Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Ayn Rand's Philosophy and Objectivism (Pt. 1) | Yaron Brook | POLITICS | Rubin Report" video.

Yeah ... the "modern left" (if that's what we should call them) has rejected reason. - but so has the "modern right".
5
Endo Alley No... There's no fallacy of appealing to authority by just recognizing that you have no expertise and that there's a consensus on the subject by experts. You do that every time you're at the hospital and the doctors recommend a treatment. Appeal to authority is something else. It's when you try to use an argument in a debate which is based only in some person/groups authority. Like; "Newton was a creationist, therefore you should doubt evolution". Or: "Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever doesn't believe in global warming, therefore you should doubt it" Science is not democracy. Not every opinion deserves equal respect. It needs to be supported by evidence - and you need to look at the entire evidence. Science doesn't advance by consensus, but if you are going to make decision based on the scientific results and you are not an expert your self, you damned well better listen to the consensus. (especially if you are a politician standing in the way for ensuring a livable planet for our grandchildren.)
2
Endo Alley I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to say, though I'm pretty sure you didn't understand what I said. ... and I'm also pretty sure you're off a tangent and splitting hairs about an analogy you didn't understand. When you go to the hospital and the doctor recommends a treatment for a critical problem it's most often not just a single doctor having an opinion. They actually have meetings discussion such decisions in a wider group of doctors. What you are presented with is the consensus position of a whole group of doctors. But anyway ... Listening to a consensus position of experts in a field is NO "appeal to authority". Most specially because determining that there is such a consensus already involves having sought "second opinions" and having evaluated how much support they have and whether there's any reason to believe their arguments haven't been addressed. Policy makers HAVE to listen to the scientific consensus. It's all they have. Not doing so, would be making up their own pseudo-science. If they are in any way in doubt about whether the issue has been properly examined, they can help fund extra research. ... which is actaully what they did: The created the IPCC to review and assess the science. Now ... 5 times the IPCC has confirmed that the problem is real and the science is solid. It's time to stop pretending that the science will somehow change, just we wait.
2
Tom Bombadil I've come to not wanting to be associated with either group. (And I'll decide my self when to shut up)
1
***** You make it seem like there's no science denial on the right. Like this guy Dave interviews here, who (like the 3 last "conservatives") are actively denying climate science.
1
***** Fair enough ... I supposed you haven't researched whether evolution is real or not either? ... are you equally agnostic about that, or do you in general agree that when practically all scientists within an area tells you something, it's probably wise to take them serious?
1
ṬẆẬȊṈ Endo Alley I see absolutely no difference between the behavior of the evolution denialists and the AGW denialists. It's science denial. ... and the pattern of argumentation, the fallacies and the dogmatism is the same. ... one difference though. Creationists are not running the planet off the cliff with their nonsense.
1
Endo Alley "A difference between the two ideas might be that Evolution is often used to refute religious beliefs. Global Warming is used to refute belief in capitalism." Only in the heads of the deniers them selves. Evolution doesn't refute "religious beliefs" in general. It refutes specific scientific claims about the origin of the species. If you religion doesn't make claims about that, then evolution doesn't care. Likewise with global warming. It doesn't refute capitalism. But people who don't like government regulation and haven't got any better solution to the problem feel they then have to deny the science. It's ideological motivated science denial. Whether the ideology is religious or political is secondary. "I wonder if many in the left who are so quick to embrace man made global warming do so because it can be used to further the socialist cause" Maybe ... But it really doesn't matter. What matters is the scientific fact: Global Warming is real, it causes climate change, it's man made and it's very dangerous.
1
Endo Alley I have really no patience for the argument: "I don't like your solution, so I deny the existence of the problem" If you don't like other peoples solution to a problem: Come up with a better one your self. I also have very little patience for the conspiracy theory that "socialists want' to hijack the issue for their cause". I'm a classical liberal. I care passionately about science and what's true. THEN I use reason to find the best solution. People shouldn't care about other people assumed motivations. Concentrate about finding your own solution.- THEN you can argue about which is best. ... and I haven't really heard any solution from the mainstream US right / libertarian side which didn't involve some kind of denial of the problem. (Except for Bob Inglish R (SC), I should say)
1
Endo Alley "Who said that?" You just described the that behavior. I didn't say you exhibited that your self, but that was part of what you described others doing. I just wanted to state that I really don't think there's any excuse for such behavior. "I merely stated that most left wingers don't give a hoot about climate change but for how it can be used to advance leftism." ... which I also regard as mostly conspiracy theory. Yeah... some "socialists" might see it as the ultimate karma and feel vindicated. ... but then... if the right didn't spend so much time denying the problem, leaving the initiative to the left and they instead came up with their own solutions, maybe those socialists wouldn't have such a field day with I-told-you-so. Again... I have no patience for that. Address the problem. Don't bitch about what others think it can do for them. "They typically seem uninterested in the science" Well... how many people who think creationism is stupid and that the scientist must be right about evolution have actually read scientific literature on the subject? There is just a thing as just not having any reason the doubt the experts in the field. I can't blame people who accept what an overwhelming scientific consensus tells us for not having read the science them selves. If you go out and say that the scientists lie, on the other hand... (like many on the right do), ... then you better have damn good arguments (and I haven't seen any). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
1
Endo Alley Sure ... which usually end in a consensus anyway. So ... when 97 out of 100 doctors say you have cancer and need to do something about it. Do you go with the 3%?
1
Endo Alley Which is an argument for... ????
1
Endo Alley "In this you are saying that the appeal to authority fallacy is only a fallacy when an expert in one domain gives an opinion outside the domain of their expertise." No. That was not the intention. The intention was to give examples of arguments I've actually been presented for my self. Another example could be: "Richard Lindzen thinks global warming is a minor problem, therefore you shouldn't worry about it" But listening to the consensus of experts (plural) in a field for making a decision, when you your self is not one, is NOT a fallacy. ... which was my point.
1