SciBlogs

Pseudosceptics are at it again – misrepresenting and attacking climate scientists Ken Perrott May 16

No Comments

I have already mentioned the irony of a failed politician attacking climate scientists, accusing them of treating science like a religion while declaring his own faith that:

“The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible.”

(See “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney? and Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped?).

But another factor in this sordid little story was the way that Rodney Hide attempted to portray New Zealand climate scientist Dr James Renwick as a religious fundamentalist in his science. Basically he did this by misrepresenting Renwick – Hide told a porkie.

Hide claimed that Renwick “was in no doubt that man-made global warming was causing the summer drought” and went on to give this quote as “proof;”

” . . climate change, global warming. Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.” The host Corin Dann double-checks: “And you’re of no doubt of that?”

“Oh, no, no. There’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible.”

Hide then went on to declare:

“That’s religious zealotry in action. Science is never that certain.”

Creating the impression that Renwick had “no doubt” that greenhouse gases were responsible for New Zealand’s recent extreme drought.

Problem is – at this stage of the interview the drought had not even been mentioned.

Interview transcript

Here’s the transcript of the interview from its beginning to Hide’s quote:

CORIN DANN: Good morning, Dr Renwick. How are you?

DR JAMES RENWICK: Good morning, Corin. Very well.

CORIN: Listen, thanks for coming on the show. I know you’re literally just back off the plane this morning. Tell us what is happening to NZ’s climate. Paint us a picture of what’s going on.

JAMES: Well, like the rest of the globe, NZ’s climate is warming up gradually. Temperatures have risen by the best part of a degree in the last century, and they’re set to rise by two or three degrees or maybe even more over the course of the coming century.

CORIN And this isn’t some normal- What is this? Is this climate change at work?

JAMES Yeah, it is. Yeah, climate change, global warming. Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.

CORIN And you’re of no doubt of that.

JAMES Oh, no, no. There’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible.

Full transcript available at: Lack of govt leadership on climate change – Renwick

Simply a clarification that New Zealand’s climate is part of the global climate and that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming. The New Zealand drought had not even been mentioned at this stage.

The informal confidence Dr Renwick expressed was  consistent with the current understanding of the role of greenhouse gases in global warming – not, as Hide and fellow pseudosceptics and climate change deniers have claimed, that greenhouse gases were the direct cause of our recent drought.  That claim was a complete misrepresentation, clearly motivated and knowingly dishonest as the perpetrators also had access to the transcript of the interview.

Should Renwick have any doubts on role of greenhouse gases?

Dr Renwick did display, informally, a high degree of confidence that greenhouse gases are contributing to climate change. But that is hardly surprising because that is the current understanding of most climate scientists. Consider what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said.

The figure below shows the results of simulations of global temperature from 1900 to 2005. Figure a included all the natural and anthropogenic influences.  The black line is the actual measured global temperature anomaly (obtained by subtracting the average temperature for 1901 to 1950).  The individual simulations are shown as thin yellow curves. The red line is the multi-model ensemble mean (see Figure 9.5 – AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change).

Figure b is a similar plot using simulations which consider only the natural influences on climate. The individual simulations are shown as thin blue curves. The thick blue line is the multi-model ensemble mean.

So, climate scientist have considered both natural and anthropogenic influences. And they are unable to reproduce the global temperature changes since 1970 unless anthropogenic influences are included.

That is why the IPCC has concluded that there is a high probability (>90%) that human influences are contributing to the current observed global temperature increase.

Notice also that the experts talk about probabilities. It’s a complex field and things are rarely cut and dried. We are more certain about some influences than others. And the IPCC doesn’t hide this fact – far from it. It doesn’t make sweeping claims in the way that some of their opponents do.

I am sure Dr Renwick accepts this – his comment “Oh, no, no. There’s no other explanation that’s remotely plausible” is simply an informal recognition  of that.

While on the role of greenhouse gases this short video provides some of the data supporting current scientific assessment – in this case not relying on computer models or the IPCC.

Was our recent drought caused by CO2?

Later in the interview Renwick did comment on our drought. Here’s the relevant section of the transcript:

JAMES: Well, no, I don’t think panicking is very helpful.

CORIN : But it feels like that with this drought, though, doesn’t it?

JAMES: It’s a pretty exceptional event, yeah. It’s probably the first time in 50 years that it’s been this dry over this much of the country. So, sure, it’s exceptional. You know, a farmer would only see this once in a working lifetime.

CORIN: But if we’ve only seen it once in 50 years, should we not be that worried? That suggests it’s not going to happen for another 50 years.

JAMES: Well, the way the climate’s changing, the likelihood is that summers will become drier, so what’s a one-in-50 year event now will be, say, one in 20, one-in-25 year event by the middle of the century. And in some parts of the country, it might be a one-in-five year event by the end of the century, which means the farming sector’s going to have to adapt to that. We’ve got time – it’s decades we’re talking about, and farmers are very adaptable, but things will have to change.

Again, I think Renwick was just informally conveying what seems to be the current scientific assessment of the role of global warming in extreme weather events, like New Zealand’s drought and US storms. This is that one can’t prove a direct link of atmospheric CO2 to single specific events. However, scientific analysis analysis suggests that such events will become more frequent as the planet warms.

