- Utter certainties on display again. Is this really open-minded scepticism? Or are we all in the grip Archived Message
Posted by Rhisiart Gwilym
on March 2, 2020, 8:14 am, in reply to "Re: Sorry RhG, it's bogus."
|
of an unexamined irrational panic? I bring up Mallen Baker because he gives the clear impression - to me, at least - of one trawling about through all the arguments - and all the bald, peeved assertions - to see what can be known with something approaching confidence. So far, in all his considerations, I haven't heard him make even one 'cast-iron-certain' assertion. Always open-minded and undogmatic. But - as before - all my post brings up is another rehearsal of why one's preferred positions must be right, and anyone questioning them must be a charlatan. Such clashes of unwarranted - sic! - hyper-certainties suggest people in the grip of emotionally-important convictions which they can't bear to examine really critically (in case of being proven wrong); the denialists too, of course. Seems to me that Baker is trying to find a rational way through this maze. Isn't that commendable? And won't it involve - inevitably - considering all the various contentions, without trying to write off some of the views as inherently untenable; especially using the message/messenger confusion: a proposed fact is true or not on its merits, regardless of the degree of taintedness of the proposer. Isn't that so? I come back to the question: what do I know for something like sure? Answer: during the course of a longish lifetime, I personally have witnessed British weather get a bit warmer; and possibly a bit stormier; though on that second item I'm less confident. That's it! Speaking only of Britain, where I have a lifetime's experience, that's all I know with reasonable confidence. Ian, what homework am I supposed to do, with any confidence, in such a situation? You want me to abandon reasonable open-mindedness in favour of fervently-held certainties, where none seem all that justified? One of the assertions which Dmitry Orlov makes, in his still-paywalled latest commentary on the matter, is that outside of the Western anglosphere, the whole climate-emergency is viewed with much greater scepticism. If that's right (I don't claim to know whether it is), do we just write them off as lesser breeds who just don't understand the deep subtleties of science the way Westerners do? You can imagine the bird that that stance would get amongst the non-Western majority, can't you? Meanwhile, we have a rancorous shouting match, with no clear actually-reasonable certainties much on display. Lots and lots of special pleading, though. And - as usual - lots of eye-on-the-main-chancers on the lookout for a quick, big buck to make. All this in a situation where the odd sober voice - of whichever persuasion - admits that reliable prediction, in such a complex system, is virtually impossible... Toxic brew, with more heat than light, isn't it? (Here. have a few more query marks: ?????? aka open-minded scepticism. That's really all I'm promoting here! I say again for clarity: I have literally no absolute certainties to push. Just asking reasonable questions.) 
|