_________________________________________________________________
Humans need to become smarter thinkers to beat climate denial
Posted on 6 February 2018 by Dana Nuccitelli, John Cook | SkepticalScience.com
Climate myths are often contradictory – it’s not warming, though it’s warming because of the sun, and really it’s all just an ocean cycle – but they all seem to share one thing in common: logical fallacies and reasoning errors.
John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead have just published a paper in Environmental Research Letters in which they examined 42 common climate myths and found that every single one demonstrates fallacious reasoning. For example, the authors made a video breaking down the logical flaws in the myth ‘climate changed naturally in the past so current climate change is natural.’
Video abstract for paper “Deconstructing climate misinformation to identify reasoning errors” published in Environmental Research Letters by John Cook, Peter Ellerton, and David Kinkead.
Beating myths with critical thinking
Cook has previously published research on using ‘misconception-based learning’ to dislodge climate myths from peoples’ brains and replace them with facts, and beating denial by inoculating people against misinformers’ tricks. The idea is that when people are faced with a myth and a competing fact, the fact will more easily win out if the fallacy underpinning the myth is revealed. In fact, these concepts of misconception-based learning and inoculation against myths were the basis of the free online Denial101x course developed by Cook and colleagues.
Denial 101x lecture on inoculation theory by John Cook.
UQx DENIAL101x 6.3.1.1 Inoculation Theory
UQx DENIAL101x 6.3.1.1 Inoculation Theory
The new paper published today suggests an even more proactive approach to defeating myths. If people can learn to implement a simple six-step critical thinking process, they’ll be able to evaluate whether climate-related claims are valid.
Step 1: Identify the claim being made.
For example, the most popular contrarian argument: “Earth’s climate has changed naturally in the past, so current climate change is natural.”
For example, the most popular contrarian argument: “Earth’s climate has changed naturally in the past, so current climate change is natural.”
Step 2: Construct the argument by identifying the premises leading to that conclusion.
In this case, the first premise is that Earth’s climate has changed in the past through natural processes, and the second premise is that the climate is currently changing. So far, so good.
In this case, the first premise is that Earth’s climate has changed in the past through natural processes, and the second premise is that the climate is currently changing. So far, so good.
Step 3: Determine whether the argument is deductive,
meaning that it starts out with a general statement and reaches a definitive conclusion. In our case, ‘current climate changeis natural’ qualifies as a definitive conclusion.
meaning that it starts out with a general statement and reaches a definitive conclusion. In our case, ‘current climate changeis natural’ qualifies as a definitive conclusion.
Step 4: Check the argument for validity; does the conclusion follow from the premises?
In our example, it doesn’t follow that current climate change must be natural because climate changed naturally in the past. However, we can fix that by weakening the conclusion to “the current climate change may not be the result of human activity.” But in its weakened state, the conclusion no longer refutes human-caused global warming.
In our example, it doesn’t follow that current climate change must be natural because climate changed naturally in the past. However, we can fix that by weakening the conclusion to “the current climate change may not be the result of human activity.” But in its weakened state, the conclusion no longer refutes human-caused global warming.
Step 4a: Identify hidden premises.
By adding an extra premise to make an invalid argument valid, we can gain a deeper understanding of why the argument is flawed. In this example, the hidden assumption is “if nature caused climate change in the past, it must always be the cause of climate change.” Adding this premise makes the argument logically valid, but makes it clear why the argument is false - it commits single cause fallacy, assuming that only one thing can cause climate change.
By adding an extra premise to make an invalid argument valid, we can gain a deeper understanding of why the argument is flawed. In this example, the hidden assumption is “if nature caused climate change in the past, it must always be the cause of climate change.” Adding this premise makes the argument logically valid, but makes it clear why the argument is false - it commits single cause fallacy, assuming that only one thing can cause climate change.
Step 5: Check to see if the argument relies on ambiguity.
For example, the argument that human activity is not necessary to explain current climate change because natural and human factors can both cause climate change is ambiguous about the ‘climate change’ in question. Not all climate change is equal, and the rate of current change is more than 20 times faster than natural climate changes. Therefore, human activity is necessary to explain current climate change.
For example, the argument that human activity is not necessary to explain current climate change because natural and human factors can both cause climate change is ambiguous about the ‘climate change’ in question. Not all climate change is equal, and the rate of current change is more than 20 times faster than natural climate changes. Therefore, human activity is necessary to explain current climate change.