As Dr Renwick expressed it - “what’s a one-in-50 year event now will be, say, one in 20, one-in-25 year event by the middle of the century.”

Given the informal nature of such interviews I think Dr Renwick presented the scientific assessment pretty accurately. But of course this won’t stop the pseudosceptics and climate change deniers. Most of these, and certainly Rodney Hide, have a ultraconservative political agenda. They commonly paint scientists as plotters and schemers, part of an evil world-wide conspiracy wanting to bring in a One World Government. And claiming scientists have manipulated global temperature records to create false evidence for fclimate change.

And, yes, despite the availability of the interview transcript local climate change pseudosceptics are still misrepresenting Dr Renwick’s statements. (see Hide sticks it to Renwick and Renowden a scaring warmist). They are studiously avoiding the transcript and instead interpreting reporter’s comments.

And, of course, sticking the boot in while they are at it.

Similar articles

Print This Post Print This Post

Chris Hadfield’s 5-month Space Mission in 90 Seconds Ken Perrott May 15

No Comments

Many people have probably just become aware of Canadian astronaut Chris Hadfield in the last week because of his musical video Space Oddity that went viral.

It might be hard to find anyone who has not watched that video. However, Hadfield has starred in many videos from the International Space Station – sometimes singing but more often introducing viewers to interesting facts about living in a zero gravity environment.

This video is a very short (90 seconds) mashup of some of these.

Houston, We Have A Viral Video – Chris Hadfield In Space

Thanks to Chris Hadfield’s 5-month Space Mission in 90 Seconds – Ontario Stargazing.

Print This Post Print This Post

Confusion and distortion – has global warming stopped? Ken Perrott May 14

26 Comments

There’s a mantra circulating at the moment claiming that global warming “stopped 17 years ago.” It is of course being pushed by the pseudosceptics in the climate denial echo chamber. However, even people who should know better have been heard to repeat something like that.

Rodney Hide, a former New Zealand ultra conservative politician has assured us “The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible” (see my post “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney? for my take on that). And one of the commenters on my blog at  SciBlog seems willing to treat Rodney’s assurance as a simple fact. Of course the pseudosceptics proudly and loudly reassert similar claims.

But many of those repeating this mantra are attributing the claim to authoritative sources, like the the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) and leading climate scientists and institutions.

So what’s the truth. Has global warming “stopped?” Are climate scientists saying it has stopped?”

Short answer is actually no. Slightly longer answer is along the lines that the current rate of global temperature increase seems to have slowed, global temperatures may even have plateaued, but that doesn’t support a claim that global warming has “stopped!” Or stopped 17 years ago.

IPCC Chairman misrepresented

Firstly – lets deal with the use of Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the IPPC, as a source for this mantra. This appears to go back to a report in the Australian which claimed he  “acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises.”

Trouble is, there is no record to back up the claim and the IPCC communications office said it does not accurately represent Pachauri’s thoughts on the subject.

The only statement the Australian article actually attributed to Pachauri on this subject is that “global average temperatures had plateaued at record levels and that the halt did not disprove global warming.” And that is paraphrasing Pachauri and not quoting him directly.

As the blog Skeptical Science pointed out (see Did Murdoch’s The Australian Misrepresent IPCC Chair Pachauri on Global Warming?) if he “had he said that global surface air  temperatures have plateaued and that this doesn’t disprove global warming, he would be 100% correct.” And that is what a number of well-known climate scientists also have said. Usually no mention of 17 years and certainly no claim that global warming had “stopped” 17 years ago.

To help clarify I repeat below two figures from my recent post “Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney? These show global air temperatures for the last 17 years and for the long-term – since 1880.

17-years

Global temperature anomalies for 1996-2012 (Average annual temperature data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences),

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006).]

As I said about the first figure in my recent post:

“There’s a lot of noise so all we can say from that data is the warming rate is in the range of  -0.02 and 0.17 °C/decade (95% confidence level). That’s the problem with such short time periods.”

Putting short-term trends in context of long-term record

The data in the first figure must be put into the context of the longer term changes. And as the 2nd figure shows a number of short periods over the longer term which had a similar pattern to that in the first figure. It would be silly, especially with hindsight, to claim that global warming “stopped” in 1990, or 1985, or 1975, and so on. Yet this is what some people are doing.

It’s easy to find short time periods where the global temperature trend is not significantly different to zero – that’s the nature of a record with this sort of variability or noise. A record which also results from a number of factors and is therefore not a simple correlation with one cause.

So it is silly to cherry pick a short period and then make an absolute claim (global warming has stopped) – and especially to claim that somehow something happened in 1975 so that “global warming stopped 17 years ago. Think about it. Take that first figure a just select the last 10 years. The trend will also not be significantly different to zero – are we then going to claim something happened in 2002 to “stop” global warming?

No, of course not. The only reason 17 years is mentioned is that one can’t go back further than that without the trend being significantly different from zero. It’s a cherry-picked date – cherry picked to produce a non-significant trend.

Have IPCC models been disproved

Another common claim is that the very recent plateau, or decrease in the rate of global warming proves the scientific climate models are wrong.  More specifically I have often heard the claim that since this plateau has occurred while atmospheric CO2 levels continue to increase this proves that CO2 is not driving global warming. Even the claim that the plateau has somehow shown the scientific understanding of the fundamental properties of greenhouse gases is wrong.

