Author Topic: Episode #657  (Read 4865 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2018, 06:59:04 PM »
Dr. Novella is *not* making this fallacy in the quote you provided. […] No one is saying "everyone has to do X, Y, and Z to feed the world."  His point is that by throwing your lot in with the anti-GMO crowd, either by repeating their dishonest talking-points or financially rewarding them by exclusively demanding organic foods, you are helping them in their mission to deny GMO products to everyone.  And that is their underlying mission, second only to their desire to make a less scientifically literate planet.  This has been covered a dozen times on the podcast.  You do not have to accept any particular school of philosophy to understand this, or to understand the context of Steve's above quote.

Straw man. Steve Novella specifically referred to "favor[ing] farming that uses no pesticides" in the line that I quoted. On the other hand, you're seeing hidden intentions in "the anti-GMO crowd":

......


— Scott Adams. "How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet." Scott Adams' Blog (May 15, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/05/15/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the

I've already spent time digging up old threads yesterday, so I'm not in the mood to sort through 600+ episodes of the podcast to find the ones where this is spelled out explicitly.  The criticism from Dr. Novella (or virtually anyone else in this community) has absolutely nothing to do with seeing the worst intentions in your opponents, and everything to do with basic awareness of how social/political campaigns work.  Time and time again when some major concern has emerged about a GMO product, the websites/companies/lobbyists/academics that spearheaded that concern employed tactics that would restrict the very research needed to give scientists and the public a better understanding of GMO safety.  I suppose you can claim that these people were too naive to recognize the result of their actions, but at some point we have to start treating them like adults (and the fact that anti-GMO movements are so successful tells me they probably know damn well what they are doing).

I was on the verge of looking up some specific references to support my position, but if we're going full throttle Scott Adams ..... nope.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11854
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2018, 08:06:18 PM »
Anyone who likes to Scott Adams for any purpose other than ridicule has already lost the argument in my mind.

#non-belief denialist

Offline Here2

  • Brand New
  • Posts: 6
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2018, 08:50:39 PM »
I'm a little surprised by the lovefest for Elon Musk by the rouges.
Great success with the Falcon Heavy launch, but I find the Tesla payload a bit distasteful.  A self promoting move that could have been used for something, anything, else that didn't look so self absorbed.
There is some criticism that this is just more space junk (which the rouges have expressed concern about), but I think it's only saving grace is that it's been blasted out past Mar's orbit where it's not an immediate concern.

Offline PSXer

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2018, 09:32:23 PM »
I'm sure I'd be a horrible subject for psychological studies. That being said, let's say someone came to me and said that someone I don't know (Nathalie) was arrested for theft and dealing drugs, and then came back later and said that that information they told me earlier is false. Why should my conclusion be that the latter information they told me was correct rather than former? I don't know Nathalie, so I don't have any information there. All I have is information from someone who proved to be unreliable because they told me one thing one minute and something else the next. Is it just a general 'innocence until proven guilty' thing? Or are you supposed to have blind faith in whatever the most recent thing the researchers told you?

There must be something I'm missing. Possibly the study was slightly more complicated and they simplified it a bit for the show.

Either that, or I'm a horrible research subject.

Offline God Bomb

  • Seasoned Contributor
  • ****
  • Posts: 504
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2018, 09:49:35 PM »
What you're missing is that people don't think logically most of the time, especially if forced to make snap judgements.
Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn.

Online Tassie Dave

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2290
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2018, 09:53:59 PM »
There must be something I'm missing. Possibly the study was slightly more complicated and they simplified it a bit for the show.

Either that, or I'm a horrible research subject.

The test is nothing to do with the reliability of the information supplied, but how your attitude changes given the new information based on your cognitive abilities.

The subjects had to rate the fictitious Nathalie on several traits, trustworthiness and sincerity etc, after reading a bio of her that included the arrest for drugs.
Then they rated her again after learning that the drugs arrest was not true.

The test was to see whether cognitive ability would predict attitude adjustment—that is, the degree to which the subjects in the experimental condition would rate Nathalie more favourably after being told that this information was false.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cognitive-ability-and-vulnerability-to-fake-news/

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Episode #657 - Who's That Noisy
« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2018, 01:09:58 PM »
Finally, one I know the answer to....

This demonstrates a phenomenon where, if the listener is familiar with the song, he/she hears the lyrics being sung, despite the song having no vocal track, merely an oscillating melody.

If you're not familiar with the lyrics, you hear an odd melody being played.

