personal beliefs and not be swept away by dictators, the mob or popular opinion.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

*just realised this is probably easiest debunked using mathematical limits, since "if one does not have the right to their own opinion", then still 1 + 1 + 1 + ... = infinity, which can be semantically considered equivalent with "everyone", which means no one is allowed to have their own opinion, including the majority, which pretty much means ideas may not exist.*

...

It was funny in my head.

>.>

[benkern]

I also believe in the decriminalization or legalization of most soft drugs (hard drugs I'm not so sure about). I'm pretty sure most smart people disagree with me in this, so I'm considering abandoning the opinion. Do you think that's a good idea?

It's your opinion, you're lucky you have one, perhaps you should consider doing what you want rather than what people expect of you and you might enjoy that opinion more. I dunno. I was confused as to the point you're making with this one, are you asking us on our opinions on drugs or are you asking us about our opinions on abandoning opinions? I assumed the latter but when there's a chance to veer these topics off track I hope to grasp it with both hands.

Rights and shoulds... or rather, rights and what is right. Heh. Anyway, talking about smart people knowing what is right - that's not necessarily true. Ardashir is a very smart person, but he wants to shoot a third of the world's populace (nothing racial or mad - it's quite logical, something to do with a solution to world hunger and many other problems that overpopulation causes). In fact, from my point of view, take the whole right side of the political spectrum - I'm sure alot of them are smart, doesn't make them right. A sizable chunk of them are smarter than me, but that doesn't make them Socialists.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

Aside:

Ardashir thinks VHEMT is too tame? :-P He might feel at home here, then. Though, (un?)fortunately, that's fictional.

[hypatias mom]

Not all people on the right side of the political spectrum are wrong in their views. Nor are all on the right or even in the middle.

[Jacobus Loki]

Disagree. That is the consensus of an anthill, or of North Korea.

Has anyone seen this film?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/plotsummary

Henry Fonda has to undo the opinions of the other eleven. Under the premise, the defendant would have been unjustly executed.

[hypatias mom]

I have friends on all parts of the political spectrum who are thoughtful, reasoning people, and listening to their points of view broadens one's outlook. I don't mean that I go along with mob or group think, but by hearing where others are coming from, gives me a better understanding of their perspective. It's when people react instinctively in a negative way to whatever stimullus is put before them that we part company.

Besides, I didn't include all people in every part of the spectrum. I said, not all were wrong. I don't always agree with people in my political and social persuasion in everything, and I do speak up when I feel things are going wrong.

[Andreas the Wise]

Disagree. That is the consensus of an anthill, or of North Korea.

Has anyone seen this film?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0050083/plotsummary

Henry Fonda has to undo the opinions of the other eleven. Under the premise, the defendant would have been unjustly executed.

Even better. Studied the play ... brilliant point, Jacobus.

Benkern, you should know better than to wildly discriminate against a bunch of people at once ... though I'm particuarly interested by what you say, Hypatias Mom. I entirely agree with you. But you say "I said, not all were wrong." For any to be wrong at all requires an ultimate standard of right and wrong, which seems to have a bearing on our conversation - do people have a right to hold the wrong opinions ...
(for those of you who believe there is no ultimate right and wrong, just think - have you ever said something is unfair? Fair requires an ultimate standard, same as justice. We all know it, really)

[Yvain Wintersong]

The biggest problem seems to be a concern that this would lead to groupthink. I acknowledge if everyone stopped disagreeing, things would become extremely bad. I tried to answer that in Objection 1, but I guess I didn't do a very good job.

I think there are some cases where there's just not a lot of room for disagreement. If I am a global warming denier, I should reconsider. 95% of top scientists believe in global warming. There is less reason to think that all these scientists are biased than to think that I am biased. If global warming seems unlikely to me instead of saying "Obviously these biased scientists are trying to cover up the truth!", I should say "It seems I don't understand climatology very well."

But this does NOT mean I should stay silent and meekly accept global warming. Instead, I should do something like the following.

If I believe global warming is false, I should go up to these scientists and say, "I don't find your opinions about global warming very convincing, and here's my evidence." The scientists say "Well, I DO find my theories about global warming convincing, and here's MY evidence." Then, you should both reevaluate your opinion of global warming based on the available evidence, including as evidence your evidence, the scientists' evidence, and the evidence that the scientist is more likely to interpret the evidence correctly than you are. Since you are being logical, and the scientist is being logical, and you both have the same evidence, you should both come up with the same estimation of the probability that global warming is true.