The naivety of the last claim is to think that climate scientists  consider CO2 to be the only factor influencing the climate – they just don’t. Consequently one should not expect to see a simple correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. Any attempt to understand or model climate change must include many more inputs than CO2.

As for models in general here is a couple of factors:

  1. All models are inaccurate. That’s just the nature of the attempt to understand complex systems – we can’t expect to get things perfect. And when anomalies occur this may actually help us improve the models by incorporating other factors or more realistic physical parameters. Despite this models have important uses as long as we understand their limitations.
  2. Models require inputs – inputs which may change, often unpredictably, over time. Therefore it is silly to expect model projections to always be correct or accurate further down the track.

For example, there could be weather conditions increasing heat inputs into the deep ocean which could not have been incorporated several years ago. Or there could have been an increase of particulates from increased coal use which had not been predicted. Political changes can produce economic changes which influence inputs. These are some of the ideas that have been suggested to help explain the current plateau or reduced rate of global temperature increase.

So the real test of the model is not to use inputs based on predictions made several years before, but to update inputs so that the model more correctly represents current situations.

But, more basically, it’s important to recognise that the global climate is complex. Simple mechanisms are not going to explain the details in the global temperature record. So be careful of people who advance simple explanations to discredit the science.

Similar articles

Print This Post Print This Post

“Incontrovertible” is it, Rodney? Ken Perrott May 12

10 Comments

I wonder if many politicians, or in this case ex-politicians, are capable of seeing the irony and contradictions in their public statements. Or perhaps porkies are just the stock in trade of politicians so irony doesn’t even come into it.

But hows this for irony – Rodney Hide is lecturing scientists about the nature of scientific knowledge (see Faith, not facts, drives global warming). Here’s what he says about claims by climate scientists that greenhouse gases like CO2 can lead to global warming.

That’s religious zealotry in action. Science is never that certain. The best-ever scientific knowledge was Newtonian mechanics. And Einstein blew it to bits. That’s the nature of science. It gets nearer the truth but can never declare the truth.

Only religious fundamentalists have certitude. Their knowledge is a belief system that’s immune to real world experience and facts.

I guess Rodney sees himself as more a religious fundamentalist than a scientifically literate person because he then goes on to declare – with the ultimate amount of “certitude:”

“The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible.”

“Incontrovertible” is it Rodney? That sounds like a statement of faith.

Let’s look at some data

Firstly global temperatures: Here’s the data for the last 17 years:

17-years

Global temperature anomalies for 1996-2012 (Average annual temperature data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Sciences),

Yeah – I know. There’s a lot of noise so all we can say from that data is the warming rate is in the range of  -0.02 and 0.17 °C/decade (95% confidence level). That’s the problem with such short time periods. Perhaps we should put that data in the context of the long-term trends:

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to present, with the base period 1951-1980. The dotted black line is the annual mean and the solid red line is the five-year mean. The green bars show uncertainty estimates. [This is an update of Fig. 1A in Hansen et al. (2006).]

Still believe that “The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible,” Rodney? Willing to put money on it? More important – would you as a politician be willing to commit the fate of your grandchildren on such an extreme claim?

Well, if you still think your claim is “incontrovertible” have a look at some more data. Here’s data for the change in the total earth’s heat content – storage in the ocean as well as atmosphere, land and ice.

Total_Heat_Content_2011_med

And some more detailed data for the melting of ice – globally, Antarctic and Arctic (Click on the image if the animated gif is not changing):

GlobalSeaIce

(The last two figures are from Skeptical Science: A Big Picture Look at Global Warming)

Rodney assures us that “Anyone can do science. And scientists can often fall short.” Sure – but we surely expect more than this from scientists – professional or not. Rodney has simply taken a bit of non-representative data, extracted it from context, ignored everything else and declared his firmly held belief (one could even say “religiously” held belief) as “incontrovertible!”

Worse, while he is telling such porkies he is dishonestly demanding something from scientists which is extremely silly. That they just shut up with their ideas and conclusions until their data is completely “incontrovertible.” Until it can be presented with absolute “certitude.” They should STFU till they have the absolute truth – after he has already acknowledged that science “gets nearer the truth but can never declare the truth.”

He would love that, wouldn’t he? It would give him and his ultra-conservative political mates a completely clear field.

But wouldn’t it be irresponsible to gag scientists like that? Surely we want governments to use the country’s scientist to get the best current data and conclusions – even as we acknowledge that it is never the final story.

Footnote:

Perhaps this is what is leading Rodney Hide astray. In a comment at the climate pseudosceptic/denier/contrarian blog Climate Conversation Group Rodney acknowledged he is using that blog as a resource (a fabulous resource and mine of information“) Bloody hell, no wonder he has it so wrong. He really has to widen his reading.

Mind you, one of the resources he may have used is Richard Cummings who claims in comments on that blog he has shown that our scientific understanding of the fundamental properties of greenhouse gas molecule is all wrong! I suggested that he should present his findings at this year’s New Zealand Climate Change Conference. And this crowd could also present their analysis of New Zealand’s temperature record which they produced as an alternative to that of NIWA. However, they seemed to consider these suggestions offensive and banned my comment!

