Science Is The Belief In The Ignorance Of The Experts

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Science Is The Belief In The Ignorance Of The Experts

  1. Elizabeth says:

    Tony do you have an email address where I can send a question to? Thanks

  2. MrGrimNasty says:

    A Cox by name and by nature. Always be wary of the ‘rock star’ mentality, achieved or thwarted (as in the case of Tony Blair). It isn’t about the science or the politics for these people, it’s just a vehicle for their ego.

    • Robertv says:

      For these people it is about ‘to be or not to be’ a celebrity and not about honesty. He has seen what happens to those on the wrong side of the consensus. For this temporary fame he will have no place in history other than a traitor of science.

  3. T Erickson says:

    Not sure if this fits here, but just seen this on Twitter.

    If not feel free to delete.

  4. hororh says:

    Just wondering if you’ve ever seen this:

    Seems to get into what’s been going on for a while now…
    Keep up the good work, Tony!

  5. GCSquared says:

    There are some matters of definition.

    First, I actually DO trust experts, but I’m sure not going to let others tell me who they are, especially newscasters who claim to be expert at telling us who’s an expert. Someone who has enough expertise to clearly and cogently eplain why they believe something to be true is an expert to me (Lindzen). After all, f I can’t understand their explanation, why would I regard them as expert? The only other way, when the topic becomes too difficult (and climate science hasn’t), is to observe them in debate with someone who believes the opposite (here I put Curry and Happer). Style alone invariably exposes who is reasoning honestly and who is propagandizing and dodging the meat of the issue. NOT Michael Mann, for sure, nor Brian Cox above, who simply argues by assertion.

    Second, there’s an attempt to create a consensus that there is even a consensus on climate. To anyone making this claim, I’d ask them exactly what sort of survey backs up this idea. In particular: What questions were asked? Who was queried? Was the ballot secret?

    People who take things based on expertise or consensu, without asking why, are easy to fool.

    • Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

      Consensus IS required in science for stability’s sake, but the catch is that they’re continually being replaced. Please read Thomas Kuhn. I also recommend the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, whose historicity was actually a fluke.

      • Archie says:

        But NOT consensus at the point of a sword like we have so often.

        When a “theory” becomes a “law,” then it’s time for consensus. We have the “Laws of Thermodynamics,” but I am not familiar with the laws of CC. lol

        • Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

          I agree, Archie, which is I talked about Kuhn’s “paradigm shift”. We gotta find a way to make the contrary evidence known to the world at large.

      • JCalvertN(UK) says:

        I *have* read Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ – and I don’t think much of it.
        For a start, it is a jumbled mess of a book and hard-work to read. (Its 200 – 300 pages feel like 2000 by the time you’re through.) One of the few people to ever interview Khun wrote “his speech was as profoundly tangled, as suffused with subjunctives and qualifiers, as his prose”. In my experience, clear prose is a reliable indication of clear thinking; while jumbled unclear prose goes with confused thought processes.
        Richard Feynman, by contrast, wrote (in a 4-page address titled “Cargo Cult Science”) a very clear and succinct account of what science ‘is’ and ‘isn’t’; what it ‘should be’ and ‘should not be’; ‘how it should be done’ and ‘how it should not be done’.
        Feynman was a real scientist who worked right at the cutting edge of science all his life – at the forefront of a “scientific revolution” even. He knew what it takes to do science properly and successfully – AND he had actual first hand experience of a scientific revolution. In short he knew what he was talking about. Kuhn did not. Instead he relied on four historical case studies; Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein – none of which were typical of post WW2 scientific practice.
        Feynman was a top-notch genius. Kuhn was not. (His rich Daddy had bought him a very expensive education and he was going to flaunt it for all it was worth.)
        Secondly Kuhn’s study was not done in a scientific way – which is strange in a book that is supposedly all about science. It has a sub-text running through it which indicates that it was motivated and initiated by strong prejudices and “pet-hates”. His pet-hates included: Popper’s “Logic of Scientific Discovery”; anything “Baconian”(I suspect this really means the Scientific Method itself); and a “Whiggish” view of science and history.
        Thirdly . . . well that’s enough for now. My “critique” is a bit of an on-going project.

        • Tyrannosaurus Rex says:

          I never knew, Calvert, but you can’t blame him for hating “Whiggish”. It’s a popular tactic for propagandists be they British Whigs or Russian Bolsheviks. I have nothing to discredit your criticism, but I will say this again. Science needs consensus for stability, but it must also always be ready for reformation, but the problem is that climatologists are extinct or at best few and far between. Newspapers are at the bidding of opportunistic politicians and corporates climbing and staying on top of the social ladder.