Step 6: If the argument hasn’t yet been ruled out, determine the truth of its premises.
For example, the argument that “if something was the cause in the past, it will be the cause in the future” is invalid if the effect has multiple plausible causes or mechanisms (as with climate change). In our example, this is where the myth most obviously falls apart (although it had already failed in Step 4).
For example, the argument that “if something was the cause in the past, it will be the cause in the future” is invalid if the effect has multiple plausible causes or mechanisms (as with climate change). In our example, this is where the myth most obviously falls apart (although it had already failed in Step 4).
The authors suggest that their six-step critical thinking process can be deployed via social media through ‘technocognition,’ and in the classroom. Co-author David Kinkead from the University of Queensland said:
Click here to read the rest
Have said that,
the following neglected observations also deserve your consideration:
We have left our historic climate regime. Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM CO2 + + world we have created for ourselves and children.
Dissect and confront their tactics rather than being played by them!
It's one thing to believe in an unknowable god, quite another to mistake one’s own hyper-inflated EGO for God.
===========================================================
Have said that,
the following neglected observations also deserve your consideration:
I reject and confront the GOP’s assumption that deliberate malicious lying is an appropriate political strategy when it comes to something as serious and consequential as understanding Anthropogenic Global Warming.
14 observations on our dysfunctional public dialogue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1) Uncertainties vs. known Physical Certainties
It is a disservice to constantly allow trivial uncertainties to become the focal point of the public discussion.
In real life when we get mired or overwhelmed by increasingly complex situations, we stop, back off a little, get reoriented with the big picture, reacquaint ourselves with what we do know for certain, then move forward again.
I’m not saying ignore uncertainties! I’m saying keep reminding us of the overriding fundamental certainties! Thus putting contrarian trivial pursuits into real world perspective.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2) Map vs. Territory Problem
Scientists are Cartographers mapping out the geophysical realities of our planet, the Territory if you will. They do the best they can with the data they have available.
Too often we get trapped into assuming that until our scientists can define all aspects with statistical certainty, we should assume it doesn’t exist. Getting lost on the Map and forgetting we exist within the Territory. Not wise.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3) Sloppy usage of “Natural Variability”
Every component and aspect of our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine is warming and energizing. All of Earth’s historic Natural Variabilities are embedded within this warming matrix.
Yet too often ‘natural variability’ gets used as a sort of defense against acknowledging the obvious. Weather systems are not caused by manmade global warming, but every last one of them is certainly impacted by it.
We have left our historic climate regime. Comparisons to yesteryears offer little guidance for understanding this brave new 400 PPM CO2 + + world we have created for ourselves and children.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4) “Seepage”
Allowing dishonest shrill voices to force scientists into following the contrarian script rather than focusing on conveying our physical reality to the public.
As Prof. Stephen Lewandowsky put it: “...even when scientists are rebutting contrarian talking points, they often do so within a framing and within a linguistic landscape created by denial, and often in a manner that reinforces the contrarian claim. This ‘‘seepage’’ has arguably contributed to a widespread tendency to understate the severity of the climate problem.”
Check out his paper:
1 the scientific community has adopted assumptions or language from discourse that originated outside the scientific community or from a small set of dissenting scientific voices.
2 those assumptions depart from those commonly held by the scientific community.
Also see:
Seepage: Climate change denial and its effect on the scientific community -
Greg Laden - May 15, 2015
On Seeps and SCAMS Part I: Lessons for Climate Scientists - May 14, 2015
On Seeps and SCAMS Part II: Pat'n Chip'n David Fake a Debate.
Seeps and SCAMS Part III: Richard Betts misunderstands (and misrepresents) a paper
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5) “Global Warming” vs “Climate Change”
Give credit where credit is due.
It’s the atmospheric insulation driving these changes!
Be clear Anthropogenic Global Warming is the cause and driver of the increasingly intense cascading Climate Changes we are witnessing.
Cascading Consequences?
More greenhouse gases in the atmosphere;
more molecules catching and releasing infrared radiation;
more infrared radiation bouncing around within the atmosphere;
more heat and energy accumulating within that atmosphere;
more moisture that atmosphere holds;
more heat, moisture and energy being moved around by weather systems;
more intense and destructive weather events.
