|
|  |
|
|
|
| |
| Jan 19, 2010 8:16 pm |
|
re: The Reality of Climate Change - Discipline in this network |
Thomas Holford
| |
John Stephen Veitch:
> I did try to encourage other people to get involved, to bring in the bystanders. However, the environment wasn't "safe" mostly because Thomas was quite prepared to be totally scathing and dismissive of anyone who tried to stand up for the truth about, climate change. There was one post I deleted. That post, by Thomas, ripped into someone who was a "bystander" who had the courage to enter the discussion, in a manner that was completely inappropriate and was entirely destructive of what we are trying to achieve here.
> Thomas, you came very close to losing your posting rights here. But I guess you know that.
If this is going to be an issue, I suggest that you declare the issue to be "settled science" (as has been done by Al Gore, AAAS, and others), remove me from the list, and declare victory.
I don't regard my critiques as "scathing and dismissive"; I regard them as targeted and penetrating.
Engaging in meaningful debate in the realm of substantive philosophical and scientific ideas is NOT for the timid or people with delicate self esteem.
Public debate is not a comfortable or therapeutic "win-win" seminar. It is intellectual "WIN-LOSE" hand to hand combat.
If one is not prepared to risk damage and sustain wounds to one's ego or self-esteem, don't engage in it.
One of the realities of the modern era is that ninety-nine percent of humanity are NOT disciplined thinkers. They have been conditioned by society to think in narcissitic terms: "So and so is attacking my idea, so he is attacking ME! He is being a scathing and dismissive meanie!"
Because people are not disciplined thinkers, they easily fall prey to silly, foolish, or logically erroneous arguments. People with large egos and small brains often believe that their ideas are superior because they themselves are superior.
But a flawed idea is a flawed idea no matter who thinks it. People with large egos generally do not give much credence to esoteric arguments beyond their experience. The aguments that are impactful, i.e. that potentially can cause insight or learning, are those arguments that engage their egos, not their intellects.
So, it is a fact of life that the way to cause thinking to occur in many people is to present to them an argument that engages their ego in a naked, painful way. Or in other words, if a person is asserting a flawed, foolish idea, the way to change their thinking is to expose their foolishness and put it on display.
After enduring the emotional trauma of clinging to a foolish idea, maybe a person will invest the effort to actually THINK about their ideas and embrace a more rational, defensible position.
T. HolfordPrivate Reply to Thomas Holford (new win) |
|
| |
|
