I think 2023 was the highest level of fatal unprovoked shark attacks in Australia? Great whites have been showing uncharacteristic behaviour in the waters off South Africa- there has been speculation that its due to climatic change. A great white apparently was seen of the west coast of Scotland. Thankfully the waters here are so polluted and cold that nobody goes swimming.
In my view, one can carry doubt too far. As I may have mentioned in my comment to the earlier piece, I always leave a "2% doubt" on most statement, even scientific "facts", simply because humans make a lot of mistakes.
I don't see the value of doubting things like the moon landing simply because some lunatics doubt it. There's a difference between "conspiracy theory" - depending on how one defines that - and lunacy. As I've also mentioned in many places, there's a difference between *plausible* "conspiracy theories" and implausible ones. That 9/11 was allowed to occur (if not an outright "inside job") is plausible ; that Trump is a grey alien is not; that grey aliens exist is in a fringe area of plausibility.
Carrying doubt too far comes when one is simply unable to make rational assessments of probability because "I could be wrong" and thus takes no action or makes no decisions.
Also relevant to that is whether "having an opinion" is even necessary. For instance, I could theoretically completely ignore everything going on in the world simply because I think it has zero effect on me - which on a daily basis it does. But since things like the wars going on could eventually escalate to affect me, I pay attention to them (too much attention, in fact.) So I have to make assessments of them and that requires that I assess the various claims made.
But that doesn't mean I assume these assessments are "facts". They are probabilistic estimates. If one confines oneself to probabilistic estimates, the issue of "doubt" tends to recede in importance. Being a "doubting Thomas" is not so important. What is important is that one makes decisions that are useful in one's life. Whether these decisions are based on "fact" is not relevant - only what the effect is.
Coincidentally I just read yesterday a piece put out by the CIA by a person called Sherman Kent, who put forth a prescription for how words should be used to describe probabilities called "Words of Estimative Probability." See here:
In the intelligence community, very little is certain. But decisions have to be made and they have to be made in probabilistic terms. Doubt as a philosophy is not as useful there as being able to quantify that doubt.
When it comes to things like global warming, I am very much an agnostic. I don't have the technical expertise to judge the claims of either side. While one can frequently identify competing claims on a technical subject as being influenced by ideology or politics, when it comes to the technical aspects themselves one has to be an expert in the technical field involved. If one isn't such an expert, one's assessments are likely to be as skewed as the ones made on ideological bases. That's when one's own ideological biases are likely to sneak in.
Finally, there remains value in ascribing a higher probability of correctness in scientific consensus than on those who challenge that consensus, even if the scientific consensus frequently proves to be incorrect eventually. It's simply much more likely that "the science" is right than the opposite if it has managed to achieve consensus.
Assuming that the majority of members of a scientific or technical community are wrong due to ideology or politics - especially when the members of that community are large, e.g., the medical community re Covid - is usually a bad bet. I don't know how big the climatology community is or whether it is easily influenced by money or ideology or political pressure, but I know the entire medical community of the world including China is not. So people who claim Covid was a "hoax" are morons.
No one doubts the Earth revolves around the sun even if the consensus said the opposite for thousands of years.
There's also the opposite issue of "cui bono" when everything is thrown into doubt. Who benefits when nothing is certain? People trying to bamboozle you, that's who. And that's exactly what a number of people are arguing these days: the collapse of respect for and the rise of doubt in the scientific method and its replacement by the notion that everyone is smart enough to pass judgement on scientific theories regardless of their expertise in the science involved.
Check out:
The Death of Expertise
Tom Nichols
The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters
I started with this quote from Bertrand Russel: 'To teach people to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it'. This is what I'm trying to promote here.
It is far easier for people up north in Europe to dismiss the theory of global warming. Here in Australia we are having to find new colours for our temperature maps because the temperatures that are occurring are off the old scale. We are also experiencing bushfires of unprecedented savagery, and a new phenomenon - rain bombs - clouds that don't move but just stay and bomb one place. Last year two rain bombs here dropped 1,600mm in 4 days. Flora and fauna are appearing much further south, and the Great Barrier reef (which I have dived on over decades) is now bleached and decayed because of higher water temperatures.
As for politics, the 'left' was only ever about closing the inequality gap, and providing government services to all. Any other issues associated with the 'left' are not 'left' issues.
Im a big doors fan. The keyboardist, Ray Manzarek, like to spin the Story that Jim Morrison didn't die in Paris but escaped to Africa. I did an analysis of the evidence. Is that agnosticism? He definitely died in Paris in 1971.
Much appreciated.
Cheers
I think 2023 was the highest level of fatal unprovoked shark attacks in Australia? Great whites have been showing uncharacteristic behaviour in the waters off South Africa- there has been speculation that its due to climatic change. A great white apparently was seen of the west coast of Scotland. Thankfully the waters here are so polluted and cold that nobody goes swimming.
