pbelter wrote:You lost me in the rest of your argument about some conspiracy theories and claim humans are not behaving rationally.
And that is exactly the problem, that most of us, most of the time, can't see that we are not thinking clearly.
I read this book about 20 years ago, "Irrationality: The Enemy Within" by Stuart Sutherland, and it was an eye opener. Later on I studied more about the subject, did a bit of experimenting, and the more I knew, the more I realized humans are only partially intelligent.
Now, this may not be such a big problem as long as we are aware of our limitations and take corrective measures, but what if we are not aware? Then, THAT may be a problem.
Rationality goes through the window quite easily, for example if we try to reason about a subject we feel strongly about (conspiracies, anyone?), or if the ideas, facts, or train of reasoning clash with our world-view ... and the list of potentially perturbing influences goes on.
I have this friend. He is a bit of a conspiracy nut but that doesn't mean we disagree about everything. One thing we agree about is that critical thinking skills should be taught at schools. I've found that many conspiracy theory followers are of the same mind.
Now, this is odd; they seem to believe that critical thinking is what they do when, in my opinion, it is the exact opposite
There is no way in which AGW proponents and AGW "skeptics" can have a fruitful debate, because both sides don't follow the same rules of logic (most often, conspiracy followers don't follow any set of rules of logic).
Which side is being rational, the one that says that there is a world-wide conspiracy of ... whoever (the subject can change), or the one that says that in the scientific community honesty is more common than dishonesty, and also that scientists know more about how the atmosphere and ocean work, that the average citizen ?
You know one difference between being rational or irrational, Pbelter? That when the rational person reads or listens to an argument that contradicts their ideas, they take the time to fully understand it, analyze it, and judge its merit, because it could actually teach them something new.
On the other hand, if you just jump at it, giving some kind of prerecorded answer, or only use your time and intelligence to look for ways to "counter-punch" but not the time to appraise it, then you are not being rational. That's not a discussion, that's a boxing match.
edit: spelling