For example, let's say there's a scientist who's twice as knowledgeable as I am. I think the chance that global warming is true is 20%. He thinks it's 80%. Knowing that the scientist is twice as knowledgeable as I am (and therefore twice as likely to be right), the new chance of global warming being true is 1/3(20)+2/3(80) = 60% for both me and the scientist.

I think the problem with many of the responses on this thread is that it assumes that people are doing what I referred to on the first thread as "duelling" - presenting all the facts in support of their position, and deliberately suppressing all the facts opposing their position. If I am a global warming skeptic who, after talking to scientists, estimates the new probability of global warming as 60%, and you ask me what I think of global warming, I'll continue to say that I find the studies unconvincing and think they have this, this, and this flaw. I'll just add that because some scientists disagree with me, I've revised my probability upward. So people will still receive the same information they received before about all the different points of view.

I even think it might be logical to take actions in accordance with global warming being false. Let's take a different example. 90% of people in the world believe an asteroid won't hit us soon, but 10% of people think an asteroid will hit us soon. Without knowing anything about asteroids, this means the chance an asteroid will hit us soon may be around 10%. In that case, society should invest 10% as much money in asteroid deflection technology as it would if it was sure an asteroid would hit. Since the 10% of people who think an asteroid will hit us soon will invest as much as possible, and the 90% people who think it won't hit us soon will invest nothing, society will correctly distribute its resources in accordance with the 10% chance. This means that if you're one of the minority who think an asteroid strike is very likely, you would be perfectly logical to work to prevent that asteroid strike, even though you should realize on a deeper level it's probably not as likely as you think.

On the same level, since the "correct" level of asteroid belief is 10%, if you're pro-asteroid, you should be going out and trying to convince as many anti-asteroid people as possible. After all, right now they're at 0%, and they need to hear your arguments to help them raise themselves to the proper 10% (just like you're at 100%, and you need their arguments to help you lower yourself to the proper 10%)

Summary: If you have an unpopular belief, then by all means argue for it, and in many cases act upon it. But unless you're smarter or better informed than other people, don't be so sure that it's actually true.

[hypatias mom]

There you seem to be going back into the majority think side again. There are a lot of people who hold what I would consider to be correct beliefs and persuasions, but which are not held by the majority of people. Just because a majority rejects my beliefs and persuasions doesn't mean my beliefs are wrong. It just means that they are different from those of other people, who may well have good reasons for thinking and believing their own perspectives are correct. I don't think majorities necessarily have the answers. I need to see good reasoning and arguments before I change my beliefs and persuasions just because "everyone thinks so." You mustn't check your sense at the door.

Even in the examples you gave, there is a lot of room for disagreement. I am listening to all the arguments, and I am not persuaded. Does this make me wrong? I don't think so. I am not convinced by their arguments and global legislation to buy into their rhetoric, and their perspective is becoming law all over the planet, and inflinging on the rest of us who feel it in error. That is an example of hysteria on a global scale.

[Jacobus Loki]

95% of top scientists believe in global warming.

I believe there is consensus that the globe is warming. What is a problem is that so many people swear that its human-generated Co2 that is at the cause of it, to the point where it is accepted as a Matter of Faith.

400 years ago, evil spirits and the Devil caused everything bad and/or unexplained. Now its Global Warming.

Just as irrefutable and just as silly. And just as dangerous.

[Andreas the Wise]

So Yvain, you're saying you don't have the right to your own opinion if the majority hold it, because you should debate intellectually with them and they should have better evidence.
However, it still doesn't help if they do have the wrong opinion. Say in Medieval times when people believed their were witches and burnt people. The majority had that opinion, but had very little true evidence for it. Should the academics who believe otherwise cave in?

[Yvain Wintersong]

I believe there is consensus that the globe is warming. What is a problem is that so many people swear that its human-generated Co2 that is at the cause of it, to the point where it is accepted as a Matter of Faith. 400 years ago, evil spirits and the Devil caused everything bad and/or unexplained. Now its Global Warming. Just as irrefutable and just as silly. And just as dangerous.

It's hardly "a matter of faith" or "irrefutable". Dismissing something as unknowable is an easy way out; if something's a scientific question, there are ways to figure it out. Hundreds of very smart people have spent the last decade doing exactly that and figuring out what causes global warming. If you're interested in the question, you should check out what they've found; Wikipedia's got loads of pages on it. They've even gotten a pretty good idea of the answer - the International Panel on Climate Change estimates with 90% confidence that it's mostly human-caused. So, returning to the subject of this thread, I think you'd be justified in disagreeing with them only if you found something specific wrong in their calculations - and if you could think of a reason why most of the world's top climate scientists would get that wrong, but you'd get it right.

