[FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

[uǝlƃ ↙↙↙]

When you say "these folks", I'm guessing you mean Worrall and the commenters, not Sou, Lewandowsky, et al. Correct?

As for the 3 criteria, I completely reject your *implied* inference in (1). A commitment to logic does not imply a commitment to the Law of Non-contradiction. There are plenty of logics that don't obey that axiom. I've tried a number of times to introduce paraconsistent logic and inconsistency tolerance techniques (which are ubiquitous in modern IT systems).

And while I agree, in principle, with your (3), my recent posts poking at the false dichotomy between ad hominem and character assessment (or the previous ones on "credibility") aren't reflected in it. For me, personally, I *must* allow contempt-speech and disrespectful dialogue because the people I care most about dialoguing with are VERY sensitive people, triggered at the smallest mis-spoken phrase or line of argument. So, when I mis-speak, they react ... sometimes even with violence. If I considered that a condition to rule them out for any (future) productive dialogue, I'd be a very lonely person. 8^D

In summary, I find only (2) is necessary for productive dialogue ... and even there I can argue about the conceptions of "fact" and "desire". Such rule-based ethics will fail you in an open universe. >8^D

But it's a great post. Thanks! I'll probably read that main paper: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-016-1198-6


On 11/25/20 10:46 AM, thompnickson2 at gmail.com wrote:
> I actually read most of this before I am passing it on to you, a new record for me.  It relates to Wing Nuts. https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.html <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.html>
> 
> I found it interesting because it relates to an attempt to state the minimum conditions for a productive dialogue between people who disagree. 
> 
> So these folks meet the first two.
> 
>  1. A commitment to logic.  Otherwise inconsistencies don’t hurt, right?
>  2. A commitment to the possibility of facts and a desire to find them.
> 
> They fail on the third criterion:
> 
>  3. A commitment to respectful dialogue, avoidance of contempt-speech, and an honest attempt to Steelman (/sensu Ropellae) /the other guy’s argument. 


-- 
↙↙↙ uǝlƃ