          • JCalvertN(UK) says:

            A book has come out recently titled “The Ashtray” – written by a former student of Kuhn’s who dared to contradict the man and found himself on the receiving end of the titular object.

  6. Michael Spencer says:

    Just fantastic again Tony!

    I’m so pleased you’ve highlighted that ABC ‘Q&A’ session where Brian Cox produced that fraudulently manipulated chart which you have debunked many times, to confront someone who does not claim to be an ‘expert’, but who I know to have the necessary background experience and expertise and to have put in a huge amount of REAL research into the climate SCAM – Australian Senator Malcolm Roberts.

    And then we see poor deluded Greta Thunberg, shamelessly manipulated by others who have – quite obviously – criminally taken advantage of her autism to produce a figure to help to manipulate and frighten young people.

    Hmmmm ….. I wonder where that has happened comparatively recently? (And look where that got everybody?)

  7. rah says:

    Well, it’s 2020 and I’m still here! No climate change catastrophes to report here in Central Indiana. A happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year to you all.

  8. GeoDent says:

    It’s time to re-read Michael Crichton’s excellent book ‘State of Fear’, a novel about climate alarmism way ahead of its time. I’m fortunate to have a copy, because we can’t be sure that it will still be available from the usual sources. Creeping censorship might claim another victim?

  9. Rosco says:

    The problem in the Q&A episode was that Malcolm Roberts wasn’t prepared. He should have known these alarmists would ambush him and he should have had the same data graphed as the average temperature and not the anomaly. The resulting basically almost flat line would have really blown the minds of the sycophantic idiots !

    Malcolm Roberts also put back scepticism in Australia when the evil ABC were able to crow that he had failed to comply with our constitution by renouncing his foreign citizenship and thus he was removed from parliament by a High Court ruling that he was never eligible.

    Any sceptic cannot afford to be even 1% as stupid as alarmists – numerous arseholes attack at the slightest provocation.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Agree with your last sentence. Not all of us are physicists, and although sceptics seem to have a better grasp of the general science surrounding climate and climate history, trolls, like a couple on this board, treasure picking at the irrelevant nits and mistakes, whilst ignoring the voluminous mistakes from their own kind, their failed predictions, the moving of goal posts (and the adjusting/changing of datasets over time) – all of which, separately and combined, decimate AGW as a theory and relegate it to the massive trash heap of failed scientific hypotheses.

  10. Aussie says:

    The link below seems appropriate to remind people of how those “expert” scientists too often get it wrong.

    I liked the one about how Goddard, the rocket scientist, was labelled a nut. And it was only when the Nazis rockets started raining down on London that they all woke up

  11. rory says:

    Thanks Tony for telling who will listen the obvious truth. It’s remarkable how simple it all is once you see all of the historical evidence that you have brought to light. How easy it is to see that main stream academia has always had the same traits that still exist today. If only it could slap them in the face as to how silly they look to so many of us. How obvious it is to many ,despite their education or status, that they hold to such a narrow consciousness.
    Despite all of the opinions as to why they continue to be so overly confident in themselves, it continues from generation to generation. So it’s obvious that their lives now and in the past have been a lie. I think of people like them as leeches , hiding and sucking their existence from honest hard working people. Hiding their true nature while flaunting themselves in plain sight.
    It’s simple, that’s how they exist, by lying and pretending to be somebody of importance, getting wealthy by joining in a feign deception to fund their useless existence .

    Sounds harsh , but it’s true.

  12. Mohib says:

    Article on Philip E. Tetlock’s 20 years of research expert predictions:

    THEATLANTIC.COM — The Peculiar Blindness of Experts — Credentialed authorities are comically bad at predicting the future. But reliable forecasting is possible.


    Philip E. Tetlock decided to put expert political and economic predictions to the test. He collected forecasts from 284 highly educated experts who averaged more than 12 years of experience in their specialties. The project lasted 20 years, with 82,361 probability estimates about the future. The result: The experts were, by and large, horrific forecasters. Their areas of specialty, years of experience, and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. They were bad at short-term forecasting and bad at long-term forecasting. They were bad at forecasting in every domain. Even faced with their results, many experts never admitted systematic flaws in their judgment. One subgroup of scholars, however, did …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.