(I'm rereading that paragraph and I think I'm sounding kind of like a jerk, but I'm just trying to consistently apply the method I'm suggesting. Hope you're not annoyed.)

[hypatias mom]

There happen to be a number of climatolotists on both sides of this issue, as there are experts on both sides of many issues. Yes, things have been warming, but in the past 4 years the trends have been reversing themselves, and some people are even beginning to talk about the earth starting a cooling trend. I think that before we go off the deep end about things, we need to take a deep breath and realize that hysterical warnings of impending doom are rarely appropriate. Back in the 70's we were frightened of the coming ice age from global cooling. Give it a few years and it will probably reverse again.

That is not to say that we should ignore opportunities to save energy, to use resources wisely, and to take care of this planet's flora and fauna. Conservation is always a good idea, but legislating draconian change is often a poorly thought-out reaction to a perceived problem. Encouraging and educating for those changes instead of forcing them is always met with better and more willing compliance.

[Yvain Wintersong]

So Yvain, you're saying you don't have the right to your own opinion if the majority hold it, because you should debate intellectually with them and they should have better evidence. However, it still doesn't help if they do have the wrong opinion. Say in Medieval times when people believed their were witches and burnt people. The majority had that opinion, but had very little true evidence for it. Should the academics who believe otherwise cave in?

Well, my thesis definitely breaks down in cases of large scale irrationality. I admitted at the beginning that it didn't work if you were smarter than the majority, if you had more knowledge than the majority, or if you were less biased than the majority. You as 21st century Andreas are all three. Your hypothetical academic probably is also.

I'm not even convinced that a large majority of the medieval equivalent of the scientific community every supported witch burning. The Spanish Inquisition and the Papacy, for example, opposed it, and obviously not out of any sense of tolerance or secularism. Many individual witch burning trials involved tiny villages stricken by plague or war whose people were not exactly in their right minds. Politicians tended to allow it and make use of it for various reasons of their own. So if you were an academic, the question would probably not be whether it was permissible to doubt witchcraft, but how to convince the common people to stop burning innocents.

And they did. In the end, this isn't a failure of my thesis, it's an example of its success. In the Middle Ages, people had a superstitious worldview that supported witch-burning. At the time, this made sense - they didn't know any better. A few very smart people developed a better, more rational worldview that had more evidence supporting it. They presented this evidence to people, starting with the smartest and trickling down to everyone, who weighed all the evidence and decided that the more rational worldview was right. Now we have a more rational worldview that says there are no witches. If you DO believe in witches, you'll need to find enough evidence to support that view, so that you can convince the majority of smart unbiased people. I don't think you can. When you fail, you should conclude that your evidence wasn't good enough and witches probably don't really exist.

[Neike Taika-Tessaro]

Yes, things have been warming, but in the past 4 years the trends have been reversing themselves,

I just want to point out here, as a brief aside, that "global warming" is and always has been a misnomer. A more apt word would be "global extreme-weather-ifying". :-P In other words, instead of the temperatures being, errr, temperate, they swing more and more wildly back and forth.

There are two factors to this phenomenom: dust/particles, and CO2. The more we manage to reduce CO2, but not the 'dust', the more the light of the sun dimming will cool the planet. The more we manage to reduce the dust/particles, the more the CO2 keeps the warmth on the surface of the planet. If we don't do either, we'll have the dust cooling things and CO2 warming things, so the overall temperature of the earth stays the same, but it becomes a lot easier to disrupt, with miniscule (comparatively) amounts of either element to the effect changing giving us disastrous temperatures.

So, yes, the trends have been reversing themselves, because a lot of people have been thinking, "ZOMG, CO2! We must do something about it!" and meanwhile forgetting that the visible particles also have an effect.

So much as to if the whole thing is human made, by the way.

[benkern]

You don't need a degree to tell you it'd be smartest to start hoarding fossil fuels, move to a hill and buy both lots of sun-tan lotion and artic-condition clothes.

[Andreas the Wise]

I'm still not convinced that people don't have the right to their own opinion, but I can't think of a rational argument at the moment so I'll leave it ...

[Jacobus Loki]

International Panel on Climate Change estimates with 90% confidence that it's mostly human-caused

A mostly political panel with an agenda.