Incontrovertible my arse.

See also: Dear Rodney Hide

Similar articles

Print This Post Print This Post

Video coverage of astronauts’ return to earth next Tuesday morning Ken Perrott May 10

No Comments

UPDATE: Woops! Sorry, I confused the time conversions. The correct NZ times are now present in bold.

It’s all go aboard the International Space Station at the moment. An external ammonia link was found today (see NASA: Space station power system radiator leaking). This is connected to power systems and steps are changes are being made to isolate its effects.

Meanwhile three of the cosmonauts/astronauts will be returning to earth early next week. Expedition 35 Commander Chris Hadfield of the Canadian Space Agency, Tom Marshburn of NASA and Roman Romanenko of the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) will undock their Soyuz TMA-07M spacecraft from the station on Tuesday May 14 NZT (7:08 p.m. EDT May 13), heading for a landing on the steppe of Kazakhstan southeast of Dzhezkazgan at 10:31 p.m. EDT (8:31 a.m. Kazakh time, May 14). They will have spent 146 days in space since their Dec. 19 launch from Kazakhstan.

Chris Hadfield, a Canadian, has been very actively photographing the earth – different countries and cities, and sending the photos out to social media via Twitter. He’s also done a lot of communication via video links to schoolchildren and other audiences. Hopefully the remaining cosmonauts/astronauts, and the new arrivals will make efforts  continue such communication.

The Canadian Space Agency will mark the landing with a “Tweetup” at the Canadian Space Agency headquarters in Quebec. This will include live video coverage of the landing.

6791666_orig

Photo: Canadian Space Agency/Chris Hadfield

Activities connected with the departure of the Soyuz craft and its landing can be following live on NASA TV. Coverage will begin Sunday, May 12 EDT, with the change of command ceremony between Hadfield and Vinogradov. Coverage will continue May 13 and 14 EDT with Expedition 35 landing and post-landing activities.

  • NASA TV’s full coverage schedule is as follows (I have included both NZT and EDT):
  • Sunday, May 12, 3:40 p.m. EDT  — Expedition 35/36 change of command ceremony
  • Monday, May 13, 3:30 p.m. EDT 11:30 p.m. NZT– Farewells and hatch closure (hatch closure scheduled at 3:50 p.m. EDT, 7:50 a.m. Tuesday 14 NZT)
  • 6:45 p.m Monday, EDT. 10:45 a.m. Tuesday 14 NZT. — Undocking (undocking scheduled at 7:08 p.m. [11.08 a.m Tuesday 14 NZT])
  • 9:15 p.m. Monday EDT. 1:15 p.m. Tuesday 14 NZT — Deorbit burn and landing (deorbit burn scheduled at 9:37 p.m. EDT [1.37 p.m Tuesday 14 NZT], landing scheduled at 10:31 p.m. EDT [2.31 p.m. Tuesday 14 NZT]).
  • There will also be later video coverage of post landing activities.

Print This Post Print This Post

A beggar’s market? Ken Perrott May 08

4 Comments

homeless-atheist-giving-web

This guy, James, from Austin, Texas, may have discovered something about the market. He is homeless man named James and is performing something of a social experiment. James has laid out nine bowls in front of him, each labelled by faith: Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, etc. The sign he is holding reads “Which religion cares the most about the homeless?”

“The atheists seem very competitive. For them, it’s all about the competition,” James reasoned, but whether or not the Atheist passersby were genuinely good-hearted, just wanted to stick it to religion, or somewhere in between is unknown.

Not exactly the most scientific poll, but the marketing technique might just catch on.

Thanks to: Atheists Winning Homeless Man’s Giving Contest.

Print This Post Print This Post

Interfaith delusions Ken Perrott May 06

No Comments

I am not claiming that “interfaith” activity is bad – obviously it can do a lot to reduce inter-religious friction, hostility and violence. And that is certainly needed in parts of the world today. No – the bad arises when interfaith groups go outside their mandate and start thinking they represent everyone. Or they behave as if only religious “faiths” count and other, non-religious, beliefs should be ignored.

Boston Marathon

A blatant example occurred in the US in an “interfaith” service on April 18 after the bombing at the Boston Marathon. Despite repeated attempts  humanists and secular groups were denied a representative presence (see Healing Must Be For Everyone, Including the Nonreligious Affected By Boston Marathon Bombings). Effectively the organisers excluded non-religious from an important ceremony which should have been for every American.

Staks Rosch, in his examiner article Interfaith: The very name is exclusive – National atheism acknowledges that:

“Even people who don’t immediately hate atheists for our lack of belief in deities would be quick to point out that atheism isn’t a faith and therefore atheists don’t belong in an “interfaith” service.

The problem however is not with atheists for wanting to be included in interfaith services, but rather with interfaith services themselves for pretending that they are inclusive when their very name is exclusive. If they desire to be exclusive that is one thing, but doing so while pretending to be inclusive just doesn’t work. The fact is that atheism is on the rise in America and many atheists have built and are building humanist communities like the one at Harvard. We are here and we are not going away; we’re growing!”

