Cause of Bias?

The Watercooler
141

Great question @JonnyPitt.

Good points @Srinath, I was literally writing something equivalent. I think people tend not to understand the concepts of hypotheses, models, the probabilistic nature of things and find the constant changing of boundaries and facts perplexing and overwhelming and incredulous like being grounded on shifting sands.

Specialisation has definitely become a bigger problem and the lag in independent verification of scientific papers, as evidenced say with big pharma over simplified models on depression or the false promises of Theranos the company that promised breakthrough blood tests and were able to reach a $10billion valuation without definitive evidence of their products claims.

What is interesting to see is that there are different standards and methods used across the different disciplines in science as well, for example in my background in physics a lot was pushed to the whole 5 sigma criteria, which is 5 standard deviations of a Gaussian mean, which means a probability of being incorrect would be 0.000027%.

Some systems are so complex, dynamic and constitute so many different variables and parameters that there is a slim chance to ever probably be able to reach a 5 sigma criterion, and in some cases it will not be relevant because not everything fits a Gaussian model either.

A doctor determining somebody’s diagnosis based on blood results, histologies and imaging isn’t going to adhere to some 5 sigma standard before attempting to diagnose and treat their patient.

Again, the emphasis of the scientific method is reproducibility and prediction and in some systems the accuracy of our predictions aren’t great but that doesn’t mean they are irrelevant or negligible.

Take the smoking situation, I think the problem comes down to the probabilistic nature of dynamic systems. People are often looking for a simple case of a mono-cause and effect, but in dynamics systems with varying attributes it is hard to demonstrate a mono-cause. When you have complex factors like heriditary/genetic influences, environment influences (living near a polluted city for example) and then habitual individualistic differences. The subtle individual differences can be really complicated as well, maybe somebody smokes their own rolled up tobacco which then has less additional chemicals in it as standard cigarettes, maybe somebody inhales and holds the smoke in longer, maybe somebody also smokes weed occasionally, etc, it is very hard to measure all of these subtle differences.

That is why a lot of tests sought to use twins to gauge a deeper understanding of the increased probability of getting lung cancer from smoking when the genetic and environment influences are the same but only the individualistic choices are different.

However, because there is not a singular causal link showing that smoking causes lung cancer it doesn’t mean that there isn’t a higher probability of getting it from taking that activity.

Also, interesting how we pick and choose what is relevant to us.

The same type of epidemiogical studies were used to determine that Chromium VI (the whole Erin Brockovich film is about this poisoning) is carcinogenic and can cause lung cancer.

If Richard and Vineeto were to find their water supply contaminated with it, would they be as nonchalant about it being in their water supply and being a possible risk factor for lung cancer. Or would they say, its fine there is no definitive causal link.

I personally don’t care whether somebody smokes or not, most of my family do, my dad did despite COPD and prostate cancer with lung mets, it is a personal choice and as long as its not blown in my face all the time I don’t care. But it is interesting to see where people decide to accept and reject certain information.

I have learned to accept the limitations of my understanding and awareness. However, even when I don’t fully understand something, I find I am still able to ask questions that help me understand or challenge the validity of something. I guess I am always looking for holes in something, seeing and testing in my mind if I can find problems and seek greater understanding. I find sometimes a good question can show up a flaw in ones argument or reasoning just as much (sometimes more) than a counter argument.

I had a chance to message Richard back in the Topica and Yahoo days but performance anxiety blocked me in that regard. Though I used to have questions I would want to ask. Previously on the other forum I questioned Craig a lot regarding the beliefs he seemed to still have which didn’t sit right with me and I was never answered, not that I have to be but I thought I raised fair and valid questions in a respectful manner. All that is lost anyway…thanks srid.

As regards climate change, it is true that there is no supercomputer yet capable of accurately modelling everything and making an absolutely accurate prediction. The absolute worse case scenario of human extinction might not be a valid conclusion however there is now evidence that human activity has contributed to changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere (to quote NASA lol). So, again we can’t say we have a non existent negiblible impact on our environment.

I guess any time I consider anything that threatens the validity of what actual freedom is about I get this uncomfortable defensive reaction. This happened with things raised in this forum such as actualism and the weird thread. Additionally, the expectations I have of what could tarnish the value of being free, it is because I had some ideal that it wouldn’t allow things I feel bad about such as bias, stupidity, clumsiness, errors/mistakes and other such problems that actual freedom won’t rule out still being a possibility. I.e. it is not some idealised intellectual state that I wish for, like my wish for photographic memory.

I have read a lot of examples that seem to indicate exposure to people who disagree with us or have different perspectives and biases to us, is always good for shining awareness on our own biases. Maybe the reality is some people aren’t exposed to varying opinions. I always thought it was a benefit of living in places like London with such a complex melting point of different people, different beliefs, philosophies, races, upbringings, class etc. Harder for someone in a mono culture where the majority of the community look and believe the same thing to challenege biases, or other things like beliefs, cultural norms etc.

142

Well said @son_of_bob . Well said.

143

I think part of our disconnect here is that we aren’t talking about the same argument. You’re calling an argument silly, and I’m not, but we’re talking about two different arguments.

Here’s a few times where you’ve mentioned Soros:

If the argument is: “climate change is not man-made because George Soros is a socialist that donates to ‘global warming causes’”… yes, that’s a bad argument, because that isn’t a logical chain of deductive reasoning. One indeed has nothing to do with the other.

But it isn’t like Richard asked himself, “is climate change really being caused by man?” And then he discovered that Soros is funding a lot of the research that points to that, and concluded “No, it isn’t, because Soros is funding this research”.

Rather it’s that (according to Richard, as quoted earlier in the thread) Richard looked for the specific factual underpinnings of the hypothesis for three weeks and wasn’t able to find any (because it was based on “unverifiable in the lab” quantum mechanics).

Anything else besides that – such as Soros funding certain things or not – is circumstantial, and serves to possibly support, but of course not prove, that it climate change is man-made.

For an example where it’d be relevant, consider a conversation like:

  • Bob: Global warming is caused by man
  • Joe: No it isn’t, there’s no facts to support it
  • Bob: But there are all these studies that say it is
  • Joe: Which studies?
  • Bob: E.g Study A, B, and C
  • Joe: Well interesting thing about those studies, they were funded by George Soros who has a vested interest in the mainstream consensus being that it is man-made because of X, Y and Z. So they are not necessarily … unbiased .

In this context, Joe isn’t making a bad argument. Bob introduced (circumstantial) evidence that climate change is man-made, in the form of some studies. Joe is rebutting this by providing (circumstantial) evidence that those studies aren’t necessarily reliable. The fact those studies are funded by Soros doesn’t prove that climate change isn’t man-made – and indeed it doesn’t directly argue that it isn’t – but in the context it’s logically addressing a point that was brought up.

(Also note that in this context, with both participants not being scientists, not trained in the field, and not actually able to evaluate the studies on the merit of the science in and of itself… it’s a matter of opinion, to them, whether they are valid or not. One can say they are because it’s ‘good science’, one can say it’s not cause of ‘bad incentives’… but neither of them really know unless they dig deeply into the studies and possibly undergo a bunch of education and training etc.)

So in short I disagree with you that citing Soros is a bad argument. Therefore asking the question of why actually free people have “the tenacity in holding on to bad arguments” is not valid as the premise (that they hold on to ‘bad arguments’) is invalid – for this one particular argument anyway :smiley: .

Personally whenever I’ve thought an actually free person was making a bad argument, whenever I dug into it enough I come to a conclusion similar to the above, that it actually isn’t, haha.

Hmmmmm. As I detailed above, I think you are misunderstanding the argument. I was making the (irrelevant to the thread) supposition that the reason you misunderstand the argument is because of your personally held opinions about the subject, and this is … biasing your evaluation of whether the argument is bad or not. In other words, if you did think climate change was not man-made, I don’t think you would see it as a bad argument. Indeed you might see it as a ‘good point’. This is all supposition though and indeed besides the point of the thread, so we need not further go down this line.

2 Likes
144

May I re-enter this discussion for a second in what I suspect will only add to the clusterfuck of confusion?

Correct me if I’m wrong @JonnyPitt but you would be equally disappointed, would you not, were Richard to say that he arrived at a conventional opinion of global warming from the basis of statements made by Mariah Carrey or Leonardo DiCaprio at some award show.

You are put-off by the acceptance and inclusion of flimsy evidence in the formulation of any opinion, such that it raises the question for you of how anyone with a track record of intelligent output, unencumbered by the influence of emotion, could arrive at conclusions built upon such laughably weak foundations, is that not it?