Regards
AP

No, there's more to it than that. I actually think this one (or one very similar) was done before, years ago.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #22 on: February 14, 2018, 01:10:54 PM »
(click to show/hide)

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2018, 01:14:45 PM »
Quote from: Steven Novella
[1:08:56] "[A]nd if you want to favor farming that uses no pesticides then, frankly, you are a privileged elitist who doesn't care if half the world starves because there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides, period."

The Kantian universalisability principle fallacy: If everyone became an MD like Steve, the world would starve to death. If everyone were consuming as much meat as Steve, there wouldn't be enough farming land to feed the world. If everyone lived in a single-family detached home with a large garden like Steve, the world would run out of arable land. If everyone installed solar panels on the roof of their home like Steve, the world would generate a lot of excess power when sunny and not enough during the night and the darker hours of the day or when cloudy. If everyone went on vacation to Hawaii like Steve, the world would ruin Hawaii.

Are you willing to extend this argument and claim there is no such thing as tragedy of the commons?

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2018, 01:49:49 PM »
Quote from: Steven Novella
[1:08:56] "[A]nd if you want to favor farming that uses no pesticides then, frankly, you are a privileged elitist who doesn't care if half the world starves because there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides, period."

The Kantian universalisability principle fallacy: If everyone became an MD like Steve, the world would starve to death. If everyone were consuming as much meat as Steve, there wouldn't be enough farming land to feed the world. If everyone lived in a single-family detached home with a large garden like Steve, the world would run out of arable land. If everyone installed solar panels on the roof of their home like Steve, the world would generate a lot of excess power when sunny and not enough during the night and the darker hours of the day or when cloudy. If everyone went on vacation to Hawaii like Steve, the world would ruin Hawaii.

«I fully reject the Kantian universalizability principle that underlies so much of contemporary moral discussion. What if everyone acted the way you did? is not a useful means-test for one’s actions.»

— Michael Malice. "Why I won't vote this year – or any year." The Guardian (2014-10-14)
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/why-i-will-not-vote

"The big criticism of Mike Pence's rule about being alone with women stems from a quintessential left-wing idea that one's behavior must be universalizable."
— Michael Malice (2017-11-17)
https://twitter.com/michaelmalice/status/931628039716339713

The quote about Pence makes no sense. The big criticism of the rule has nothing to do with universalizability and everything to do with the fact that it is a comically absurd standard of behavior.

As for it being a "left-wing idea", since Kant was coming from a deontological point of view, wouldn't it be a right-wing idea?

There could be a consequentialist version of universalizability, which would be more in line with what Steve was saying, but Kant was not a consequentialist. You did specifically refer to the Kantian version.

Offline RMoore

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #25 on: February 14, 2018, 04:09:38 PM »
Anyone who likes to Scott Adams for any purpose other than ridicule has already lost the argument in my mind.

Did you catch Sam Harris's interview with him?

He kept on about how analogies are the last resort of someone losing an argument...meanwhile ignoring the fact that he had been using an analogy about people watching two different movies on the same screen the whole time.

Adams is just a parody of his own pointy-headed boss character.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #26 on: February 14, 2018, 05:58:01 PM »
Anyone who likes to Scott Adams for any purpose other than ridicule has already lost the argument in my mind.

Every time someone shoots the messenger a kitten dies:

«Attack the Messenger
When people realize their arguments are not rational, they attack the messenger on the other side. If you have been well-behaved in a debate, and you trigger an oversized personal attack, it means you won. When people have facts and reasons in their armory, they use them first. When they run out of rational arguments, they attack the messenger. That is the equivalent of throwing the gun at the monster after you run out of bullets.»


— Scott Adams. "How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet." Scott Adams' Blog (May 15, 2017)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2017/05/15/how-to-know-you-won-a-political-debate-on-the

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #27 on: February 14, 2018, 06:04:11 PM »
Anyone who likes to Scott Adams for any purpose other than ridicule has already lost the argument in my mind.

Did you catch Sam Harris's interview with him?
He kept on about how analogies are the last resort of someone losing an argument...meanwhile ignoring the fact that he had been using an analogy about people watching two different movies on the same screen the whole time.
Adams is just a parody of his own pointy-headed boss character.

«The problem with cognitive dissonance is that it can be hard to know whether your opponent is experiencing it or you are. It looks exactly the same to you. The person in the illusion can’t tell the difference.»

— Scott Adams. "How to Know You Won a Political Debate on the Internet." Scott Adams' Blog (May 15, 2017)

Scott Adams on why analogies are useful for explaining but not for making predictions:

«Regular readers know I have been waging a battle in this blog against analogies. The problem with analogies is that people use them in place of reason. For example, the biggest analogy going around lately is that Trump is the next Hitler.
[…]
Analogies are not part of reason, but they are higher than reason on the influence stack.»

— Scott Adams. "The Belgium Analogy." Scott Adams' Blog (March 22, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/03/22/the-belgium-analogy

«Looking at history is bullshit if you don’t know which part of history matters. And you don’t. Because people are dumb like that.
[…]
Analogies are not a useful component of reason in the way most people believe they are. Just because something reminds you of something does not mean there is causation. Analogies are not about causation. Analogies are great tools for explaining new things for the first time, and that is about all they are good for. For example, the game laser tag is like a real gunfight except with toy guns that have harmless lasers instead of bullets. That analogy saved me a lot of time explaining something new. But that is ALL it did.
The gunfight analogy has no predictive power beyond that. I can’t, for example, assume people will die playing laser tag because they die during real gun fights.
Analogies are for explaining, not predicting. Analogies are not part of logic or reason.»


— Scott Adams. "Bumper Sticker Thinking." Scott Adams' Blog (March 19, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/03/19/bumper-sticker-thinking

«As I have explained in this blog before, analogies are not part of reason. Sometimes things just remind you of other things. That’s the beginning and end of the story.
[…]
Analogies are excellent tools for explaining a new situation for the first time. And sometimes analogies help you recognize situations that are potentially dangerous before you have all the facts. It is completely rational to use analogies in those two contexts. It is not rational to make a final decision based on an analogy.»

— Scott Adams. "Let’s Talk About Hitler." Scott Adams' Blog (March 10, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2016/03/10/lets-talk-about-hitler

«If something reminds you of something else (such as Hitler, to pick one example) that doesn’t mean you are thinking. That just means something reminded you of something. A strong association of that type can prevent you from thinking, but it is not itself a component of reason.»

— Scott Adams. "A Voter’s Guide to Thinking." Scott Adams' Blog (December 14, 2015)
http://blog.dilbert.com/2015/12/14/a-voters-guide-to-thinking
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 06:32:05 PM by Isranner »

Online Sawyer

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1404
Re: Episode #657
« Reply #28 on: February 14, 2018, 07:00:11 PM »
Doubling down on Adams?  Nope, let's try quintupling down.  Yeah, that's the ticket!

I would say you are failing to successfully defend your position, but I still have no clue what your mission was to begin with.

Offline Isranner

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 40
Re: Episode #657 - Your Questions and E-mails: GMOs and Glyphosate
« Reply #29 on: February 14, 2018, 07:25:32 PM »
Quote from: Steven Novella
[1:08:56] "[A]nd if you want to favor farming that uses no pesticides then, frankly, you are a privileged elitist who doesn't care if half the world starves because there's absolutely no way we can feed the world without using pesticides, period."

The Kantian universalisability principle fallacy: If everyone became an MD like Steve, the world would starve to death. If everyone were consuming as much meat as Steve, there wouldn't be enough farming land to feed the world. If everyone lived in a single-family detached home with a large garden like Steve, the world would run out of arable land. If everyone installed solar panels on the roof of their home like Steve, the world would generate a lot of excess power when sunny and not enough during the night and the darker hours of the day or when cloudy. If everyone went on vacation to Hawaii like Steve, the world would ruin Hawaii.

Are you willing to extend this argument and claim there is no such thing as tragedy of the commons?

For such "tragedy" to take place it is first necessary that the wants exceed the carrying capacity of the commons.
So how many consumers actually want and can afford foods from pesticide-free farming (at market prices) and what is the carrying capacity of the world's agricultural land for the production of such foods?

PS: FWIW, the so called "tragedy of the commons" has been overhyped by central planning advocates:

• Elinor Ostrom. "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions)." Cambridge University Press (1990) ISBN-13: 978-0521405997
http://wtf.tw/ref/ostrom_1990.pdf

• Susan J Buck (Department of Political Science University of North Carolina at Greensboro). "Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Elinor Ostrom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pp. 280."
https://web.archive.org/web/20161129155214/lawschool.unm.edu/nrj/volumes/32/2/06_ostrom_governing.pdf

• Sigmund K et al. "Social learning promotes institutions for governing the commons." Nature (2010) vol. 466 (7308) pp. 861-3
http://www.math.ubc.ca/~hauert/publications/reprints/sigmund_nature10.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20631710

• Ostrom E et al. "Revisiting the commons: local lessons, global challenges." Science (1999) vol. 284 (5412) pp. 278-82
http://faculty.bennington.edu/~kwoods/classes/global%20change/global_2012/readings/Ostrom%20et%20al.%20-%201999%20-%20Revisiting%20the%20commons%20local%20lessons,%20global%20chal.pdf
« Last Edit: February 14, 2018, 07:54:17 PM by Isranner »

 

personate-rain