Spot on. What the more purely science-mind can't seem to grasp is facts are only as good as the receivers' trust of the source. The irony is, there's plenty of science to support this. Yet, ironically, science too ignores itself.

If Science were a brand it would be in need of a makeover. But instead of owning it's many shortcomings and past transgressions (e.g., consuming Y is safe only to find out it causes birth defects, cancer,etc.) Science blames the customer/consumer.

That too, as we all know is a big mistake.

Sure, I side with Science. But I also know it could use an extensive education in dog fooding if it wants to regain its traction (read: credibility and trust) in the market.

It feels like there's a conflation of science and science reporting in here somewhere. Most of the actual research output makes measured claims but the journalism around it ends up being sensationalised (yes, some researchers also participate in that but not as a rule).

This is something I hope to see gain traction with the new gust of open wind blowing through scientific reporting. Open results, accessible results, means more than just the accessibility of the PDF, if you ask me. Publicly funded research has a duty to be readable and understandable by the public, who paid for it.

Or, at the very least, not more opaque than strictly necessary.

Try reading Euclid's Elements. It was written before equations had been invented and is for the most part "plain language". However, it reads as vastly more obtuse than an equivalent modern formulation of the same facts with symbols and algebra.

The nice thing about mathematical notation is that a simple, one line equation can express relationships and detail that what would otherwise take a full paragraph to unpack. Personally, once I'm familiar with the symbols and underlying concepts, an equation is much easier to hold in my head than a long jumble of plain language explication.

I think most researchers aren't simply pomping up their paper with obtuse symbols. Mathematical notation is both compact as well as a common language, so why not use it? As a side benefit, we also get to lean on the vast background of mathematical research which offers potential precision that would otherwise be completely lost.

A well written paper takes a sympathetic view of the reader and helps guide them to understanding. This is not how academics are taught how to write. It's like a form of handed-down abuse.

Popular science writing is very important, but it’s just a small part of the practice. Doing more of it would mean less actual research unless funds and bodies are added for it. I'd like to think that as a community we servo around the sweet spot given the resources.

No, it is not. This is why I drew the distinction in the first place.

> Normal people can only understand what is reported.

Which backs up my point that sensationalised reporting is a problem. Peer-reviewed, scientific papers are written for other scientific researchers — that's as it should be.

If your sig other __from your pov__ constantly "deceives" you, what happens?

Science is oblivious to the __cumulative__ effect its process has on belief, trust, etc. The irony of this truth baffles me.

That sounds ludicrous to me. The entirely of the scientific method is about generating hypotheses, testing them out, finding out you're wrong, and then refining/rewriting those hypotheses and trying again, ad infinitum. Plenty of scientists have been 'wrong' for years.

I'd argue the problem you're trying to highlight isn't about 'Science' per se, but the fact that people/the masses/etc like to have just one immutable 'answer' for something. They find it difficult to cope when new results point to different answers. Is that really the fault of 'Science'?

The scientific method is such that Science is never wrong. It's god-esque.

There's no step in the process - a la 12 Step Process for example - that acknowledges past transgressions. It just hypes up the glory and ignores the mistakes.

That's. Not. Working.

That's. Not. Good. Enough.

That's. Bullshit.

This is wrong.

> There's no step in the process - a la 12 Step Process for example - that acknowledges past transgressions. It just hypes up the glory and ignores the mistakes.

This is also wrong.

Wrong as in factually incorrect.

You're seeing something in science that doesn't exist.

You've misunderstood my point. The scientific method is such that 'Science' is always wrong. It's a method to continually try to become less wrong about how the world works.

I don't even know what you're referring to when you capitalise 'science' the way you have been. It's not like there's a single entity called 'Science' that issues proclamations.

Science gave us CFCs then berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Nobody foresaw what CFC's would do to the ozone layer. It took science to find this.

I have never seen a claim from science that something is safe. At best you get a claim that something appears to have minimal risks. Minimal != Zero

Yet I regrettably see people, even here on HN, claiming otherwise. We're not helping.

Science gave us CFCs then commerce and industry over-used them irresponsibly, and fought regulation. Science later appropriately berated us for the hole in the ozone layer...

Science can't seem to tie its mistakes to lack of credibility.

Imagine that. Even Science, like CNN, doesn't know correlation from cause.

That's. Just. Sad.

This is factually incorrect, aside from bringing CNN in for absolutely no comprehensible reason.

In the case of climate change it is actually possible to self-inform yourself about some of the key aspects of climate change. Raw data is freely available (noaa and others), and some simple scripts can answer questions like "are the claimed warming trends real or artifacts of bias due to adjustments or other factors".

This was part of my path into figuring out who to trust, and it did take a while. Not everyone is going to have the time or inclination, and this is only 1 of a few dozen important political issues to understand!

By the way my conclusion was that yes, global warming is absolutely a real thing, and absolutely caused by human activities.

But still - this is a matter of whether one chooses to trust NOAA and others. His point isn't really even about climate change. It's about debating the merits of any position, and what sources of information you trust to reinforce your position.

I should mention that this is fairly easy to verify, at least with part of the data. For land temperatures one of the big sources they use is meteorological data gathered at airports (METAR). You know, the same data that pilots use to calculate take off and landing distances, altimeter settings, etc. So a concerned citizen could compare this these data sets and verify part of the NOAA data. Faking this data, at the airports, would cause disasters, unless you had this major conspiracy where you fixed the pilots instruments or every pilot was aware of this faking and used the real numbers. But both seem really silly since GA pilots need this information too, and frequently do hand calculations.

I certainty think the verify part is essential in phrase "trust, but verify". I just want it to be clear that one can trivially verify one of the large components of the data set.

[1] SFO airport data: http://www.wx-now.com/weather/wxcurrent?icao=KSFO

For fun, sometimes I try to find someone who can explain to me where the "97% of scientists support the man-made global warming theory" statistic came from, and I'm pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it. Now, if The Informed would just be up front and admit that "ok, that particular claim is a bit imprecise to be quite honest, here's the actual story....." this would be perfectly fine with me. But when instead both official authors and any advocate I've encountered online instead doubles down on the misstatement, or refuses to answer perfectly straightforward questions but instead attacks me and starts calling me names.....well, my spider senses go off a bit.

And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades now but accelerating in recent years, rejects mainstream institutions: not just science but academia, journalism, and government. It has devolved into thoroughly tribal epistemology: what is good for us is true." ....and the logical side of my brain says "well yes, that is certainly true for a lot of conservatives, but certainly not all" and then I start to notice a pattern where very few pro-AGW-thoery people seem to be able to resist saying things that are not true, when lying is absolutely not necessary in any way, and I think to myself, this whole situation seems a bit suspicious.

So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical, partially because I have quite a number of issues with the current political climate and state of discourse, and partially to return just a small portion of the cntiness I've experienced from online know-it-alls, I'm going to set my launch chair just on the other side of the "denier" line, because "fck me? Well fck you too!"

Besides, the economic prospects in the future for my kids doesn't look so bright and no one seems to give two shts about that, so maybe I'm not overly motivated to care about your interests either.

You would compare the raw data (pre). You should also look at the models people use to adjust and ask yourself "does this make sense?" I should mention that the raw data suggests significantly more warming than is actually happening (which is why I've never understood the raw data argumet). This is because most ways we measure are actually artificially warm. There's a good layman's discussion here [1]. I'll mention that article gives lots of links to follow and is one of the first things I give technical people that are interested in learning more about the basics. It will give you a world to google and terms to search.

> pretty sure I found the original source, but the problem is, it doesn't say 97% of scientists support it, or that 97% of papers support it.

This is true, but I think you also misunderstand what it means. IIRC it also included papers from arxiv and other preprint services, which aren't peer reviewed. There are other studies that have done surveys on opinion breakdowns between different types of scientists. You still see an overwhelming trend (I believe >97%) among climate scientists that support it.

> And then I read things like: "The US right, for decades...

Leave politics out of science. Well at least as much as you can. Stop reading these things, they aren't relevant or useful. Different parts of academia have different problems, and they don't apply to all parts.

> So, partially because I'm genuinely skeptical...

GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL. As a scientist I will NEVER discourage someone from being skeptical. But you also need to do more than just say "I'm skeptical", that is being a conspiracy theorist (in the bad way). A real skeptic looks into the claims made. That's what being skeptical is. So I encourage you to look at the data. I encourage you to actually talk to scientists that directly work on this research (as opposed to me). Most scientists are extremely happy to talk about their work, unless you're being mean to them.

If you are really skeptical please at minimum read [1]. Better, go through the other links as well.

[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/thorough-not-thoroug...

Bonus: Link to different datasets https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12-__RqTqQxuxHNOln3H5...

Nice graph on common claims (with link to data): https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-wo...

I don't remember specific details anymore, but any time I've tried to wade into details I'm not able to make much sense of anything. Now, if the science is unavoidably complicated, so be it, but often times it is most definitely not, and correct or not, I am left with the impression that clarity is deliberately not the goal. To be clear, I'm not expecting scientific papers to be written for the layman, but I've yet to come across anything approachable for a reasonably intelligent and mathematically capable skeptic.

> This is true, but I think you also misunderstand what it means.

I'm pretty sure I understand exactly what it means, my complaint is that almost none of the self-proclaimed internet experts on the subject don't, and when you point it out to them, they lie. Worse, the 97% statistic was "double checked" and "recalculated" using some very fancy footwork (arbitrary discarding of a portion of authors) such that coincidentally, they landed precisely on the 97% even though they used a completely different calculation. Perhaps I am misunderstanding (and have pleaded with numerous experts to correct me), but until then my current belief is that whoever wrote that was cooking the books.

So then, when POTUS then tweets a link to yet another report containing the same misrepresentations: https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/335089477296988160?la...

....I'm not sure how to go about explaining to someone how that sows distrust. To me it seems obvious, I am literally as bewildered about my "opponents" belief in this extremely limited scope.

Of course, this may appear irrelevant to the larger actual question whether or not AGW is primarily man-made, but it speaks directly to the question of trust, which it's nice to see some people actually realize is that matters. Almost no one has actually read any of this science, so any of those folks who expresses ~"oh my god, it's sooooo obvious, you're such a science denier" is quite frankly lying out their bum. Once again. And again, how this could sow distrust in the mind of a skeptic is completely oblivious to those who have drank the koolaid.

The popular sentiment is that advocates are asking for understanding of the science, but based on the way they're asking for it, it seems more like they're asking for obedience, which to me is a feeling I've had a lot lately on a number of issues.

> Leave politics out of science. Well at least as much as you can. Stop reading these things, they aren't relevant or useful.

I don't disagree, but I would extend the same advice to the "leaders" of this movement, and ask that they find a way to reign in their rabidly enthusiastic but uninformed supporters, in many cases it alienates those of us still on the fence. "GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL." is a sentiment I rarely hear expressed sincerely. Sure, everyone says it, until you ask a question and don't accept it being brushed away with a non-answer, and the knives come out shortly after.

> A real skeptic looks into the claims made. That's what being skeptical is. So I encourage you to look at the data.

For sure, I've just never found anything approachable. Which again seems suspicious to me. Think of the millinions of man-hours and dollars that have been poured into this initiative, yet is there a well-known and approachable website I can turn to to educate myself? If the true motive is to inform people on the facts, such they will willingly support the necessary financial sacrifices, wouldn't it make sense to have such a resource? Whereas, if the actual approach taken is incessant news, TV, and internet articles that repeat the same set of 10 talking points.....once again I get suspicious.

Many thanks for an actually sincere reply, I will read the links you provided.

[0] https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm

In the 19th Century the prevailing view of climate was that it was static or cyclical, with cold years balancing out warm ones. This began to be challenged by growing evidence for past ice ages, and various theories of climate change proposed mechanisms by which these might occur. At around the same time, people began playing around with carbon dioxide, carbonated water, and carbonic acid, and noticed that many human activities produced large amounts of CO2. In the mid-1860s Tyndall measured the heat characteristics of various atmospheric gases (you can probably reproduce his experiments relatively easily, if you like). A few decades later in 1896 Arrhenius suggested that halving the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere could produce temperatures cold enough for an Ice Age, but he also provided figures for a doubling of atmospheric carbon. His value for climate sensitivity is a bit on the high side of today's range, but still agrees pretty well despite his unsophisticated climate model.

However, Arrhenius was refuted in 1901 by Knut Ångström, who pointed out that 1) the absorption spectrum of water and CO2 overlap, and the atmosphere is essentially completely saturated with H2O, so carbon dioxide probably isn't having any additional effect, 2) the atmosphere is completely opaque to CO2 at lower concentrations than currently exist, so additional CO2 should have no effect, and 3) that the oceans are an unimaginably capacious carbon sink, and can absorb all the carbon that humans could even think about liberating, and then some. The CO2 theory of climate change was mostly forgotten for about half a century.

In that time, we began to explore the upper atmosphere, as well as the circulation of the oceans. Other experiments shed doubt on the cyclical nature of climate, pointing out that (e.g.) small changes in albedo could reflect sunlight, leading to cooler temperatures, and so on, in a self-reinforcing cycle. The idea of a cyclical climate took a long time to die, and one of my private amusements was reading through a 1950 textbook on atmospheric science. It described the climatic zones of the world as if the annual rainfalls and prevailing winds were graven in stone, and explicitly assigned a small role to CO2. By that time, however, the scientific view was already beginning to change.

In 1949 Callendar published an article titled Can Carbon Dioxide Influence Climate?, which laid out a renewed case for the importance of CO2. The absorption spectra of water vapor and carbon dioxide do not completely overlap, he argued, and although in theory the oceans can absorb a nearly-infinite amount of CO2, the rate of mixing of the upper and lower oceans is very low, and so the oceans provide much less of a buffer in the short term. He also pointed out that the stratosphere was almost devoid of H2O, and that small increases in the composition of the outer atmosphere could have a disproportionately large effect. More generally we can say that increasing the partial pressure of CO2 increases the extent of the CO2-rich layer, raising the effective top-of-atmosphere.

There were a number of unknowns at this point. It was not known for sure whether solar output was constant, or whether the global concentration of carbon was increasing, or whether the influence of carbon dioxide would be outstripped by the influence of particulates or other polluting gases. Solar observations since then suggest that solar output is constant to within .1 percent. The potential cooling effect of particulates and aerosols was the topic of active debate until the mid-1970s, and I'm told that some periodicals published lurid extrapolations of this research. Measuring the global concentration of CO2 was something of a challenge, but it was eventually met in 1958-61 by one Charles Keeling, who established a global baseline for CO2 concentrations, showed a large seasonal variation in the same, and finally showed that the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere were indeed increasing as predicted.

Since then we have seen steadily rising atmospheric concentrations and global temperatures. Better atmospheric modeling and stricter pollution controls reduced the potential threat of cooling. Another potential avenue of escape was offered by the complexities of H2O interactions. By itself, CO2 is not all that much of a concern. The no-feedback forcing per doubling is calculated at ~3.7 W/m^2, which is generally held to be about equivalent to 1 degree of warming per doubling. And if that were all we could expect, we probably would be talking about ocean acidification instead of global warming. However, water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2, and there's quite a bit of water lying around most everywhere here, and the atmosphere can hold exponentially more water the warmer it becomes, so a naive calculation would suggest an unbounded positive feedback loop. Fortunately this is not observed. The interactions of water in its various states are quite complex, so at this point we essentially had to leave the laboratory and try to study the Earth as a system.

That part is hard. Warmer tropical currents could shut down the Gulf Stream, which would probably result in Europe freezing solid, and ironically provide the impetus for a new Ice Age. (opinion) The strongest skeptical argument presented recently would probably be Lindzen's Iris hypothesis, which suggests that increased cloud coverage could offset rising temperatures. Unfortunately the balance of evidence suggests otherwise. "Something lurking in the H2O feedback" is at this point about all that would save us, and any potential mitigating effect would generally have to be both large in magnitude, to counteract the H2O feedback, and also presumably small enough not to have been noticed. Without getting spectacularly hand-wavy with physics, one might also posit some unknown interaction in the upper atmosphere which would conveniently transfer large amounts of heat into space. The oceans are pretty much ruled out, the optical properties of CO2 are beyond dispute, and hoping for an exception to the laws of thermodynamics is probably a tad optimistic.

The linked ebook should provide adequate citations for all of the above, and the research papers should all be freely available online. Do please respond if you have any further questions, or if you would like any assistance in finding citations. Also, while I have read a fair amount on this subject, I am a layman, not a climate scientist, and the above being somewhat extemporaneous, I would also be appreciative of any chance to correct any mischaracterizations.

It is no secret that scientists are bad at communicating with the public. Like any group we speak our own language. And that even goes for specific fields of study. There is no way you can read a paper casually. Even if you are an expert in the field you will not gain much by a casual read. But remember, all these papers list the authors' emails. DO NOT be afraid to email them. You can write something like "Hey Dr. X, I'm interested in learning about climate change. I don't understand this section of your paper (demonstrate some knowledge and effort) and I was wondering if you had the time to explain it to me in more detail or had some further reading that would help me." You'd be surprised at how far that will go. You're not guaranteed a response, but there's a pretty good chance you'll get one.

> 97% even though they used a completely different calculation

I've seen a range, but I'd pay little attention to this stuff. It isn't that important what the exact number is. You can verify that "an overwhelming majority" agree.

> Almost no one has actually read any of this science, so any of those folks who expresses ~"oh my god, it's sooooo obvious, you're such a science denier" is quite frankly lying out their bum.

Not going to argue with you there. There are a lot of armchair scientists that are pretty arrogant. It annoys me too (especially when they argue against things in my field -___-). But it isn't worth much effort when they are on the factual side. Correcting someone usually comes off as "your entire premise is wrong", which I hate, but is a reason people don't bother. But for someone genuinely interested (which it seems you are, and why I'm spending time on this), scientists tend to be happy to talk. We're all nerds after all, and nerds like to nerd out. Just have to show interest.

> but I would extend the same advice to the "leaders" of this movement

I'd argue that it is reactionary. That we didn't put it there, but since it is there we have to deal with it.

> "GOOD. PLEASE BE SKEPTICAL." is a sentiment I rarely hear expressed sincerely.

I hope you do not think I am acting that way. I think you're also more likely to see knives from the armchair types. I often say they sit in an armchair with a baseball bat. A little dramatic, but aren't most analogies? At least good for a laugh.

> Think of the millinions of man-hours and dollars that have been poured into this initiative, yet is there a well-known and approachable website I can turn to to educate myself?

There are plenty on the basics (PBS Eons is great for historical stuff. Cosmos discusses climate. And there are many others intended for the layman), but there tends to be (in most subjects) a lack of middle ground. And I admit this sucks. The best thing to do is ask an expert (I am not one in climate). Find a couple professors and shoot them an email. I'm serious. You will get much more out of that than what I can provide you. You will get best responses to specific questions and demonstrating that you have done some initial research (careful to be showing genuine interest and not bragging or arrogance). Best is short and simple. Or if you have a technical question about a paper they wrote, get technical (be careful with this if you lack the prereq knowledge though). But at some point you will have to trust. You can't know everything, but hopefully you can see that there is no conspiracy and everyone is doing their best efforts. I can honestly say I don't know a person or know a person who knows a person who intentionally misrepresented data, and the scientific community isn't that big. We're just nerds, we like to learn, and we are definitely not in it for the money (I mean have you seen a scientist's salary?!)

Feel free to ask more questions, once you have read at least that one article, and I can try to help. I will again repeat that I am not an expert in the field so my responses will be limited but who knows, maybe another HN user will chime in and add more than I can. I know there are some climate experts here and would love some of that intermediate level work and things I can add to my bookmark collection. All I can do is help you get started and hopefully make you think scientists aren't a bunch of pompous assholes or promoting any conspiracy (we're not good liars).

One of the biggest objections from (science-literate) people who reject climate change is precisely this - that 'methodology corrections' applied to NOAA data create a warming trend in underlying data that lacks it. The trust question applies at every level down to "the guy who goes out and looks at the thermometer".

Appeals to "you can run the data yourself" honestly feel like they're missing the point. Pretty much everything we know has some element of faith to it - some of it we can't verify directly, and almost all of it we won't verify, because that task is impossibly large.

Hell, I can't prove that China exists without relying on trust in others. Which is not exactly an academic question when you meet people who say things like "North Korea isn't repressive, that's just a lie our capitalist government tells us". It's not a hopeless case, you can try to push claims to the point where falseness would require a completely implausible conspiracy, but it's worth remembering that "just look at the data!" usually amounts to a call of "just trust these voices!"

...how many people can do data analysis.

...how many people can write scripts.

...how many people know what a script is.

...how many people can do basic arithmetic.

