Part of my own reasons for contributing to a site like this are to increase the signal-to-noise ratio, i.e. to provide a source of additional correct information. However, I despair of ever actually changing anyone's opinion or belief, about anything.
It seems to me that people simply cannot be ...
fredley asked a question about whether media impartiality actually exists? Borror0 then closed it as "not a real question". He then clarified that his real grounds were that "this answer cannot be answered objectively." However, most people accept that you can do productive social science with...
We decided that downvoting is often a good idea: Downvoting is good for you (and for the site)!
Does it make sense that people lose reputation when they downvote if we want to encourage them to downvote more frequently?
According to THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX the claim is made that Global Warming is a total hoax or sham:
The official position of the World
Natural Health Organization in regards
to global warming is that there is NO
GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is
nothing more than just another hoax,
...
I know that this is dangerous because it's broad. But simply because a claim is broad, does that mean that it is necessarily off-topic. Isn't the important part that it is a direct claim that stands against common knowledge and that it can either be refuted or not?
From time to time, the best answer will be decent, but not outstanding. It answers the question, but the question could have been answered in much greater depth. That's alright. You can't win them all.
Unfortunately, at other times, the highest answer is nothing but a sorry excuse for an answer....
@MarkRogers It's not a real question. Let's put it this way: what would an answer that proves that climate change is not a hoax look like? I can't. No matter how much data you can take out, it may still just be a conspiracy. We can't refute particular claims with evidence. We can't refute that there is no major conspiracy that entail all climatologists.
Honestly, I'm starting to get worried. Users don't close bad questions.
@MarkRogers Not if they don't make a claim that can be refuted. You can refute "Building 7 was brought down with explosives" if you gather the right evidence. Yes, it's a conspiracy but it has a particular claim "explosives were used." There is no such claim here. It's too vague. "It hoax." Very well., Why do you think so? Without that answer, the question is not answerable.
@Borror0 We have recently gotten tighter on ED and the users have been mad, but when someone asks something that is overly broad it needs to be closed, we will see if it works.
@Borror0 I tried to avoid this, but it was getting impossible, people I have to close cite other unclosed questions that have a note from me or such and have a tantrum.
@MarkRogers It,s the same as saying "God exists!" Very well. That is indeed a possibility. Why do you believe so? Without getting into the details, nothing can be discussed. It's just an argument.
Sure, but we're here to attack common claims right? I mean I think you've split the hair too many times now, if we follow this path many question will become invalid.
While I agree that the global warming question may be broad, it seems to me that there is a wide range of evidence supporting human-caused global warming. Would an evolution question be similarly unprovable?
The problem is that the claim is too vague. When you make claims specific enough, you can answer the question. "No, climategate is not a proof that there was tempering with climate data. Many different bodies looked into the evidence and found no tempering." But, if you keep it general, it's unanswerable.
I mean, maybe there is a huge conspiracy among all biologists that existed in the last decades, to maintain the illusion that evolution is not a lie.
I totally see your point, but I just think the claim is so common that it should be addressed. Vagueness is simply a quality of a bad claim, but that doesn't mean people don't buy bad vague claims, or that they can't be attacked.
It's the difference between "Is 9-11 an inside job?" and "On 9/11, was Building 7 destroyed in a controlled explosion?" The latter can be answered, the former cannot as it is too vague.
The burden of proof is on the one making claims. You think global warming is a hoax? Very well. Why?
When they answer, then you can answer their belief.
While it is a good point that the question should be more specific, I think one of the goals of the site should be to address commonly held beliefs that are obviously false and provide the evidence to back it up.
Sure, but there is a large body of evidence to refute the whole umbrella - and if there isn't, why is it that we believe climate change is caused by humans?
@MarkRogers The Bible is true because the Bible says so. Persuasive? didn't think so. It's the same for them: they don't trust science; you can't use science to make them trust science... they don't trust science
Here's a thought experiment: can you imagine what the perfect answer would look like? You don't need to know the science, just the basic step the answer would have to cover. If you don't understand, I can give you an example with one of my own answers.
