Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

permaculture - [permaculture] How to decide?

permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: permaculture

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Toby Hemenway <toby@patternliteracy.com>
  • To: permaculture <permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: [permaculture] How to decide?
  • Date: Sat, 5 May 2012 11:34:01 -0700

We all encounter cases like the one we've been debating here: where both
sides pull up all sorts of facts and anecdotes to support their position, and
ask "well, then, explain this one!" of their opponents. It leads to going
round and round on the facts, and rarely results in changing anyone's mind.
So how can you decide issues like climate, population, evolution, and germ
theory?

One way is to look for intellectual honesty and a willingness to put the work
up for review, and to address data that don't support their viewpoint. That
last is the hallmark of an honest investigation.

There's a big difference in the way scientists work, and the way the deniers
work. I spent 20 years in science, and still hang out with lots of
scientists, so I know how they work. They almost always start with an
observation: like, "hey, temperatures seem higher." Then they ask questions:
is what they are seeing real, and if it is, why is it happening? Sometimes
they start with a question: are temps rising, falling, or unchanging? Most of
them really try to make their experiments honestly ask these questions. If
they don't, usually other scientists will rip them a new one; it's too public
an endeavor to avoid that. Many new findings get challenged by peers who find
holes in the work, a very important part of science, and the researcher then
does more, rigorous experiments and either drops the idea or presents more
robust findings. Generally, if an idea survives this process, there is some
merit in it. It may not be the whole story, but it's been well tested by that
point.

The deniers, however, start with a theory that they don't like, such as
evolution, climate change, or the germ theory, often for political, economic
or religious reasons, though not always. But they never start with data. They
don't start with a question. They start with a theory they don't like. Then
they look only for data and anecdotes that support their view, and they
ignore, distort, or hide any data that don't support their view. You can
generally find intellectual dishonesty right in the arguments themselves,
flawed reasoning, and smokescreens designed to make it look like they have
answered an issue when they have just deflected the question. If you see
someone hiding or distorting unsupportive facts (as opposed to just worrying
about them, a human trait demonstrated in the so-called "climate-gate"
emails, where they ended up reporting the unfavorable data, something the
deniers never do.), they probably have little merit.

The climate site Oystein linked to was a good example of denier methods.
http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

Let's take their statement,
> The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's
> Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and
> has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well.
> It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
>
This refers to a graph first published in a 1998 study showing a huge rise in
temperatures when the industrial age started, looking like the profile of a
hockey stick. It was soon criticized by some climate scientists as flawed in
some of its methods and making too strong a conclusion. This shows science in
action (so much for hiding disagreement!), but it was seized on by deniers
and publicized. The researchers collected vastly more data, including 1200
studies (not data points: studies), most of actual temperature measurements
(not models, as the deniers claim) and with revised methods, concluded that
the hockey stick was real. The revised 2008 study was called solid by the
vast majority of climate scientists, and has survived rigorous testing. But
to read that website, you would never know that. They omit the part of the
story that kills their case, which is dishonest. If you want, you can google
the key words in every other statement there (I got bored after 3 more
statements) and see that all of them misreport or ignore the actual findings,
or has been thoroughly debunked by science. This is a well-funded website
that is updated, so they know they are lying.

Another example is the story on anti-germ theory sites, that von Pettenkofer
drank cholera-containing water and felt no effects, thus disproving germ
theory. The original story is in von Pettenkofer M. Zum gegenwartigen Stand
der Cholerafrage. (In German). Miinchen, Germany:von Oldenbourg, 1887.
which I found with the help of a friend's university library card and had a
German relative peruse for me. In von P's own words and in those of sworn
witnesses, he became very ill the next day with diarrhea but did not develop
cholera. This is completely in agreement with germ theory, where dose size is
important. You can find this in anecdotal form at
http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/vonpettenkofer.html
and
http://www.cracked.com/article_19521_6-most-badass-self-inflicted-medical-experiments.html

But when you read it on the denier web sites, they always omit that he got
sick, or just lie and say he didn't. Von P also said that infectious agents
were one of three factors necessary for disease. The deniers often cite
Bechamp, who also wrote that germs need to be present, but the deniers claim
both men were against germ theory. They were not; they just felt it didn't
explain everything. This again, is intellectual dishonesty, a sign that the
facts are too weak so they must distort and deflect.

So what do you do? The worst thing you can do is to only look at one side,
especially the denier websites, much as I love to see the emperor made to run
around naked. You need to look at research, then at the denier sites, then
google for rebuttals to those, and then look for more rebuttals to the
rebuttals. It's work. It's not for the lazy. But at some point (often
immediately, like on that climate site) you will spot intellectual
dishonesty, smokescreens, and poor logic in one side or the other. Do what
you want with that, but I will side with the group with the most integrity
and the ones doing original research instead of just throwing stones.

And this is why I won't argue the facts with anyone. Because facts can be
made up, ignored, zombified, and selected. We then just go round and round,
and this is why Oystein left: I wouldn't go round and round, but went to a
higher level of logical flaws and integrity, and he took his toys and went
home. You have to be willing to do your own investigations and weigh the
facts and the quality of arguments from both sides, not just one. It's why I
may show a bit of temper when I write about this: because liars piss me off,
and then I get mad that people lazily believe them instead of applying
themselves to the hard work of investigating.

Logic, motivation, and integrity are the true signs of whether an argument
is worthwhile, not how many facts you can find in a Google search that only
looks for things that support you.

I hope this is helpful.

Toby





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page