This guy emailed me, looking to see if I could promote him and his book in some way: rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tim_Ball My exchange with him: Me: My podcast is generally interested in understanding the overwhelming scientific consensus on any matter, not minority opinions. Him: Consensus is not a scientific fact. Me: I didnt imply that. Im not a climate scientist and Im in no position to interpret a field of research I have no training in. I also dont know much about car engines. I might ask 10 mechanics if using a higher octane than my car is designed for will have a net benefit. Nine mechanics says no, it wont. One says yes it will. I would err on the side of the overwhelming consensus. By the same token, I prefer to err on the side of the overwhelming consensus of any scientific proposition. Him: All I ask is that you read my book with an open mind. Then, prove me wrong. I will send you the book, if you provide me with your address and phone number. Me: I certainly have an open mind. Its why I believe, for example, we are not alone in the universe and there are likely planets with intelligent life besides our own. Propositions that lack overwhelming evidence for or against and have some modicum of plausibility Im quite open minded about. But when one side of a proposition has overwhelming support by the experts in the field (AGW, big bang, evolution, germ theory, efficacy of vaccines, etc.), I dont believe in wasting much time trying to maintain an open mind, if by open mind you mean giving each side an equal probability of being true or giving one side at least a sporting chance of being true. I also have a very clear idea of what I dont know and what I can understand enough to reasonably interpret a body of research. Im in no position to interpret climate science or the arguments you put forth and how they answer extant objections or if you adequately deal with all extant objections. I have a BA in Psychology. You may as well ask me to read a paper that argues autologous bone grafts are inferior to allografts. If I were in need of a bone graft, I would certainly ask my doctor what the current standard of care is and go with that. If my doctor said the vast majority of orthopedic surgeons decided the peer reviewed literature indicated autologous bone grafts were the way to go but I should trust his authority or the authority of a minority opinion that allografts were superior, I would find another doctor. Quickly. Im not sure what Im capable of proving wrong to you, either. As I say, I have a BA in Psychology. Im not a climate scientist. Its probably an entertaining book, but then Da Vinci Code was an entertaining book. Im just not sure Dan Browns interpretation of how Italian Renaissance painters used symbolism is the more correct version. I would only be left wondering much the same thing after putting down your book. I dont doubt you have tried to sway the consensus scientific opinion with your book and have found it failed to convert many of the 90% of climate scientists who interpret the evidence to indicate AGW is real. I have no dog in that fight. You probably have left to you a political battle and a PR battle to convince voters and tax payers. Unfortunately Im the absolutely the wrong person for that. Im really only concerned with public policy erring on the side of overwhelming scientific consensuses on any issue.
Posted on: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:53:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015