There is speculation that lots of things are due to 'climate change'. Anyway, I live on the east coast of Scotland so I should be OK to have a swim!
In my view, one can carry doubt too far. As I may have mentioned in my comment to the earlier piece, I always leave a "2% doubt" on most statement, even scientific "facts", simply because humans make a lot of mistakes.
I don't see the value of doubting things like the moon landing simply because some lunatics doubt it. There's a difference between "conspiracy theory" - depending on how one defines that - and lunacy. As I've also mentioned in many places, there's a difference between *plausible* "conspiracy theories" and implausible ones. That 9/11 was allowed to occur (if not an outright "inside job") is plausible ; that Trump is a grey alien is not; that grey aliens exist is in a fringe area of plausibility.
Carrying doubt too far comes when one is simply unable to make rational assessments of probability because "I could be wrong" and thus takes no action or makes no decisions.
Also relevant to that is whether "having an opinion" is even necessary. For instance, I could theoretically completely ignore everything going on in the world simply because I think it has zero effect on me - which on a daily basis it does. But since things like the wars going on could eventually escalate to affect me, I pay attention to them (too much attention, in fact.) So I have to make assessments of them and that requires that I assess the various claims made.
But that doesn't mean I assume these assessments are "facts". They are probabilistic estimates. If one confines oneself to probabilistic estimates, the issue of "doubt" tends to recede in importance. Being a "doubting Thomas" is not so important. What is important is that one makes decisions that are useful in one's life. Whether these decisions are based on "fact" is not relevant - only what the effect is.
Coincidentally I just read yesterday a piece put out by the CIA by a person called Sherman Kent, who put forth a prescription for how words should be used to describe probabilities called "Words of Estimative Probability." See here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability
In the intelligence community, very little is certain. But decisions have to be made and they have to be made in probabilistic terms. Doubt as a philosophy is not as useful there as being able to quantify that doubt.
When it comes to things like global warming, I am very much an agnostic. I don't have the technical expertise to judge the claims of either side. While one can frequently identify competing claims on a technical subject as being influenced by ideology or politics, when it comes to the technical aspects themselves one has to be an expert in the technical field involved. If one isn't such an expert, one's assessments are likely to be as skewed as the ones made on ideological bases. That's when one's own ideological biases are likely to sneak in.
Finally, there remains value in ascribing a higher probability of correctness in scientific consensus than on those who challenge that consensus, even if the scientific consensus frequently proves to be incorrect eventually. It's simply much more likely that "the science" is right than the opposite if it has managed to achieve consensus.
Assuming that the majority of members of a scientific or technical community are wrong due to ideology or politics - especially when the members of that community are large, e.g., the medical community re Covid - is usually a bad bet. I don't know how big the climatology community is or whether it is easily influenced by money or ideology or political pressure, but I know the entire medical community of the world including China is not. So people who claim Covid was a "hoax" are morons.
No one doubts the Earth revolves around the sun even if the consensus said the opposite for thousands of years.
There's also the opposite issue of "cui bono" when everything is thrown into doubt. Who benefits when nothing is certain? People trying to bamboozle you, that's who. And that's exactly what a number of people are arguing these days: the collapse of respect for and the rise of doubt in the scientific method and its replacement by the notion that everyone is smart enough to pass judgement on scientific theories regardless of their expertise in the science involved.
Check out:
The Death of Expertise
Tom Nichols
The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why It Matters
https://sanet.st/blogs/bookforeveryone/the_death_of_expertise_the_campaign_against_established_knowledge_and_why_it_matters_nd_edition.4744012.html
I started with this quote from Bertrand Russel: 'To teach people to live without certainty, and yet without being paralysed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it'. This is what I'm trying to promote here.
Thanks Richard. I'll check out the reference.
It is far easier for people up north in Europe to dismiss the theory of global warming. Here in Australia we are having to find new colours for our temperature maps because the temperatures that are occurring are off the old scale. We are also experiencing bushfires of unprecedented savagery, and a new phenomenon - rain bombs - clouds that don't move but just stay and bomb one place. Last year two rain bombs here dropped 1,600mm in 4 days. Flora and fauna are appearing much further south, and the Great Barrier reef (which I have dived on over decades) is now bleached and decayed because of higher water temperatures.
As for politics, the 'left' was only ever about closing the inequality gap, and providing government services to all. Any other issues associated with the 'left' are not 'left' issues.
Check out Tony Heller: http://www.youtube.com/@TonyHeller
Im a big doors fan. The keyboardist, Ray Manzarek, like to spin the Story that Jim Morrison didn't die in Paris but escaped to Africa. I did an analysis of the evidence. Is that agnosticism? He definitely died in Paris in 1971.
If you decided that he died in 1971 then that's a truth claim not agnosticism. Cheers
Latest film by climate sceptics: https://vimeo.com/924719370?share=copy
Great piece.