Common Knowledge... retraction/revision
At the very least, Sunday night's post is simply further evidence that I need to find a way to attach a breathalizer to my "Post to Talk_Politics" button.
I failed to properly research my opponents position or vet my own sources and as a result I was rightfully smacked down by this community. As said, ".. all you've done here is prove what you've sought to disprove."
So having had the question "...and what did we learn from this experiance?" pounded into my head from a young age I started to ask myself "what did I do wrong?"
The short answer, was kind of obvious.
The long answer...
Every so often somebody brings up some study on the psychological differensces between Liberals and Conservatives. Inevitably these studies are used by one side or another to say "look at those stupid fear-mongering Righties, jumping at shadows." or "Look at those irrational lefties letting sentiment get in the way of proper judgment."
Of the two profiles described in the study I most probably fall into the "fear" camp as I tend to view day-to-day life as a series of contingencies and threats to be planned for/countered. I don't think I'm particularly fearful but then again what I consider to be an "Earthquake/road-side emergancy kit" would in fact be suitable provisions for a Red-Cross mission to the Sudanese outback.
As you may have also noticed I spend a great deal of mental energy trying to assertain the whys and what-fors behind everything. This serves me well in Math and Science but leads to trouble in other fields. It seems I'm hard-wired too seek meaning inconsistancies and coincidence. I'd probably be a truther/birther/brietbart-planned-wienergater if there weren't so many obvious holes in the logic.
Ok, but what does it have to do with the topic at hand? I went forth and tried to convince people to question thier base assumptions, and failed to properly question my own. I wanted my arguments to be true and more importantly I believed them because the initial evidnese/reasoning confirmed to my prexisting expectations. In doing so I disproved (or at the very least cast doubt on) my own point. I broke my own rules and displayed a lack of rigour on my own part.
As far as I can assertain, it is an objective fact that there are scientists who do not think global warming is anthropological in nature. Calling someone "Misinformed" stating as much must be either a mistake or willful misdirection. (This is where internal assumptions come in) 1: That the writers of Rolling Stone hold themselves to the same level of rigour that I (ordinarily) do. 2: Our starting positions and definitions are similar. and 3: That any and all inconsistancies are signifigant.
Why do I assume under-handedness on the part of those who I argue against? The answer is frightening both in it's simplicity and in the fact that I had never actually admitted it to my self.
That's what I'd do.
I'm an asshole and I invoke hyperbole for polemical effect.
I failed to properly research my opponents position or vet my own sources and as a result I was rightfully smacked down by this community. As said, ".. all you've done here is prove what you've sought to disprove."
So having had the question "...and what did we learn from this experiance?" pounded into my head from a young age I started to ask myself "what did I do wrong?"
The short answer, was kind of obvious.
The long answer...
Every so often somebody brings up some study on the psychological differensces between Liberals and Conservatives. Inevitably these studies are used by one side or another to say "look at those stupid fear-mongering Righties, jumping at shadows." or "Look at those irrational lefties letting sentiment get in the way of proper judgment."
Of the two profiles described in the study I most probably fall into the "fear" camp as I tend to view day-to-day life as a series of contingencies and threats to be planned for/countered. I don't think I'm particularly fearful but then again what I consider to be an "Earthquake/road-side emergancy kit" would in fact be suitable provisions for a Red-Cross mission to the Sudanese outback.
As you may have also noticed I spend a great deal of mental energy trying to assertain the whys and what-fors behind everything. This serves me well in Math and Science but leads to trouble in other fields. It seems I'm hard-wired too seek meaning inconsistancies and coincidence. I'd probably be a truther/birther/brietbart-planned-wienergater if there weren't so many obvious holes in the logic.
Ok, but what does it have to do with the topic at hand? I went forth and tried to convince people to question thier base assumptions, and failed to properly question my own. I wanted my arguments to be true and more importantly I believed them because the initial evidnese/reasoning confirmed to my prexisting expectations. In doing so I disproved (or at the very least cast doubt on) my own point. I broke my own rules and displayed a lack of rigour on my own part.
As far as I can assertain, it is an objective fact that there are scientists who do not think global warming is anthropological in nature. Calling someone "Misinformed" stating as much must be either a mistake or willful misdirection. (This is where internal assumptions come in) 1: That the writers of Rolling Stone hold themselves to the same level of rigour that I (ordinarily) do. 2: Our starting positions and definitions are similar. and 3: That any and all inconsistancies are signifigant.
Why do I assume under-handedness on the part of those who I argue against? The answer is frightening both in it's simplicity and in the fact that I had never actually admitted it to my self.
That's what I'd do.
I'm an asshole and I invoke hyperbole for polemical effect.