One thing leads to another.
It's deniable, but unavoidable, physics.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
6) Responsibilities of Scientists vs
Responsibilities of Citizens and Students
Scientists are dedicated to their work, given their education and accumulated knowledge, their time is very precious and we need them focusing on their respective tasks.
They are not the ones to fight for the recognition that their work is rational, objective, factually, and morally authoritative. They’ve done the difficult task of accumulating, digesting, reporting, and filing the substantive evidence.
Who’s to defend them and the knowledge they share with society?
A HEALTHY DEMOCRACY DEMANDS AN INFORMED AND ENGAGED CITIZENRY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
7) Define the Debate, A to Z
A Constructive Argument based on real facts, with the ultimate goal being a collective better understanding of the issue at hand.
Such as a Scientific Debate where honestly representing your opponent’s position is required. Striving to understand your opponent’s position well enough to reject or modify it on the merits of your own facts.
If we fail to convince it means something. It may hurt, but it’s a learning experience for the intellectually honest. Mistakes have always been necessary learning opportunities for the stout.
Z Lawyerly Debate, winning is all that matters, facts are irrelevant obstacles to hurdle. Being skilled in rhetorical trickery is a prerequisite. Objective learning is not the object.
Amorality, misdirection and theatre are its hallmarks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8) Intellectual Confrontation
The fact is, climate science awareness is being actively stifled by ruthless individuals with bottomless bank accounts and octopus news outlets to do their bidding. They have sold a lazy public a pack of lies that have become the comfort zone of all too many today.
How can the misinformation this juggernaut force feeds the public be neutralized without direct intellectual confrontation by masses of informed, concerned, engaged students, and citizens, everywhere it pops up?
It’s not about attacking people, it’s about attacking the maliciously deceptive words, the lies and stupidity they’re spewing. It’s about teaching them how our physical planet operates!
Focus. Expose the dishonesty in their words and educate them.
A good resource for factual jump starts:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9) Call out False Claims & Lies
When someone makes a malicious false claim, relentlessly demand evidence for said attacks - shame and expose those who refuse to produce evidence for their malicious claims. Examine and expose the props substituted for substance.
Dissect and confront their tactics rather than being played by them!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
10) Better than Skepticism ===> Critical Thinking Skills
The term “Skeptics” has been poisoned by theatre and the grotesque double standard of the GOP.
Critical Thinking Skills is a clear descriptive that explains the process itself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
11) Confront Trash Talk with Rhetorical Jujutsu
Contrarians depend on personal attacks to distract the discussion from their bankrupt “science”. Learn to recognize the game, turn it to your favor, be prepared to point out the juvenility of the tactic, while forcing the discussion back to the real world facts your contrarian opponent won’t have.
fyi, studies in the contrarian mindscape:
LandscapesAndCycles, Jim Steele’s malicious deception.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A contrarian shouts: “Science, science, science.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
google “Jujutsu” ~ Food for Thought, turn the conversation into an exploration of the tactics of avoidance, evasion and lying.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Where appropriate, why not point out Calumny in action?
Be ready to define it: https://dictionary.thelaw.com/calumny/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
12) Faith-based Thinking - God or EGO?
Possessing the hubris to fancy that we petty, jealous, fearful, prideful humans can access and understand the real God of Light and Time, Life and Love, leads to a profound disconnect from our planet’s physical reality, and an immoral absolutism.
It's one thing to believe in an unknowable god, quite another to mistake one’s own hyper-inflated EGO for God.
Unhinged from reality is not too harsh a descriptive.
for explanation see:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
13) The pain of our brave new world
Face it, or not, we are like children being inextricably torn from our mother for all time. Our brave new world is arriving, it will be traumatic, but it won't be wished away. Our existence is transitioning into a ever more deadly game of Russian Weather Roulette and cascading consequences.
Delusional thinking and disregard for scientific understanding and rational constructive dialogue will only make the coming decades that much worse. Why are we all still allowing it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
14) WE THE PEOPLE,
have the right to demand honesty when hearing what real experts are trying to convey, without being flooded with the constant deceptive and fraudulent cross-screaming of the propaganda machine of unhinged self-obsessed oligarchs and their astro-turfing thugs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No comments:
Post a Comment