So How'd I Do Here:

[masterjedijared]

I was wondering if you fine folks could help me out here. I'm trying to casually improve my debating skills (or at least intelligent conversation skills) and I was talking to a friend about global warming data. He's a denialist who goes so far as to say that since there were Ice Ages in the past then another one would be more probable than what the current data would suggest. I was reading some stuff Phil Plait linked and decided to bring it to his attention. My questions are how'd I do overall, do I come off as overly dickish (ironic concern since I got the links from Plait, lol), how is my understanding on the science end of things and how did my friend/opponent do?

Without further ado!

MasterJediJared
Other Guy, the earth is heading towards an ice age! http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Other Guy
I knew it!!!!!

MasterJediJared
Did you even look at that link? >_>

Other Guy
What was the CO2 content in the atmosphere when there was lots of active volcanoes?

MasterJediJared
That graph illustrates hundreds of thousands of years. The CO2 went up right during the Industrial Revolution.

MasterJediJared
There's been plenty of high-volcanic-activity years in that period yet it has been during the modern human era that CO2 is highest.

MasterJediJared
Anyway, I was being sarcastic. There's absolutely no data and no mechanism to indicate an impending ice age.

Other Guy
No one has any idea what will actually happen... Just lots of theories

MasterJediJared
You don't know what the word theory means do you... ;D

MasterJediJared
Theories are explanatory and predictive models. Global warming has been undeniably illustrated.

Other Guy
Ugh, i'm bored now. I'm going to bed...

Other Guy
And so have ice ages and mini ice ages...

MasterJediJared
But what data or papers indicate that an ice age is about to happen now?

MasterJediJared
Here's a more overall view: http://tinyurl.com/2bo2jsk

Other Guy
Dude, its called knowing history... There have been dramatic changes in climate before for reasons we simply don't know.

MasterJediJared
So, we should use only historical data instead of contemporary data?

Other Guy
No... It's called being a scientist, considering all possibilities based on knowledge and research...

Other Guy
I've never said it's going to happen for sure, I've simply said it's happened before...

MasterJediJared
Oh, I completely agree. However, there's an overwhelming amount of data showing that the average world temp is increasing-

MasterJediJared
And that the increase is correlative to CO2 levels and significant human events, such as the Industrial Rev

MasterJediJared
Ah, also, I agree. There's been ice ages before.

Other Guy
And it's done that before every other ice age too... And I'm sure there are times we don't have data for with more CO2 in the atmosphere

MasterJediJared
But I was bringing up that you had once said that the planet is most likely entering into a new ice age rather than warming.

MasterJediJared
The most significant ice ages are represented on the CO2 graph and we're currently in an unprecedented high level of CO2

MasterJediJared
If CO2 was causal then we'd have seen a significant cooling era after the Ind. Rev began

Other Guy
I'm talking way back, like prior to the first ice age, lots of tectonic instabilities still...

MasterJediJared
Still, within the past 650 thousand years there's been tectonic activity too. I just don't think tectonic activity is causal to today's-

MasterJediJared
Global warming data.

Other Guy
When was Hawaii formed?

MasterJediJared
Well, wikipedia says earliest habitation was around 300 or so BCE

Other Guy
I mean as in the islands being made, not people moving there... lol.

MasterJediJared
Well it looks to be upwards of almost 70 million years ago is when formation began

Other Guy
Yeah, I would be curious about climate then, global average temp and CO2 levels...

MasterJediJared
There's been island forming events since then... including major eruptions of hawaii itself.

Other Guy
There are suppose to have been eras with lots and lots of big eruptions in short periods of time way, way back millions of years ago

MasterJediJared
That may be true, but the data of today still clearly says average temps are rising and temps and CO2 are going up corellatively

Other Guy
I want data from those times, weather trends and CO2 content and stuff...

MasterJediJared
So, even though we know human activity is producing CO2, and we see it and temps rising, we should STILL wait to gather data that-

MasterJediJared
May ultimately be erroneous for our current geologic epoch?

Other Guy
What's the best way to predict the future?

MasterJediJared
Pay attention to what's happening now, gather info and build models that can predict past events effectively.

Other Guy
Um yeah... Something I got beaten into me at Clemson, even the best models are inherently flawed... It's called the real world factore

MasterJediJared
Argument from Ignorance fallacy. Just because we haven't gotten it right or perfect doesn't mean we're completely wrong.

Other Guy
And this is why I don't do discussions with you much anymore... You're absolutely right all the time...

MasterJediJared
Here's a good article on how CO2 from volcanoes compare to human activity: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

MasterJediJared
Ah, I see. Well nighty night then

 

[Gnug215]

Factual and friendly.

The best and most effective combo, if you ask me.

Well done.

 

[masterjedijared]

The thing I don't get is that I could tell he was getting defensive and his last remark was sarcasm/snarky. I'm just assuming that this guy doesn't know how to have an intelligent conversation without getting emotionally charged over his own position.

