Well that argument or observation can work both ways. Take for example your loaded question....
"Is this or is this not a lot like most exchanges between realists and denialists?"
So right off the bat, you infer that climate change science supporters are "realists". Well doesn't that biased question imply that people who question the climate science of AGW are not realistic?
Based on what? So who gets to determine that? Isn't the point of science to argue and debate the evidences for and against a particular theory or model? And even if many evidences support a theory, how many evidences does it take to reject a theory? Don't theories/models have to make valid predictions of what we should observe?
As I see it, the pidgeon chess claim has been used by both sides of various debates on Creation/Evolution and global warming, etc.. as an ad hominem attack which doesn't get us anywhere nor does it offer a valid way to counter any arguments based on evidence. The arguments/debates should be about the various evidences pro and con and critical thinking without any exterior influences. Yet many people already have their minds made up as to a certain point of view or a priori assumptions and only accept evidences which support their view.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain
“The greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge.”
Professor Mike Disney.... Cardiff University
"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science.
"Cargo Cult Science" Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!,
Richard Feynman
Just accept that no-one has a good handle on how things started. Even the Big Bang is now suspect. So Stephen Hawking might not be right after all. Wasn't Big Bang just another way of saying Creation?
Also, very few people here actually offer answers. Most are here to direct abuse at "deniers". Clearly, many such people do not take the time to discover the views of the people they abuse.
Some just like to bask in the reflected glory of others. Like the hangers on to a school bully.
The interesting thing is that, if anyone stopped to listen, the difference between the opposing views is not great. Both sides agree that CO2 causes warming and that man must have an influence. According to a recent question here, neither side believes the consequences will be catastrophic. The only point at issue is how much effect man has on the warming. Science is unable to provide a central estimate after all this time.
So what are we still arguing about?
Sure, it is a pigeon chess if you fill yourself like a pigeon.
Answering somebody's question is your choice. You can play pigeon, or you can answer... :D
Btw, any discussions rarely lead to the truth. In most cases each side stands on its principals. That is not only truth for creationists and evolutionists, that is truth for any discussions.
Superficially, the analogy makes sense in many (but not all, or even most) cases, in the sense of deniers behaving badly by disrespecting truth, logic and facts and being willfully ignorant. There are plenty of non-deniers (who could for that subset also be called "believers") but Qs and As from them are way less common on YA.
Below the surface, the analogy would break down quickly if attempted:
1) Instead of a crapping pigeon, the denier chess player is more often like a clever juvenile delinquent who is never punished but allowed to keep trying to win by cheating, using every trick ever conceived.
The delinquent player will use a wide range of lies and tricks in order to try to take back moves that turn out to be to his disadvantage, will repeatedly try to change or reinterpret the rules, will surreptitiously move pieces on the board, or remove those of his opponent or put back on the board his own captured ones, or secretly swap captured pieces for the more or less powerful on board pieces. Throughout, he will complain the black and white are really but shades of gray, that some pawns were bishops that untrustworthy chess organizers "hid the decline" in length of, that the rules have been rigged against him, that his opponent's queen and rooks are actually hoaxes, that past captures of his pieces didn't really happen, they were just examples of the "natural cycles" of pieces falling off the board. And, that the opponent is being "alarmist" whenever he tries to enforce the rules.
2) What is here is more a like large jigsaw puzzle which several people are trying, sometimes competitively but more often cooperatively, to assemble. A denier comes over declaring that the puzzle is an illusion, or if not, that what it would depict when completed is illegal, dangerous or immoral, and those assembling it are oppressively taxing the fingers of those who would rather play solitaire or listen to the radio, and will steal pieces, or undo them, or deliberately squeeze them in where they don't fit, claim that they are actually playing chess, and that "true puzzle assemblers" are those whose "expertise" at chess stops harmful puzzles from being put together.
Personally I can see how someone could make a metaphor like that about those two types of people arguing. I would personally just avoid arguing with people that believe in creationism as it doesn't bother me that they believe such things. It's not like they're going around talking about how awesome Justin Bieber is or something. It's great that they can believe in such an uplifting religion and truly believe that when they die they're going to a wonderful place that they can live in for eternity simply because they believe in jesus. To try to persuade them that their religion is bullsh*t and to get into an argument about it kind of seems cruel and pointless to me. You could be a nice person and you could be still trying to persuade creationists that their religion is a bunch of lies but more likely you're probably kind of a douchebag mca**hole face. Atheists argue that there's no proof that god exists, but there's also no proof that god doesn't exist.
