Is AGW another example of groupthink

[Cavemonster]

This morning it occurred to me that the only other widely reported party who was officially barred from Wikipedia is the Church of Scientology.

That's incorrect on a couple of levels

1) Connolley was not barred from Wikipedia, he continues to edit actively.
2) Stephen Colbert, The US justice department, and the Volvo IT department have all been banned as well, a fact that was very widely reported, in fact, all were more widely reported than Connolley's loss of his administrator position which aside from one op ed piece, is covered only in blogs, all quoting from that original op ed piece. One could say in a very real way that his dissmissal has not been reported on at all.

Welcome to the forum!
Please think through your posts and research a little better in the future.

 

[Slimething]

The symptoms expressed by Janis have been outlined quite clearly. Perhaps you could show me where and how each of them (plus or minus subtle variations) are not applicable to scientists, politics and beyond and I will be happy to discuss your specifics.

That's a silly question, then. As you have stated them and have already correctly observed, groupthink is endemic to all populations on all topics. Perhaps you would give us an exaple of the absence of groupthink in any endeavor where a group of people are involved. Otherwise, this discussion is trivial.

By the way, I have already given numerous examples of the groupthink in response to other posters - just as a suggestion, you might like to start there.

I need to point out that that is not your example. I don't recall you giving any examples. You've merely stated that you've observed groupthink in a number of different settings but you were no specific. Frankly, groupthink seems to be a catch-all phrase for that portion of human consensus-building where egos are mollified until the investigations declare the facts. Is that what you want to discuss? If so, I've observed it in everything I've ever worked on with anyone else. It's a necessary phase of collaboration.

 

[brantc]

Of course there are example of groupthink involving AGW. That doesn't make AGW itself or the basic science supporting it groupthink.

Wait a minute. If the basic science is promoted by groupthink(consensus) without allowing other scientists to present an opposing viewpoint or critical examination then it is a victim of groupthink.

Thats what you say isnt it? That the case is closed and there is no reason to deny AGW because the consensus says so.

Thats why you call people deniers or some other derogatory term. You are absolutely sure that it is right, no examination necessary.

Even when there is something that shows there is something wrong with AGW, the scientist is threatened with a background investigation or called a denier. (From the emails.)
What happened to science????? You know, where they sit down and examine data together even though they have opposing viewpoints. They release their data without requiring a FOIA. And they dont call each other names......

 

[Piggy]

We aren't talking about science, we are talking about people within and/or organisations.

Yes, in fact, we are talking about science.

Because the way you can distinguish "group think" from good sense, in this case, is to look at the science and see if there's merit to it.

So, as usual with your posts, we are indeed talking about science, even if you refuse to look at it.

(Alfie has me on ignore, so I'd appreciate a repost from a kind soul, please.)

 

[Piggy]

Wait a minute. If the basic science is promoted by groupthink(consensus) without allowing other scientists to present an opposing viewpoint or critical examination then it is a victim of groupthink.

If that were the case.

But keep in mind, there's a difference between actually supressing valid objections, on the one hand, and refusing crank papers, on the other.

If you have evidence that valid papers have been refused publication due to a conspiracy, then please present it.

 

[brantc]

The more I read, the more I am certain that deniers are not authentic. They know they are trying to deny a reality, but have no other means of attaining their immediate political goals.

Example of groupthink. Absolutely sure that he is not wrong by way of (his) reality, which reflects the consensus view..

 

[Piggy]

Example of groupthink. Absolutely sure that he is not wrong by way of (his) reality, which reflects the consensus view..

Start thinking, then.

The reason there is a "consensus" view about AGW is the same reason there is a "consensus" view about the earth being round.

You can't simply cite the fact that scientists agree about a particular point and start shouting "argument from consensus!"

You have to actually look at the evidence.

It's been many years since AGW became accepted science because the evidence for it is overwhelming.

If you care to cite any evidence to the contrary, please do so.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The more I read, the more I am certain that deniers are not authentic. They know they are trying to deny a reality, but have no other means of attaining their immediate political goals.

Off topic and symptoms #2 and #4

That's a silly question, then. As you have stated them and have already correctly observed, groupthink is endemic to all populations on all topics. Perhaps you would give us an exaple of the absence of groupthink in any endeavor where a group of people are involved. Otherwise, this discussion is trivial.

I'm not sure I understand. How would me showing the absence of groupthink make any thing trivial?
Nor do I understand why it's a silly question.