Does anyone else see him getting agitated?

 

[lrkun]

The thing I don't get is that I could tell he was getting defensive and his last remark was sarcasm/snarky. I'm just assuming that this guy doesn't know how to have an intelligent conversation without getting emotionally charged over his own position.

Does anyone else see him getting agitated?

Yes. Because he feels that you have this competitive need to be correct. Where he on the otherhand wants affirmation of his ideas. I don't see anything that could be related in the sense of a normal conversation. It's very direct and serves only to discredit the other party.

 

[masterjedijared]

In your opinion, Irkun, what would constitute a more casual or friendly approach?

 

[lrkun]

In your opinion, Irkun, what would constitute a more casual or friendly approach?

I'd let my friend talk. I'd listen to what he has to say. I'd ask questions such as, what is your basis? If he doesn't know, I'd say, let's check the net and see if you're correct or I might change the subject if it looks like he's making a fool of himself. I won't outright say he's wrong. Hehe, besides, it's a conversation between friends, so being direct isn't the best way to handle it, maybe in a way an indirect approach will work better, because it won't trample his ego and I can pretend that I didn't know.

Or I'll just smile and change the subject immediately and talk about something which I know that he knows.

 

[masterjedijared]

Some more background may be in order.

This is a fella who seems rather anti-science and doesn't even know he is. I've had the global warming vs Ice Age convo with him on other occasions. The specific thing last night was about me finding and being bothered to post some articles from Plait's blog. So this was less of a very general conversation and more of a continuation of an ongoing conversation.

As far as his anti-science stance goes, he's anti-evolution, anti-global warming (obviously) and a host of other things he just refuses to actually look at the data or overviews of current endeavors. It almost seems to me that he thinks the highest achievement of humanity was the internal combustion engine (he's in school to be a mechanical engineer).

That said, he won't even look at information on global warming, as my convo above somewhat indicates, and instead blindly holds on to his pet theory. I've asked him for data on this idea of his and he honestly only has "ice ages have happened before."

It simply stuns me to see someone, much more so my own friend, be so completely ignorant of science or the application of critical thinking.

 

[lrkun]

Some more background may be in order.

This is a fella who seems rather anti-science and doesn't even know he is. I've had the global warming vs Ice Age convo with him on other occasions. The specific thing last night was about me finding and being bothered to post some articles from Plait's blog. So this was less of a very general conversation and more of a continuation of an ongoing conversation.

As far as his anti-science stance goes, he's anti-evolution, anti-global warming (obviously) and a host of other things he just refuses to actually look at the data or overviews of current endeavors. It almost seems to me that he thinks the highest achievement of humanity was the internal combustion engine (he's in school to be a mechanical engineer).

That said, he won't even look at information on global warming, as my convo above somewhat indicates, and instead blindly holds on to his pet theory. I've asked him for data on this idea of his and he honestly only has "ice ages have happened before."

It simply stuns me to see someone, much more so my own friend, be so completely ignorant of science or the application of critical thinking.

He thinks he knows, but in reality he doesn't. ^,..^ However, do you think that it's a good idea to change his way of thinking this way? Is it that bad to have a friend who thinks different than you?

 

[masterjedijared]

Definitely correcting his view. I'm more interested in correct views than my own.

Another friend brought up prop 19 and I said I was pretty much for it. I thought I knew the research on how harmful cannibus could be and figured its not as harmful as the Religious Reich makes it out to be. He brought up some actual studies that contradict my view and now I'm waiting on reading through the studies to take a position again. I do change my views based on better evidence and I don't see why it would be so hard for other folks to do as well.

 

[lrkun]

Definitely correcting his view. I'm more interested in correct views than my own.

Another friend brought up prop 19 and I said I was pretty much for it. I thought I knew the research on how harmful cannibus could be and figured its not as harmful as the Religious Reich makes it out to be. He brought up some actual studies that contradict my view and now I'm waiting on reading through the studies to take a position again. I do change my views based on better evidence and I don't see why it would be so hard for other folks to do as well.

I understand now. You are comparing yourself to him. Since you are able to change your way of thinking, he should too. That's where you feel the need to change or correct him.

It's incorrect to generalize the entire human populace if based solely on your own experience (sample size in relation to population size). I recommend a little tolerance and a lot of patience. Hehe.

 

[masterjedijared]

Oh I agree that not everyone will be able to do what I do. I do kinda expect people I call intellectual friends to be able to do intellectual things such as correct their views in light of evidence.

I think what is more appropriate to say is that this person is apparently not an intellectual friend. Rather, just a friend who's a bit silly.

 

[GreenSheep2010]

I do change my views based on better evidence and I don't see why it would be so hard for other folks to do as well.