That pretty much describes what it is like in an exchange between realists and denialists. I notice that denialists usually accuse realists of denegrating their scientists. And some realists, but not all, are guilty of doing that. But when shown the evidence, in almost all cases, denialists respond, well, by denegrating scientists.
Well, Too true, too true. Ils savent qu'ils ne peuvent pas s'opposer à de bons points de leurs adversaires afin qu'ils recourent à ad hominem.
Oh Chem so sure of your self are we. One day, I promise if you do not wake up soon, your going to be sitting in your home waiting for the military to deliver your daily food and water. You will be crying when your malnutritioned daughter looks up and says "mommy what is wrong" your going to reply "I feel so stupid. I was too busy reading science books arguing about AGW and I never listened to Billy and spent my time researching the conspiracy that has now turned us into economic slaves for the elite. Honey you need to go to school all day, mommy has to work till dark in order for us to get our meals tomorrow." Daughter replies "but mommy it is boring and so long, your sick just stay home." You reply "I can't honey the fascist state we live in won't feed us and give us water unless I work all day and you go to school all day.....whyyyyy"
BTW Science can not prove Humans just evolved from homo erectus magically. It has pinpointed time periods of which massive evolution took place. We have ancient accounts telling us that humans were created by aliens coming down and mating with us right around the same time science believes massive evolution change occured. Do you think the ancient cultures just wrote children stories in stone? You realize that is hard work for just to record a childrens story......Why do we have so many different races of people? The scientific explanation of climate and environment in certain area's manipulated genes to create all these different races is absolutely a guess and total shot in the dark. We have more "junk DNA" then any other species. DNA that science has no clue why it is there and where it came from other then more lame guesses and "theories" just like God creating man is a theory. You have zero proof. All science is is a new age religion that will be the only religion once the world is completely controlled by the UN.
"But I can sample ice cores and see the truth" yes and David Copperfield can make you think the large locomotive you just saw disappeared. It is called magic or slight of hand....the what came first the chicken or the egg question. "See this experiment monkey do this and that then you will see AGW is true."
"But NASA temperature data says this" yes and NASA is LYING to you. NASA was created by the Nazi's it is the biggest distributor of magic in the world. Please research NASA operation paperclip or type NASA whistle Blowers or NASA secrets in a search. Then call them and demand certain documents via FOIA.
I have at least, with the minimal space provided, given you all starting points to research deeper. I literally could write a book of over 1,000 pages on the extraordinary amount of evidence out there. Your first clue is getting out of America and talking to people in other countries not connected to the De facto world government(UN). What you will find out is the UN countries bully the other ones into conforming and obeying world order........we are the bad guy. These days they make it a lot of work to go to places like Syria, Egypt or Iran.....gee wonder why it is hard to leave a "free country".....oh yeah they can't "racially profile" so they treat you like your a criminal if you travel to non UN countries......this is because it will break your propaganda spell so they make it hard so you just say "screw it, let's go to Disney World instead" Of course it is possible but it is like a 6 month process especially when you go to "high risk" countries like Syria or Libya especially when your reason is tourism and not work.
Foolish begging the question fallacy. Alarmunists are weak-minded fools, whose arrogance is only a sign of how easily the Dunning-Kruger effect can work on people who think they are entitled.
See I can do the same insulting begging the question fallacy too. Guess that means I win, right????
Now lets actually discuss the TRUTH. The truth is that in order to justify your trillion dollar taxation schemes, you bear the burden of proof not that the climate is warming, but that exponential warming is occurring. This you warmers show by showing past LINEAR warming with linear regression, while pretending the earth is an unstable system where CO2 effects are magnified by a factor of 3, which you have determined by extreme assumptions and surrogates of surrogates as "evidence".
Fact is that our reluctance to accept your "evidence" is NOT a sign of stupidity. It is a sign that we understand bias, the effect of politics on science throughout history, and what the true burden of proof is for a group asking for trillions of dollars of expenditures.
If you want to discuss renewable resources, then we can discuss this without resorting to a presumed ecological apocalypse. But if you want us to accept your complete uncertainty while you claim your crystal ball works to the cost of trillions, SORRY, not going to happen.
You got it wrong. That's the analogy for arguing with a scientist.
There's a quote floating around about arguing with creationists being like playing chess with a pigeon. I don't recall the source, or the exact wording, but it's something like "The pigeon will knock over the pieces, crap on the board, then fly back to its flock declaring victory".
Is this or is this not a lot like most exchanges between realists and denialists? To what degree and/or in what ways? Does it still make sense to answer their (often rather inane) questions, even if it is just pigeon chess, for the benefit of any non-denialists reading the question? Any other thoughts?
You could train the pigeon to at least use the timer. Alarmist you couldn't. There isn't any comparison concerning alarmist and realist. Why is it all the nut jobs think they are the only sane people?
Sounds more like something a SQUAB would do , you know someone young and immature.
It is a good a question. It is a fact that realists and denaialis are arguing on topics which they do not properly understand and one of them behaves like pigeon and crap on te board n fly away.You are right. Nice qesion and very well expressed.
That's derivative of an old saw about inconsiderate houseguests dubbed 'Robin.' When someone would ask why the guest was called Robin, the response was, 'well, he came into our nest, ate everything in sight, crapped all over and then flew off.'
I think the description of denialists and playing chess with a pigeon is apt enough when people come in solely to disrupt the forum or vent some kind of fervor really unrelated to the topic at hand. I suspect that fervor is often influenced by alcohol and someone who comes here after drinking too much must have a very barren life. But that is speculation on my part and I can't really say more than anyone else who may be in that pickle. Or pickled.
But Kano makes a good point-little real scientific information is exchanged here, with a few notable exceptions that Kano notes in part, and I think that is telling. I am a regular here but consider myself an outsider; perhaps the status I assign myself allows me more objectivity than some, so I have a couple of observations that others might want to consider.
Politics in collusion with technology today has rendered truth transient, and fact subject to question. We are all victims of that. However, people of a mind to do so feel justified in challenging any belief, structured or otherwise...e.g. 'well that isn't good enough for me.' Other people get tired of responding to that and go elsewhere.
The practice also leads respondents to grow wary of what is all too often tantamount to entrapment, a common practice here that some feel provide that 'gotcha' moment that is reminiscent of political tactics which are designed not to resolve an issue, but to undermine the credibility of the opposition view. It seems that-usually-those who practice this deception are ultimately found out even by their most rapt patrons and find well-deserved oblivion, but until that occurs there is a purgatory of sorts that the general population has to endure. Here in the U.S. it may be exacerbated by our pride in 'pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps,' 'yankee ingenuity,' and 'a good ol' dose of common sense.' All of which may have been true a hundred and fifty years ago and grew to mythological status which too many assume as an unearned herald. The point is that many people who may have relevant information and opinions that we should consider tire of the game and go away, and collectively we grow poorer because of it.
However, even those who have earned the label of denier-which once again I will postulate is applied too readily-ask legitimate questions, and for some of us, those questions present the opportunity to study new information or learn a nuance about climate that has to date remained undisclosed. Even allowing for the entrapping plots that so often lurk beneath the questions, it would be far more productive if the asker and respondents could avoid the insults-often politically based-that are far too common here, address the specific question and discuss areas of disagreement rather than initiating the bone-wearying name-calling that has come to dominate this forum and driven so many away. As a good friend of mine once said-and, coincidentally enough, an arch conservative-"It is OK to disagree." Simple, yet profound, and from one of my few friends who can focus on issues and discuss them rationally rather than falling back on ideology and the evil nature of the opposing view.
If people here are sincerely interested in promoting the ideas they feel most strongly about and influencing others to their way of thinking, the example provided by our political leadership and media is not behavior that is worthy of emulating. 'Pigeon Chess' may indeed be descriptive of some people who come here not to learn and exchange ideas but to abuse and insult others, and without debating the chicken and egg scenario that observation presents, one might suggest-while allowing for the frustration with the plethora of non-productive exchanges here-that there are people on both sides of the climate change issue whose main purpose in this forum and elsewhere is to vent their spleen. I know this is too much to hope for, but I for one and despite my minor background and interest in psychology, wish the regular participants here-who disagree strongly on a number of fronts-could at least refrain from the name-calling and insults in the interests of discussing the real issues rationally, set an example and tone that will be more productive, and jointly discourage the demonization and mischaracterization of others that has come to dominate here.
Perhaps we could start by avoiding questions like this one.
Your description seems to fit to Dook and many of the blog climate warriors.
When I ask scientific questions I get very few answers, with the exception of Pegminer and Jeff M, usually all the replies are consensus, IPCC says, skeptical science says and other rubbish, in fact why didn't you contribute to the holocene optimum question.
It looks like warmers are the pigeon brained ones
More like talking to a brick wall
