Irrational Thinking: A Winner!

[Jeff Corey]

Now I have to go look up exegisis. OK a critical analysis of a text. OK, am I missing something? What text? What critical anal ysis?

 

[Pixel42]

Now I find that he didnt do much of anything.

What do you mean "Now I find..."? What Black did is spelled out in plain English at the beginning of his article. No-one defending him has claimed that he did anything other than what he clearly says he did, though those attacking him have of course created a few straw men. To spell it out even more clearly:

1. Lots of people made a certain claim

2. Black issued an open invitation for them to support that claim with evidence

3. Nearly a year later Black described the evidence he had received, which can be summarised as "bugger all".

There are three possible explanations:

1. Black actually received loads of evidence and is lying through his teeth

2. Such evidence exists, but those who possess it did not send it to Black, for whatever reason

3. There is bugger all such evidence

You can, of course, choose to believe (1) or (2) if you wish. But attacking Black for not producing an entirely different piece of journalism than the one he set out to produce, in the manner he clearly and unambiguously describes, seems a bit silly.

 

[rockoon]

What do you mean "Now I find..."?

I mean exactly what I say. Do you?

The value of the work of Black was called into question and his work was defended on these forums due to the efforts he put into finding out the facts. It was stressed that the efforts he had put in were an indicaion of its merits. I would go so far as to say that Blacks efforts were the key defense of his work.

The person I am corresponding with here on these forums even stated that Black attempted to find evidence.

This same person then professed that he didnt attempt to find evidence, but instead only "very publicly" asked others to find it for him.

Later I found out that by "very publicly", he meant that Blacks only effort was a request in his own fora.

Are you seriously suggesting that Blacks work has merit because he asked his readers to give him evidence?

No-one defending him has claimed that he did anything other than what he clearly says he did

Wrong. The claim is there and I whittled that poor guy down to the actual facts on Blacks efforts. He did not mean what he said, choosing instead to decorate the facts to make them sound significant.

2. Black issued an open invitation for them to support that claim with evidence

You seem to decorate the facts as well. I mean that.

3. Nearly a year later Black described the evidence he had received, which can be summarised as "bugger all".

More decoration.

This is besides the point anyways because the issue on this table is the extent of Blacks efforts, which was patently misrepresented in this forum.


If Blacks work can be demonstrated to have value then it is indeed a significant data point on the road to the truth.
If Blacks work cannot be demonstrated to have value then it is not a data point on the road to the truth, but instead just insignificant noise with no merit.
The accuracy of his conclusions, be them right or wrong, are irrelevant in this context.

You can, of course, choose to believe (1) or (2) if you wish.

You can choose to believe whatever you wish. Thats the point. We didn't learn anything from Black because he didn't put any effort into his article. He might as well not have written it.

But attacking Black for not producing an entirely different piece of journalism than the one he set out to produce, in the manner he clearly and unambiguously describes, seems a bit silly.

Journalism is more than writing.

Journalists perform research. They develop contacts. They ascertain the Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. They follow leads. They contact sources. Sometimes they use surveillance techniques. Sometimes they go undercover.

Journalists do these things and more, and becaue they do them their work has value.

Black doesnt seem to have done anything resembling what a Journalist does, other than write. Journalists do not ask their readers to do their research for them, and that seems to be the extent of the effort Black put in.

Please explain again why Blacks work has value, and please mean exactly what you say.

 

[Pixel42]

Please explain again why Blacks work has value, and please mean exactly what you say.

A link to Black's article was posted on this thread (by me, as it happens). Here it is again:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7092614.stm

In the article, Black describes what he did and why. It's clearly an unusual piece of journalism, but no false claims are made for it in the article itself. If either his defenders or attackers make such claims, that it not a reason to attack the professionalism or integrity of Black himself.

From the article:

The year seems to have brought no diminution of the accusations flying around the blogosphere.

"The research itself is biased," as one recent blog entry put it.

"Scientists are quick to find what they're looking for when it means getting more funding out of the government."

That particular posting gave no evidence to support its claim of bias. I have seen none that did, which made me wonder whether there was any evidence. [...]

In that earlier article, I invited sceptics to put their cards on the table, and send me documentation or other firm evidence of bias.

For my part, I agreed to look into any concrete claims.

Given the fury evidenced by sceptical commentators, I was expecting a deluge. [...]

I received e-mails from well over 100 people; some had read my original article, others had seen the idea passed around in blogs and newsgroups.[...]

The sum total of evidence obtained through this open invitation, then, is one first-hand claim of bias in scientific journals, not backed up by documentary evidence; and three second-hand claims, two well-known and one that the scientist in question does not consider evidence of anti-sceptic feeling.

No-one said they had been refused a place on the IPCC, the central global body in climate change, or denied a job or turned down for promotion or sacked or refused access to a conference platform, or indeed anything else.

Do I think this exercise had value? Yes, I do. I do think the request for evidence would have reached those it was intended for - the many bloggers who make the claim of bias without ever supporting it. I find the fact that so little actual evidence was forthcoming in response to his challenge to be highly suggestive.

