Re: The Real Epistemic Closure
I accept that it is fair to characterize my tone in the “Epistemic Closure” post as scathing. I apologize (sincerely) if this was offensive to you. All I can say about it is that I was calling a spade a spade as I see it.
Thank you for the reply. I’m happy to give you the last word, and simply invite readers to review both posts and draw whatever conclusions they feel are appropriate.
Andy,
I read the Richard Lindzen Wall Street Journal Op-Ed that you reference. While I might not have chosen the same words as Professor Lindzen in places, there is very little of scientific substance in that piece with which I disagree. In fact, I’ve made some version of most of the relevant points, often in almost identical language, and often right here at NR and NRO.
I’ll start by repeating my characterization of Lindzen’s views on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) from the post, and compare this to what Lindzen said in a prior WSJ Op-Ed.
In my post I said:
…Richard Lindzen, a very serious climate scientist who disputes the estimated magnitude of the greenhouse effect, but not its existence…
In the Wall Street Journal, in 2006, Lindzen wrote:
[T]here has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas—albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming. Indeed, if all else were kept equal, the increase in carbon dioxide should have led to somewhat more warming than has been observed, assuming that the small observed increase was in fact due to increasing carbon dioxide rather than a natural fluctuation in the climate system.
Lindzen has argued for some time that the expected impact of CO2 on temperature – this is a rough definition of ‘climate sensitivity’ – is lower than do most climate scientists, and that therefore we should not be alarmed, but he clearly acknowledges that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is important to keep in mind as we proceed through the current Op-Ed and discussion. Let me take it one piece at a time.
The first several paragraphs of his current Op-Ed make the point that the so-called science underlying much of the historical temperature record, and the use of historical data to establish a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature, is unreliable, and should not be the basis for establishing policy.
Or as I put it in 2009:
I argued over two years ago that: 1) Long-term climate reconstruction was one of the two key trouble spots in climate science; 2) mathematically sophisticated critics had debunked the methodology used to reconstruct long-term climate evidence that is the basis for the famous “hockey stick” increase in global temperatures; and 3) excellent evidence had been presented to the U.S. Senate that, in climate reconstruction, academic peer review meant, in effect, agreement among a tiny, self-selected group of experts. The root problem here is not the eternal perfidy of human nature, but the fact that we can’t run experiments on history to adjudicate disputes, which makes this less like chemistry or physics than like economics or political science.
Today’s Lindzen Op-Ed proceeds to consider the science around projections of warming impacts. I’ll compare the key points in it to what I’ve written.
First, Lindzen:
The IPCC’s position in its Summary for Policymakers from their Fourth Assessment (2007) is weaker, and is essentially simply that most warming of the past 50 years or so is due to man’s emissions. It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90% confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it is purely subjective.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
The current summary indicates that the IPCC is “90% confident” that we have caused global warming. The summary further implies that if we double the concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere, the IPCC is 90 percent confident that we will cause further warming of 3° C +/- 1.5° C.
But what do these statements of confidence really mean? They are not derived mathematically from the type of normal probability distributions that are used when, for example, determining the margin of error in a political poll (say,+ /- 5%). IPCC estimates of “confidence” are really what we would mean by this word in everyday conversation—a subjective statement of opinion. This is a very big deal, since bounding the uncertainty in climate predictions is central to deciding what, if anything, we should do about them.
Second, Lindzen:
There are, however, some things left unmentioned about the IPCC claims. For example, the observations are consistent with models only if emissions include arbitrary amounts of reflecting aerosols particles (arising, for example, from industrial sulfates) which are used to cancel much of the warming predicted by the models. The observations themselves, without such adjustments, are consistent with there being sufficiently little warming as to not constitute a problem worth worrying very much about.
…
But Messrs. Cicerone and Rees … throw in a very peculiar statement (referring to warming), almost in passing: “Uncertainties in the future rate of this rise, stemming largely from the ‘feedback’ effects on water vapour and clouds, are topics of current research.”
Who would guess from this statement, that the feedback effects are the crucial question? Without these positive feedbacks assumed by computer modelers, there would be no significant problem, and the various catastrophes that depend on numerous factors would no longer be related to anthropogenic global warming. That is to say, the issue relevant to policy is far from settled.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
The most important scientific debate is really about these feedback effects. Feedbacks are not merely details to be cleaned up in a picture that is fairly clear. The base impact of a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere with no feedback effects is on the order of 1°C, while the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus estimate of the impact of doubling CO2 is about 3°C. The feedback effects dominate the prediction. As we’ve seen, however, feedback effects run in both directions. Feedback could easily dampen the net impact so it ends up being less than 1°C. In fact, the raw relationship between temperature increases and CO2 over the past century supports that idea.
Over the past several decades, teams in multiple countries have launched ongoing projects to develop large computer models that simulate the behavior of the global climate in order to account for feedback effects. While these models are complex, they are still extremely simplistic as compared with the actual phenomenon of global climate. Models have successfully replicated historical climates, but no model has ever demonstrated that it can accurately predict the climate impact of CO2 emissions over a period of many years or decades.
Climate models generate useful projections for us to consider, but the reality is that nobody knows with meaningful precision how much warming we will experience under any emissions scenario. Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe.
Third, Lindzen:
[T]he proposed policies are likely to cause severe problems for the world economy.
Compare, Manzi (2007):
In summary, then, the best available models indicate that 1) global warming is a problem that will have only a marginal impact on the world economy, and 2) it is economically rational only to reduce slightly this marginal impact through global carbon taxes. Further, practical knowledge of the world indicates that 1) such a global carbon-tax regime would be very unlikely ever to be implemented, and 2) even if it were implemented, the theoretical benefits it might create would probably be more than offset by the economic drag it would produce.
Why, if I am in such close agreement, am I not just going along with the “don’t worry about AGW” line? Because of uncertainty. The problem of the lack of confidence highlighted in the first Lindzen quote from the current Op-Ed (restated in concept as lack of model certainty in the second quote) is crucial. It is the basis of the sophisticated argument for emissions mitigation.
Lindzen is one expert scientist who forecasts very small net warming as a result of emissions. Most relevant scientists predict quantitatively larger effects. Put yourself in the position of senior government leader tasked with making real decisions that affect the lives of millions. What would you do if faced with a matter of technical disagreement on such a quantitative prediction question among experts? The sensible thing to do is to gather together a group of the leading subject matter experts to produce a review of known science, and subject it to review by a standing body of leading scientists who are not directly in the field in order to minimize both groupthink and opportunities for self-dealing. In America, this in effect describes the U.S. National Research Council (NRC).
In 1979, prior to any accusations of politicization of which I am aware, the NRC convened exactly such a process, and estimated that climate sensitivity is about 3C. This estimate has been consistently affirmed by each of the U.N. IPCC Assessment Reports over the past 20 years. It turns out (as I go into in detail in a Corner post from last week rebutting Paul Krugman) that the amount of warming that would be implied by this climate sensitivity doesn’t justify the costs of cap-and-trade, carbon taxes or other emissions mitigation schemes.
However, it is also the case – for the basic reasons that both Lindzen and I reference – that there is substantial uncertainty about this and other related estimates. Thus, the legitimate risk from climate change is that our current best forecast is wrong; more specifically that climate change will be worse than current forecasts. In a post from earlier this week at The Corner, I go into excruciating detail about why the argument from uncertainty, however, is unpersuasive in supporting aggressive mitigation programs.
[Cross-posted at The Corner]
I’m now convinced that “Epistemic Closure” would be a great name for a right-wing rock band.
— JohnMcG · Apr 22, 09:39 PM · #
You’re a better man than I am, Manzi. There’s no way I could avoid giving Levin the even more scathing response he deserves.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 22, 09:53 PM · #
Mr. Manzi,
Your post says that it is cross-posted at The Corner. But it has not yet appeared there. Do you still expect it to be posted?
— Jay Daniel · Apr 22, 10:59 PM · #
Mr. Manzi,
Keep up the good work. Levin represents all that is wrong with the Republican party these days, and it’s really sad and telling (but alas, not surprising) that many of the Corner’s fools rush to his defense with a “how dare you?!”.
Derrick
— D-Rock · Apr 22, 11:12 PM · #
Jim,
What is your take on Levin saying “Reading his post, one would think they’re all a bunch of kooks and frauds. He knows this because Scientific American did the hard work of taking a small sample of the group and contacting them. Now, how scientific is that?” Was this scientific, or not?
Or perhaps his statement that “Jones now claims that there has been no global warming since 1995.” Is that accurate?
Your take on this would be appreciated.
— Joel · Apr 22, 11:13 PM · #
@Joel: This is another example of Levin either being willfully ignorant or outright lying.
Jones has stated very clearly that he does believe there has been warming since 1995, but that the current set of data from 1995-now isn’t extensive enough to reach a confidence interval that he considers dispositive:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Phil-Jones-says-no-global-warming-since-1995.htm
— DarrenG · Apr 22, 11:57 PM · #
Classy (and effective) response, Jim. Levin walked into an intellectual dual unarmed.
— jlr · Apr 23, 12:13 AM · #
Jim
I’ll go one step further to use the word I think you imply re: Levin, Limbaugh, Beck etc. They are propagandists.
I quote Richard Alan Nelson:
“Propaganda is neutrally defined as a systematic form of purposeful persuasion that attempts to influence the emotions, attitudes, opinions, and actions of specified target audiences for ideological, political or commercial purposes through the controlled transmission of one-sided messages (which may or may not be factual) via mass and direct media channels.”
