Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Hallo Alfie]

Whether they "display symptoms" is not relevant unless they display them to a sufficient degree.

I am currently experienced a nagging cough that has lasted for more than six weeks, along with difficulty swallowing. I am experiencing two of of the seven C-A-U-T-I-O-N symptoms of cancer. Which, surprise, surprise, does not mean I actually have cancer, as has been confirmed by x-ray and blood samples.

You can cherry pick single posts all you want for what you perceive to be isolated symptoms of groupthink, but it doesn't matter squat as long as that's all you bring to the table.

Janis said

If one or more of these symptoms of groupthink are commonplace in a particular group, change must occur.

So, "one or more".

Additionally, in your example you have a nasty cough presumably.
If you did nothing about it or not having it checked out you would be a bit foolish not to.
Same applies here. You have symptoms that may or may not be serious. You would find out.

Yes, and the rolleyes in your post were there to reinforce the sincerity of your request for correction...

If you want to find out why you're wrong, you just need read brantc's post and my reply, and then your reply to my post, and how it completely missed anything in our posts.

The eye roll was in relation to your obviously rude response to my question.
The fact is I did read the posts and was a little confused - hence my request for clarification. You respond with rudeness. symptom #4

Consensus and groupthink are not the same thing. Groupthink can follow from consensus, but the consensus itself is generally created through other means (like from overwhelming evidence, as in science).

Correct.

Opposing viewpoints are encouraged, junk science is not. If I presented a theory describing an alternative method to evolution, and had actual, legitimate evidence to back it up, it would be evaluated by the scientific community for its merits. If I presented a "theory" that evolution is a lie because I don't believe in it it would be ridiculed, and rightly so.

Opposing views here are not encouraged though are they? Anyone with an opposing view is ridiculed etc.
I may well be wrong here, could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc.

If not, are we to think that the scientists get it right every time.

Come on, seriously?

 

[elbe]

Opposing views here are not encouraged though are they? Anyone with an opposing view is ridiculed etc.
I may well be wrong here, could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc.

If not, are we to think that the scientists get it right every time.

Come on, seriously?

Well, it's clear that you are opposed to actually talking about science, and that you seem to know little about it, so what is the point of it all?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well, it's clear that you are opposed to actually talking about science, and that you seem to know little about it, so what is the point of it all?

My question isn't actually directed to the issue (or contents of) of the science itself, is it? i.e. the science itself isn't actually in issue in this discussion.
It goes to the heart of honest debate and/or the groupthink symptoms and manifestations.

Can you give me some examples to show I am wrong on this point?

 

[Megalodon]

The eye roll was in relation to your obviously rude response to my question.
The fact is I did read the posts and was a little confused - hence my request for clarification. You respond with rudeness. symptom #4

You addressed a post where I wasn't replying to you, which makes your excuse a lie, and a clumsy one at that. You are indeed a waste of time...

 

[a_unique_person]

As I say, all the traits seem to be there.
......
Any further thoughts, rebuttals, agreement etc?

I have numbered the symptoms and welcome any specific or general examples of each.

I will be extremely interested in any overall examples or comparisons anyone would like to contribute.


AAA

You have put up a list of groupthink traits. You have not actually provided any examples yourself of where they are in evidence. You have to do that first before anyone has to do the work for you. You also have to consider that possibilty that the 'think' is actually correct. You have made no attempt to do do that either, and refuse to do so.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You have put up a list of groupthink traits.

Correct. Well done.

You have not actually provided any examples yourself of where they are in evidence.

I have already pointed out a number of examples in this thread alone.

I will repeat a challenge for you though and see if you can prove me wrong.

".. could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

You also have to consider that possibilty that the 'think' is actually correct. You have made no attempt to do do that either, and refuse to do so.

Not true. I can see that there is the possibility that the science is correct, that does not howeverexplain the rabid stance of its adherents.
I have been thinking on this issue for years, I did not start out with this opinion/theory of groupthink; it has come to me slowly through observation.

If you think you can prove otherwise, please show me.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You addressed a post where I wasn't replying to you, which makes your excuse a lie, and a clumsy one at that. You are indeed a waste of time...

I absolutely reject your accusations of lying - I have done no such thing.
Furthermore, I believe you are being dishonest here, not I.

Now, rather than play your childish derail games, would you instead like to show me where my thinking was incorrect as I originally asked.

Just as a reminder: I thought that your example was evidence of GW, not proof of AGW. As such your post really wasn't relevant on this count: Nor the other, being the OP.
Can you show me why my thinking is incorrect here or not?

 

[elbe]

My question isn't actually directed to the issue (or contents of) of the science itself, is it? i.e. the science itself isn't actually in issue in this discussion.
It goes to the heart of honest debate and/or the groupthink symptoms and manifestations.

Can you give me some examples to show I am wrong on this point?

You don't understand science, you have preconceived notions about how it works, but no matter what anyone tells you you just ignore reality.

How can you be, in any way, qualified to discuss groupthink in science if you fail to understand how science works?

 

[a_unique_person]

Not true. I can see that there is the possibility that the science is correct, that does not howeverexplain the rabid stance of its adherents.

It describes it exactly, although rabid is the wrong word. The ability of non-science to wreck science has been seen many times in history. In this case the science is saying we, and the rest of the worlds species, are in for severe trauma unless we do something about it now. They honestly see the science as saying that. The contrary point of view consists of mostly junk science. If there were something of substance to the contrary, you might have a point, but to date it consists mainly of the rebuttals you seem to favour, which have nothing to do with science, but instead consist of hand waving and personalising the issue.

 

[Megalodon]

I absolutely reject your accusations of lying - I have done no such thing.
Furthermore, I believe you are being dishonest here, not I.

Then you lie two more times...

Can you show me why my thinking is incorrect here or not?

Others have done that, only to be ignored by you. I will not waste my time.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Then you lie two more times....

And rejected twice more...

Others have done that, only to be ignored by you. I will not waste my time.

Fine then, one can only assume by your silence and/or reluctance that I was in fact correct in my interpretation.

Now I guess you have two choices: Put up, or shut up.
What's it to be?

 

[BenBurch]

When Everybody believes something, that does not make it automatically false or automatically true.

But when Everybody is taking the advice of the best scientific minds, I'll bet on the group consensus each and every time.

Its a lot like horse handicapping. You can bet with the line, or against it. But we have a word for people who always bet against it. Losers.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

When Everybody believes something, that does not make it automatically false or automatically true.

But when Everybody is taking the advice of the best scientific minds, I'll bet on the group consensus each and every time.

Its a lot like horse handicapping. You can bet with the line, or against it. But we have a word for people who always bet against it. Losers.

That's great Ben, so now science is like betting on a horse race?

Anyway, can you advance the failure of my 'hypothesis'...

" could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

By the way symptoms #1 & #4 (my bold).

 

[a_unique_person]

That's great Ben, so now science is like betting on a horse race?

Anyway, can you advance the failure of my 'hypothesis'...

It's called an analogy.

" could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

By the way symptoms #1 & #4 (my bold).

Can you show me where it is not graciously put, because I can show you plenty of times where 'constructive' criticism is put forward as proof of fraud.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's called an analogy.

Poor one, I would have thought. Matters not.

Can you show me where it is not graciously put, because I can show you plenty of times where 'constructive' criticism is put forward as proof of fraud.

Nice try.
If you like, remove the word graciously, although it seems to me that true professional scientists (read grownups) would be gracious about it.

I should also point out that it is not just the scientists who should be gracious, but the non scientists too (such as the rest of you on the forum)

Back to the point at hand,
Some of you are claiming that groupthink can't possibly be true.
I am saying that not only is it possible, it actually seems to be.

Now to help disporove it:

"could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

If you can't that's fine. We can then move on and try to dismantle another of the symptoms.

