Superlative Sentences of the Day
The funniest thing I read today, from Kevin Williamson (HT2 Jim Manzi):
Scientific disputes are highly specialized, and meaningful participation in them requires a great deal of non-generalist knowledge. I’m generally skeptical of argument from credential, but there’s a time for it. For instance, a great number of scientists have a particular view of global warming. Richard Lindzen has reservations about that view. Professor Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist a full-on professor at MIT. Your average politician is not packing the gear to get in the middle of that fight. I’m not. Chait isn’t, either. Is Lindzen not a real scientist? Is he a kook? Is Jonathan Chait going to make that case? Given two scientists with different opinions about climate forecasting, why exactly ought I to consult Jonathan Chait, or Jon Huntsman? Chait ought to think about seizing one of the many occasions for humility that come his way.
The most surprising thing I read today, from Paul Krugman:
We do know that demand curves generally slope down; it’s a lot harder to give good examples of supply curves that slope up (as a textbook author, believe me, I’ve looked)…
But Williamson’s point actually counts against Perry: given that these disputes are impossible for the layperson to adjudicate, we surely must go with the current consensus, and not with the rogue maverick, right? The rogue will prove to be right, oh, 1% of the time, but as laypersons we must place our bets on the 99% position, yes?
I think you’re missing Williamson’s point. Click the link to see what his position is, if you’re curious. He’s not saying, “Perry is just as entitled to his opinion as I am or Chait is, since none of us can possibly know.” He’s more saying, “Who the heck cares what Perry thinks about evolution or global warming?”
You don’t actually need to know much about science to figure out how few people believe in the coming Global Warming calamity. You just have to look at who buys beach front real estate, and how the price of oil keeps going up.
It also helps if you can figure out that using words like “trick” and “hide” together in the one sentence is almost universally indicating deception.
I would second Gene’s remarks, and add that when you look at scientists who are skeptical of a given consensus, what you often find is that 1) they actually accept a fair amount of the consensus, and 2) they disagree even among themselves about which parts of the consensus are wrong.
So, for example, in the case of global warming one skeptic will say that the earth hasn’t actually been getting warmer, another will say yes it’s gotten warmer but humans aren’t the cause, a third will say yes humans are the cause but the warming isn’t harmful, and so on. You might think that the sheer number of anti-global warming arguments is impressive, but many of the arguments are incompatible with each other, and even most skeptics think each of the skeptical arguments are bunk.
What does that have to do with williamson’s point of who cares what non experts have to say on these matters?
What does that have to do with williamson’s point of who cares what non experts have to say on these matters?
People care what a politician thinks about global warming or evolution because what they believe on the subjects affects what they will do in office. Is that not obvious?
Yes people care about what policies a politician might put in place because of his views but that doesn’t mean these politicians know what they are talking about when they talk about scientific matters.
The criticism of Perry is precisely that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Williamson seems to think that a layman’s accepting expert consensus on a subject is equivalent to their rejecting the expert consensus on the subject. Which is bizarre. Anyone who actually adopted such a practice with regard to his own beliefs would end up incredibly ignorant.
Blackadder wrote:
Williamson seems to think that a layman’s accepting expert consensus on a subject is equivalent to their rejecting the expert consensus on the subject.
I think you need to join Ygesias on the “intentionally misunderstanding bandwagon” (Williamson’s phrase).
In his original post, Williamson says:
[Progressives] ask what makes Rick Perry qualified to disagree with the scientific establishment, but never ask the equally relevant question of what makes Jon Huntsman qualified to agree with it.
Forgive me for concluding from this that Williamson might think disagreeing with the scientific establishment and agreeing with the scientific establishment are epistemologically similar.
If that’s not what Williamson means, then what would you say was his point, exactly?
OK fair enough that was one of his points… But I don’t think it was his main point.