Which is why a bunch of contrarians calling themselves “skeptic” looks silly.
Hume was sceptical that we could deduce causal relationships from our observations.
Contrast this with the constant requests by contrarians that we prove this or that causality. Or that we provide evidence of future catastrophes. Think about it. Evidence about the future. As if scientists had a Delorean.
The nearest skepticism contrarians show is the methodological one. Descartes was skeptic too, or at least he played one on TV.
Contrarianism is a Cartesian Closet Category.
Somehow, the anglosphere might find that less sexy.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
âś“ Live Streamingâś“ Interactive Chatâś“ Private Showsâś“ HD Qualityâś“ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
I do not see how skepticism is part of the scientific method.
Scepticism is an attitude that embodies an epistemic virtue. It’s prudence regarding knowledge. Contrarians are flattering themselves when they call themselves sceptics.
Scientists oftentimes portray their method as requiring this attitude. It can easily lead to moral grandstanding, like Feynman’s Cargo cult mansplanation. At the very least, this shows that science carries values, contrary to the “just the facts” meme.
If one wishes to have Scepticism built-in the scientific method, here’s one idea to explore:
http://www.zetetique.net
This project should not be conflated with incredibilism:
http://planet3.org/2012/08/24/incredibilism/
In any case, beware that a sceptic is never wrong. This perfection comes at a price: he’s never right either.
Into the “debate” about whether counterfactuals have to be counter to fact, you introduce your unsubstantiated belief that I have “entertained” a counterfactual.
You’re quite right that I believe you entertain a counterfactual, Matt. You’re also quite wrong that it’s unsubstantiated. To simplify what I said so far, here’s your version of Koonin’s small argument:
[Matt’s counterfactual] Even if we get a 3C increase in mean global temp, it is only about 1% change from the baseline of about 288K, a small increase that “relatively” small increase in summertime daytime cloud cover could blot it out entirely.
Compare and contrast:
Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it
You’ll note that “even if something exists” strengthens the counterfactual if Gorgias surmises that nothing does indeed exist.
It’s as if Gorgias anticipated the Contrarian matrix:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/
If I have the time, I’ll add Koonin’s small argument, right next to CO2 is a trace gas.
Furthermore, I also believe that you imply something by your counterfactual, Matt. However, this has not been made explicit yet. Suppose we accept that even if we get a 3C increase in mean global temp, it is only about 1% change from the baseline of about 288K, a small increase that “relatively” small increase in summertime daytime cloud cover could blot it out entirely, what should we infer from that?
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
âś“ Live Streamingâś“ Interactive Chatâś“ Private Showsâś“ HD Qualityâś“ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
There is no consensus.
If there was, we wouldn’t know.
If we knew, we wouldn’t be able to spell it out.
If we could spell it out, it would not matter.
if sceptics' never-ending audit is really damaging policy, that may be more a reflection of an overly scientised policy process than a basis for denying them a voice in debate.
Warren Pearce, connecting the Neverending Audit with the Contrarian Matrix.
