In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:35:38 +0000 (UTC), R Kym Horsell
wrote:
In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:17:44 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:
On 4/24/2012 12:24 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...
[X] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
scientifically illiterate frauds
[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
science
Obviously, Sam, Marvin is FAR more scientifically educated than you
But the dog ate the evidence of it.
...
Isn't this one of them "peel to auth-or-i-tay" things Ben likes to avoid
in case he comes out less than favorably?
You'd think that just by random chance a clueless person trying to
argue would stumble onto a non-fallacy once in a while; but it
never seems to happen. Almost makes you wonder if there's some
bias in the process somewhere.

It's twice as hard when you have to fight against the unwanted facts
and also that little guy in your head that's allays trying to screw you up.

Ben knows he's spouting fallacies -- he will even tell you that when
he sees one come in from "outside".

But let's not get on Ben's back too much. It's not his fault. (wink)

A couple years back I looked at all the statements that had been
made by a particular USENET poster and tried to score them
consensus position/"other" (i.e. fallacy, fringe, plain stoooopid) JUST
for the statements that could be evaluated TRUE/FALSE.
Since there were a lot of these statements a little program needed
to be written to go through them all. (It turned out the same things
was repated over and over in different forms).

It turned out there was a huge win for the "other" column.

Something like 80% of the fellow's statements evaluated to
the equivalent of "water is dry" on a vast range of topics
from politics, through economics, philsophy and science to common
sense questions like "if you put a blanket around yourself, do
you generally feel warmer?".

Dunning et al have their ideas of competence about individual skills.
But these ideas were validated on people with way above-average intellect
to start with (90th percentile). I'm afraid if you leave the ivys
and get down in the mud it turns out if someone spouts nonsense
about one area, they likely spout nonsense about many more.

Dunning et al apparently never visited a bar.

--
http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/...hp?ideaId=1907
'Liars say "I am not a crook" rather than "I am honest" '
Liars use short sentences, the past tense and negative statements
Bella DePaula, professor of psychology at the University of Virginia,
has found, in a study of 3,000 people, that the following clues are
the most useful indicators of whether somebody is lying:
# Lack of specific detail - not volunteering names of people and places
# Short answers
# Using the past tense
# Using negative statements ("not a crook" rather than "honest")
# Increased eye contact
# Higher pitched voice