Monday
Apr062015
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Arguing the toss
Apr 6, 2015 Verity Jones at Digging in the Clay has an interesting post on the hierarchy of disagreement (H/T WUWT) and the merits or otherwise of counterargument and refutation.
The trouble is there are those who aren't interested in listening to facts which refute their arguments and like to shout instead - the Bishop met some recently at the BBC.
Reader Comments (5)
This made me laugh and then angry.
It's only one sentence and starts at the 26.30 mark.
Danny Alexander or should that be Caroline Lucas:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05pmpf2#auto
Doctoring Data is a new book by Dr Malcolm Kendrick, who also wrote The Great Cholesterol Con. The ad hominem attacks he gets for questioning the status quo are similar to those against climate sceptics. He does refer to this in the book. Well worth a read.
Apr 6, 2015 at 8:10 PM | Tom Mills
I think there is a big similarity between the diet and climate arguments. As a previously fairly longtime (pretty poor) veggie I think one of the driving factors behind the desire for the existing food paradigm as it tries to show vegetarian/vegan eating as more healthy than meat eating, hence the constant assault on saturated fats in particular.
You see loads of arguments on how it is allegedly healthier. I'm not sure why as surely you are doing it for a perfectly understandable moral/ethical purpose and not a health reason at all. Would it matter if your diet isn't as healthy as you would still be doing the correct ethical thing in you case.
Paul ..I don't exactly understand what you mean, maybe the promises promises approach. In the audio Danny Alexander lists his priorities twice 25.00min.."tax cuts", "pupil premium", then 26.45 "balancing the books, "mental health" . ..each time "the green agenda" is third
.. Direct audio, autostarting from 25 mins
"The trouble is there are those who aren't interested in listening to facts which refute their arguments and like to shout instead - the Bishop met some recently at the BBC. "
1. presupposes that what you are stating are facts
2. presupposes that, if true, they actually refute arguments.
3. there is nothing wrong with shouting a valid argument, so your comment appears to attack their tone.
4. smells like an ad hom.
In short, pointing to a pyramid of disagreement, and then asserting that your opponents 'don't listen', appears to fall at the bottom of said pyramid.