Could you please elaborate, I am genuinely confused by your comments.

I need to point out that that is not your example. I don't recall you giving any examples.

On the contrary and/or how is that not my example.
I have provided examples where other posters have displayed symptoms of groupthink. I have also given an example where I saw groupthink in my own working life.

Frankly, groupthink seems to be a catch-all phrase for that portion of human consensus-building where egos are mollified until the investigations declare the facts. Is that what you want to discuss? If so, I've observed it in everything I've ever worked on with anyone else. It's a necessary phase of collaboration.

Collaboration is completely different to groupthink.
For example, when "collaborating" did you agree with everything the others said? Did you welcome and embrace differences of opinion, consider alternative points of view? etc etc
Or did you go along with the group and display the symptoms?

 

[geni]

That's interesting.
Not quote the same, as AGW theory hasn't and shouldn't be barred - it is a developing field. What should in my opinion is total supression of dissenting opinions and data.
There is another thread on this topic too which I recommend you take these thoughts to.

Wikipedia doesn't generaly ban things that are not happening (other than climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man). Wikipedians have more productive things to do with their time.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Wikipedia doesn't generaly ban things that are not happening (other than climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man). Wikipedians have more productive things to do with their time.

I agree and said as much - thanks for your support.

But again, let's take this to the other thread on same, shall we?

 

[geni]

I agree and said as much - thanks for your support.

So you agree the total supression of dissenting opinions and data is not going on on wikipedia?

 

[SezMe]

I also agree that it does not alter the underlying science. What is does do is stifle dissent and debate (see symptoms again for further clarification)

You've successfully contradicted yourself here. Science is a process that involves debate. First you say that groupthink does not alter science then immediately thereafter say that it stifles debate, which is a part of science.

 

[SezMe]

I have no doubt there are elements on the "anti AGW campaigners side". But what I am particularly interested in is the opposite side as (to my minds eye anyway) far more prevalent and radical.

Perhaps you can cite some statistics to support the notion of prevalence. In addition, can you give some examples of "radical" groupthink on the AGW side.

 

[tyr_13]

Wait a minute. If the basic science is promoted by groupthink(consensus) without allowing other scientists to present an opposing viewpoint or critical examination then it is a victim of groupthink.

IF that were true you might have a point. The reality is that the science is promoted by peer review, many pillars of evidence, and overwhelming agreeing data points.

Yes, some groups do like to just call anyone who questions any aspect of AGW deniers and shout them down. You'll find that these are not the scientists doing the real work out there. The presence of this groupthink and derision does not support AGW and it does not count against it either. If it were the sole source of support, it would mean AGW is probably false. Unfortunately for the world, that is not the case.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You've successfully contradicted yourself here. Science is a process that involves debate. First you say that groupthink does not alter science then immediately thereafter say that it stifles debate, which is a part of science.

No contradiction there at all.
First there is a scientific theory
Then there is groupthink that defends,supports etc the theory. It is the latter that stifles debate.

It is the phenomenon following the science.

I think thst's the 4th time I have had to point it out. I hope it's the last

Perhaps you can cite some statistics to support the notion of prevalence. In addition, can you give some examples of "radical" groupthink on the AGW side.

Radical as in the definition "arising from or going to the root or source".

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Off topic and symptoms #2 and #4

I have provided examples where other posters have displayed symptoms of groupthink.

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.

 

[Megalodon]

I asked for correction, so conceded I may be wrong. See symptom #4
Try explaining it to me, you might be surprised.

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.

 

[Ausmerican]

If that were the case.

But keep in mind, there's a difference between actually supressing valid objections, on the one hand, and refusing crank papers, on the other.

If you have evidence that valid papers have been refused publication due to a conspiracy, then please present it.

No worries Piggy.

 

[elbe]

Wait a minute. If the basic science is promoted by groupthink(consensus) without allowing other scientists to present an opposing viewpoint or critical examination then it is a victim of groupthink.

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). 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.

 

[ddt]

We aren't talking about science, we are talking about people within and/or organisations.

Yes, in fact, we are talking about science.

Because the way you can distinguish "group think" from good sense, in this case, is to look at the science and see if there's merit to it.

So, as usual with your posts, we are indeed talking about science, even if you refuse to look at it.

(Alfie has me on ignore, so I'd appreciate a repost from a kind soul, please.)

You're welcome.