site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   26887 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 4, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

That is trying to understand a really complex system

This is practically a definition for 'science'.

Well, they have a vested interest in it, no?

This is largely true for most fields of science.

the system as such began a long long time ago and we don't know much about that period.

Similarly, this is also true for most of science.

I can't find anything that makes these arguments apply to climate science, but not biology, medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.

Eg. Do we really know bacteria cause disease? Researches have a vested interest in continued research, but the proposed mechanisms are beyond complex, based on biology that began over a billion years ago.

that they at least produce the predicted results

Apparently climate models have been, on average, predictive. But this is not the kind of inductive claim I'm searching for.

weather forecasting as I see it isn't much better than an old man and bad knees.

Apparently, these are accurate 75% of the time inside of 5 days. This would be easy to disprove. Again, not an inductive claim. As an aside, if interested I'd be willing to bet money that weather forecasts are about as accurate as 30 sec. of googling led me to believe they are.

that a myriad of special interest have their hands in all kinds of places

I'm extremely mindful of this regarding climate policy.

This is practically a definition for 'science'.

The observable defining line between Science and "science" is that the former confines itself to areas that can be thoroughly and rigorously mapped, and the latter does not. Climate is plausibly across the line to intractably complex.

The observable defining line between Science and "science" is that the former confines itself to areas that can be thoroughly and rigorously mapped, and the latter does not.

If you're of the view that physics is the only science worth of the name, perhaps. It's absolutely not the case for biology. If you could see from the inside what a mess taxonomy is, to mention one subfield...

Retinas and neurons and rattlesnake venom are real things, and they have been mapped thoroughly and rigorously enough that we can engineer off them. Oedipal complexes and Systemic Racism and restorative justice are not real things, but rather figments of the imagination.

I wish I'd saved a copy of the article I read once, where a scientist talked about how he'd pioneered his particular field for two decades, had testified before congress about his research, and now was confronted with solid evidence that nothing he'd been studying in all that time had actually existed. His candor made me presume that he himself was honest, that the error had not been intentional... but at that scale, it hardly matters. If you fuck up that badly, if your entire field fucks up that badly, if multiple independent fields can fuck up that badly for that long, then the project is beyond salvage. Especially when the fuckups are not random, but correlate strongly with social and political trends of the moment.

So no, we should not treat science or scientists with respect. We should not believe that fucking studies show. We should demand rock-hard evidence that is ready to engineer off of. If they cannot provide this, the null hypothesis should be that they are lying to us. If they can, we should be skeptical that they are lying to us very well. When the engineering hits mass production, we can maybe relax our skepticism.

When the engineering hits mass production, we can maybe relax our skepticism.

I've had a similar idea bouncing around my head for a while, though I never expressed it. Is this your formulation, or did you get it from somewhere? It feels so obvious it would a bit shocking if no one else talked about it.

This could be said in response to innumerable scientific claims. Climate science is plausibly knowable enough to model well. But I'm not making any claims what climate science says. I'm asking what, at a general level, is unique to climate science that garners a special amount of skepticism?

Its association with sweeping claims of the impending end of the world, something many people have come around to view with suspicion, and its use as justification for policies that cause visible economic harm in exchange for invisible climate benefits.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats