Originally Posted by trumptman
I'm going to borrow from myself. I posted this on my blog and I think it is a better explanation of what I am trying to explain here. It is helped along by Mr. Al Gore himself who is concerned about reason dying.
Unfortunately, the legacy of the 20th century's ideologically driven bloodbaths has included a new cynicism about reason itself—because reason was so easily used by propagandists to disguise their impulse to power by cloaking it in clever and seductive intellectual formulations. When people don't have an opportunity to interact on equal terms and test the validity of what they're being "taught" in the light of their own experience and robust, shared dialogue, they naturally begin to resist the assumption that the experts know best.
Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot et al rose to power by using seductive intellectual arguments that subverted the very idea of reason?
And here I thought it was because they appealed to the worst impulses of their people, making aggressive use of the concepts of nationalism, external enemies and a return to former greatness. That, and a penchant for brutality and ruthlessness within their own respective hierarchical systems. To the extent that "scientific" claims were made by any of these despots, they were post hoc and secondary to the main process, which was entirely emotional or a product of good old irrational violence.
I don't think too many people, surveying the shuttered death camps, or the killing fields of Cambodia, or the gulags of the Soviet Union, or the mass graves of countless petty dictators, felt betrayed by science
Gore should follow his own advice. I've pointed out the hypocrisy of himself and others within the Global Warming Movement. Others dismiss these notations as an attempt to kill the messenger, a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning.
Noticing that you're spending a lot of time belittling people associated with global warming activism as a proxy for belittling the underlying evidence for global warming itself is "a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning"?
Fuck, now I feel betrayed by Latin.
However the reality is shown by Gore himself. People do not have the ability to interact on equal terms. We all do not have the ability to go to Antarctica and measure the ice sheet. They do not have the ability to run massive global environmental computer models. Thus, they turn to leaders and experts, those who do get to interact with this information. As Gore noted this one way train of information carries with it, a predisposition toward cynicism by those on the receiving end because it is possible to manipulate and attempt to disguise an impulse for power by those who have the information.
Well OK! Now we're getting somewhere! It follows that rational people will attempt to discern what the preponderance of the ostensibly expert opinion is, right? Since we don't have access to primary sources on a lot of the received information we are obliged to consider as "true", we must form criteria for what constitutes "reliable sources", right?
Since the cynicism engendered by the blood baths of the 20th century have made us very wary of accepting mere rhetoric as a reliable source, we will be especially inclined to familiarize ourselves with at least the mechanisms
of science and its means for organizing information. I may not be able to equip myself to be a climatologist, by I can
get a sense of how the mechanisms for "truth discernment" in the field of climatology operate, which entities speak for those mechanisms and via which agencies, and thereby form my best shot at an "informed opinion".
That way, thankfully, I need not rely on emotional "persuasion", or appeals to externalities, since, well, you know, Hitler and all.
It is because of this natural predisposition, that leaders within such a movement must lead by example.
Uh oh. Is that the sound of grinding gears? Cause I think we just popped into reverse.
Cynicism about leadership, remember? Weariness with the fallibility of nobel crusades, and the men that lead them?
Oh, that's right, you set this up by making the interesting claim that the wars of the 20th century actually embittered us to the notion of science
, so I guess charismatic leadership and how it comports itself is all we have left to rely on. Because those same wars left charismatic leadership and how it comports itself unscathed.
Which is an object lesson in why it's a bad idea to allow reasoning backward from your pet peeves to lead you into fanciful rewriting of history.
Hint: you end up not making any sense whatsoever and suggesting that you don't know much about history, science or reasoning.
That means no homes that are 10-20 times larger than the typical American home and multiples of those homes on both coasts, in vacation spots, etc. Do not cry for communal solutions while chartering private jets and scooting around in large motorcades often made up of large SUVs. They must not just be messengers, they must be leaders that demonstrate through actions so as to not allow the natural cynicism to crop up.
"Natural" cynicism that has been carefully cultivated by large energy companies and political opportunists. About the nature of the scientific process that undergirds concerns about global warming, and which would be the closest thing we have to an unimpeachable source.
So, to sum up: having twisted yourself into knots to make the case that nobody believes science anymore (on account of Hitler and shit, and certainly not
because there are powerful forces at work who don't like what science has to say and relentlessly stuff the discourse with disinformation), you wish to assert that we are therefore left with the behavior of its proponents as the only reasonable criteria for judging the merits of a given cause.
Considering this some needlessly elaborated form of "shoot the messenger" is "a bad bit of ad-hom logical fallacy posing as reasoning"
Hey, remember those irony meters that blew up in my last response to one of your posts? They just rose up from the floor and are staggering around demanding brains.