Your example of self-enrichment is perfectly fine for people with a good education, but it's insufficient at 'democracy scale' where elections are decided by voters who cannot do anything beyond trusting the people who are informing their decisions.

And, as you point out, it is literally impossible to do this for every subject - even if we all had infinite aptitude to study and understand all subjects, we don't have the infinite time it would take to do that. Plus, this is an extreme waste of our resources; we specialize for a reason.

We need trust, and you can only spot check that trust every now and then for things that you actually know.

This requires at least a graduate-level stats education to do "properly"!

That can only tell you whether the trend is present in the raw data or only occured after some processing of the data.

Don't confuse raw sensor data with reality and adjustments with artifacts.

I can use a tire gauge that reads high, but that doesn't make my flat tire an artifact of data adjustment.

Doesn't mean the self-inform is reproducible though due to obvious reasons.

Verifying that "global warming is a real _problem_ and human activities are _net negative to the human experience_" is not as easy as you are suggesting, because I need to model more than temperature over time. Also need some idea of the accuracy of the raw data.

The group of people who trust that global warming is a problem correlate pretty highly with the group of people who want to shut down big chucks of our cheap energy production system and replace it with something expensive. To put people in charge who think that is acceptable is a huge leap of trust.

It is very easy to see why doomsayers are not treated as credible. We've seen a huge number of them, mostly they have been wrong and so far the cheap energy solution has been wildly luxurious and successful.

> encouraging people to trust untrustworthy sources for information which doesn't necessarily square with the scientific evidence

To offer up some compassion to those people, you have to remember that we're daily barraged with p=0.05 experiments getting breathless coverage in the media. "Scientists say peanut butter cures cancer." "Scientists say peanut butter causes cancer."

Remember back when it was going to be a new Ice Age? Now it's "Global Warming?"

The media's coverage of science does not portray research in the proper light, does not give context, etc.

So I have a lot of sympathy for people who are skeptical of trusting "science."

No, I don't remember that, because that was never actually the case. If you "remember" it, it is a false impression and you should really deeply introspect why you hold it. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-co...

The conversation here is not how any given fact is right or wrong. The conversation here is that "scientific facts" seem to change at a dizzying pace to them, without being tethered to reality. "Global warming?!? It's SNOWING right now!"

Do cell phones cause cancer? Do vaccines cause autism? Was there cold fusion in that fish tank?

Also see:

https://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/11/qa-samuel-ar...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-life_of_knowledge

https://gizmodo.com/why-scientific-americans-predictions-fro...

http://www.aei.org/publication/18-spectacularly-wrong-predic...

I agree, but I guess I'm both pushing a bit back on people to have some common sense when ascribing credibility to a source and also push some blame on deliberate bad actors (muddling what is true, and also reducing peoples' trust in the system overall).

I have bought lottery tickets, even though I know it's a "Stupid Tax." And apparently many other people do, too:

"Americans Spend More On Lottery Tickets Than On Movies, Video Games, Music, Sports Tix And Books Combined" [1]

Even though there's ample evidence that:

"Here’s How Winning the Lottery Makes You Miserable" [2]

A cynic could conclude that people are stupid. I'm not sure what an optimist would conclude, but I think I'd encourage them to consider their peers from the perspective of an anthropologist... View the culture as "different," not "wrong."

[1] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-12/2016-americans-spe...

[2] http://time.com/4176128/powerball-jackpot-lottery-winners/

Then difficulty in explaining to people these facts, or convincing people of them doesn’t imply some broader cultural relativism. The lottery is stupid, it’s just very challenging to get people to understand that consistently.

Can you name anything interesting which is concretely falsifiable?

Just to list a few things that I believe in, and they're very important to me, but which I assert are not "concretely falsifiable":

Anthropogenic Climate Change

Evolution as the origin of species

Reducing (not necessarily eliminating) access to guns is effective at reducing gun deaths

Bombing Nagasaki was the wrong thing to do

Torturing people is not an effective way to gather intelligence, and it's bad policy

Waterboarding is torture

The US has committed very many war crimes in the last thirty years

Abandoning the Gold Standard was a great decision

1, 2 are falsifiable and true. They are observed, modeled, and predictions have been demonstrated accurate. 3 is falsifiable and true, but I believe misses the point in the controversy there. 4 is not, ethics are not falsifiable. I lack the knowledge to say on 5 (people who I trust agree on both). 6 is just stupid, it tautologically is - not a question of falsifiable or not. I lack the knowledge to say on 7. I agree 8 but don't believe it's falsifiable (or I cannot prove it).

