You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How Black and White thinking harms us all
The problem is that there are topics where one point of view excludes the other. An example is the vaccination stuff, but als the climate debate. There can be no common ground when one side denies plain scientific evidence.
So for some topics, thinking in grey zones works. For others, it's just impossible if you know the data. One can and should try to stay respectful in answering even though, of course.
I also disagree.
It´s very hard to find any system that is simple enough to deduce an imperturbable true or false (black or white) statement. You find such systems in mathematics to some extent but even there it can become tricky (e.g. does "10" represent a ten or a two? Answer: it depends...)
Having data means nothing except being able to start interpreting.
I wrote a post some time ago dedicated to the problems that science cannot truly establish black or white conclusions, but that there is always a little insecurity left.
Science can however calculate probabilities of certain conclusions, and if you have a calculated probability of 99.99% that humans cause climate change, then the grey zone is virtually non-existant.
Exactly, it´s all about probabilities that the scientific method can deliver. Hence, there is always some grey zone in scientifically described systems. And one should keep in mind that also probabilities are subject to change as new data arises.
I´m not sure whether this is meant as a hypothetical statement. Because, if not, I would doubt it. I would agree if this would be the confidence for us being in a phase of global warming. However, whether humans are the cause ( in the sense of being the main cause) seems much less probable to me. I´m not proposing the contrary but a confidence of 99.99% appears to me as an ideological rather than a scientific statement.
But this would be a dispute around a specific scientific problem. Regarding the question whether science delivers truth or probabilities, I think we have the same stance.
Thanks for your reply and I will check your post a bit later.
that is actually a number derived from scientific studies that calculated those probabilities based on a meta-analysis of the available data. I quoted the studies in this old post of mine.
To be precise, it's >99% for human causing and 99.999% for greenhouse gases causing climate change.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212096314000163?via%3Dihub# - in the full text.
I'll have a look, thanks for the links.
I must confess, even in the vaccination debate, there are some points that are a grey area. Mostly the fact that a vaccination can go wrong. It's not that often but the possibility exists. But the moment you mention that, black-and-white thinkers will assume that this means vaccinations are ALWAYS dangerous and should be avoided at all costs. Which is not true. We should aim to make them safer, not abolish them.
That makes this kind of debate very, very exhausting. Because, if I don't want to be seen as agreeing with their whole point, I basically have to ignore this one fragment of truth.
Not easy. Absolutely not easy.
Of course, but I'm not even ignoring this fragment. Just from stating the obivous, that infections have decreased extremely after vaccination programs were induced - which is just a fact - you get loads of angry/ignorant/denying comments. How do you find a common ground with someone that has successfully constructed his/her own seperate reality?
Amen.
I disagree :)
On one side there is no discussion when one side dismisses evidence. But that does not mean that there is no common ground, should both parties stop the black white thinking. The problem is just that the discussion is already in a place far away from logic.
well, I had some of those discussions recently. And while I stay respectful and just focus on the science, I have the feeling there is not even an understanding on which data to use and how to interpret it. That makes the whole thing very tiring and exhausting...but still, the discussion has to be done, else we endanger millions.