— James T · Apr 23, 12:24 AM · #
Mr Manzi,
I disagree with your position on global warming, but I do find you to be open minded about the discussion. I would be interested to know how you address ocean acidification, due to atmospheric CO2 absorption. The science is very simple, and the effects are both easy to measure and very serious: As CO2 is absorbed into the ocean the pH drops, causing the breakdown of coral reefs and various shellfish. Given that hundreds of millions to billions of people around the world are dependent upon seafood that comes from the coral reefs, this represents a very severe threat to our food supply. And the only effective way to deal with this problem is to reduce the CO2 entering the atmosphere.
— Paul · Apr 23, 02:16 AM · #
The output of the solar power industry has been growing at an average rate of over 40% per annum for the last decade (International Energy Agency PVPS pdf file).
This means global solar power output doubles every two years.
This is a “Moore’s Law” type of growth rate.
At this doubling rate, the world’s energy systems could be all-solar before 2040 – Less than thirty years from now.
— Keid A · Apr 23, 02:42 AM · #
hmmm…given my experience of Dr. Manzi…I think this a clever experiment designed to test how far empirical denial and epistemic closure have penetrated the conservative intellectual guild.
I think there is a teaching moment in there somewhere…..but I am not sure who is going to be taught what.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:02 AM · #
“The root problem here is not the eternal perfidy of human nature, but the fact that we can’t run experiments on history to adjudicate disputes, which makes this less like chemistry or physics than like economics or political science.”
Shouldn’t that mean that the problem is an ethical, political and moral one, and not a “scientific” (read amoral, quantitative) one? Do we for example know all the possible bad consequences of even the marginal increase in CO2 emissions that Prof. Lindzen (who presents an extreme case) posits?
The minute you concede that the problem is not one of hard science, you have to inevitably engage in the ethical and moral argument – for human affairs as recent events on wall street have shown are best not left to amoral devices.
— D · Apr 23, 04:30 AM · #
Your post says that it is cross-posted at The Corner.
— designer shoes · Apr 23, 04:34 AM · #
Jim Manzi,
This is all totally hilarious. I congratulate you. I really liked how you took a deep breath in the orignating post—“OK, here goes…” before you started in on your critique. You knew what would follow and I could sense you bracing yourself. But somebody had to do it, right?
So are you moving from global warming investigator to right-wing icon deflator (iconoclast)? I think that would be very useful, at least as useful as your work on global warming. The entertainer/propogandists, rable rousers, tent show hucksters, whatever you want to call them, are probably more dangerous to the country than cabon dioxide. They befuddle a significant segment of the population which warps right wing politicians which prevent our government from functioning properly (the logical extention of this is Sarah Palin, who is both a TV huckster and a politician [and a desert topping]). I’m totally serious here. DOn’t do it to save conservativism, do it to save america.
ps. I doubt anyone will be able to discredit the propagandists—this incident is just a tiny burp in a tiny corner of the political world—but it’s fun to see them get all het up.
What this really remindes me of is the power of (mis)information and access. In this era, getting the right message to the right people is 99% of the game. THe truth of what you are saying means nothing compared to corrrectly engaging the correct market. Or in other words, marketing.
This seems like a time, with all this amzing ability to deliver infromation to huge swaths of people, where people should be better informed than every before. But I wonder if that is actually the case or if all this technology just makes the liars more efficient.
— cw · Apr 23, 05:16 AM · #
cw, I don’t think you understand how fiercely Dr. Manzi’s heresy is going to be rejected. He understands though.
Climate change denialism is foundational to the current conservative liturgy….it the lich pin of a core populist belief, that commonsense and magical thinking trump education and intelligence….anti-science and anti-empiricism.
Climate change denialism allows perpetuating the belief in IDT and the ensoulment of diploid oocytes, that neurologists were wrong about schiavo, that scientists are egomanical atheists out to take over the world, that academe is poisoned against conservative principles.
Here is the meme….you noble “real” americans are just as smart as those snotty elitist scientists and intellectuals….you are smart in a different way…a better way….the only way that really counts…..you are godsmart!
In a way, Manzi has challenged the whole firmament of populist conservative doctrine…..
and still it moves…
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 01:29 PM · #
And still not a peep out of Allahpundit on this story.
Jus’ sayin’.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 01:33 PM · #
Thanks. It is refreshing to think that there are sane conservatives. I knew they were there, of course, but it’s been a long time since I could read a post that was persuasive but also created intellectual tension. I was starving for contradiction to or pressure on my understanding of this, or any topic. The epistemic closure isn’t just on the right; we liberals have been allowed to close our minds and rest our cases because we have not had enough exposure to contrary ideas. The contrary ideas are there, of course, but they all come with a spoonful of eliminationalist salt. Also to participate in a real dialogue was impossible or very difficult; it required the equivalent of eavesdropping on a private conversation between Glenn Beck and his audience, or maybe trolling into a comment thread among people who think it’s especially persuasive if you type in all-caps. So either you join the choir and get preaching that’s very agreeable, or you put your hood on and sneak into a Klan rally. Neither option feels like the hard work of study and choose that a good polity requires.
