Is AGW another example of groupthink

[BenBurch]

It's called an analogy.
...

I was trying to take it down to the least common denominator. Seems I did not go far enough down.

 

[Meed]

Sorry Alfie, but being criticized is not evidence of stereotyping. Nor do most of your other declarations of these symptoms hold up. But the purpose of this thread wasn't simply to insult forum posters, was it? More importantly, your understanding of group think theory is seriously flawed.

 

[elbe]

It's called an analogy.

He's not very good at analogy. Like when he thought Piggy was calling him a mass murderer.

 

[Piggy]

" 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."

This is begging the question.

Science is replete with examples of challenges that result in data reviewed, hypotheses changed, even theories overturned.

You don't have to look very far to find those.

However, when unfounded objections to mainstream science have been pubicly debunked for some time, and yet these same unfounded objections continue to be made, scientists have no choice but to ignore them or debunk them yet again.

(Which happens with creationism, for example, which is why you see anti-AGW arguments sometimes compared to creationist arguments.)

The reason no one bothers to review any data when anti-AGW hypotheses are offered is simple -- the data have already been reviewed, and these hypotheses have been duly noted, studied, and rejected long ago. That's well documented.

In other words, there's no need to review any data.

The reason hypotheses aren't fine tuned is also simple -- crank theories cannot be the basis for fine-tuning a hypothesis. Only valid science can be a basis for that.

And at this point, anti-AGW arguments are crank ideas, which you would know if you read the science.

And this is why you cannot simply charge on like a blind bull about all this without knowing the science.

It's like if I were to start threads about the uses of industrial fuels and lubricants, knowing nothing about them, and refuse to read anything about them, and marvel that no one is taking my ideas seriously, and then get mad about it.

[A repost would be appreciated, since Alfie has me on ignore.]

 

[Eyeron]

" 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."

This is begging the question.

Science is replete with examples of challenges that result in data reviewed, hypotheses changed, even theories overturned.

You don't have to look very far to find those.

However, when unfounded objections to mainstream science have been pubicly debunked for some time, and yet these same unfounded objections continue to be made, scientists have no choice but to ignore them or debunk them yet again.

(Which happens with creationism, for example, which is why you see anti-AGW arguments sometimes compared to creationist arguments.)

The reason no one bothers to review any data when anti-AGW hypotheses are offered is simple -- the data have already been reviewed, and these hypotheses have been duly noted, studied, and rejected long ago. That's well documented.

In other words, there's no need to review any data.

The reason hypotheses aren't fine tuned is also simple -- crank theories cannot be the basis for fine-tuning a hypothesis. Only valid science can be a basis for that.

And at this point, anti-AGW arguments are crank ideas, which you would know if you read the science.

And this is why you cannot simply charge on like a blind bull about all this without knowing the science.

It's like if I were to start threads about the uses of industrial fuels and lubricants, knowing nothing about them, and refuse to read anything about them, and marvel that no one is taking my ideas seriously, and then get mad about it.

[A repost would be appreciated, since Alfie has me on ignore.]

Repost.

 

[Thunder]

it seems to me that anything that many people believe in, but someone else does niot agree with, is often labeled "groupthink". its a great way of disregarding views that are HIGHLY popular.

i.e. I believe that both Christianity and Islam are examples of Groupthink.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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

I don't have a problem with peer review.

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

That is what we are exploring.
We are only discussing one symptom at the moment. And it would be a good way to help disprove this by showing how dissenting views are received. It seems to me there are two choices when rejecting.
- It is rejected because the science is already 100% correct and needs no improvement.
- What is being put up (the dissent) is 100% incorrect.

In a world and field of science where virtually nothing is absolute, it seems to me that there should be thousands of examples to help disporove my little challenge and so far we have nearly three pages of forum discussion without a thing.

If someone has something interesting, it will be discussed.

I presume you mean dissenting views: Great! Can you show us please.

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.

Correct and I believe - at least in part - that has been done.
I have set a challenge that will help you disprove it.

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.

As I read through these posts and other JREF threads it is obvious to anyone that other science is debated with passionate civility - when someone makes a fair point, it is usually accepted with good grace.
As for demonstrating my own ideas, I have provided one example of a specific groupthink event that I was involved in. I have also pointed out possible other possible episodes from individuals in this very thread.

A quick internet search will bring up others too. Vietnam war, Bay of pigs and many others are also alleged instances of grouthink - this time in American politics. I am not making direct comparisons to those by the way - I am not intimate with the circumstances - I am merely pointing out there are many examples.
Parky76 makes interesting observations also of groupthink on a larger scale, in the form of religion.

Repost.

I mean this in the best sense. [/QUOTE]

Thanks, and received with same.

Sorry Alfie, but being criticized is not evidence of stereotyping.