We had similar issues in New Zealand in commemorations held for victims of the Christchurch earthquake. I understand that even the minor religions had to fight hard against dominance of the major Christian denominations for representation at the “interfaith” service. I guess humanists and other nonreligious groups just didn’t have a show.

“Interfaith” in local bodies

militant

This issue came up for me again when the local “interfaith” group achieved a small “victory” with the Hamilton City Council. Here’s how the Waikato interfaith council reported the City Council’s acceptance of their request:

The Waikato Interfaith Council (WIFCO) is pleased to announce that the Hamilton City Council has embraced the opening of each of its City Council meetings with an interfaith prayer. In 2013, these will be led by Waikato faith leaders from the Anglican, Baha’i, Buddhist, Catholic, Hindu, Jewish, Mormon, and Muslim communities. We would like to extend our vote of appreciation to Her Worship the Mayor Judy Hardaker, Hamilton City Councillor Daphne Bell, and all Hamilton City Council members for including both majority and minority religions in the opening of future Council meetings. This positive action sends an enthusiastic message of inclusion to all members of society and we sincerely hope that our prayers, led by a more representative selection of Waikato faith leaders, may help guide and encourage our Mayor and City Councillors in fulfilling the obligations for which they have been elected. WIFCO believes that this is a significant milestone in local governance that embraces all members of Waikato’s multicultural and multireligious communities. We hope that other Councils throughout New Zealand undertake such initiatives. [My bold]

So there’s the delusion – blatantly presented. The idea that holding religious prayers at City Council Meetings is somehow inclusive. Or that just by including prayers from minor religious groups as well as the major one is being inclusive.

But it’s not – as this figure from my recent post Fiddling with census figures for religion in New Zealand shows:


WICO’s agreement nice little arrangement with the Hamilton City Council is not inclusive because the largest New Zealand belief group is actually excluded!

Questions for consideration

  • Are ceremonies and prayers needed in local bodies and public events?
  • Should interfaith groups make sure there is representation of nonreligious beliefs in such “inclusive” ceremonies?
  • should nonreligious organisations be more proactive and request their recognition and offcial presence in “inclusive” ceremonies?
  • Why do “interfaith” groups and activities usually ignore the nonreligious?

See also:

Print This Post Print This Post

The limits of philosophy Ken Perrott May 02

No Comments

Or should I say - “The trouble with philosophy?”

Whatever. The title certainly makes a change from those like “The Limits of science.” How many times have I seen such titles on articles written by religious apologists, philosophers of religion, or even straight non-religious philosophers. These articles usually annoy me because they often set up a straw man – a claim that science has no limits – which no scientists is making.

So it’s nice to turn the tables for a change.

Monty Python’s Football – Philosophers often play for different teams

I often get criticised by philosophers, theologians, philosophers of religion and students of philosophy for making philosophical mistakes – or so they claim. I’ve been told that I should not write about the science of morality if I haven’t read and studied a long list of ancient, and not so ancient, philosophers. Commonly I am admonished for trying to determine an “ought from an is” – a violation of “Humes Law.” And I have been told that scientists should leave questions like origins of life and the universe, or the question of existence of supernatural beings, to philosophers. Such questions, they tell me, are outside the limits of science.

Oh yes, about now I also get accused of “scientism!”

Very often my reply to such criticisms is that there is no such thing as an accepted unified philosophical dogma. That the claims thrown at me come not from philosophy in general, but from a particular school of philosophy. There is “philosophy” and then there is “philosophy.” My critics should be up front and advance their claims as representative of their own philosophy, or the particular school of philosophy they adhere to, not as representative of philosophy in general.

“What do Philosophers Believe?

So I am pleased to see the on-line publication of the paper “What Do Philosophers Believe?“ by David Bourget and David J. Chalmers. This study confirms that philosophers are indeed divided on a number of issues – they hold a range of beliefs which can influence their philosophical thoughts and positions. These beliefs are influenced by a range of demographic and social factors. And philosophers themselves often have a false opinion of the degree to which different beliefs are common in their professional community.

Sean Carroll, at What Do Philosophers Believe?, and Jerry Coyne at The consensus of philosophers, have commented briefly on the paper. Have a look at those articles, or the paper itself (download here), for a full list of beliefs and their degree of support among philosophers. But here are a few which seem relevant to debates I have had here. (Sorry about the briefness of the terms – that’s related to the nature of the survey):

1. A priori knowledge: yes 71.1%; no 18.4%; other 10.5%.

5. Epistemic justification: externalism 42.7%; internalism 26.4%; other 30.8%.

6. External world: non-skeptical realism 81.6%; skepticism 4.8%; idealism 4.3%; other 9.2%.

8. God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.

10. Knowledge: empiricism 35.0%; rationalism 27.8%; other 37.2%.

15. Metaphilosophy: naturalism 49.8%; non-naturalism 25.9%; other 24.3%.

16. Mind: physicalism 56.5%; non-physicalism 27.1%; other 16.4%.

18. Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%.

20. Normative ethics: deontology 25.9%; consequentialism 23.6%; virtue ethics 18.2%; other 32.3%.

25. Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.

So I feel vindicated in answering my critics by pointing out the lack of consensus among philosophers on many issues. What right has a philosopher of religion to assure me their arguments against my statements are “philosophical” (and not just representative of a school of religious philosophy)? Similarly, why should I simply take on trust assurances that “philosophy” has a particular position on scientific realism, moral motivations or the nature of ethical norms?