Please continue. I’m listening closely.
Ice9
— ice9 · Apr 23, 01:49 PM · #
1) Jim: Nice work on both sides of this. I’m astonished that Levin picked the fight with you that he did. The smart thing to do would have been either to make a joke or to say that his book wasn’t supposed to be a reasoned argument but was something else, more like a response to similar works on the left. (I wouldn’t agree with either of those responses, but they would have been a lot smarter tactically than trying to confront your argument intellectually).
2) Matoko: IMHO, the Corner is actually pretty good about these kinds of dust-ups. They’re all conservatives of one stripe or another, but they have a range from the intellectual conservatives (Manzi, Ponnuru, Ramesh) to the raw polemicists, plus some harder to qualify types like Derbyshire. Derb and Ponnuru have picked some serious disagreements with other writers, and the editors usually just let civil disagreements play out.
3) Manzi’s post is on the Corner.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OWQwN2EwOWFhODVlOWI5YjcwZTBhMDQ3MmMwZGRmOWQ=
4) I still love that shoe guy. Is there any way to make him/her a contributor?
— J Mann · Apr 23, 01:58 PM · #
Having read all these posts, I see a number of people with various positions on the scientific and policy issues related to global warming. Some of those people are certainly more civil, more reasonable and more persuasive than others. What I don’t see is any particular group that is notable for its closed-mindedness. For example, I don’t see that this guy Levin, of whom I know nothing beyond what I have learned from The American Scene, is more closed-minded than Paul Krugman. (And in any case, as best I can make out, Levin is a popular writer, not an intellectual, so the proper comparison would be someone more like Al Gore or Eve Ensler or Michael Moore.)
P.S. The ghost of George Orwell visited me last night, and told me never again to use the phrase “epistemic closure.”
— y81 · Apr 23, 02:00 PM · #
J Mann…umm….in a word…no. The Derb might be an advocate for science but he is totally conformant with stealthy racebaiting.
There is a reason NRO doesn’t have comments.
What do think about my proposed book, Religious Facism? Do you think Jonah Goldberg would give me some suggestions?
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:00 PM · #
Matoko says:
“Manzi has challenged the whole firmament of populist conservative doctrine”
Agreed. Now, what I don’t understand, is how the fact that he did this on the website of the world’s most popular conservative publication is evidence of epistemic closure on the Right.
Perhaps you can point me to some places where the left uses it’s most popular websites to trash the idea of unversal healthcare?
If this whole thing had gone down here at the American Scene and NRO had ignored it, I’d say I agreed. Look! NRO is ignoring this and won’t allow its readers to see someone junking a leading pundit of the right? Instead… NRO published it. Nobody is muzzled. Nobody is saying to look the other way. They let both sides have their say.
Please explain how this is “closure.” Because Conor went to Facebook and found some Levin fans who have their panties all twisted up?
— Sam M · Apr 23, 03:01 PM · #
Sam M
Allahpundit is studiously ignoring it….hes the only conservo website i read anymore.
NRO is religiously condemning it.
Smells like closure to me.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:07 PM · #
“Perhaps you can point me to some places where the left uses it’s most popular websites to trash the idea of unversal healthcare?”
Apples and oranges. Universal healthcare is debatable.
The existence of climate change is not….as Dr.Manzi has rigorously and empirically pointed out.
Again with the PeeWee debate style….. i know you are but what am i.
Is that all you have at this point?
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:11 PM · #
Matoko, I love you like a sister, but I do not believe your writing style would support a book. You’re obviously smart, so if you have an alternate persona, he/she might be able to pull it off, but Matoko is optimized for quick hits, not a few hundred pages.
Also, the book has already been written. It’s “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America.” I would, of course, be interested in whether Mike and Freddie are as outraged by this one as they are by Goldberg.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Fascists-Christian-Right-America/dp/0743284437
— J Mann · Apr 23, 03:11 PM · #
“NRO is religiously condemning it.”
Seems to me that you will view any thing other than complete agreement to be religious condemnation.
From what I see, Lopez and McCarthy lamented that the tone was harsh. Manzi admits the tone was harsh. I find it very unsuprising that people object when the tone goes in that direction. Nobody like people tossing sand in the sandbox.
But apart from that… THEY PUBLISHED IT. What more do you want? Levin is a big deal in terms of popularity. And they allowed a young guy with a dissenting opinion to trash him in the magazine. Then they allowed Levin to respond. And then they allowed Manzi to respond to the response.
Please define what openness would look like to you. If it’s “everyone agrees with Jim Manzi, the editors fire Mark Levin and burn him in effigy,” I think you are asking for a little much.