Agreed. But when everything is criticised and stereotyped, one starts to wonder.

Nor do most of your other declarations of these symptoms hold up.

Why?

But the purpose of this thread wasn't simply to insult forum posters, was it?

Correct, but if it is handed out, expect some back.

More importantly, your understanding of group think theory is seriously flawed.

Please show me where, why and how?

Repost.

Reignore.

it seems to me that anything that many people believe in, but someone else does niot agree with, is often labeled "groupthink". its a great way of disregarding views that are HIGHLY popular.

That's a valid possibility and one I had considered before creating this thread.
So, I am not "disregarding" anything - as opposed to anyone.

I would have hoped in the true spirit of science, others would have been more than happy, willing and capable to assist with disproving the OP by way of the myriad of examples they say are out there, nay must be out there.
So far all we have is a lot of armwaving, foot stamping and calls to check the science. None of which progresses the discussion nor proves or disproves anything.

i.e. I believe that both Christianity and Islam are examples of Groupthink.

Me too.

Interesting simile, it makes you wonder doesn't it?

The priests interpret the good book, tell the masses what to believe, and how to act and live their lives.
And the gullible accept it without question.

 

[Cavemonster]

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

Reposting for Alphie

 

[Piggy]

Reignore.

Refail.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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

If you believe that to be true, that's fine.
Should I presume also, that you have nothing further to contribute but evasiveness and deflection.

But this? From one who has stated they have spent much time and effort studying the science? Surely you would be readily in a position to provide just the evidence we require.

 

[Cavemonster]

If you believe that to be true, that's fine.
Should I presume also, that you have nothing further to contribute but evasiveness and deflection.

But this? From one who has stated they have spent much time and effort studying the science? Surely you would be readily in a position to provide just the evidence we require.

Alphie,
Prove to me that you have stopped beating your wife.

I'm just asking questions, and it should be easy to resolve.

Does the above example give you a better idea of where the burden of proof is?

 

[elbe]

If you believe that to be true, that's fine.
Should I presume also, that you have nothing further to contribute but evasiveness and deflection.

But this? From one who has stated they have spent much time and effort studying the science? Surely you would be readily in a position to provide just the evidence we require.

Have you never even heard of burden of proof? Is your entire goal to make as many logically unsound posts as possible?

 

[Piggy]

But this? From one who has stated they have spent much time and effort studying the science? Surely you would be readily in a position to provide just the evidence we require.

This is flatly disingenuous from someone who open refuses to look at evidence of any sort.

Ok, I'm finally convinced. You're a troll.

Even if you don't intend to be a troll, you're still a troll because you behave like one. And troll is as troll does.

Quite frankly I'm amazed that your personal insults -- e.g. calling another poster a twit (with an exclamation point) and calling all pro-AGW posters liars and frauds -- haven't gotten you a yellow card yet.

But that's beside the point, really.

Regarding the OP and the subsequent arguments presented by the OPer, it seems to me that this thread is pretty much over, given that the original argument has now been debunked, and there's nowhere to go, given that Alfie holds the explicit position of refusing to view evidence.

I'm going to unsubscribe, and I think it would be a wonderful thing if everyone else did as well.

I highly recommend it.

 

[Piggy]

Unsubscribed.

 

[Dancing David]

Alfie, you miss the point, either you are asking the questions in the most backwards fashion possible, which means you need to stop and think before you post. Or you need to really stop and do your own research.

I gave you a list of the some of the most important people in quantum mechanics, it is an impartial list as well. In every case each person presented something that was met with doubt and scepticism, but as people played with it the ideas came into acceptance , were modified or were dumped. Each and everyone of those people had ideas that worked and ideas that didn't.

So do your own research and come up with your own POV, then bring it here.
Your alleged questions are poorly phrased and thought out at least and you need to state them more clearly and stop wandering around your point.

In science there is always doubt when an idea is first presented and then it goes through a process. But your use of groupthink is poorly constructed and poorly used in the context of AGW, you used it, but you provide zero evidence that it is occuring. (This is the JREF, you need to do your own thinking here.)

You do not mean to be asking foolish questions but you keep doing it. I can parse your OP if you want and show you exactly how poorly constructed it is and why again you are getting stand offish answers from the posters here. You say you do not have an agenda, but you do. It is time to stop pussy footing and get to your points.

What evidence is there of group think in AGW science, that is YOUR premise, so YOU have to support it.

Or else we will treat you linke INRM and get real sarcastic. (I am telling you this because I like you.)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AGW+groupthink

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Growing a bit tired of this meaningless Battle of Rhetoric, but fine, I'll play.

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.

Strawman. No one says you shouldn't "just check things out". You're using the CT-er "Just asking questions" trick here.