145

And @claudiu, also seeking to understand your position:

Would it be correct to say that you are not in any way commenting on or seeking to answer the question Jon posed at the beginning of this thread (and other variations of the question) but are seeking instead to question the very basis of the original question itself (which had to do with the mechanism of bias in people without a “self”). Further, that the original question that Jon posed appears to have arisen from Jon’s conclusion that actually free people exhibit a “tenacity in holding on to bad arguments.” You are now arguing that his evidentiary basis for arriving at such a conclusion – i.e., that actually free people exhibit a “tenacity in holding on to bad arguments” – is without merit. Is this correct?

Follow up questions:

  1. Are you of the opinion that cognitive bias is a biological feature of the brain/intelligence such that it will unavoidably/inevitably arise in people actually free?

  2. Do you consider that perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgment, illogical interpretation, or what is broadly called irrationality, is an inherent (and thus unavoidable) tendency for all humans, including those actually free?

  3. If your response is in the affirmative to any of the two questions above, would you find it inevitable/unavoidable for an actually free person to exhibit, at some point in time, that “tenacity in holding on to bad arguments.” If not, why?

146

@claudiu

If the so-called bad arguments were merely first examples then I see your point. Bringing up George Soros was just an introduction poorly tailored to their audience (me). And the meat of their objection lies elsewhere. I can buy that. It only explains the anthropogenic climate change opinion and it gives them the benefit of the doubt. But I’m more than happy to give them the benefit of the doubt. I tried for years to agree with their conclusions so I have demonstrated to myself ample ability to give them the benefit of the doubt. And I’m happy to do it again.

Then we can agree to disagree about whether they hold on to bad arguments about other things or not. There’s one example I feel very uncomfortable bringing up publicly.

The whole conversation in toto has helped me feel comfortable with the idea that some part of bias (or whatever you want to call it) is cerebral rather than emotional. That makes more sense to me now as I’ve been letting it percolate for the last two dozen or so hours.

1 Like
147

Yea if I could put it this way … in the example of the opinion of whether Bob and Joe think the studies are valid (without being able to evaluate the themselves). We can call this bias. Bob is biased toward accepting the studies while Joe is biased towards not. This bias remains whether actually free or not. Neither side is objectively correct or objectively wrong here since it’s not a matter of fact or faulty logic.

But then maybe you see the issue, there’s no unbiased POV when it’s a matter of opinion … it’s not accurate to call one side biased while the other isn’t. Both are biased.

so that’s what I was trying to get at with calling it a quasi-spiritual thing that there can be no bias. It’s not even that it’s cognitive per se… id put it more like it’s a feature of thinking in and of itself. We can call it cognitive, sure. Not trying to be contrarian. But I would say rather than it being an unfortunate negative aspect of cognition that actual freedom doesn’t magically cure, it’s more that this is how experience , memory , thinking and cognition function in and of themselves, actual freedom allows it to operate more smoothly / in a less encumbered way, but it can’t change the fundamental nature of how it works.

1 Like
148

Right, water isn’t going to start flowing uphill because we think that would be better.

149

I am inclined to agree with @claudiu here, to challenge the fact that someone is biased is to propose a state that is free from bias. If I dig into this idea of what is free from bias I end up with something spiritual. In fact it reminds me a little of the concept of free will, of some acting agent that whilst it is completely independent of everything and anything, it is still capable of affecting other things. In this sense I am actually liking @rick’s initial argument :laughing:

2 Likes
150

Not per se. It’s more like this:

  1. With facts you’re either right or wrong.
  2. With logic you either follow a valid logical sequence or an invalid one.
  3. When facts are not available or easily verifiable, then we have opinions.

I thought Jon was making the case that the actually free people show issues regarding 1 and 2. I question this and I think all the issues fall into category 3. I also don’t think there’s such a thing as “unbiased” when it comes to 3. You have one opinion of the other … both are “bias” in some way. Actual freedom doesn’t change the nature of this.

I think it’s just how evaluation and thinking works. Whether free or not , it is the same. I think when free you are much less likely , and will not stick to , errors of the sort in 1 and 2. But there’s no “error” in 3 (presuming all logic is sound which would be an issue of 2). It’s opinion. You can disagree with an opinion if you like …

I think inherent but I see it that a feeling-being is liable to believe and fervently stick to things sourced in distortion, inaccuracy, and bad logic, while actually free person wouldn’t and would more easily question things.

