Comments on: On Opinion and Judgement

By: J. Bob

J. Bob — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 13:36:21 +0000

Pontius says, “there is little uncertainty that emissions accelerate GW”. Sounds like you made up your mind that man caused AGW. And if you don’t contribute at least 1% of your income, you shouldn’t call yourself Christian.

Something in the Bible about taking the beam out of your own eye first, so you can see clearly, before worrying about your brother’s splinter.

Especially when AGW is mostly THEORY, questionable science and a good way to get government grant money.

By: PontiusP

PontiusP — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:55:04 +0000

What a poor classification for intellectual inquiry. In Olson’s view, you either follow someone else’s opinion like a sheep, or you (independently of others?) form your own view. How do you do the latter? By acquiring your own primary data? By travelling to the north pole, and getting your own samples of ice?

I would like to suggest a fifth option. Acquire enough expertise and analytical skills, so that you will be able to judge the logical validity of the conclusions and arguments put forth by the majority, sub groups, and individuals. As a result, you will very likely “align” your view with SOMEONE.

If anything, I think a more important question is: why shouldn’t you, as a Christian, see AGW as an important issue? God made man the steward of creation.

Lastly, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. You can say you don’t believe in gravity, but it doesn’t mean that you can levitate. There is no (100 %) certainty that cutting emissions will stop global warming, but there is little uncertainty that emissions accelerate GW. It’s all about how much you want to pay for an insurance to preserve the creation as God commanded you. For some people, 1 % of their income is too much. I am ashamed that many of such people call themselves Christians.

By: John

John — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:58:58 +0000

How would you determine whether or not you feel an opinion is solid?

That makes it sound as if you are reserving space to reject an uncomfortable conclusion, since whether or not you accept it would depend upon whether you found an expert’s opinion reliable.

But how would you know whether or not that opinion were reliable if you lacked the expert knowledge to evaluate it? People can be rude and know how to make sense of data. And people can be very flattering to your worldview and intentionally deceive you in order to win your trust.

By: Gene Fant

Gene Fant — Tue, 17 Aug 2010 02:07:33 +0000

“Consensus” does not equate with “truth” or “fact.” If it did, there would have been a galactic upheaval when we switched from a Ptolemaic view of the sun / earth relationship to a Copernican one. I took a history and philosophy of science course as an u’grad and this is one of the things that our professor taught us: science is advanced by defying “conventional wisdom” and confronting it with provable hypotheses (some would argue with the term “provable,” to be sure). This is why we no longer study Aristotle as basic science, even though “all of the experts” viewed Aristotle as indisputable for centuries. It’s what led directly to the advancement of the modern scientific method. Sometimes we are wisest when we look beyond the crowd.