@jennyfofenny Correct, and those are NOT what the question is about.
"There are X many climatologist in the world. 99% of them, or maybe 100%, agree that climate is correct." If that is what you're after, I'll close as general reference.
What about their claims that the scientists are protecting their funding? I mean, is there really some kind peer conformity that's going on? All I'd like to see is some data backing up the scientists.
Reading that Question, there is a serious problem in the quote. It mentions the Y2K bug as a hoax, but it was really just a misunderstanding of a collection potentially serious problems that were fixed by a lot of computer scientists.
@Borror0 I was just cutting you off at the knees in case you decided to take unilateral action. Sorry I didn't mean to make any claim of systemic abuse.
Actually, I think all of the work done to prevent Y2K is why there were few serious issues. I know a lot of companies were hiring developers to fix the bugs beforehand.
It isn't like scientists are all working together in some lock-step way. They are always trying to verify and disprove the findings of each other. It isn't in their self-interest.
Well, are there any top scientists that are trying to prove that global warming isn't caused by humans? Is this something that somebody could get funding for from a university or government? (Ones who aren't being paid off, of course.)
@MarkRogers It isn't, that said, it's hard to answer, since it's hard to disprove claims like that. It's like proving that god/the invisible pink unicorn/etc exist.
@jennyfofenny Climate scientists are trying to model the climate. As such, you can get funding for anything that may have an effect on climate from volcanoes to solar forcing.
It's just that the only factor which contributes in any significant amount is GHGs
It's not something that can be proven. The onus is on those that say there is a conspiracy to prove that there is one, which is so unlikely as to be silly.
I think it would have been better if I closed, because now it appears I resisted the community and lost, rather than compromised. Which makes it more controversial than it needs to be.
@jennyfofenny I'm not talking about whether the Earth's climate is changing based on our actions, but whether there is a global conspiracy of scientists.
@Ustice The only weapon we have against these outrageous claims is the science behind our position. We can defend that position by listing numerous sources. It may not convince really crazy people, but because of the media's "fair and balanced" reporting, many people are not in possession of all the facts.
@Borror0 You supplied a reason for your down vote. I appreciated that and responded. I enjoy this site and listening to the community is part of the gig.
Still, most people when they listen, it involves finding the first non-authoritative link they can find in 5 minutes., You took a lot more time. That alone is laudable.
@Borror0 and/or @Sklivvz I got into a bit of back and forth comment action on my WTC 7 answer...Would be appropriate (preferred ?) for me to delete my comments from that chain ?
Well, don't leave the other comments without context though, that would be weird?! Or add a comment explaining you removed them, so the other people can act accordingly
I've been a little bit disappointed by some behavioral patterns I've seen among users posting answers on this site.
We all know that gaining dedicated users is one of the primary metrics for measuring the success of the Skeptics.SE beta. One of the key parts of that is welcoming new users, not ...
fredley asked a question about whether media impartiality actually exists? Borror0 then closed it as "not a real question". He then clarified that his real grounds were that "this answer cannot be answered objectively." However, most people accept that you can do productive social science with...
We decided that downvoting is often a good idea: Downvoting is good for you (and for the site)!
Does it make sense that people lose reputation when they downvote if we want to encourage them to downvote more frequently?
According to THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX the claim is made that Global Warming is a total hoax or sham:
The official position of the World
Natural Health Organization in regards
to global warming is that there is NO
GLOBAL WARMING! Global warming is
nothing more than just another hoax,
...
I've been a little bit disappointed by some behavioral patterns I've seen among users posting answers on this site.
We all know that gaining dedicated users is one of the primary metrics for measuring the success of the Skeptics.SE beta. One of the key parts of that is welcoming new users, not ...
Hub of Reason
Hub of Reason