I would be surprised. I would think it’s possible to have a faulty step of logic and not recognize it and not think much more upon it. But I can’t see being engaged in researching a topic for 3 weeks and not uncovering simple bad arguments.

I could be wrong I suppose but as I mentioned , whenever I dug into something I found horribly strange for them to say (big bang theory, smoking , quantum mechanics , climate change), I didn’t see it. There was always some reasonable basis where I could see why they say what they say. I haven’t dug into everything they said tho , but , enough for me to satisfy myself.

1 Like
151

This is actually quite a fun road to explore… It reminds me of what Richard writes about the actual - that the relative is the absolute.

As in there is no such thing as some separated ‘truth’, floating somewhere, unaffected and intrinsically right, waiting to be found. There are attempts to prove it exists, one is the spiritual truth and the other is the philosophers truth - arrived at by logic.

By the very nature of being a flesh and blood body we are biased, by the fact of our sense organs being arranged in this particular way and not another we are biased. I am taller than @Sonyaxx so is my view of the world biased by looking from above? And her’s by looking from below? But these are just relative descriptions, what is the unbiased way of looking at the world, what is the ‘true’ height we should describe events from? whose description is biased and whose is true? There is no such thing, because to look is to take a vantage point, to take a vantage point is to be ‘biased’ already.

It only seems to be somehow ‘wrong’ because of the idea that somewhere out there exists an unaffected truth, or ‘the perfect argument’.

2 Likes
152

@JonnyPitt What I am wondering is whether your difficulty in accepting Richard’s and Vineeto’s opinions is because you have made logic/reason into ‘the ultimate’? That in a world where each vantage point is skewed by it’s very nature, you seek to find that which has the ‘ultimate authority’ in a contentious issue - “was it a good argument”. What if the pedestal that logic/reason has been placed on here is not warranted? It seems to beat purely emotive reasoning but logic/reason has a poor track record with regards to arriving at that which is factual.

All sorts of ridiculous stuff can be apparently demonstrated with sound logic - just look at philosophy lol.

153

Before I came across Actualism I was quite big into philosophy and one of the moments which always stands out to me was reading Richard absolutely dismantle this giant of a truth like it was nothing haha - ‘I think therefore I am’ :

Yes. That infamous theorem ‘I think, therefore I am’ is fatally flawed. It is predicated upon the initial surmise – ‘I think’ – being a fact in order to produce the conclusion … ‘I am’ . The premise is faulty … it should read only the fact that ‘there is thinking happening’. Thus the rewritten axiom now looks like this: ‘There is thinking happening, therefore I am’ … which is, of course, nothing but twaddle dressed up as sagacity. Tacit assumptions expose the lie of philosophy

This made a big dent in the faith I had for logic/reason to be the ultimate arbiter. The arbiter of a sound argument is how closely it is aligned with fact not how closely it follows the rigours of logic/reason - provided it is facticity you are after and not the philosophers wet dream of ‘ultimate truth’ haha

It seems to require naiveté to allow that an argument could exist which whilst trampling all over the apparent ‘rules of logic/reasoning’ is still correct! Why? because it is aligned with fact, end of. The other thing I would add as well is weren’t we all guilty of this intellectual snobbery when reading any of the initial statements on the AFT? Which later turned out to be extremely accurate descriptions of the actual state of affairs? :

‘Everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong’, 'nobody before Richard has become actually free of the human condition, ‘‘I’ don’t actually exist’, ‘the universe is actually benevolent and benign’.

Try showing these to a philosophy professor who will assure you that these statements could never be true, along with all the logical and carefully reasoned proof for why it is impossible to change the human nature. I actually did try this when I was studying philosophy at uni, it did not go well :laughing:

1 Like
154

We disagree here. And I think their problems with #1 and #2 probably have something to do with cognitive limitations similar to tone deafness or dyslexia.

I allowed for #3 throughout the thread.

1 Like
155

I’m really bothered by this, but not sure exactly why.

Can Richard & Vineeto (or other actually free people) just blatantly be unable to plainly see what a fact is (#1)? Can they be totally blind to obvious logical fallacies (#2)?