This whole argument you're making that things are "concretely falsifiable" is still entirely about trust, and faith, and "good enough" in practice. It's nowhere near as rock solid as you're portraying it.

With guns, if you can't even agree that reducing access would decrease gun violence, it's hard to then debate whether we should, and whether we would need to modify the Constitution in order to do so. We can't even start the conversation.

"Abandoning the gold standard was good" is theoretically falsifiable, but you'd need to explore the multi-verse, or you'd need to run grand experiments in other countries. (Other countries DID do that for us, and it was bad for them.)

Which leads to what needs to be considered the greatest sin and betrayal of all: The creating and promoting of such videos.

No one creates a false video by accident. They know what they are doing, and their intentions are clear.

And this is not free speech.

Putting words in other people's mouths and manipulating voices is fake speech, and is the direct opposite of free speech.

Another example of where a sufficiently large quantitative change becomes a qualitative change. Historically speaking there's nothing new about false attributing speech to some authority, but people had built-in instincts to deal with people simply saying that X said Y and could treat it with some salt. But easy fake videos reverses the situation; we have built-in instincts that say we should trust the video as a reliable representation of the putative speaker, even if we in intellectually know better.

Even if you flashed a warning "THIS IS A FAKE VIDEO" constantly, I bet you'd still be able to run studies that show disproportionate effects on people as a result of a sufficiently good fake video.

Spot-on.

This is severely exacerbated players like Google & Facebook, whose algorithms favor "engagement" and "virality", with zero regard for truth. It/s been shown [1] that falsehoods sperad faster, in part because they contain more 'surprise value'.

The result is that these info vendors effectively create an editorial environment favoring falsehoods.

Google has done a bit to clean it up on their search engine, e.g., the Flat Earth search generally points to debunking entries, but the same company's YouTube site contains a bunch of fakes in the top 10 results on the same search.

It is no exaggeration at this point to say that these tech giants are significantly undermining our society by failing to exercise responsibility over their implicit/explicit/algorithmic editorial decisions.

[1] http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/articles/study-false-news-s...

I wrote a bit more about this here: https://www.google.com/amp/s/blog.scholarpedia.org/2013/11/0...

But in the case of climate change anyone over thirty-five or so knows damn well the weather has gone funny.

People are scared, way deep down where it's hard to think about, because they know on a cellular billion-year-old level that you cannot escape the weather.

Once you grasp that, climate denialism is an obvious coping mechanism to prevent mass blind panic. It is a terrible thing to face the destruction of all that you love.

- - - - -

In any event, deepfakes are a shocking thing to have to deal with and we are sooooo unprepared. The only thing I can think of is to spread the word about it far and wide and hope for the best (meaning hopefully people and society will "innoculate" themselves against the onslaught of concrete dreams.)

A very similar logic leads people to conclude "it was cold last week, so global warming is nonsense". Being able to understand the scientific case for climate change requires a level of scientific literacy and critical thinking that most people could readily develop, but isn't taught in schools.

Multicellular organisms have internal mechanisms to track environmental changes and forecast things like how many offspring to have.

This sort of "thinking" isn't neurological, it takes place in epigenetic systems that can span generations, especially in mammals due to gestation.

For example, we all know we are going to die at some point. It is inevitable, and nothing we do is going to prevent us from eventually dying. Because there is nothing we can do, it makes sense for us to ignore the problem, and possibly even to delude ourselves that we will live forever. There is no cost, since we are going to die eventually no matter what we tell ourselves.

However, with climate change, there ARE steps we can take today to prevent the catastrophe. Therefore, there is no rationalization for ignoring the problem.

I know human brains don't work rationally, though, but I thought it was useful to make the distinction.

> The same word, and also abnegation (German: Verneinung), is used for a psychological defense mechanism postulated by psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, in which a person is faced with a fact that is too uncomfortable to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

BTW, I think human brains do work rationally to the extent that the world is rational, because they are evolved organs. But human personalities or minds are not necessarily consciously deliberately rational. Like how computers must use physics on the hardware level but can be programmed to model impossible physics in a simulated virtual world.