[corresation]

Most people, once they've established a position, become incredibly "biased" in their views. Skeptical Science, which I mention because it is referenced some dozen times in here, is the sort of site that proselytizes to the converted. It has driven a stake in the ground demarcating its position, and everything has to be relative to that stake.

[gruseom]

The tell is the angry sarcasm, which releases chemicals of pleasure in the brains of the already-convinced, but turns off anyone else.

[nerfhammer]

I had been grasping for a word for this phenomenon for so long. Thank you.

[freshhawk]

True in the broadest sense I suppose. I'm personally fine with driving a stake into the ground at "the consensus opinion of scientific experts".

That's a different type of bias than driving the stake into a specific conclusion because the other stake moves. Frequently.

To be fair, I think this only because it agrees with my pro-reason bias.

[xenophanes]

How is "the consensus opinion of scientific experts" determined? Does that mean majority view, unanimous, or what? Is group voting really a good way to decide such things? But if you aren't talking about a type of vote, what do you mean?

And who decides who qualifies as a "scientific expert"? Isn't that problematic?

[freshhawk]

To oversimplify a fair bit, when the vast majority of people who have spend years studying a subject and have the respect of the other people doing the same agree that's "consensus". There are plenty of subjects that do not have a consensus opinion, plenty of times a consensus fractures into multiple camps, etc.

Who's an expert? Anyone who can convince other experts they are also an expert in a culture that glorifies reason and evidence and where the most status can be gained by disagreeing with everyone and then convincing them you were right all along.

You definitely seem to want an algorithm for this kind of thing, but there isn't one. It's an exercise in applied philosophy involving building an artificial culture made up of irrational human beings. It's incredibly problematic from your perspective I suppose. People are inherently problematic from that perspective, as is dealing with the unknown. From my perspective I'll take it until there is something better, because right now this is the way to get the best chance of being right about any subject.

If some cell biologist came in here and told HN that GOTO's were the only control structure you needed for programming, although he had never programmed anything but that doesn't matter because he's smart and he reads about programming a lot, people would tell him he's wrong and that this is pretty well established and universally agreed upon. If he responded with "What did you guys do? Vote on it? Who gets to vote?" you would see that there is a pretty big disconnect between reality and how this biologist thought the culture worked.

[xenophanes]

I do not want an algorithm. My point was closer to: there is no algorithm, and so this approach doesn't work.

What I actually want is a different approach that rejects authority.

[freshhawk]

"this approach doesn't work" ... the fact you sent me this message over the internet in our modern society begs to differ. Science does actually work.

As to a different approach that rejects authority ... What would that look like? Would we not value expertise anymore? Would there be no expertise anymore? I like being allowed to get good at something by putting in effort ... and once I do I'm going to be right about the subject more often than those who haven't put in effort. And people will notice that and listen to me, they will value my opinion more than others.

I'm pretty lost as to how this dynamic could be broken in a non-nightmarish way.

[xenophanes]

I said authority doesn't work, not science doesn't work. I think science works in a way other than authority.

Being right more often does not mean you're right in any particular dispute, so how exactly does it matter? Every dispute has to be resolved based on the actual ideas in question, not the authority of the person who said a particular idea.

[corresation]

There is consensus on a very small percentage of the dogma that is so often dragged into this debate. Haughtily declaring your "pro-reason bias" doesn't help your cause, and it makes you appear irrational.

The Earth's climate is an enormously complex mechanism that is barely understood, and there is a tendency to make models that confirm a hypothesis (just read this today - http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2014/02/15/rapidly_warming.... That sort of nuttery from the other side would get eviscerated, but it sells to an agenda).