 

[Megalodon]

And rejected twice more...

So one more...

Fine then, one can only assume by your silence and/or reluctance that I was in fact correct in my interpretation.

Of course you can. It's an extremely stupid assumption, but that never stopped you before.

Now I guess you have two choices: Put up, or shut up.

I do AAA? That's a nice way to add hypocrisy to your liar status. You have been ignoring comments to you dumb OP, based on the excuse that you don't want to discuss science.

Well, here's a newsflash, AGW is science, and without understanding the science and the scientific practices, you can't discuss it in the way you want.

To put it in a way that someone of your (mental) age might get, your OP is full of fail.

 

[Megalodon]

Well, it's clear that you are opposed to actually talking about science, and that you seem to know little about it, so what is the point of it all?

You don't understand science, you have preconceived notions about how it works, but no matter what anyone tells you you just ignore reality.

How can you be, in any way, qualified to discuss groupthink in science if you fail to understand how science works?

Only from this page, here are examples of pertinent questions that you just ignored, AAA. So why don't you put up or shut up?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So one more...

Of course you can. It's an extremely stupid assumption, but that never stopped you before.

I do AAA? That's a nice way to add hypocrisy to your liar status. You have been ignoring comments to you dumb OP, based on the excuse that you don't want to discuss science.

Well, here's a newsflash, AGW is science, and without understanding the science and the scientific practices, you can't discuss it in the way you want.

To put it in a way that someone of your (mental) age might get, your OP is full of fail.

See symptom #4.

A lot of anger mixed in too from the sounds of it.

Only from this page, here are examples of pertinent questions that you just ignored, AAA. So why don't you put up or shut up?

Firstly, Will or can you answer this question? I think this is the third time:

"I thought that your example was evidence of GW, not proof of AGW. As such your post really wasn't relevant on this count: Nor the other, being the OP.
Can you show me why my thinking is incorrect here or not? "

Second, the other posts have been answered, and answered and answered again.

Just once more for the mentally deficient.

AGW science is the science. (What a surprise.)
Groupthink is the phenomenon that follows (in this case) the science. It has nothing to do with the experiments, models, statistics, proxy data etc etc. It is about the 'mentality or attitude of the organisations and people that follows on from the theory. This includes scientists and beyond to the 'religious faithful' that love to wallow in their groupthink excrement that fill the gullible non thinking masses.

Now, you think my hypothesis "full of fail"?

Prove it!
You could start with answering this one:...

"could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc."

If you can't that's fine. We can then move on and try to dismantle another of the symptoms.

 

[a_unique_person]

AGW science is the science. (What a surprise.)
Groupthink is the phenomenon that follows (in this case) the science. It has nothing to do with the experiments, models, statistics, proxy data etc etc. It is about the 'mentality or attitude of the organisations and people that follows on from the theory. This includes scientists and beyond to the 'religious faithful' that love to wallow in their groupthink excrement that fill the gullible non thinking masses.

Now, you think my hypothesis "full of fail"?

Prove it!

LOL. You have to prove your hypothesis true, we don't have to prove it fails.

 

[Dancing David]

I may well be wrong here, could you please show me a few examples of where a challenge to the science has been graciously received as contructive criticism, data reviewed, hypothesis fine tuned etc etc.

How about you show us where the peer review does a something you disagree with?

Your argument is very shallow, why don't you show your data that the process does not work?

If someone has something interesting, it will be discussed.

Where is your data, where is your evidence?
Pauli, Bohr, Fermi, Einstein, Yukawa, Gell-Mann, stop pretending that you are 'just asking questions', it is part of this forum that you need to support your own claims.

So while you can asl these questions, you hav been here long enough that you need to start to do your own homework.

You state that you believe new ideas are met with ridicule, so outside of something that happened two humdred years ago, show that as happening. take cold fusion, take any example you want. Demonstrate your own ideas.

I mean this in the best sense.