This question has nothing to do with global warming. I agree with Manzi on the merits. But in terms of NRO.. they are doing exactly what you said they are doing: allowing a young guy to make an attack on a foundational principle of the current conservative movement. They are allowing that guy to trash someone they consider to be one of their leading lights.
What more can a publication to do demonstrate that it is not epistemically closed, short of doing a cover story on how you are right about everything? Seems to me that requires a pretty immature understanding of the world.
— Sam M · Apr 23, 03:44 PM · #
lawl….you are correct J Mann…..my natural style is algorithmic, not high verbal.
If I could communicate in statistics and mathematical equations I would.
I haven’t read that….but I expect I will find a lot more empirical and historical data than in LF.
I actually think I would write a satire of LF….just globalchange liberal to conservative and fascist to islamofacist and Nazi to al-Qaeda and Hitler to Osama bin Ladin….Mussolini and Stalin to Mullah Omar and Khamenei…swap the Taliban and the Basheej in for various fascist sects…..change all mentions of fascism to religious fascism…..you get the picture.
Instant blockbuster non?
I could be the next Mark Levin!
;)
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:48 PM · #
“more can a publication to do demonstrate that it is not epistemically closed”
acknowledge the truth of Manzi’s empirical, data-based, SCIENTIFIC claims that GW denial is bunk, and quit generating reflexive apologia for Levin and throwing chaff like “the liberals do it do.”
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 03:52 PM · #
Non-closure would look like a single other Corner contributor admitting that anything Manzi had said might be a point worthy of consideration.
Merely publishing something is not enough. Do you even know on what basis they publish materials to the Corner?
It’s the difference between hearing—literally allowing the sound waves to reach your ear drums—and listening—engaging with an argument, admitting where it is right or has a point and pointing out its flaws and weaknesses.
Wholesale dismissal, except for commentary on “tone,” is ample evidence for “closure.” It’s a failure to admit an opposing viewpoint into the intellectual conversation of give and take, thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.
— Andrew · Apr 23, 04:00 PM · #
I’m good at predictions.
I predicted HCR would pass via reconciliation, for example, on this very blog.
Looking into my quantum crystal ball I predict Dr. Manzi will have to be Frummed, or perhaps Buckley’d, since his science is impeccable and irreproachable, and because global warming denialism is integral to conservative liturgy at this point.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 04:09 PM · #
hearing—literally allowing the sound waves to reach your ear drums—and listening—engaging with an argument, admitting where it is right or has a point and pointing out its flaws and weaknesses.
yup.
..like admitting that Sarah Palin and Jim DeMInt actually SAID OUT LOUD they reject the separation of church and state and are advocating for an American theocracy..
…like admitting that Levin said global warming is false in print and that is A LIE.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 04:34 PM · #
Slate? Huffington Post? Of course, hardly any liberals are going to trash the idea of universal health care, because universal health care is actually a pretty good idea. Sort of like how you’re not going to find conservatives trashing the idea of standing athwart history yelling “stop”; it’s kind of their thing.
But, luckily Mickey Kaus (He of the “Even the Very Liberal”) exists to basically say the opposite of whatever liberals are saying.
— Chet · Apr 23, 04:43 PM · #
Can there be any doubt that movement conservatives hate liberals far more than they like conservative ideas? If all criticism/debate is dismissed as friendly fire, then it’s just a game or a war, not a discussion.
— rj · Apr 23, 05:07 PM · #
“acknowledge the truth of Manzi’s empirical, data-based, SCIENTIFIC claims”
Ha! And there we have it. For Matoko, openness means “agrees with me.”
I had hoped that this whole discussion amounted to more than that. But it doesn’t. NRO is epistemically closed because not enough people there are right like Matoko is.
Now THAT’S some open minded thinking.
Less absurdly, Andrew says:
“Non-closure would look like a single other Corner contributor admitting that anything Manzi had said might be a point worthy of consideration.”
But why does it matter what the other commenters say? This is a debate between Levin and Manzi. Why can’t they hash out the substance? Obviously they think it’s a good idea for Levin to consider his points. They left the post up there for him to read and respond to. And then they left Levin’s post up there for Manzi to respond to.
ha! Epistemic closure! They cut off the debate by refusing to agree with people here, and allowing the participants in the debate to debate things! What a terrible system! Much better had they put up a photo of Mark Levin for people to photoshop an eyepatch and black-out his teeth, and then commission Matoko to write up something with regard to the allowable TRUTH! Now that would be open-minded.
— Sam M · Apr 23, 05:37 PM · #
Sam M.
Global warming exists, it is real, and supported by data.
That is Manzi’s point.
Do you acknowlege that global warming is real?
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 05:48 PM · #
Sam, I think you’re assuming a lot about what “their” purposes are behind publishing the various articles.