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

This is getting tiring. I could probably look up any arbitrary condition, illness, or irrationality and start labelling your posts with "Symptom X", Symptom Y", etc., but it wouldn't prove a thing, now would it?

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.

Scientist: OK, then, so I suppose we stand in agreement on the matter of the shape of the Earth?

A.A.Alfie: It is triangular!

Scientist: Give this man a Nobel prize!

Er, no, Alfie, hypotheses are not accepted with open arms as constructive criticism. That is simply not how science works, nor how it should work. You can't just walk into a room and state that everyone is wrong and expect them to be all welcoming and open-minded, you have to actually prove to them that you have something worth looking into. ETA: of course, once you do, scientists will be quick to laud you, give you well-deserved fame, send grants your way, and nominate you for the Nobel prize.

I also find the "name one" ploy manipulative. First, it implies that you haven't even ONCE heard of a scientist changing his or her mind, and secondly, it for some reason limits the reply to specific examples, or in the worst case anecdotes, rather than just statistics.

Do you believe there are single mothers riding scooters in Taichung, Taiwan? Righty, then NAME ONE or I won't believe you!

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

Strawman noted.

It's called an analogy.

Deliberately misunderstanding analogies (rather than, you know, pointing out how they're not good analogies) seems to be a very common ploy from those without good answers.

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

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

Just once more for the mentally deficient.

Oh, so now you're starting to throw **** at people with "mental deficiencies", too. How mature of you.

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.

The exact opposite of science, then.

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

Prove it!

Burden of proof. Again, you can't just walk into a room with an idea and demand any doubters waste their time disproving it. This isn't an alternative fair. If you have an idea, you're the one who has to bring evidence to the table.

Ok, I'm finally convinced. You're a troll.

Even if you don't intend to be a troll, you're still a troll because you behave like one. And troll is as troll does.

Not a troll, more like your typical CT-er - lots of rhetoric, accusations and dodges, very little if any material of actual substance.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Alphie,
Prove to me that you have stopped beating your wife.

I'm just asking questions, and it should be easy to resolve.

Does the above example give you a better idea of where the burden of proof is?

I haven't yet - she likes it rough. Anyway, you can ask her yourself. PM me and I'll give you her number.
You obviously think it's the same - I fail to see the comparison.

Have you never even heard of burden of proof? Is your entire goal to make as many logically unsound posts as possible?

Meh. I don't agree and explained this already/

Alfie, you miss the point, either you are asking the questions in the most backwards fashion possible, which means you need to stop and think before you post. Or you need to really stop and do your own research.

I did some research.
In my opinion the symptoms as described by Janis are evident in much of the actions and attitudes the are seen in the AGW debate.

I gave you a list of the some of the most important people in quantum mechanics, it is an impartial list as well. In every case each person presented something that was met with doubt and scepticism, but as people played with it the ideas came into acceptance , were modified or were dumped. Each and everyone of those people had ideas that worked and ideas that didn't.

Unless I'm missing something, that was in quantum mechanics right? Is that AGW? It kind of proves my point in part doesn't it? that they can do that in one field but not another.

So do your own research and come up with your own POV, then bring it here.
Your alleged questions are poorly phrased and thought out at least and you need to state them more clearly and stop wandering around your point.

I honestly fail to see how my point has not been made. I am suggesting that there are elements of groupthink, rife within the circles of AGW adherents. I see it in the many points I have made in this and other threads. I see it in the symptoms and the reactions of posters here.
I could cite specific examples but it seems to me that in isolation they mean little, but as a whole. That said, see further.

In science there is always doubt when an idea is first presented and then it goes through a process.

Exactly

But your use of groupthink is poorly constructed and poorly used in the context of AGW, you used it, but you provide zero evidence that it is occuring.

I hear you, but I don't agree - I feel I have provided some examples.

You do not mean to be asking foolish questions but you keep doing it. I can parse your OP if you want and show you exactly how poorly constructed it is and why again you are getting stand offish answers from the posters here. You say you do not have an agenda, but you do. It is time to stop pussy footing and get to your points.

Sure I have an agenda. The same one that most here have which is to exercise their minds, ask questions, pass on information etc etc.
My motives are no different to anyone elses I would have thought.

Now, with regard to AGW my agenda is simple. To show what Joe Sixpack thinks, sees and feels around this.
To show that there are more considerations involved than what might be evident. etc.
And to show that there is a groundswell of skepticism that wont be shouted down.

Frankly, the lack of opposing data or examples as to why I am wrong presented in this thread, leads me further to think the groupthink theory has legs.

All we have is lots of shallow irrelevant argument, personal opinions, ad homs and criticism of my argument's construction. How about people giving up some facts as tro why it is not possible?

What evidence is there of group think in AGW science, that is YOUR premise, so YOU have to support it.