Because people find it a bother to look at data, especially scientific. Also, people get defensive when you tell them to look at it again and give the slightest hint of them being "wrong" in any way, especially when they have a weak self identity.

 

[lrkun]

Oh I agree that not everyone will be able to do what I do. I do kinda expect people I call intellectual friends to be able to do intellectual things such as correct their views in light of evidence.

I think what is more appropriate to say is that this person is apparently not an intellectual friend. Rather, just a friend who's a bit silly.

The facts suggest that he's stubborn. Most persons, by default, seek affirmation. In this case, he wants you to agree with him, but you knew better. Still, he's your friend. Don't let intellectual difference create a gap in your relationship.

 

[masterjedijared]

Any other insights?

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

You should have told him that there's a reason that "The Day After Tomorrow" is considered fiction (and, at it's best, a "B" film IMHO).

And then gone from there.

But, regardless - I applaud your efforts.

 

[Zetetic]

In your opinion, Irkun, what would constitute a more casual or friendly approach?

I'd let my friend talk. I'd listen to what he has to say. I'd ask questions such as, what is your basis? If he doesn't know, I'd say, let's check the net and see if you're correct or I might change the subject if it looks like he's making a fool of himself. I won't outright say he's wrong. Hehe, besides, it's a conversation between friends, so being direct isn't the best way to handle it, maybe in a way an indirect approach will work better, because it won't trample his ego and I can pretend that I didn't know.

Or I'll just smile and change the subject immediately and talk about something which I know that he knows.

Or get friends that can recognize when they are being hard-headed and aren't afraid of being wrong, but are afraid of speaking about what they do not know (it is a terrible habit to get in to, and a difficult habit to break). Personally, I can't be very close to someone who has that temperament, when I debate with my closest friends it is always no holds barred and though it is informal and conversational as well as rigorous, we usually know when we have been bested and admit it (or agree that it is unlikely that we will find a resolution). I haven't had to put up with it in my friends or family so far (well, sometimes of course, it is inevitable, but it is limited to very few points of discussion, typically moral or political or religious), maybe I've just been lucky and it's spoiled me, but I have little patience for it if I don't have to be agreeable in order to get something out of the person.

I think it is generally easy to tell if a person is someone you could make headway with or if it is better to just avoid them, and if they are someone who is not so hard headed that making headway is impossible, (or if you are stuck with the person) then I think it is your moral duty to do exactly as Irkun is saying above. Either way, I cannot consider a person to be a very close friend to me if they cannot see the world as I see it, whether they disagree with how I view things or not, they should be able to see the logic to my view points after I make a genuine attempt to explain myself either in a Socratic dialogue or directly or dialectically or whatever suits the occasion.

I have to say that I think the best thing for me is to have my ego trampled once in a while, it is the only way I can grow. If I think too much of myself I prefer to be taken down a peg so I have something I can strive for. If I meet someone who is more knowledgeable or more logical etc. than myself I want to try to learn from and improve on their example so that I can surpass them. It gives you a concrete goal against which you can measure your attempts to better yourself.

 

[masterjedijared]

I very much agree, Zetetic.

I don't have much value in friends who cannot have similar values as myself. I'm perfectly fine with friends who different areas of knowledge; this is what makes things interesting. I just don't find it very endearing in the slightest to have people in my circles who are intellectually stubborn about unfounded ideas.

With that said, I'm honestly re-evaluating my friendship with this person. This isn't the first time he has been over the top stubborn about things he can't back up and he shares next to none of the same values as me. I'm not going to make a snap decision -such would be rash -but he's becoming less and less interesting to talk to.

 

[lrkun]

I very much agree, Zetetic.

I don't have much value in friends who cannot have similar values as myself. I'm perfectly fine with friends who different areas of knowledge; this is what makes things interesting. I just don't find it very endearing in the slightest to have people in my circles who are intellectually stubborn about unfounded ideas.

With that said, I'm honestly re-evaluating my friendship with this person. This isn't the first time he has been over the top stubborn about things he can't back up and he shares next to none of the same values as me. I'm not going to make a snap decision -such would be rash -but he's becoming less and less interesting to talk to.

^,,.^ I do hope you won't make a snap judgment solely because we, in this forum thing so.

 

[masterjedijared]

Oh no, this has been something on my mind regarding this fella for a while. I was putting it to LoR in a very general sense mostly because I wanted to know how my debating did. I wanted to know this 1) so that I can know how it's doing objectively and 2) to know if anyone else thought I was being dick-ish considering my friend's emotional reaction throughout the conversation.

What I think I'm taking away from this is that my debating is doing alright and that while I may be a bit direct I'm not really all that mean about it.

What I'm thinking about doing regarding my friend is to let him be and approach him from now on whenever he actually wants to have a discussion. Maybe only interact with him when he actually initiates the communication.

I am very thankful that you fellas have been so helpful though