There is “philosophy” and there is “philosophy.” If you wish to lecture me about philosophical positions at least be open about the philosophical school you are representing or adhere to.

No suprise at differences

Frankly, I am unsurprised at the lack of consensus among philosophers. It contrasts sharply with the situation in science – which on most matters has a high degree of consensus. OK, there are debates at the edges – and these can be intense. Remember the scene in “The Big Bang Theory” where a romantic alliance between two physicists broke up because one was a “String Theorist‘ while the other adhered to “Loop Gravity“.  Just imagine the problems they would have raising their children!

Ben Goren commented at Jerry’s website on the poor philosophical consensus compared with science :

“Survey a bunch of scientists on comparable topics, and you’ll find overwhelming consensus that, for example: Evolution is true; Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are basically right on (and anything that replaces either is going to have to reduce to both at suitable scales); that the Earth’s surface moves in manners described by Plate Tectonics; and so on.

Yet these jokers are doing good just to get a slim majority that don’t think that we’re all literally outside of our brains.”

But while we should be aware of the different levels of confidence in philosophical and scientific knowledge this  does not show differences in personal capabilities between the two professions. The difference is exactly what we should expect from the different nature of the two subjects.

Philosophy could be said to be an “armchair” subject. Philosophers reason and think. They apply logic to hypothetical situations. Often scenarios which have no possible reality but are at least “logical possibilities” will get a lot of attention. It’s also not surprising that demographic and social factors can influence philosophical reasoning. Humans are just not very rational and their reasoning often suffers from ideolgical and social motivations.

Science is usually a very much “hands on” subject. Ideas are tested against reality. Scientists are just as irrational (or human) as anyone else – they also easily fall into the trap of motivated reasoning. But the final arbiter of ideas for science is reality itself. Experiments can be performed or observations made to check predictions of hypotheses.

Of course philosophy and science does merge at the edges. There is actually a field of experimental philosophy and good philosophers do pay attention to scientific knowledge. On the other hand some science cannot always be tested in practice – at least with the current technological limits. Some scientists seem to work more like philosophers – and some philosophers work more like scientists.

But let’s get away from the idea that logic or philosophy is the final arbiter of knowledge. That is taking philosophy beyond its limits.

Similar articles

Print This Post Print This Post

April ’13 – NZ blogs sitemeter ranking Ken Perrott May 01

No Comments

There are now over 280 blogs on the list, although I am weeding out those which are no longer active or have removed public access to sitemeters. (Let me know if I weed out yours by mistake, or get your stats wrong).

Please note, the system is automatic and relies on blogs having sitemeters which allow public access to the stats.

Here are the rankings of New Zealand blogs with publicly available statistics for April 2013. Ranking is by visit numbers.

[Note: A few Sitemeter's were unaccessible this month - seems to be a recurring problem with Sitemeter. So if your blog has dropped off the bottom, and your Sitemeter is now working (or you have an alternative source) please let me know and I will make a correction.]

Every month I get queries from people wanting their own blog included. I encourage and am happy to respond to queries but have prepared a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) people can check out. Have a look at NZ Blog Rankings FAQ. This is particularly helpful to those wondering how to set up sitemeters.

I have listed the blogs in the table below, together with monthly visits and page view numbers for April, 2013.

Meanwhile I am still keen to hear of any other blogs with publicly available sitemeter or visitor stats that I have missed. Contact me if you know of any or wish help adding publicly available stats to your bog.

