Comments on: Pro Tip for Science Denialists: How to win a debate with a scientist https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/ Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:28:49 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.8 By: We were wrong about Bill Nye « Violent metaphors https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489635 Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:28:49 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489635 […] community have a longstanding policy not to debate with creationists, in part because doing so gives an unwarranted credibility to their disingenuous arguments. So when Bill Nye chose to debate Ken Ham in the Creation Museum on […]

]]> By: Sylvester B https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489634 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:46:50 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489634 Brad: I do not understand your point about an equation to express the relationship between communication efficacy and honesty. Bayseian? (sp?) I don’t think these concepts can be expressed mathematically unless you consider them to be contradictory (A=1/B or X=A-B) in which case one could not honestly state any position at all.

Kinda dumb point, imo.

JimB

]]> By: Sylvester B https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489633 Mon, 03 Feb 2014 18:37:29 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489633 My problem is much simpler, since I am not trying to win an argument but just to understand the science. So my question would be in two parts: 1) How much is human activity actually driving global warming? and 2) What would be a falsifying event wrt catastrophic warming predictions?

A scientific theory that has no falsifying event isn’t scientific.

And I readily admit that the earth is warming, and has been since the end of the ice ages. I just do not think the climate scientists have nailed down a reliable computer simulation of the entire chaotic system.

The fall-off after the hockey stick was not predicted, nor the reduction in the rate of warming. Back to the drawing board! Although the more recent tweaks have been an improvement.
JimB

]]> By: Brad Keyes https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489632 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 23:25:41 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489632 Greg,

“That sort of misses what I thought was the point”

Point? I thought it was a question.

Yes, I sensed you trying to prompt me to say something in the parenthesised part of the question, but couldn’t read your mind so I chose an all-purpose context-agnostic formula.

Perhaps this shows I don’t know much about you but:

What is the exact scenario: writing school textbooks (“solidified” science), explaining evolution (“solidified” science) to Med Sci students, debating a creationist (“solidified but contested anyway” science), explaining climate change in a radio studio (“fluid and contested”)….what?

and if my answer was inadequate, it’s only good manners that you should show us an adequate one

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489631 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:10:59 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489631 (same applies in the classroom.)

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489630 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:10:34 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489630 That sort of misses what I thought was the point. As an expert on some area of science, or in some cases, as someone who has learned a lot of detail about a particular issue, saying “what I think and why” is an inadequate guide for writing up the science for the general public.

]]> By: Brad Keyes https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489629 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 20:00:22 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489629 Greg,

Bumper-sticker edition?

Saying what you think and why.

]]> By: Greg Laden https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489628 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 14:29:26 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489628 Brad, what do you mean by “being honest” (in the context of communicating complex scientific information to a non-specialist public)?

]]> By: Kevin MacDonald https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489627 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:53:08 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489627

Your response is … yet more dilatory, evasive squirrelism

Yawn!

]]> By: Brad Keyes https://gregladen.com/blog/2013/10/02/pro-tip-for-science-denialist-how-to-win-a-debate-with-a-scientist/#comment-489626 Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:45:48 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=17900#comment-489626 Surprise surprise.

Your response is … yet more dilatory, evasive squirrelism.

I’ll ask again, without mentioning that person:

In science, what is the relationship between A and B, as an equation, where A represents being effective and B represents being honest? Define as many additional variables/constants as necessary (but no more).

Go.

Tick tock.

]]>