But regardless of that, I’m not much interested in what Levin has to say. As many others have pointed out, he is “merely” an entertainer. Why should I care what the other commentators have to say? Because that was the entire point of this in the beginning, that the pundits and intellectuals are too unwilling to call out the politicians and entertainers when they say stupid or incorrect things.
Levin is Levin, and this is where the facebook quoting of Connor actually makes some sense: he’s clearly throughly in the echo chamber and loving it. We mostly expect that of entertainers and politicians, so it’s terribly surprising that he’s more interested in bringing down his perceived enemies than civil and scholarly debate of the issues.
No, it is the others that are much more interesting, because they would have you believe that they care to have a conversation, but when presented with one they can only bring themselves to make snide comments about the tone and Manzi’s strange “polemic priorities.”
Matoko, what I think you’re not getting is that the substance of the disagreement really isn’t the point at all. Manzi (or someone else) could have written very similar articles focusing on very similar books by very similar authors on very similar topics, and it would likely be playing out the same way. The problem is that criticism of an ally is something to be laughed at, ignored, sneered at, or misdirected. They don’t engage on the merits of the issue, being more interested in the style.
That is the mark of the closure of a mind.
— Andrew · Apr 23, 06:04 PM · #
well….i want to see what happens next!
still crickets at AllahP/Hotair.
I think…the interesting thing is ….will the conservative intellectual guild be able to force Manzi to recant?
Right now they are throwing manners and civility chaff, and deploying the liberals-are-worse distraction meme.
What Manzi actually said is that global warming is real.
That is anathema to official conservative doctrine, which maintains gw is a hoax perpetrated by liberals, scientists and elites to seize power.
and still it moves….
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 06:27 PM · #
“Global warming exists, it is real, and supported by data.
That is Manzi’s point.
Do you acknowlege that global warming is real?”
Yep. I do.
Too bad NRO is too epistemically closed to allow Manzi to make that case on their website.
Oh… wait. He did make that case on their website.
But too bad he had to be deferential to Levin in doing so.
Wait… no. He trashed levin in doing so.
Too bad they took down the post.
Wait. they didn’t do that. They allowed Levin to respond, and Manzi to counter.
To summarize, people who are strongly opposed to a foundational tenet of the modern right are permitted to make their case at NRO, and in the process lambaste highly influential conservatives in the process, even to the point of calling them lazy and/or dishonest.
Man. What a gulag it is over there. If only they could be more open.
— Sam M · Apr 23, 06:43 PM · #
I am acquainted with Manzi, and I once had the opportunity, some time ago, to ask him how a rational person like him could bear to associate with those loons at NRO. He laughed it off. I’m still wondering.
— A · Apr 23, 06:46 PM · #
“To summarize, people who are strongly opposed to a foundational tenet of the modern right are permitted to make their case at NRO, and in the process lambaste highly influential conservatives in the process, even to the point of calling them lazy and/or dishonest.”
And when they do so, they are criticized without any regard to the accuracy and/or truthfulness of their statements or the quality of their reasoning.
As someone else pointed out, you’re refusing to distinguish between hearing someone and listening to them.
Mike
— MBunge · Apr 23, 06:52 PM · #
Sam, they have not responded to the content of the post.
At all.
That is epistemic closure, rejection of empirical data.
Refusal to crit Levin or defense of Levin is not epistemic closure— that is tribalism….
rejection of the scientific fact of global warming is epistemic closure.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 06:55 PM · #
Matoko,
That is Manzi’s point.Do you acknowlege that global warming is real
I am expecting Peak-CO2 to occur around 2020. As first natural gas, and then solar take over.
So the extreme scenarios for global warming by the end of the century will probably never happen. The physics of AGW is probably true though.
— Keid A · Apr 23, 07:00 PM · #
still crickets at Hotair.
Do you think AllahP is waiting for you to recant, Dr. Manzi?
and still it moves…
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 07:31 PM · #
Good stuff. I really don’t see the claim of “epistemic closure” – having a very public disagreement about a substantive matter is precisely the opposite of epistemic closure.
The real problem seems to be with Manzi’s tone. And it seems to me that Manzi realizes his tone was awful and makes no apology for it. It shouldn’t take a genius to understand that an argument about tone has nothing to do with epistemic closure, and that some of us in the movement consider Manzi’s attitude – not the substance of his argument, but his attitude – to be harmful to the movement. Disagreement among members of the movement is fine; a scathing attitude, not so much.
— A.S. · Apr 23, 08:47 PM · #
“very public disagreement about a substantive matter”
where?
the only mention of gw is Goldberg’s he “might” be more on Manzis side.
there is ZERO argument on substance…..there is only argument on tone.
ONE MORE TIME the evidence of epistemic closure is global warming denialism.
And the evidence looks pretty damn strong from here.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 09:43 PM · #
The Real Epistemic Closure is absolute refusal to discuss the substance of Dr. Manzi’s attack on Levin’s global warming denialism.
NRO refuses to discuss it, instead throwing civility chaff and w/e goldberg is blathering on about….which has no relationship to global warming denialism.
Hotair hasn’t a single word about it.
They are pretending very hard that Dr. Manzi said something else.
What he SAID was—
_I’m not expert on many topics the book addresses, so I flipped to its treatment of a subject that I’ve spent some time studying — global warming — in order to see how it treated a controversy in which I’m at least familiar with the various viewpoints and some of the technical detail. It was awful. It was so bad that it was like the proverbial clock that chimes 13 times — not only is it obviously wrong, but it is so wrong that it leads you to question every other piece of information it has ever provided._
Global warming.
That is Manzi’s contention of epistemic closure on global warming.
NO one is addressing substance…..not NRO, not Levin, not Redstate, certainly not Allahp who is pretending very hard this never happened so he doesn’t have to talk about it.
The stupid it burrns.
— matoko_chan · Apr 23, 10:00 PM · #
But an argument about tone is exactly epistemic closure, if you’re using the argument about tone to conceal the fact that you’re bound to lose an argument about substance.
The substance of Manzi’s post cannot be reconciled with the substance of Levin’s book. One or the other of them must be right and the other wrong. To respond to that with an argument about tone is precisely epistemic closure.
Why? What’s going to happen if Manzi cops an attitude?
Of course, to say that he did cop an attitude is completely wrong; the harshest tone in Manzi’s post is nothing more than “Levin is wrong, here, and this is why.” People who can’t grapple with that argument complain about “tone.”
— Chet · Apr 23, 10:33 PM · #
At best, the “uncertainly” means that further investigation and study is necessary, instead of drastic, reactionary, legislation and regulation that will possibly reduce our nation’s overall standard of living and our economy.
And it would be helpful if the AGW true believers would tone down the shrieking rhetoric, dramatization, and denialist! slurs. That would go a long way toward calming the rhetorical counterattacks.
— Bob · Apr 24, 02:44 AM · #
Bob, it would help if the AGW skeptics would have some idea of how much research is already out there, and characterize that research correctly.
We’ve been hearing “further investigation and study is necessary” for about two decades now; can you give us some idea of what criteria has to be met for us to actually act, or is this a “jam tomorrow, but never jam today” deal, where there will never be enough research to do anything but urge further investigation?
— Chris · Apr 24, 08:59 PM · #
can you give us some idea of what criteria has to be met for us to actually act…
The moment a few of the AGW alarmists takes the danger seriously would be the time when the rest of us might consider whether it’s time to act.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 01:18 AM · #
Oh, I see – Al Gore is fat, therefore, global warming is a hoax. Makes perfect sense!
— Chet · Apr 25, 02:24 AM · #
Oh, I see – Al Gore is fat, therefore, global warming is a hoax. Makes perfect sense!
How do you think your reading ability compares with Sarah Palin’s?
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 02:38 AM · #
Reticulator, this kind of off-handed dismissal is a big, big part of the reason why it’s difficult to take AGW skeptics particularly seriously.
Whatever you think of Al Gore and company, the science is either true, or not, completely regardless of what they do or don’t do. If you’ve got legitimate gripes with the science, fine, let us hear about it. But flippant remarks like the one above just reinforce the idea that you don’t understand the science, don’t really care to, and will continue shouting it down as long as you think doing so is somehow sticking it to those damn tree-hugging hippies.
— Chris · Apr 25, 03:08 AM · #
Chet, you’re not reading very carefully. The question was not about the science, but about when it’s time to act. By making stupid remarks about whether or not I understand the science when I’m not even talking about the science, you’re just reinforcing the idea that lefties are dumber than Sarah Palin.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 03:30 AM · #
I’m sorry, did you or did you not say:
? If someone is posting comments under your name, I’d like to know. But if you actually said those words, you have zero basis to question my “reading ability.”
— Chet · Apr 25, 03:31 AM · #
Are you? You were responding to Chris, not to me.
— Chet · Apr 25, 03:32 AM · #
BTW, why should what I say have anything to do with whether AGW skeptics should be taken seriously or not? You don’t even know whether or not I am an AGW skeptic. It’s not clear how what I might say could reflect on them.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 03:34 AM · #
You were responding to Chris, not to me.
Oops. You’re right. Thanks for calling it to my attention.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 03:36 AM · #
Reticulator, Bob’s original line was that uncertainty merited further study and investigation; that’s fundamentally a scientific question. And, as Chet pointed out, I’m the one who asked about when it was time to act, and I sure as hell was talking about the science, thanks. If you’re going to make an argument that deciding when to act is somehow independent of the science, then you need to do so with more than a half-assed crack about dishonest “alarmists”.