Look at how scientists eat. If they are not in the private sector, they subsist on grants. Grants are political in nature. Scientists who "believe" in human-caused global warming are given grants, and get to feed their families. Just like clerics (the learned of their day) who believed in witches and evil spirits got the best jobs.

Those who question human-caused global warming have their funding dry up, and have to moolight at Burger King.

No, I am not offended. Honest debate is good. What offends me is when a Belief System becomes so powerful that it shouts down opposition (Four legs good! Two legs bad!).

Now for the really scary part.

The U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. If alternative fuels do not develop quickly enough to offset petroleum, you may take it as a certainty that the U.S. will start making gasoline out of coal. It is a very, very dirty old technology. Don't worry about co2- every other sulphurous, mercury-contaminated poisonous thing you can imagine would end up in the biosphere. Unless of course the process was watched very carefully.

Hey- how about a bumper sticker:

Burning at the stake releases greenhouse gases.

[Yvain Wintersong]

Hypatia's Mom, I'm sorry if I'm turning this into a global warming thread, but I can't help but respond to a few points; I'll try to keep it at least a little related to the logic behind it. Jacobus, I'll respond to you too when I have more time.

There happen to be a number of climatolotists on both sides of this issue, as there are experts on both sides of many issues.

Yes, there are a number of scientists on both sides of the issue. But saying that isn't enough. What number? If it's 99-1, that's very different from saying it's 50-50. Science is never certain about anything - if it was, it would be religion - but it can have a pretty good idea of the answer.

For example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the national science academies of all eight G8 nations, the US National Research Council, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and so on all have released statements that they believe global warming is mostly man-made. No major organizations have released statements that they believe it's mostly natural, although a few scientists here and there continue to think so.

Of course, there's still a chance that global warming isn't caused by humans. It's just a very low chance.

That is not to say that we should ignore opportunities to save energy, to use resources wisely, and to take care of this planet's flora and fauna. Conservation is always a good idea, but legislating draconian change is often a poorly thought-out reaction to a perceived problem. Encouraging and educating for those changes instead of forcing them is always met with better and more willing compliance.

But we don't use that method when there's something we actually care deeply about, do we?

For example, most countries care deeply about drug abuse. They don't just run campaigns suggesting that people make wiser decisions about drugs. They legislate that drugs are illegal. And most countries care deeply about terrorism. They don't just encourage people to keep a lookout for terrorists. They have laws to scan every person entering the country, metal detectors in every sensitive location, massive government agencies set up to look for terrorists, and so on.

If global warming is real, it's more dangerous than drugs and terrorism combined. If you think anti-pollution legislation is a draconian over-reaction, do you think anti-drug and anti-terrorist legislation is equally unnecessary?

Yes, things have been warming, but in the past 4 years the trends have been reversing themselves, and some people are even beginning to talk about the earth starting a cooling trend. I think that before we go off the deep end about things, we need to take a deep breath and realize that hysterical warnings of impending doom are rarely appropriate. Back in the 70's we were frightened of the coming ice age from global cooling. Give it a few years and it will probably reverse again.

For "global cooling", please see here.

But I'm more interested in your statement that "hysterical warnings of doom are rarely appropriate". Does this mean that, whenever anyone makes a statement like "X could kill millions of people and cause lots of damage", we should dismiss it? What if all the world's astronomers say they see an asteroid heading towards Earth that will kill us all? Should we ignore them and not bother launching a spacecraft to divert it? If national security experts say that terrorists are about to start a global nuclear war, should we ignore them and not try to arrest the terrorists?

Just as with the example above, the conventional wisdom seems to be that we should behave responsibly when dealing with a threat like terrorism, but shrug it off when dealing with global warming.

Without giving examples (I'll PM them if you ask) there have been several ancient societies that destroyed themselves through environmental degradation. And there have been at least two catastrophes in human prehistory that killed a large fraction of the human race. So it's not unreasonable to think that another environmental catastrophe or another global catastrophe might happen sometime. I'm not saying it'll kill everyone, probably just a few million to a few hundred million people.

"Give it a few years and it will probably reverse again" is a perfect example of the sort of statement I meant when I made this thread. Very few reputable scientists think this, as far as I know. I don't know if you're an expert on climatology, but I'm assuming that, like most people, you aren't.

So, at the risk of being unnecessarily dramatic, are you willing to bet the lives of a hundred million people on a prediction you make without really understanding the situation, that goes against the predictions of almost everyone who does understand it?