I suppose it’s possible, but… as I said, whenever I dig into something controversial where it seems they’re doing #1 or #2, I don’t find it. I find reasonable doubt, I find they have a point cause of X, Y, or Z, etc. Does that mean I have the same cognitive limitation? I suppose it’s possible - if I did, I certainly wouldn’t be able to be aware of it :grin: .

The problem I have is that I notice that this only ever comes up with ‘controversial’ topics, i.e. topics where the majority or “mainstream” or at least “scientific mainstream” believes X (smoking causes lung cancer; humans cause global warming; etc.), and Richard and Vineeto don’t believe X. So that’s warning sign #1… it only comes on certain topics. Warning sign #2 is, really as I dig into it, ultimately the only reason for me to believe X is just because it is easier to do so, because more people do it, because the people that are supposed to have the expertise in the field say it is, because it means I argue less with people, because I don’t have effort to look into it more, etc. So I go along with it. But that’s not a good reason to hold an opinion per se. So for me there is seed of doubt.

Finally there’s my experience of digging in. It seems generally extremely hard to actually prove something. A scientific paper rarely actually demonstrates exactly what the media says it does. It’s generally very narrow, there are caveats, etc… and that’s if you just read the paper as-is. If you have speciality in the field you can question methodology etc. And then not to mention the stories you hear of crisis of reproducibility in science, then you add political angles, publish or perish, etc… and I know my own experience of trying to prove things, it’s easy if you want (subconsciously or not) to prove a certain outcome, to make mistakes, fail to see things, etc., that leads to numbers or conclusions that support what you’re looking to prove. Obviously the point of scientific training is to not make such mistakes, but it’s a very human thing, scientists are humans too, not infallible, biased in their own ways…

Framing it as a cognitive limitation has a sort of unavoidable “I am better than them” connotation (presumably @JonnyPitt you don’t think you have this limitation in place). Is it possible? Perhaps… but is it really a cognitive limitation to not go with the scientific mainstream? Is it a cognitive limitation not to believe or accept scientific consensus? Or is it such a complex thing, and so challenging to definitively demonstrate anything, and a preference for understanding something on one’s own terms fully without accepting something one doesn’t, and using what tools and education etc. one has at one’s own disposal, to figure out for themselves, and not being concerned that so many others disagree? i.e. not contra-factual (#1) or illogical (#2) but rather a matter of preference/opinion (#3) …

Obviously I lean one way. That is my bias (the displaced center of gravity affecting this bowl)… or perhaps I am tone-deaf of seeing bad arguments. Or perhaps I give people too much the benefit of the doubt… in any case I don’t think it is so cut & dry.

156

@claudiu

It might help to look at it in the other way I offered. Why do people use bad arguments/poor evidence when there are better arguments available? I contend that they must not see the difference between a good argument and a bad one. Much like a dyslexic person can’t see the words on the page or a tone deaf person can’t tune a guitar. You may agree with Vineeto on those things we talked about on our trip but you can’t really deny that some of those points were laughably weak. The best most obvious one that I’m free to discuss is her claim, which she only made to me and Srid and it was on a previous trip, that its hubris for humans to think they can effect climate, because, the earth is so big. Another one was Richard’s: CO2 is a natural gas that plants need. lol - If they had better arguments/points then why start with the bad ones? I contend it’s because they don’t know the difference.

Now. Does that mean I’m smarter than them. No. I don’t think I am. I think they’re smarter than I. But it does seem I have at least one advantage. I am able to see when someone’s argument goes off the rails. They seem to be less able in that category. But there’s a lot more to life than spotting faulty arguments.

157

That’s interesting you say what Vineeto mentioned. I remember when I was in France recently and experiencing what I think was an EE which at some point changed into the experience of just how enormous this universe is and also how enormous this planet is. Humans seemed to be these tiny ants populating this giant planet and I had this same thought of - we really do believe that we are so important. It got me contemplating this same thing of global warming but without coming up with any conclusions really.

That seeing was there though, it makes me think that what you call a bad argument is actually Vineeto pointing out a fact. The way I see it is that I don’t know if this fact makes global warming a hoax etc but it does not change the fact that humans truly do go around believing themselves to be something they are not. This will certainly skew any conclusions as to the state that the planet is in.

1 Like
158

This thing reminds me of the below quote - Selected Correspondence: Pure Intent :

A rule-of-the-thumb check as to whether an ‘active connection’ currently manifesting is of the quality of the consummate nature inherent to pure intent, as reported/ described/ explained on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is by having the capacity at-that-moment to experientially ascertain, thereby, the verity of (for example) the following postscriptum.

Viz.:

• [Richard]: (…). P.S.: Also, briefly, in regards to your ‘armed rebellion’ observations: please be assured that not only will there be a ‘bloodless revolution’ (i.e., non-destructive) but it will be a non-disruptive transition as well – e.g., no food-shortages or fuel-shortages; trains, coaches, planes, ships, and so on, still operating, no loss of creature-comforts, &c., &c. – when the global spread of actual freedom/ actualism eventually takes place’

There was another one that I can’t find somewhere which was essentially making the same point, but mentioning that if pure intent is active then the global spread of peace on earth is seen as an inevitability, whereas when Pure intent is not active it is seen as merely a prophecy - I think this may have been in the Q and A from Australia.

It seems that as long as one is looking from within the ‘human condition’, everything has a tinge of doomsday in it. When looking from the vantage point of the PCE it is a completely different state of affairs. Richard and Vineeto are looking from that place which ‘I’ do not have access to, they are assessing the available information in light of this purity and perfection, the intrinsic benignity and benevolence of this actual universe.
It makes sense that their opinions seem to go against the doomsday flavour.

And I know that your point is mainly about them making bad arguments.
But let’s suppose Richard (sitting in this benignity and benevolence) makes the statement that - the global spread of peace on earth is an inevitability, he makes this statement to someone sitting deeply entrenched in the real world.

Richard’s evidence for this statement will be - it is my lived experience of the inherent benignity and benevolence of this actual universe…
The real world denizen will scream - biased! logically inconsistent, wrong! This is merely a prophecy based on your beliefs.

1 Like
159

I see your point and my first thought was indeed to agree – those are bad arguments, they should use better ones, why do they use them?, maybe they indeed can’t tell the difference, etc.

But then I started thinking about it. Take that “its hubris for humans to think they can effect climate, because, the earth is so big”. First reaction: wow what a bad argument. Why can’t we affect climate? What does the earth’s size have to do with it – there could be X thing that humans are capable of doing that affects the climate.

Obviously we can’t use global warming to discard the argument since that would be begging the question.

My next thought was nukes. Don’t we have enough nukes to destroy the world many times over?

But then I thought about it. One nuke doesn’t even totally destroy a city. It causes mass devastation in a huge area for the size of the bomb, but a small area overall:

Thus 1 bomb with a yield of 1 megaton would destroy 80 square miles. While 8 bombs, each with a yield of 125 kilotons, would destroy 160 square miles. [source]

The worldwide inventory of nukes right now is 13,080 according to Wikipedia. Let’s say they are each 1 megaton – that means detonating all the nukes would cover 1,046,400 square miles. The surface area of the earth is 196,900,000 square miles, and of the land mass is 57,268,900 square miles. So all the nukes from the whole productive capacity of humanity of nukes so far would ‘destroy’ 0.5% of the earth’s total surface area, or 1.8% of the earth’s land area.

So, certainly not enough to destroy the world many times over.

Would that affect the climate? It seems like enough of a % that it would have some effect. But what would the effect be? Here it’s interesting to point out the doom-and-gloom predictions of a worldwide nuclear winter if enough nukes were detonated. But this isn’t a known fact, it’s a prediction… and you can argue it’s begging the question - “It’s hubris to think humans can affect the climate.” “But if we detonate all the nukes it’ll cause a nuclear winter!” “How do you know?” “Because of X and Y.” “But those are predictions… it’s hubris to make such predictions, i.e. hubris to think they would affect the climate.” i.e. it’s saying “Humans can affect the climate because I predict that they could.” But not a known fact.

Also isn’t it funny we have two simultaneous doom-and-gloom predictions, one of over-heating and one of nuclear winter? They can’t both be true… If detonating a couple of nukes could cause a cooling effect… then we have our solution to global warming haha. Let’s say not nukes per se but you could see what it is about the nukes that cause it – “The hypothesis is based on the fact that such fires can inject soot into the stratosphere, where it can block some direct sunlight from reaching the surface of the Earth.” (Wikipedia) So then couldn’t we rig up some devices to inject soot into the stratosphere? It sounds easier than slowing the productive capacity of the entire planet.

