Bishop Hill A philosopher on Climategate
Jul 12, 2011 Climate: Russell Climate: Sceptics Journals I've always been rather unimpressed with philosophy and philosophers - I keep feeling that there is much less there than meets the eye. I don't think this article in the New York Times is going to change my opinion much. In it, philosopher Gary Gutting looks at the AGW `consensus' and Climategate and frankly doesn't make much of a case. Here he is on Climategate:
Some non-expert opponents of global warming have made much of a number of e-mails written and circulated among a handful of climate scientists that they see as evidence of bias toward global warming. But unless this group is willing to argue from this small (and questionable) sample to the general unreliability of climate science as a discipline, they have no alternative but to accept the consensus view of climate scientists that these e-mails do not undermine the core result of global warming.
The "consensus view" about the emails that Prof Gutting cites is an article about the Russell review, which was not exactly chock-full of climate scientists and was not exactly full of people who could be described as honest brokers either. Prof Gutting also seems to have missed the point about the emails - if they really show that the peer reviewed literature was largely closed to sceptics, then yes climate science as a discipline is unreliable.
Reader Comments (79)
Mike Jackson.
Do you think maths is illogical? A lot of posters on this website really don't seem to look things up before commenting.
Surely truer to say that logic is a branch of maths and that some parts of philosophy also use logic as a tool. But it is entirely possible to do excellent science and mathematics without worrying much about deep philosophy.
But in the case of the NYT article he uses neither. Simple appeal to authority..the rightness of 'experts'.
"Surely truer to say that logic is a branch of maths and that some parts of philosophy also use logic as a tool."
Jul 13, 2011 at 2:25 PM | Latimer Alder
No. You're simply wrong. You're another one who can't manage to look something up before commenting on it. Why let facts get in the way of a good opinion though eh? That seems to be the way most things are done around here.
Interesting. IMO, an active interest in the AGW debate has led me to philosophy and an interest in it. From Popper to Kuhn... Ravetz' defining of Post Normal science and the marvellous Keynes v Hayek:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
...The Road to Serfdom...Bertrand Russell's terrifying The impact of science in Society, and not least Ayn Rand's absolutely stunning Atlas Shrugged are all very poignant with regard to the debate.
Not sure that philosophy can be separated at all from political, economic or sociological discussions of whether it's to be adaptation or mitigation...
Since you want me to "look things up" ...
Philosophy:- the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge; investigation or contemplation of the nature of being; knowledge of the causes and laws of all things; the principles underlying any sphere of knowledge; reasoning. [Chambers]
Mathematics:- the science of magnitude and number; the relations of figures and forms, and of quantities expressed as symbols. [Chambers]
Logic:- the science and art of reasoning correctly; the science of the necessary laws of thought; the principles of any branch of knowledge. [Chambers]
I have met mathematicians who could also be said to be philosophers but I have never yet one who confused the two disciplines.
To suggest that one is part of the other is to misunderstand both. Your attempt to do so is misguided as if you had fallen for the classic false syllogism that because both apples and pears are fruit then apples are pears.
I suggest a foundation course in logic.
ZedsDeadBed writes:
"However, logic is a branch of philosophy, maths is a branch of logic, and most physical sciences rely heavily upon maths, which makes your comment rather telling."
David Hilbert attempted to show something along these lines. He attempted to show that a purely syntactical system of axioms could embody all of arithmetic. Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that this cannot be done. Today, no philosopher would claim that mathematics is a branch of logic.
Aynsley Kellow:
The Flynn Effect is interesting, and has stimulated much valuable research. But the existence of the effect doesn't exactly refute the work of Jensen. Indeed, Flynn himself now appears to accept that the increases in raw IQ scores over time reflect real generational changes in intelligence (and thus, a fortiori, that psychometric tests can be used to measure relative intelligence).
@ ZedsDeadBed
There is much thought given to a pseudonym, I'm sure.
"I suggest a foundation course in logic."
Jul 13, 2011 at 2:53 PM | Mike Jackson
I did one. It included learning in depth about how maths is a branch of logic. And finding out about something isn't looking up the words in the dictionary sunshine. You really haven't got a clue...
Hi again Zed,
You're another one who can't manage to look something up before commenting on it. Why let facts get in the way of a good opinion though eh?
Hoho. It's the way you tell 'em! You're not Marcus Brigstocke are you?
You were pontificating on utility prices the other day. Did you come back with the figures to prove your point? I'll go and check....Nope. Perhaps you didn't want to let the facts get in the way of a good opinion eh?
Oh and fwiw I got a Maths degree but can't remember doing much philosophy.
"Oh and fwiw I got a Maths degree but can't remember doing much philosophy."
Jul 13, 2011 at 3:06 PM | SimonW
What a thoroughly clueless comment. Physics is a branch of science. Using your faulty logic, someone studying physics should be studying all the other sciences as well.
Zed,
Are you refering to Psychologism?
... posters on this website really don't seem to look things up ... ZDB (2.04pm)
... another one who can't manage to look something up before commenting ... ZDB (2.33pm)
... finding out about something isn't looking up the words in the dictionary... ZDB (3.05pm)
Anybody notice the subtle shift of the goalposts here? Anybody surprised at that?
For those who may not have noticed, that last posting in full was:
"I did one. It included learning in depth about how maths is a branch of logic. And finding out about something isn't looking up the words in the dictionary sunshine. You really haven't got a clue..."
Were you born an ill-mannered wee bitch or did it take a lot of practice?
Oddly, and probably uniquely, I agree with ZDB on one small point, which is mathematics is a branch of logic, and logic is a branch of philosophy, at least at one time -- certainly in the times of Aristotle.
And so is rhetoric a branch of philosophy. The problem with her "logic" is equating mathematics with rhetoric. They ain't the same, dear.
