{"id":282,"date":"2005-02-24T04:51:14","date_gmt":"2005-02-24T04:51:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/archives\/282"},"modified":"2005-02-24T04:51:14","modified_gmt":"2005-02-24T04:51:14","slug":"how-do-you-tell-when-youre-being-spun","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/archives\/282","title":{"rendered":"How do you tell when you&#8217;re being spun?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>An two-year-old <a href=\"http:\/\/www.crichton-official.com\/speeches\/speeches_quote04.html\">speech by Michael Crichton<\/a> that came across a mailing list I&#8217;m on slams scientists for being &#8220;seduced by the&#8230; lures of politics and publicity,&#8221; bringing its skepticism to bear on the growing scientific consensus on global warming. One person on the list asked the obvious question after reading it, namely <em>who is the layman to trust?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>My response was that it&#8217;s not really that hard (though I should have added it&#8217;s a skill that needs to be learned).<\/p>\n<p>Start by being skeptical of anyone who wears being a lone skeptic against a vast sea of consensus as a badge of honor, especially when he&#8217;s not an expert in the field he&#8217;s criticizing. One in a million really is the genius he thinks he is, but most of the time there&#8217;s a good reason everyone else thinks he&#8217;s full of it. Then be doubly suspicious of any explanation of an idea or study given by someone who opposes it. (I&#8217;m reminded of a born-again Baptist friend of mine in high school who kept trying to explain to my Catholic girlfriend what &#8220;Catholics believe&#8221; \u2014 as described in some Catholic-bashing pamphlet her church was handing out.)<\/p>\n<p>Next, see what parts of what they&#8217;re saying you <em>do<\/em> know something about, or can find out through a quick Web search. I can&#8217;t speak to everything Crichton&#8217;s complaining about, but I do know he&#8217;s wrong that SETI isn&#8217;t science (regardless of whether they&#8217;re barking up the wrong tree), he&#8217;s either wrong or highly selective on <a href=\"http:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/ntp\/roc\/eleventh\/profiles\/s176toba.pdf\">second-hand smoke<\/a> and he&#8217;s wrong when it comes to lack of scientific debate about the existence of global warming (there&#8217;s been plenty of debate over the years \u2014 I gather he just doesn&#8217;t like which side is coming out on top). He&#8217;s also wrong in his defense of his fellow lone wolf, Lomborg. Lomborg wasn&#8217;t attacked for coming to the wrong conclusions, he was attacked for <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacinst.org\/publications\/essays_and_opinion\/lomborg_review_by_gleick_for_UCS.pdf\">&#8220;selective use of data, misuse of data, misinterpretations, inappropriate precision, [and] errors of fact.&#8221;<\/a> I&#8217;d say the fact that he was shouted down in the scientific community, in spite of economic and political pressure on his side, is a sign of something <em>right<\/em> with science. (Crichton&#8217;s insinuation that Lomborg&#8217;s critics don&#8217;t substantiate their attacks in detail is nonsense \u2014 see the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacinst.org\/publications\/essays_and_opinion\/lomborg_review_by_gleick_for_UCS.pdf\">above-linked  review<\/a> for one of many examples.)<\/p>\n<p>As a side-note, Crichton&#8217;s comment that &#8220;to predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd&#8221; is strange coming as it does from a science fiction author. It&#8217;s also yet another straw-man \u2014 computer models don&#8217;t make predictions, they assign probabilities based on our best guesses and based on different choices we might make. It&#8217;s impossible for anyone to predict whether a fire will start while I sleep, but that doesn&#8217;t stop me from upgrading old electrical wiring and getting fire insurance based on my best guess at the likelihood of a fire. Ray Bradberry once said the function of science fiction is not to predict the future, but to prevent it. In this case, that&#8217;s probably a good function of science fact as well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An two-year-old <a href=\"http:\/\/www.crichton-official.com\/speeches\/speeches_quote04.html\">speech by Michael Crichton<\/a> that came across a mailing list I&#8217;m on slams scientists for being &#8220;seduced by the&#8230; lures of politics and publicity,&#8221; bringing its skepticism to bear on the growing scientific consensus on global warming. One person on the list asked the obvious question after reading it, namely <em>who is the layman to trust?<\/em><\/p>\n<p>My response was that it&#8217;s not really that hard (though I should have added it&#8217;s a skill that needs to be learned).<\/p>\n<p>Start by being skeptical of anyone who wears being a lone skeptic against a vast sea of consensus as a badge of honor, especially when he&#8217;s not an expert in the field he&#8217;s criticizing. One in a million really is the genius he thinks he is, but most of the time there&#8217;s a good reason everyone else thinks he&#8217;s full of it. Then be doubly suspicious of any explanation of an idea or study given by someone who opposes it. (I&#8217;m reminded of a born-again Baptist friend of mine in high school who kept trying to explain to my Catholic girlfriend what &#8220;Catholics believe&#8221; \u2014 as described in some Catholic-bashing pamphlet her church was handing out.)<\/p>\n<p>Next, see what parts of what they&#8217;re saying you <em>do<\/em> know something about, or can find out through a quick Web search. I can&#8217;t speak to everything Crichton&#8217;s complaining about, but I do know he&#8217;s wrong that SETI isn&#8217;t science (regardless of whether they&#8217;re barking up the wrong tree), he&#8217;s either wrong or highly selective on <a href=\"http:\/\/ntp.niehs.nih.gov\/ntp\/roc\/eleventh\/profiles\/s176toba.pdf\">second-hand smoke<\/a> and he&#8217;s wrong when it comes to lack of scientific debate about the existence of global warming (there&#8217;s been plenty of debate over the years \u2014 I gather he just doesn&#8217;t like which side is coming out on top). He&#8217;s also wrong in his defense of his fellow lone wolf, Lomborg. Lomborg wasn&#8217;t attacked for coming to the wrong conclusions, he was attacked for <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacinst.org\/publications\/essays_and_opinion\/lomborg_review_by_gleick_for_UCS.pdf\">&#8220;selective use of data, misuse of data, misinterpretations, inappropriate precision, [and] errors of fact.&#8221;<\/a> I&#8217;d say the fact that he was shouted down in the scientific community, in spite of economic and political pressure on his side, is a sign of something <em>right<\/em> with science. (Crichton&#8217;s insinuation that Lomborg&#8217;s critics don&#8217;t substantiate their attacks in detail is nonsense \u2014 see the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.pacinst.org\/publications\/essays_and_opinion\/lomborg_review_by_gleick_for_UCS.pdf\">above-linked  review<\/a> for one of many examples.)<\/p>\n<p>As a side-note, Crichton&#8217;s comment that &#8220;to predict anything about the world a hundred years from now is simply absurd&#8221; is strange coming as it does from a science fiction author. It&#8217;s also yet another straw-man \u2014 computer models don&#8217;t make predictions, they assign probabilities based on our best guesses and based on different choices we might make. It&#8217;s impossible for anyone to predict whether a fire will start while I sleep, but that doesn&#8217;t stop me from upgrading old electrical wiring and getting fire insurance based on my best guess at the likelihood of a fire. Ray Bradberry once said the function of science fiction is not to predict the future, but to prevent it. In this case, that&#8217;s probably a good function of science fact as well.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"inline_featured_image":false,"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-science"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=282"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/282\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.docbug.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}