 

[mhaze]

Pixel42, for some reason, I get the impression that the longer this conversation goes on, the worse Richard Black is going to look....

 

[Pixel42]

Pixel42, for some reason, I get the impression that the longer this conversation goes on, the worse Richard Black is going to look....

Funny, he looks exactly the same to me now as he did at the start of the conversation - like someone who issued an open invitation, and summarised the results a year later.

The only people who look worse as a result of this exercise are the bloggers who make wild accusations of bias which, it turns out, they are unable to substantiate with a single shred of evidence.

 

[varwoche]

I'm still waiting to hear from my barrister but in the meantime...

Most of Tokenconservative's post infers conspiracy. I retracted because I want to challenge more egregious CTists to provide evidence here, without having to quibble about the inference aspect.

However, had I read more carefully before I retracted, I would have seen this bit...

This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking

... where Token takes the plunge. So, I re-issue my challenge to the vanished Token to explain him/herself in the CT section.

 

[mhaze]

I'm still waiting to hear from my barrister but in the meantime...

Most of Tokenconservative's post infers conspiracy. I retracted because I want to challenge more egregious CTists to provide evidence here, without having to quibble about the inference aspect.

However, had I read more carefully before I retracted, I would have seen this bit...
... where Token takes the plunge. So, I re-issue my challenge to the vanished Token to explain him/herself in the CT section.

Hmm...How is

someone who sees or infers conspiracies

in the workings of the minds of many people and in many discussions (Varwoche)
​

different than ...

someone who sees or infers conspiracies

in the minds of many people and in many discussions?
​

EG, a conspiracy theorist? Not that any of this has anything to do with TC's OP, of course, but please do continue your diligent efforts to root out CTs anywhere they may be lurking.

 

[varwoche]

but please do continue your diligent efforts to root out CTs anywhere they may be lurking.

Thanks for the encouragement! One way you could help out is to address the last quote cited in the OP of the CT thread.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hmm...How is



someone who sees or infers conspiracies

in the workings of the minds of many people and in many discussions (Varwoche)​

different than ...



someone who sees or infers conspiracies

in the minds of many people and in many discussions?​

EG, a conspiracy theorist? Not that any of this has anything to do with TC's OP, of course, but please do continue your diligent efforts to root out CTs anywhere they may be lurking.

Have you noticed that TokenConservative isn't here defending himself, and you're left flapping in the wind? Again? And you're very visibly flapping in that post.

This is from TokenConservative :

"This movement, designed by forces on the political left as a means of coercively driving thinking ..."

Tell us again how this might not show a belief in a conspiracy. Pay particular attention to "movement", "designed", "forces", "political left".

Forget "coercively driving thinking", that's just gibberish. "You can take a man to slaughter, but you can't make him think." But the rest?

If you're up for exegesis, give it your best shot. You could even PM TokenConservative for any insights he might share. Or you could waffle, whatever.

 

[CapelDodger]

Now I have to go look up exegisis. OK a critical analysis of a text. OK, am I missing something? What text? What critical anal ysis?

Exegesis is about extracting a meaning from a text. Not the meaning of it, however clear that might be. Pure in its Greek concept, it has long been associated with sophistry, theology, and lawyers. 'Nuff said.

A clear sign that it's been going on is a response that starts "So you're saying ...?" when you've said precisely what you're saying, no more, no less.

 

[CapelDodger]

As I've posted( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3406183#post3406183) elsewhere

The OP is quite a screed, well worthy of the Conspiracy Forum. And yet TC launches it on the Science Forum. What's that all about? Is it simply cowardice? There are special, conspiracy-honed skills in play here which I doubt TC feels prepared for. He's less than adequate in his chosen forum, after all.

This is the Science Forum, it's not a launch-pad for strange tirades about politically motivated "forces". Take that elsewhere.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3400102#post3400102 for instance.

 

[CapelDodger]

Pixel42, for some reason, I get the impression that the longer this conversation goes on, the worse Richard Black is going to look....

And I get the impression you were always going to feel that, no matter what.

You could take it to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3406405#post3406405 and explain what you see as Black's failings. Or not, whatever.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Exegesis is about extracting a meaning from a text. Not the meaning of it, however clear that might be. Pure in its Greek concept, it has long been associated with sophistry, theology, and lawyers. 'Nuff said.

A clear sign that it's been going on is a response that starts "So you're saying ...?" when you've said precisely what you're saying, no more, no less.

So you're saying that it is a response that starts, "So you're saying...?" when you've said precisely what you're saying, no more, no less?
I don't get it. Too recursive for me.

 

[CapelDodger]

No effort at all then.

If you'd made the effort to seek out evidence you could have passed it on. Apparently you made no such effort.

My correspondence with you has been on the specific subject of the value of Blacks writings, because you made multiple posts defending its value based on what he did to arrive at the facts.

All of a sudden Black has writings to his name. All he did was issue an invitation to people that clearly believed something to provide the evidence that had persuaded them.

Now I find that he didnt do much of anything.

He issued an invitation to believers : Provide the evidence and examples that have persuaded you. None were forthcoming.

It was your concern over his methods which got me into this debate. You specifically defended the value of Blacks work.