You can see data for previous months at Blog Ranks

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings

Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email

Find out how to get Subscription & email updates

Image Credit: Ryan Shell

68aVomkreig19373594

Visit Rank Blog Visits/month Page Views/month
1 Whale oil beef hooked 559249 1268983
2 Kiwiblog 360179 661588
3 The Standard 179003 387759
4 Auckland Transport Blog 126507 132520
5 The Daily Blog 91432 196929
6 The REAL Steve Gray 69873 71290
7 Liturgy 56480 78791
8 Throng New Zealand 56283 110898
9 The Dim-Post 50454 72145
10 Sciblogs 48462 65013
11 Colour me there 42040 56791
12 No Right Turn 31695 42309
13 NewZeal 30874 41299
14 No Minister 28317 33635
15 Not PC 22050 26188
16 Homepaddock 20471 25469
17 Imperator Fish 18064 27292
18 Music of sound 17007 23790
19 Keeping stock 16185 23685
20 Offsetting Behaviour 15867 22682
21 Hot Topic 14905 23643
21A Fields of Blood 14637 22241
22 Mousehouse 10661 17895
23 TVHE 10279 11890
24 MandM 9563 12181
25 New Zealand Conservative 9554 12995
26 Autism & Oughtisms 9383 9498
27 Open Parachute 9194 13395
28 Kiwi Cakes 9114 14559
29 Liberation 8688 11820
30 Chris no-frills 8461 10649
31 Bill Bennett 8446 11007
32 Dark Brightness 8317 8574
33 Lance Wiggs 7951 9554
34 Aotearoa: A wider perspective 7035 9368
35 Lindsay Mitchell 6881 9537
36 Matte Shot 6249 11049
37 Tikorangi The Jury Garden 6094 8731
38 Say Hello to my Little Friend 6047 9911
39 Code for Life 5995 6974
40 Chronicles of Illusions 5751 7065
41 Scepticon 5736 6547
42 Workers Party 5412 7062
43 Cluttercut 5146 7663
44 Avalon’s Guide: Emigrate to New Zealand 5059 6522
45 Dark Brightness 5002 7830
46 Anglican down under 4790 7508
47 Home education Foundation 4661 6725
48 Bob McKerrow – Wayfarer 4305 5389
49 Ideologically impure 4245 5401
50 Rugby Tips 4233 5884
51 Teaching the Teacher 4170 5714
52 Reading the maps 3758 4757
53 Scotty Donaldson 3656 9561
54 Quote Unquote 3421 3987
55 Ben Ross: Auckland 3245 5639
56 Crime Watch 3138 4914
57 Otagosh 3117 4826
58 Canterbury Atheists 3078 3756
59 In the back of the net 2963 4866
60 Open Parachute @ Sciblogs 2957 3480
61 Sustain:if:able Kiwi 2764 4233
62 roarprawn 2666 3384
63 Windy Hilltops 2659 4747
65 ICT Teaching and Learning  2397 2718
66 Socialist Aotearoa 2129 2884
67 james lin’s blog 2032 2072
68 Waiology 1992 2668
69 Life of Andrew 1910 2316
70 A Bee of a Certain Age 1905 2530
71 Rodney’s Aviation Ramblings 1893 2309
72 coNZervative 1837 2806
73 Notes from the bartender 1822 2068
74 Eye on the ICR 1787 2211
75 PM of NZ 1731 2235
76 misc.ience @ Sciblogs 1716 1927
77 Halfdone 1675 1976
78 In a strange land 1646 1822
79 Goings on at the Madbush Farm 1566 1986
80 Life Behind the IRon Drape 1558 4480
81 Capitalism is bad 1535 2639
82 Cimba7200′s thoughts 1484 1949
83 Media Sport and Other Rantings 1462 1876
84 Blessed Economist 1458 2110
85 Helen Heath 1420 1799
86 Put ‘em all on an island 1416 1884
87 True Paradigm 1377 2031
88 Michael Jeans 1373 1931
89 McMillan.org.nz 1350 2028
90 From the Earth’s End 1320 1937
91 The Fundy Post 1319 1739
92 One Furious Llama 1317 1495
93 goNZo Freakpower Brains Trust 1289 1491
94 Hitting Metal With A Hammer 1277 1686
95 Room 5 @ Melville Intermediate School 1200 2580
96 eyeCONTACT 1171 1597
97 Tales from a Café Chick# 1110 1620
98 Undeniably Atheist 1084 1375
99 sticK 1058 1334
100 Brad Heap 1055 1347
101 The Kiwifruit blog 1020 1664
102 Life is not a race to be finished first 1018 1438
103 The Genetically Insane 1017 1382
104 Jo Blogs 975 1334
105 Anne Free Spirit 960 1590
106 Show your workings 952 1131
107 Episto 940 1366
108 Webweaver’s world 928 1095
109 Pdubyah -  a life just as ordinary 912 1281
110 Spatula Forum 901 929
111 Recess Monkey 875 1277
112 Skeptiocon @ Sciblogs 865 956
113 White & Black 846 1105
114 Looking in the square 811 1239
115 Derek’s blog 793 1276
116 Earth is my favourite planet 787 882
117 Unity Blog 740 918
118 Stitchbird 732 1101
119 Family integrity 717 827
120 Artichoke 672 852
121 AmeriNZ 641 840
122 Write to travel 579 735
123 Pointless and adsurb 562 730
124 Born on State Highway 1 542 715
125 Glenview 9 535 644
126 Ruggerblogger 532 766
127 Yea or Nay 531 620
128 Something Interesting to read 522 694
129 Tararua District Library 521 687
129 ZNO 521 666
131 Anarchia 518 621
132 Exile in New zealand 502 663
133 Creative Voice# 480 1170
134 Dad4justice 459 547
135 Mountains of Our Minds# 450 570
136 Software development and stuff 425 459
137 Moving the crowd 420 780
138 The First Fifteen @ TIS 404 794
139 Canvassing for opinion 401 512
140 Get Out Gertrude! 392 655
141 Nine Inch Nails 390 1110
141 Glennis’s Blog Page# 390 540
143 Upstage 388 737
143a Brennan McDonald 387 417
144 Toni Twiss 381 395
145 Springston School Library Blog 361 708
146 Taradale Blog# 360 690
147 Samuel Dennis 359 381
148 Journey to a mini me 356 610
149 MartinIsti Blog 355 463
150 Stratford Aerodrome 343 527
151 Shackleford Hurtmore’s World  324 414
