Re: Article: Boost to CO2 mass extinction idea


"John Edser" <edser@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:dftqic$20h1$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Perplexed in Peoria" jimmenegay@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:-
>
> You have been had. But probably you wanted to be had. If your
> epistemological filters are still making you suspicious of the AGW
> concensus, then I think that it may be time for you to clean the
> filters.
>
> JE:-
> To exactly what "epistemological filters" do you refer?

Well, John, the kind of epistemology I am talking about is not Popper
and empiricism. It is 'argument from authority' epistemology. So you
might consider it bad epistemology, and I guess I probably would too.
But it is epistemology nonetheless.

What I am talking about is the common human tendency to get news, opinion,
and information from sources you LIKE. Leftists read "The Nation", rightist
read the Wall Street Journal. I was suggesting that the Git drew his
information about global warming from web sites devoted to debunking
the idea. He found the article that he recommended "interesting" because
it confirmed his own preconceived notions. And he does not recommend
papers by other 'authorities' because of his 'epistemological filters' -
that is, his reading habits and biases. I strongly doubt that he recommended
that article because he is an expert in atmospheric processes and found
the article convincing.

I'm not an expert on atmospheric processes either. I use different filters
and thus develop opinions based on different 'authorities'. Hence, because
my filters are different than his, I criticise his filters. Hmmm. Now
that I think about it, perhaps I should have just ignored him.

I hope that explained it.


.

Quantcast