Writings, now work, Black will be up there with Hansen and Al Gore before he has a chance to react.

Later you suggested that the expected effort involved (called Investigative Journalism) was, and I quote, "unreasonable from the point of view of the work involved"

It was an open invitation. Not much work involved, but nobody turned up.

I've had enough of you.

A hint of fury there.

You defended Black because you agree with his conclusion, not because you can demonstrate that his work has value.

What work? "No effort at all then", remember? It was an open invitation; what happened was that nobody turned up

e didn't contact anyone. He didnt follow any leads. He didnt interview anybody. He didn't even follow up on the previously known cases.

"Previously known" was in no way excluded. The invitation was for evidence of what you refer to as "known".

Under this light, the point still stands. The work of Black is just fluff.

He's a journalist, admittedly, but the evidence is that he's righteous.

Perahps we should pursue the discussion on the CT thread, since it has nothing to do with Science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3406405#post3406405

 

[mhaze]

Originally Posted by CapelDodger
Exegesis is about extracting a meaning from a text. Not the meaning of it, however clear that might be. Pure in its Greek concept, it has long been associated with sophistry, theology, and lawyers. 'Nuff said.

A clear sign that it's been going on is a response that starts "So you're saying ...?" when you've said precisely what you're saying, no more, no less.
​

So you're saying that it is a response that starts, "So you're saying...?" when you've said precisely what you're saying, no more, no less?
I don't get it. Too recursive for me.

Many examples may be found in CapelDodger's writing, by some curious coincidence.

 

[mhaze]

Rockoon Quote:
Under this light, the point still stands. The work of Black is just fluff.

​

CapelDodger: He's a journalist, admittedly, but the evidence is that he's righteous. Perahps we should pursue the discussion on the CT thread, since it has nothing to do with Science.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.p...05#post3406405

My lame attempt at exigism -

So you are saying, Capeldodger, more or less - "Righteous that true believing Warmologist Black shall be!!!! Let none deny it!!! The has nothing to do with Science! Non Believers must be Conspirators!!!"

 

[Acleron]

No effort at all then.

Then effort is all that is required for importance? The ease of the request shouldn't affect the conclusions, unless, of course, somebody has a vested interest.

My correspondence with you has been on the specific subject of the value of Blacks writings, because you made multiple posts defending its value based on what he did to arrive at the facts.

Now I find that he didnt do much of anything.

Please point out where I stated that he did anything other than he did.

It was your concern over his methods which got me into this debate. You specifically defended the value of Blacks work. Later you suggested that the expected effort involved (called Investigative Journalism) was, and I quote, "unreasonable from the point of view of the work involved"

I never mentioned 'Investigative Journalism', I never placed his work in the area of scientific research. I ask the question that if there are so many people whose careers are displaced by disagreeing with AGW, where are they. None of your niggles address this.

I've had enough of you.

Strange, and I thought we were just getting together.

You defended Black because you agree with his conclusion, not because you can demonstrate that his work has value.

Black's public request has value in showing that when asked, few, nay no, scientists showed that they had documented proof that they had suffered because of anti-AGW views. I hear from a lot of anti-AGW believers that this is so. Do none of them have the conviction of their beliefs to respond?

He didn't contact anyone. He didnt follow any leads. He didnt interview anybody. He didn't even follow up on the previously known cases.

How could he interview nobody?

Under this light, the point still stands. The work of Black is just fluff.

What light?
I issue the same invitation.
Any scientist working or who has worked in climate research who has had is publications suppressed or his career curtailed post the details here. Between Rockoon and myself we should be able to work out the truth.

 

[jsfisher]

I'm still waiting to hear from my barrister but in the meantime...

Most of Tokenconservative's post infers conspiracy. I retracted because I want to challenge more egregious CTists to provide evidence here, without having to quibble about the inference aspect.

However, had I read more carefully before I retracted, I would have seen this bit...
... where Token takes the plunge. So, I re-issue my challenge to the vanished Token to explain him/herself in the CT section.

Didn't TC already (non-)explain himself here? I thought he basically had said he could not/would not support his claim. I was disappointed he did not then retract it, but such is life.

That aside, varwoche, I wish to retract a statement of my own. I accused you of inviting TC to the conspiracy thread for the purposes of ridicule. That was not fair of me. I do not know your intentions, and it was rude of me to presume malice on your part. I apologize.

As for Tokenconservative, I have two questions. (1) Did you mean to imply a conspiracy? (2) Will you either support your assertion with evidence or retract the statement?

 

[mhaze]

Didn't TC already (non-)explain himself here? I thought he basically had said he could not/would not support his claim. I was disappointed he did not then retract it, but such is life.

That aside, varwoche, I wish to retract a statement of my own. I accused you of inviting TC to the conspiracy thread for the purposes of ridicule. That was not fair of me. I do not know your intentions, and it was rude of me to presume malice on your part. I apologize.

As for Tokenconservative, I have two questions. (1) Did you mean to imply a conspiracy? (2) Will you either support your assertion with evidence or retract the statement?

It's amusing that the very frames of reference of your query confirms the point TC made in the OP.