152 Palmerston North.ifo 318 517
153 kiwi simplexity 307 336
154 jo russ photo diary 301 418
155 Room 24, 2012 300 360
155 Infectious thoughts 300 339
157 Wokarella 296 785
158 Lost Soul 278 353
159 UpsideBackwards 276 309
160 The Well read Kitty 274 384
161 Café Chick Project 365# 270 330
162 Joe Hendren 264 317
163 Prior Knowledge  262 298
164 ElephaNZa  257 261
165 Carolyn’s blog 253 317
166 Uncensored 250 365
167 Bhanter.com 246 291
168 Nelsonian’s life 240 420
169 Kiwidollar.com 237 266
170 High voltage learning during the Christchurch earthquakes 223 410
171 Politicalisation 214 258
172 Nathanael Baker 208 236
173 KJT 207 210
174 Cut your hair 206 216
175 Ellie Great 185 249
176 Millenium X 184 326
177 Manaia Kindergarten 180 210
177 Sleeping with books 180 210
179 Discovery Time 178 266
180 Today is my birthday 175 196
181 Frontlawn 170 195
182 Social Policy Bonds Blog 163 195
183 Dragonsinger 162 208
184 kiwiincanberra 161 264
184 Whitireia Journalism School 161 189
186 Kutarere’s Blog  160 185
187 University of Otago, Law Library Blog 158 243
188 Tha Fatal Paradox 151 177
189 At home with Rose 150 203
189 Korero Pt England 150 240
189 John Macilree’s Weblog# 150 180
192 Sam Books and Thoughts 146 182
193 Rest Area 300m 143 182
194 Oracle of Okarito 136 223
195 Neil Stockley 135 157
196 Green is good 134 167
197 Rob’s Blockhead Blog 133 146
198 You’re Underthinking 132 154
199 Shelly van Soest Artist 131 180
200 Mars 2 Earth 130 149
201 And all these things 125 149
202 TimG_Oz Blog 124 154
203 AnneKcam 120 330
203 Pt England Scribes 120 150
205 The Secret Life of Russ  106 117
206 Busy Peas 102 122
207 New Zealand female Firefighter calendar 101 109
208 Keith Johnson Wellington NZ 93 103
208 Islamnz.com 93 103
210 Making IT Happen 90 120
211 SageNZ 88 112
212 In this moment 83 98
213 Mad Young Thing 82 103
214 New Zealand Indian Fine Arts Society 74 100
215 Tangled up in purple 73 95
216 Anti-Dismal 69 79
217 Blair for Mayor 68 88
218 LoveColour Blog 66 89
219 Relatively science 61 71
220 KiwiSmith Family 60 82
220 Virtual North 60 90
220 Football Tragic NZ 60 60
220 Anticipating future impacts 60 60
220 James McKerrow – Surveyor 1834-1919# 60 90
220 The Official Ebenezer Teichelmann Blog# 60 90
226 pasture Harmonies 55 57
227 Liminal Spaces 53 66
228 Global Village Governance  52 91
228 global village governance 52 91
228 Porirua EMO 52 69
231 Moments of Whimsy 46 49
232 Island in the Pacific  45 49
233 A developing Geneticist 43 49
234 Think Beyond 42 52
235 ObservatioNZ 41 56
236 Kiwiaventuras 40 47
237 Scott & Sarah Kennedy 38 43
238 SilverSpikes Photography  34 47
239 Moderation Blog 32 35
239 Rambling Reflections 32 32
239 ZL2UCX’s Blog 32 35
239 Einstein Music Journal# 32 45
243 Warrington Taylor# 30 30
243 Chris Jillet – Mountaineer# 30 30
243 ICTPD 30 30
243 Kiwi Chronicles 30 30
243 But Now 30 120
243 The Catalyst 30 30
243 Room 6 Koromatua School# 30 210
243 Challenge Yourself to Blog# 30 30
243 Room 6′s Blog 30 0
252 Robtuckerpix’s Blog  24 33
253 Strife and War 22 23
253 TraLIS blog 22 25
255 Life Behind the IRon Drape 20 20
256 The Watercooler 18 18
256 Unknown Future 18 18
258 DMP Lead Free 16 21
259 Ad Review 15 17
260 amiria [blog] 12 14
261 Here I stand 11 15
261 Greedy for colour 11 11
263 Fuller’s watch# 10 12
264 Poneke’s Weblog 9 10
265 Roger Nome’s progressive Politics 7 7
266 Wine Notes by gary Bowering 2 2
266 ah! New Year’s Resolution 2 2
268 round design 1 1

saasasa

Print This Post Print This Post

‘The Unbelievers’ and science Ken Perrott Apr 30

No Comments

The World Premiere of  the film “The Unbelievers” took place on Monday in Toronto.

The YouTube site for the film’s trailer describes it this way:

“‘The Unbelievers’ follows renowned scientists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss across the globe as they speak publicly about the importance of science and reason in the modern world – encouraging others to cast off antiquated religious and politically motivated approaches toward important current issues. The film includes interviews with celebrities and other influential people who support the work of these controversial speakers,trailer of the film”

The premiere, and the three later screenings were sold out. I posted the trailer for the film at The “dynamic duo” of science? Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss spoke at the Premiere. But they were also interviewed by Global’s The Morning Show, on Monday morning.

It’s an excellent interview – they were not heckled in the way many US interviewers do. And they managed to calmly present their story about science, and describe their attitude to religion.

Only 12 minutes long its worth  watching. Click on the image below to go to the Global New’s Video.

Dawkins-Krauss

Credit: Dawkins, Krauss have faith in ‘The Unbelievers’ | Globalnews.ca.

Print This Post Print This Post

« Older Entries

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer