Why should we believe global warming "skeptics" given their history of being wrong?
AGW "skeptics" love to criticize James Hansen because his global temperature projections in 1988 weren't perfect. They were off by about 17%, but it turns out, if you reconstruct a temperature projection based on "skeptic" Richard Lindzen's comments in 1989, he was way, way, way, way further off than Hansen. http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illu... Then of course there's the fact that "skeptics" Spencer and Christy screwed up the satellite temperature data analysis and claimed for the better part of a decade that the planet was barely warming, until another set of scientists discovered their errors. Given that AGW "skepticism" is heavily dependent upon the arguments of these three "skeptic" scientists, and given their history of being wrong (and the fact that their arguments today aren't much different than their previously erroneous arguments), why should we believe them and put future generations at risk in the likely scenario that they are still wrong?
In debates, what's it called when someone uses an example to try to prove a point, rather than show data?
First, let’s be clear: all data is examples. Data by definition is a set of systematic observations meant to exemplify a particular theorem or proposition. If we ask whether pigs fly, and someone shows us a pig that flies, that example is most certainly data that speaks to the proposition “pigs fly.”There are many ways that exemplification can go wrong, but they all boil down to subtly or grossly changing the nature of the proposition being investigated. They are all, in effect, category errors, in that they change the category of objects or events being discussed without signaling — or perhaps even being aware of — that change.The particular problem the question is asking about could be a ‘restricted domain’ error. This includes things like:Cherry picking: choosing examples that are advantageous to one’s argument, while ignoring other examplesLow-hanging fruit and straw men: choosing examples that are easy to get at, and ignoring more difficult, informative casesSampling bias: choosing a small or misaligned group: e.g. using Pegasus — a unique creature that is unlike other horses — as an example showing that horses can fly. ( I suppose in our example that would be Pigasus…)It could also be a narrative error, something where the ‘evidence’ being presented is not actually evidence at all, but rather a completely different proposition wrapped up by an implicit narrative. This includes things like:Anecdotalism: stories meant to engage sentiments by appealing to the sincerity and respectability of the speaker:.testimonials, hearsay, “It seems to me that…” or “I’ve heard it said that…” type arguments…Normativism: stories meant to engage group norms or group knowledge as though they were evidence: “People are saying…”, “everyone knows that…”Circular arguments: stories created with a particularly conclusion in mind, that are then presented as evidence of that conclusionOf course, give the ‘pigs fly’ example used, this might just be a sarcastic response to a sarcastic statement. Nothing wrong with that, and nothing to do about it except stick out your tongue or roll your eyes.
Do you think Voldemort is a cliche villain?
Lyra, Am I allowed to say yes and no? Let me start with 'no.' I consider any character who is deemed 'evil' by any 'objective' and 'intelligent' audience to be tired and cliched. Forgive me this hubris, but I find those who believe in earnest that there is such a thing as an evil person are either dogmatic or close-minded.. "Evil" is, IMHO, a scapegoat word that is a shortcut for motivations and behaviors that we do not understand. Thus, Hitler is "evil," bin Laden is "evil," and characters in novels, like Voldemort, are "evil." But where does this name-calling get us? No closer to understanding their reasons, and preventing behavior like theirs (in terms of the real people) in the future. Every fantasy novel seems to require an "evil" antagonist. Their motivations may be vaguely known to us, but we are implicitly directed by the authors not to sympathize with or understand them. This is not to say that we should condone their behavior; but by not at least attempting to understand their motivations, we learn nothing other than hatred. This is not useful. So - to answer your question, Lyra - Voldemort is cliche in the sense that he is an 'evil' character, lacking audience sympathy and full understanding. On the other side, however, I will agree with you that J.K. Rowling gave to Voldemort more of a back story and an explanation of his past (and thus extrapolation of his motivations) than many other authors grant their antagonists. His particular rise to power was, indeed, unique, interesting, and worthy of the hero's plight. xoxo Michelle P.S. Lyra, you're a bit of a *geek* for discussing the more philosophical aspects of Harry Potter. I happen to love philosophy, and I love geeks. :)