In fact, this whole schtick of making one-line replies and then acting all offended by claiming that people are making unwarranted assumptions about you – pretty lame. If you want to prove you understand the science, then talk about the science. If you don’t want to be labeled an AGW skeptic, then I suggest you don’t make derogatory remarks about “AGW alarmists”, or at least make more of a reasoned case why you’re doing so.
So do you actually have anything substantive to say about this subject, or what?
— Chris · Apr 25, 05:24 AM · #
Bob’s original line was that uncertainty merited further study and investigation; that’s fundamentally a scientific question.
Not really. The question of what’s worth studying has to go beyond science. Science cannot provide you with value judgments. Those come from elsewhere.
And, as Chet pointed out, I’m the one who asked about when it was time to act, and I sure as hell was talking about the science, thanks.
No, you weren’t talking about the science. You were talking about action. Science can’t tell you when to act. Science can and should inform the decision, but science in itself is helpless to make judgements of value. The use of science is not value-neutral, and the selection of topics to study scientifically is not value-neutral, but the scientific process itself is.
If you’re going to make an argument that deciding when to act is somehow independent of the science, then you need to do so with more than a half-assed crack about dishonest “alarmists”
See above.
In fact, this whole schtick of making one-line replies and then acting all offended by claiming that people are making unwarranted assumptions about you – pretty lame.
You could try getting used to it.
If you want to prove you understand the science, then talk about the science. If you don’t want to be labeled an AGW skeptic, then I suggest you don’t make derogatory remarks about “AGW alarmists”, or at least make more of a reasoned case why you’re doing so.
I’m not interested in proving that I understand the science. For me it is sufficient to mock the people who make pretentions to understanding what science is. A good example of an unscientific mode of thought would be to think that the world is divided into two categories: AGW skeptics and AGW alarmists, and to jump to the conclusion that if someone is not an AGW alarmist then s/he is an AGW skeptic.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 09:21 AM · #
Reticulator, this is just silly – you’re at a point where you’re telling me what I did or didn’t mean with my own writing. Between this and the kind of stuff you’re trying to argue to Chet on the other thread, I think I’ll just let this drop, thanks.
— Chris · Apr 25, 04:59 PM · #
You know, the power of scientific inquiry into the world around us – and the world within us – is fairly well established to be considerable. I’ve never understood why people are so quick to set this or that issue “beyond science” without even attempting to apply it, given that it’s such a useful tool for finding out what is most likely true.
Well, I take that back. I do understand it – people say that something is “beyond science” in self-defense; in an effort to preserve a cherished ideology from skeptical contradiction.
— Chet · Apr 25, 06:37 PM · #
Well, I take that back. I do understand it – people say that something is “beyond science” in self-defense; in an effort to preserve a cherished ideology from skeptical contradiction.
Chet, you seem to be lashing out at something you don’t understand.
Maybe this will help. Here’s the way one person put it: “You can’t draw conclusions in the imperative from premises in the indicative.”
In other words, science can tell you that the wall is green in color because of the interaction of pigment and light. It can tell you how to create a wall cover that will be green in color. But it can’t tell you that the wall ought to be painted green.
It can tell you that a wall painted green may have a soothing effect on visitors. But it can’t tell you that the wall ought to be green, or that there ought to be a soothing effect.
Or, in the case of climate — science might be able to tell you that the world will burn up if you don’t cut carbon emissions, but it can’t tell you whether it’s better for the world to burn up than for people to live under a totalitarian dictatorship. The choice of what to do is a value judgment that can be informed by science, but can’t be based on science. Science is not competent to make value judgments. It can tell you about what is, or what could be. But it can’t tell you what ought to be.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 08:08 PM · #
Reticulator, this is just silly – you’re at a point where you’re telling me what I did or didn’t mean with my own writing. Between this and the kind of stuff you’re trying to argue to Chet on the other thread, I think I’ll just let this drop, thanks.
Good choice, Chris. You’re in way over your head, and that might be the only way out for you.
— The Reticulator · Apr 25, 08:10 PM · #
Its been FIVE DAYS since Manzigate broke.
Still not a word from AllahP at HotAir.
Is that further proof of epistemic closure?
Pretending that there isn’t even an argument?
— matoko_chan · Apr 26, 12:40 AM · #
Why? Because you say it can’t? Did you even try to apply the scientific method, or did you just assume that it can’t inform value decisions?
Science is not competent for any judgement. People make judgments. The question is, can people use science to make value judgments? You say they can’t, but why not? Because you say they can’t?
You must understand, Reticulator, at this point I wouldn’t take your word on anything regarding science. It’s obvious you simply don’t know anything about it.
— Chet · Apr 26, 03:14 AM · #
Just the kind of thing I would have expected you to say, Reticulator.
Enjoy your victory – if only in your own mind – and much joy may it bring you.
— Chris · Apr 26, 04:06 AM · #