Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Peephole]

Firstly, "completely fabricated"? Seems a stretch to me at this point in time.

A stretch? The article was almost completely based on the words of one scientist, who claims his views were completely misrepresented.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

A stretch? The article was almost completely based on the words of one scientist, who claims his views were completely misrepresented.

This should be on the other thread.

Now..

Please show me why my suspicions are incorrect.
Please provide some examples as to why groupthink is not in evidence.

 

[elbe]

So, you have nothing?

Intellectually dishonest and logically fallacious. You can't ask someone to do something impossible and then claim their inability to somehow proves your point.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Intellectually dishonest and logically fallacious. You can't ask someone to do something impossible and then claim their inability to somehow proves your point.

So yopu concede that it is "impossible" to provide one ounce of evidence to disprove groupthink.
Seems to me you rather prove the OP, doesn't it?

 

[elbe]

So yopu concede that it is "impossible" to provide one ounce of evidence to disprove groupthink.
Seems to me you rather prove the OP, doesn't it?

I concede that it's impossible to prove a negative. It's logic. It's how reality works. You remain intellectually dishonest and don't actually attempt to educate yourself beyond your existing, and ill informed, biases.

Example: Prove I've never eaten sushi in my entire life. Yesterday I ate pizza for dinner and tonight I had chili. That should be plenty of "evidence" to prove I've never eaten chili, right?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Untrue.

Please refer back to the OP.
There are eight symptoms of the groupthink phenomenon listed there. Surely you can find a few examples of where opposite 'symptoms' have occurred.

I was asked for some examples - and I have (again) provided some.

Now it's up to you.

BTW, your accusations of dishonesty - I feel - are more of a reflection of yourself than of me. You say it is illogical to prove a negative - seems to me the goalposts are being moved. I was asked to provide some examples before 'you' would do same. This is done and five pages into the discussion you now claim "it can't be done"?

So, could you please do some homework, or retire.

 

[elbe]

Yes, obviously you aren't intellectually dishonest. The reason almost everyone seems to get fed up with trying to talk rationally with you must say more about all of them than it does you, right?

I've long since given up with trying to debate you on facts, it's a fruitless effort. You make a claim, it's demonstrated to be false or that it doesn't mean what you think it does, then you just keep making it. (See the wikipedia thread, for examples off the top of my head)

 

[varwoche]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164538

Here's some wonderful Groupthink for you to consider.

Er, this is an example of an erroneous work being debunked on a skeptical forum.

But let's pretend for a moment it's a valid study that's being "ungraciously" ignored.

Is that what you're asking for with your challenge? Examples of anonymous characters on the internet not living up to your whimsical standards of what is and isn't gracious? C'mon AAA, this is getting goofier by the minute.

By the way, the groupthink is not limited to the scientists (and they have never been my 'primary target'), it has a lot more to do with the 'followers' of AGW.

And there we have it. Just think, you could have invested some of this wasted time learning a little about global warming.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Er, this is an example of an erroneous work being debunked on a skeptical forum.

But let's pretend for a moment it's a valid study that's being "ungraciously" ignored.

Is that what you're asking for with your challenge? Examples of anonymous characters on the internet not living up to your whimsical standards of what is and isn't gracious? C'mon AAA, this is getting goofier by the minute.

And there we have it. Just think, you could have invested some of this wasted time learning a little about global warming.

You clearly (and I'd suggest deliberately) miss the point.

The example actually had nothing to do with the facts around it, but the original self confessed ignorant assumption that it was wrong. It is evidence of confirmation bias - assumption ahead of investigation, if you like.

Secondly, why would you think I was talking of the scientists alone? I never suggested same, that said, the emails give a strong insight into the possibility of groupthink.

Now, how about those examples that disprove my assumption?

 

[Thunder]

it is plainly clear to me, that AGW Denial is groupthink.

 

[elbe]

it is plainly clear to me, that AGW Denial is groupthink.

I should think that deniers of any stripe would be victims of groupthink, mostly because denial isn't exactly a strong position to argue from (against something instead of for something).

But this whole groupthink thing is a red herring: it doesn't address the topic, just an attempt to define one side negatively.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

it is plainly clear to me, that AGW Denial is groupthink.