And finding out about something isn't looking up the words in the dictionary sunshine.
Which is why you don't bother with a dictionary or spelling checker?
Thank you Zed for an amusing morning. Looking forward to your next post.
@ZDB
'No. You're simply wrong'
Thanks for joining in with such an evidence-led discussion. But there is clearly no point in arguing with you,
This correspondence is now closed.
Philosophy, like what used to be called theology, is dead. Whitehead said all western philosophy is only a footnote to Plato, and he said so when you could reasonably claim there had been some important recent contributions in the field. The Times has of late been running philosophic twaddle, specious nonsense, about how reason is not actually a tool to use in seeking truth; no, we are able to reason in order to win arguments. Are they all daft? Darwin killed off most speculative philosophy--with good reason. Ignore these frauds. There is nothing they can say that will illuminate anything.
Good news! If Cutting is validly demonstrating that his poorly formed, manifestly illogical opinion as to what constitutes a "knowledge of reality" proves he is a "Philosopher", then nearly everyone else on Earth can easily qualify with their next breath! And although the venerable Armchair furniture industry itself also appears to have taken a big hit, a future in bare Padded Cells, +/- GCM's of course, continues to look very promising!
A rather nice blog post on the relationship between logic and mathematics (with a bit of Godel thrown it) by Peter Cameron who, apparently, is a professor of mathematics at Queen Mary's.
Zed, why do you never answer a direct and polite question? If you don't know the answer to the one I asked you ages ago, just say so, I won't be cross. I once taught very small children, after suitable training, of course, so dealing with your shout-and-run tactics is just a matter of patience and keeping on smiling.
The last little boy I caught playing knick-knock, which is what you are playing, whether you know it or not, was merely ignorant and a tad oafish, nothing that couldn't be remediated.
Now, your answer please, Zed.
"ignorant and a tad oafish, nothing that couldn't be remediated"
Pleased to hear it, Alexander. Can you divulge the remedy?
"A lot of posters on this website really don't seem to look things up before commenting."
Motes and beams, Zed; motes and beams.
Zed
If you ever read philosophy, would you not be embarrassed by the paucity of reasoning that Gutting shows here? You might expect a first-term philosophy student to take it apart doir lack of cogency.
Or would yoiu disagree?
apologies...for doir read for...just to prevent the obvious cavil by Zed...in place of any reasoned critique
ZedsDeadBed
“Maths is a branch of logic”
No. Russell thought so, but Gödel proved definitively in "On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems" that this cannot be so. Why does ZedsDeadBed always get it wrong? Is he doing it on purpose?
ZDB: "And finding out about something isn't looking up the words in the dictionary sunshine."
You need a comma after "sunshine", sunshine.
Jane Coles:
'The Flynn Effect is interesting, and has stimulated much valuable research. But the existence of the effect doesn't exactly refute the work of Jensen. Indeed, Flynn himself now appears to accept that the increases in raw IQ scores over time reflect real generational changes in intelligence (and thus, a fortiori, that psychometric tests can be used to measure relative intelligence).'
My point was not about the findings but the process. Jim used to teach us Alfred Ayer's book Language, Truth and Logic, where he distinguished different kinds of propositions (form memory here):
1. Analytic propositions (eg mathematics) - propositions that are correct by definition (say nothing about the real world);
2. Synthetic propositions (eg hypotheses, 'if - then' propositions) - falsifiable propositions about the real world. ('ere be science!) Open to falsification by observation.
3. Ethical propositions - statements of value - problems with justification.
4. Metaphysical propositions (statements of a religious nature).
Jim Flynn's example was of how 3 and 4 should never get in the way of 2.
So what evidence he accepts today is not the point. The point is capture by the blogger you link to:
‘You summarized some of your early thoughts about Jensen's work in your 1980 book Race, IQ, and Jensen, a book that, in my opinion, sets the standard for how do discuss this controversial topic.’
It sets the standard for how to discuss ANY controversial topic. Many climate scientists (not all) set the standard for how NOT to discuss a controversial topic. They allow propositions of Ayer's types 3 and 4 (in ways of which they are often unaware) to contaminate their science.
Note also one of Jim's replies on the blog in question:
‘I never suspected Arthur Jensen of racial bias. Over the years, I have found him scrupulous in terms of professional ethics. He has never denied me access to his unpublished data. His work stands as an example of what John Stuart Mill meant when he said that being challenged in a way that is "upsetting" is to be welcomed not discouraged.’
Compare the Hockey Team to that standard.
My comment (would have been numero dos) was disappeared. It was not abusive; I took great care to avoid ad-hominems and to conceal my low regard for Philosophy.
I also kept it narrowly focused on Gutting's theme of expert opinion, citing some apostate scientists like Judith Curry & Hal Davis, long time doubters like Pielke Sr., and recent dust-ups at the American Chemical Society & World Meteorlogical Society (re: do the professional societies really speak for the rank & file?).
I did take him to task for confusing Argument from Authority with Argument from Ignorance, which at bottom is why his argument doesn't work - he appears not to know even the most basic back-stories of the issue, as his comments on ClimateGate clearly show.
I did not make a copy, naively assuming that in spite of its mostly facile reportage and uninformed opinion, the NYT would not stoop to RC-type censorship. Whatever lingering respect I may have had just evaporated. I had long made it a point of honor to not post comments at the Gray Lady Gong Show, but foolishly made an exception in this case.
Live & Learn
Roger Carr
You need a comma after "sunshine", sunshine.
Also, a capital "S" would be appropriate in "Sunshine" as it is a form of direct address.
Actually, I look forward to seeing what Zed may post each day. She does bring a chuckle or better.
"I've always been rather unimpressed with philosophy and philosophers - I keep feeling that there is much less there than meets the eye."
Your Grace, that is theology.