|
|
|
|
|
|
by mturmon
2371 days ago
|
|
|
> I raised a number of concerns with the study, but wasn't able to find anyone who would seriously and objectively address them. This is an inaccurate summary of that thread, in which you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models, were swatted down with a citation from the article referenced in the OP, and then retreated into a maze of long, twisty replies that failed to raise any other specific points. Your comments in this thread have had the same flavor. Consider brevity and specificity. |
|
|
Ironically, or not, your summary of my summary of that thread is inaccurate.
> "you raised a simple accusation that the article cherry-picked the models" is not what I did. What I did do is ask for an explanation of how we know no cherry picking occurred. Their methodology for article selection was not published, so therefore it cannot be reproduced. I emailed the authors asking for clarification, and they did not reply.
> were swatted down with a citation from the article referenced in the OP
"swatted down", but didn't address my actual question, rather re-reffering to the original ambiguous wording that I was complaining about.
A reproducible methodology could clear up the uncertainty (and please note, my claim is that there is uncertainty not that there is wrongdoing), yet no methodology was offered in the original paper, and the authors did not reply to the request.
In such situations, I adopt a position of "Unknown - more information is required", but obviously others have a much more flexible approach to what they're willing to believe. Although, I wonder if this approach varies depending on the subject - would be interesting to read up on.
> and then retreated into a maze of long, twisty replies that failed to raise any other specific points
"Mazes of long, twisty replies", and failures to "raise any other specific points" are a common consequences when one party in a discussion is unwilling to directly address questions as asked, and the other party's response to that is re-asking the same question.
> Your comments in this thread have had the same flavor.
Indeed they do, as do the replies: unwillingness to directly address questions as asked.
> Consider brevity and specificity.
I will do so.
In return, please consider honesty, epistemic humility, your willingness to acknowledge that ambiguity often exists in written language, and whether a lack of 100% agreement should be interpreted as opposition, as opposed to curiosity and strictness. Sometimes those who appear to be your enemy may actually be some of your best friends.
EDIT: Here's another way to look at it (a better description of my main intent): "conspiracy theorists" and "deniers" are a problem, to some degree, in broad acceptance of climate change messaging, agreed? Might it be a good idea to consider whether there are some flaws in the messaging that could be improved, that would result in reducing the material they have to work with in any influence campaigns?