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

[thompnickson2 at gmail.com]

Glen, 
Yes, the authors of the critique. 

To your first point, I never stipulated any particular logic.  Perhaps I should just put it this way: before we can argue fruitfully, we have to agree on a mode of argument, and failure to follow a set of rules does not make on a bad person, it just means that until we agree on a new set of rules, we can't argue any more.  

Nick

Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
ThompNickSon2 at gmail.com
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Friam <friam-bounces at redfish.com> On Behalf Of u?l? ???
Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2020 1:52 PM
To: friam at redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Climate Science Denial: A rational activity built on incoherence and conspiracy theories | HotWhopper

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.ht
> ml 
> <https://blog.hotwhopper.com/2016/09/climate-science-denial-rational.h
> tml>
> 
> 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

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/