I should think that deniers of any stripe would be victims of groupthink, mostly because denial isn't exactly a strong position to argue from (against something instead of for something).

But this whole groupthink thing is a red herring: it doesn't address the topic, just an attempt to define one side negatively.

So neither of you will have any difficulty providing examples that show why groupthink isn't applicable.

 

[Dancing David]

Please show me why my suspicions are incorrect.
Please provide some examples as to why groupthink is not in evidence.

Please show where the criteria you set are met in the thread you quoted?

 

[Dancing David]

So neither of you will have any difficulty providing examples that show why groupthink isn't applicable.

The burden is on YOU to show where groupthink was met first.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Emails:
- desires and/or efforts to get rid of editors.
- desires and/or supression of opposition ideas and theories
- "cheerful" responses to the death of opponents
- possible data manipulation.
- possible hiding of facts.
Wikipedia
- self appointed gatekeeper
Realclimate
- concensus
Everywhere
- constant name calling and stereotyping.
- claims of unanimity


There is just a few, but the list goes on and on.

How many examples do you want?

Now before you pick them off one by one, I have said already that I think that proving groupthink (at this point in time anyway) is probably not possible. I have suspicions that there is evidence of groupthink symptoms in those listed above and thousands of other examples (here and elsewhere).

Now, for mine, it should be a simple matter for any of you to show me where, when and why groupthink is not happening.

As yet, not one of you have bothered to provide a solitary shred. To be honest, I can't prove it, but you should be able to readily disprove it.

So how about it? Can we have a few examples or will you all continue to dodge and sidestep?

 

[Dancing David]

Where and what? The problem is you can demonstrate that one or two people did something you don't like. WHOOPEE! You still haven't proved your point AA Alfie.

You don't get that do you. Might as well say that angels exist and that you proved it.

Later, you are closed minded and not interested in critical thought.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Where and what? The problem is you can demonstrate that one or two people did something you don't like. WHOOPEE! You still haven't proved your point AA Alfie.

You don't get that do you. Might as well say that angels exist and that you proved it.

Later, you are closed minded and not interested in critical thought.

DD, you seem to miss a few rather important points:

Firstly - I do not believe that we can (at this point in time) "prove" groupthink.
Second - I believe that we can disprove groupthink simply enough - yet no one will provide a single example.
Third - with regard to my "critical thought", I wish to explore the possibility, and am more than prepared to look at any evidence of groupthink on the 'denier' side too.
What I find incredible is that no one s even prepared to look at the possibility. Why?
Lastly, no one has explained to me why groupthink is not possible, all that I have seen so far is either personal attacks, derails, deflections etc.

So, how about it?
How about some evidence - anything!

 

[a_unique_person]

DD, you seem to miss a few rather important points:

Firstly - I do not believe that we can (at this point in time) "prove" groupthink.

Thank you, end of topic. No more needs to be said.

How about some evidence - anything!

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Thank you, end of topic. No more needs to be said.

Ah AUP, you leave me - as usual - unsurprised.

I have been asked for examples and to "prove" groupthink.
I have provided the former and conceded that "proof" is unlikely at this time.

The "evidence" I have asked for should perhaps have been stated as "examples" - so fair enough.

However, you seem to think the winner of an argument is about who can scoff the most or the loudest.

But like everyone else here, you fail to provide a solitary example that might help to disprove my suspicions.

So, how about it? Got anything?

 

[Meed]

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

Criticizing an individual is not stereotyping, therefore your labeling things as 'symptom #4' is false.

Please show me where, why and how?

Why is your understanding of groupthink flawed? Well for one, I just gave you an example of how you're misapplying the symptoms. You can't understand the theory if you don't understand the symptoms. Two, posters in this thread do not comprise a "group" in the sense Janis is talking about. JREFers with an interest in AGW are not a "cohesive" group with "leadership".

Social psychologist Clark McCauley's three conditions under which groupthink occurs:

* Directive leadership.
* Homogeneity of members' social background and ideology.
* Isolation of the group from outside sources of information and analysis.

None of these are the case here.