First off I believe I have answered this, but again, without wishing to get into too many specifics (which will just bog the conversation down further with low level scemantics and one upmanship), there are indicators everywhere. Personal and professional ridicule of anyone dissenting, character assassination, ad homs, anger and abuse, climategate, wikipedia, failure at Copenahagen, hockey sticks, realclimate, scientific bias, and the list of allegations and/or evidence goes on.

I am not in a court of law here either I have asked a question that outlines that groupthink is a human phenomenon, smarter people than us here have fallen victim to it.

So, why not with the AGW followers?

Or else we will treat you linke INRM and get real sarcastic. (I am telling you this because I like you.)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AGW+groupthink

Thanks.

I am not sure what the search was supposed to show me. There seems to be more blogs or forums. Should I learn from others there. I'd have hoped in a skeptics forum, chock full of critical and intelligent thinkers we might have considered the possibility that groupthink was evident.
I might even have hoped that one or two would see there is a possibility.
Sadly no.
I have pointed out that the most intelligent of people can and have been susceptible to it.
That tells me something more too: either, people here genuinely lack critical thinking abilities or they have really fallen victim to it.
The only other alternative is I am completely wrong - I do not think that to be the case but considered it before raising the thread.

So, I ask the question, is it possible that groupthink has infiltrated the minds of AGW adherents.

Seems no-one wants to consider it, or help prove it wrong.

btw. What is INRM?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Growing a bit tired of this meaningless Battle of Rhetoric, but fine, I'll play.

The more the merrier, but facts are good too - let's hope you've got some.

Strawman. No one says you shouldn't "just check things out". You're using the CT-er "Just asking questions" trick here.

Really? Me responding to the straw with more straw.
Not that I am "just asking question" in the way you suggest, but when was asking legitimate questions made a bad thing?

This is getting tiring. I could probably look up any arbitrary condition, illness, or irrationality and start labelling your posts with "Symptom X", Symptom Y", etc., but it wouldn't prove a thing, now would it?

Maybe you need a nap.
If you are talking about my identifying possible symptoms in people's behaviour - I don't really mind whether you are tired or not. The point is they seem indicative of the behaviour associated with Janis. Perhaps it will allow people to see their actions in a different light and make changes. That would be a good result in some instances.

Scientist: OK, then, so I suppose we stand in agreement on the matter of the shape of the Earth?

A.A.Alfie: It is triangular!

Scientist: Give this man a Nobel prize!

Er, no, Alfie, hypotheses are not accepted with open arms as constructive criticism. That is simply not how science works, nor how it should work. You can't just walk into a room and state that everyone is wrong and expect them to be all welcoming and open-minded, you have to actually prove to them that you have something worth looking into. ETA: of course, once you do, scientists will be quick to laud you, give you well-deserved fame, send grants your way, and nominate you for the Nobel prize.

You do need a nap. The earth is a flat parallelogram - everyone knows that.

I also find the "name one" ploy manipulative. First, it implies that you haven't even ONCE heard of a scientist changing his or her mind, and secondly, it for some reason limits the reply to specific examples, or in the worst case anecdotes, rather than just statistics.

I don't quite get you. Even if it is "manipulative" as you say, what's stopping you from answering the challenge and allowing the discussion to progress?

Do you believe there are single mothers riding scooters in Taichung, Taiwan? Righty, then NAME ONE or I won't believe you!

Hehe.
Now you're throwing strawmen.

Deliberately misunderstanding analogies (rather than, you know, pointing out how they're not good analogies) seems to be a very common ploy from those without good answers.

From the person wanting names of single women riding bikes in Taiwan.

Oh, so now you're starting to throw **** at people with "mental deficiencies", too. How mature of you.

Sure, why not.
Like I say over and over, "throw some around, expect some back".
You seem to mistake me for a doormat or someone willing to turn the other cheek.

The exact opposite of science, then.

Yep. Especially when we are talking about the gullible followers

Burden of proof. Again, you can't just walk into a room with an idea and demand any doubters waste their time disproving it. This isn't an alternative fair. If you have an idea, you're the one who has to bring evidence to the table.

Are we in a court of law?

[ Not a troll, more like your typical CT-er - lots of rhetoric, accusations and dodges, very little if any material of actual substance.

From the people who will not respond to this.....

"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."

 

[elbe]

Wow, there was nothing right in any of that.

The more I see of Alfie's post's the more I'm inclined to agree with Piggy, what once seemed to be CTer ignorance looks more and more like a troll.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Wow, there was nothing right in any of that.

The more I see of Alfie's post's the more I'm inclined to agree with Piggy, what once seemed to be CTer ignorance looks more and more like a troll.

See symptom #4.

Try answering this question which was originally directed to you:

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.