Judy's habitual fallback to "dishonest" gets my goat.
The background was: 1) An article by philosopher Denis Dutton: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/01/opinion/01dutton.html In a nutshell he argued that "Apocalyptic scenarios" are a diversion from real problems. As well as Y2K he includes catastrophic climate change alarmism in that bag. 2) Me: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be reasonably "based on fact" (sound science). A decade ago I was similarly sceptical about Y2K and puzzled as to how this "meme" (if that is the right concept) had gained such enormous power" 3) Judy: "And apparently completely missed the fact that the "alarmism" resulted in actions taken to successfully defang Y2K. It was a real threat, averted because attention was paid to it." 4) Me (a Mullah Nasrudin story): "A friend noticed that every morning Mulla Nasrudin would sprinkle crumbs on his doorstep. 'Why do you do that, friend?' : 'To keep the lions away' : 'But there aren't any lions here?' : 'See, it works!'" 5) So here we go, here goes Judy: "Anytime you want to change your approach and have an intellectually honest discussion, just let me know, OK?" 6) I protested at that. And here's how Judy responded: "Then *argue* it, with facts and logic. *Document* that nothing that was done about Y2K was actually necessary. Don't hide behind a Nasrudin teaching story as if that were a definitive response." So let's look at that. Go back to Judy's assertion at (3). Note that it is a bald assertion. There is no presentation of evidence. That's why the Nasrudin story is to the point. The Nasrudin story is a charming way of presenting what would otherwise be a dry point. Viz: :: The failure of a catastrophic scenario to materialise can never IN ITSELF count as justification for any steps we may have taken to avert it :: (Think priests praying to avert the end of the world next Thursday and then telling you smugly on Friday "we told you so"). But in the absence of evidence - that is all Judy's asserion at (3) is. So, in other words that's what the Nasrudin story is - it's a request for evidence. And that is supposed to be "intellectually dishonest"? By Judy's lights "intellectual dishonesty" is padded out to mean "*argue* it, with facts and logic". (A bizarre padding out, but let's leave that aside). Well I have now spelled out how the Nasrudin story is an argument (not that it should have needed that). But what about facts? The only such items appearing in the thread so far can be sourced from our side of the debate and not from Judy's lofty tones. This evidence was on the table (not that I think that's where the burden of proof should lie. Again, think praying priests). Judy ignored it. Our philosopher friend from New Zealand had pointed out that the consequences were pretty much the same whether countries panicked about Y2K, or whether they didn't. He identified those countries too. He made a case. Judy made no case in response save to fire off her blunderbuss. That's not "*arguing* it, with facts and logic" I'd say. As a second attempt to justify the use of "intellectual dishonesty" we have this: Me: "Do you think I DON'T believe it is valid? Because that would be "dishonest" I suppose." Judy: "No. I'm saying your use of the Nasrudin story is a thought-stopper, a way to avoid making a cogent argument." Is the Nasrudin story a "thought stopper"? No, it is a valid point (see above). Perhaps Judy is confusing her thoughts stopping for its being a thought stopper? Does Judy marshall any evidence, any facts or logic, for it being a thought stopper? Oh no. It's just another bald assertion. So what does that say about THAT point then (by Judy's own stance)..."intellectual dishonesty"? By using "thought stopper" here, is not Judy herself "hiding behind a thought stopper"? And finally we have this afterthought: Judy: "*And* you're using Y2K as a stand-in for climate change, so you're trying to short-circuit argument about that at the same time." This is nonsense of course. There is NO attempt whatsoever by anyone to claim that the the evidence (such as it is) for what Judy refers to as "climate change" (silly phrase for the scientific conjecture) has anything whatsoever to do with the Y2K phenomenon. What it IS is a cultural observation about how (in our opinion) highly technical issues can be hijacked and re-packaged by politicians and the media so that the facts about the evidence get obscured. And the conjecture is that it is connected with some sort of wish or attraction that our culture has for dooom & gloom scenarios. This is what I wrote: "I do not consider CO2 alarmism to be reasonably "based on fact" (sound science)." Do you see that? No mention of Y2K. The scientific cash-value of statements such as Judy's "Climate change is *already* having severe effects on the needy" interest me. I wonder if the concept of "intellectual dishonesty" could gain better purchase there?