This was indeed an argument made in Freakonomics. Actually it looks like someone is actually doing it! Finally: A Garden Hose to the Sky - Freakonomics .

So then this was my next thought – can’t we affect the climate by injecting this soot (or sulfates/aerosols) into the stratosphere? Again the answer is, maybe… what effect would it have? For how long? And we don’t know…

Basically it seems possible but… all of the possibilities are actually hypotheticals, assessments, predictions, etc., not facts or givens. The earth is indeed very big lol. From the self-centric point of view of being a human living in a scientifically advanced civilization, it is basically a given - as in an axiom or belief - that humans “can do anything”, if we put our minds to it. But it isn’t necessarily the case. e.g. on some sci-fi books or movies there are “Planet Buster” missiles that destroy an entire planet with one blast – or the famed Death Star from Star Wars, for example. It seems like a reality – but it’s absolutely not the case that such a thing is a given that it is even possible. We can dream of it sure…

For another example, consider Project Isabela. This was a project to exterminate the entire goat population on the Galapagos islands. I heard a podcast on it and it was extremely difficult to do. The idea was to basically go around and shoot all the goats. “Cutting-edge technology at the time, including the use of helicopters for aerial hunting and GIS tracking […]” (source). But then the goats started getting really good at hiding… it took 9 years to conclude the project.

So the thought is, if it takes a concerted effort across 9 years just to kill all the goats on a set of islands, how much effort would it take for humans to affect the climate of the entire planet? Isn’t it ‘too big’?

After thinking about it in this way, it doesn’t seem like a bad argument after all. It isn’t proof – just because the earth is big doesn’t mean humans can’t affect the climate. But isn’t it hubris indeed to think that we can?

I see it as more of a reframing of the question. Similar to what Kuba wrote… From the POV of scientifically advanced humans, obviously we could, and we must restrain our destructive might lest we completely torch the beautiful Mother Planet that gave us birth. From the POV of a naivete (EE) or innocence (PCE)… isn’t it just too big?

Maybe because they aren’t trying to convince people?

If you’re trying to convince people you would intellectually / sensibly / logically make a list of all the possible arguments. Then you’d figure out which ones were most appealing to the people you were trying to convince. You’d put a lot of effort into it. Marketing might come into play. You might use some arguments that are more convincing even though they are less ‘correct’. etc… this would get better over time as you converse with a lot of people , see what works and what doesn’t, etc…

But they aren’t really trying to convince people. I saw it as more of having a conversation about things. Maybe more a way to try to get people out of their overly-intellectualizd hubris-ified over-logical mindsets and to a more naive place where one can wonder about things. Then we could have meaningful discussion about these topics.

In short isn’t this thread an exact example of what Richard warned would happen?

For those who are unable to recall/ unable to trigger a PCE there is the near-purity of the sincerity which inheres in naiveté – the nearest a ‘self’ can get to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ – which naiveté is an aspect of oneself locked away in childhood through ridicule, derision, and so on, that one has dared not to resurrect for fear of appearing foolish, a simpleton, in both others’ eyes and, thus, one’s own. [source]

And here is a juxtaposition for maximum effect:

1 Like
160

Awesome @claudiu. I remember talking to @Sonyaxx over the course of 2 years about ‘men being evil’, she would often mention - why are you always playing devils advocate, why are you discounting all these points I am making. And I’m not in possession of all the statistics and data to make claims about assaults on women etc but I could see there was this belief there, and I was trying to bring the conversation to a point where it could be exposed. And how will that belief get exposed if I was to concede every single point about ‘women being in danger’. It seems sometimes it does take somewhat of a radical approach to get the conversation to a point where one can begin to look at the topic naively/sincerely and then something profound can happen. And this is not really arrived at by structuring complex logical arguments. It makes sense that Richard and Vineeto have no interest engaging in intellectual debates, their interest is to get one to experience the facts for themselves. I can see why they might end up saying something like “Did you really come here all this way to argue” because whilst their interest is for someone to experience the actual for themselves, one is too busy splitting hairs over intellectual points.

We had a lovely reminder of this from Geoffrey lately with the golden cities and the leathery armchairs :joy: I left out tagging him this time so he can enjoy his slumber :stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes:

1 Like