A logic argument
I really like this guy. He attacks a difficult question with straight-up logic (the kind you may take a class in).
If you haven’t seen this already, take a few minutes to watch this to the end. If you don’t want to watch it now, come back to it later. I think it’s important to think about and discuss these things together.
http://view.break.com/311805 – Watch more free videos
I think many issues that we tackle are tangled up by us asking the wrong questions (both on a macro and personal scale). This simple scenario asks a better question.
Interesting. I definitely like the contrast between guessing at rows and choosing columns. There are two points I find myself taking issue with, and this isn’t to say his argument is wrong, only to say these points are ignored in his discussion.
a) If we aren’t responsible for global climate change, or even if we are, we might not be able to stop it. In this case, the research money and other costs we might spend trying to reverse the trend might better be spent preparing for inevitable disaster – there are always at least three options, no either-ors. One alternative option is that we suck it in and spend the money necessary to prepare for the *consequences* of global warming and to reduce the impact – provide real escape plans for people in big coastal cities. Construct new cities, possibly underground, for people to live in. Work on temperature gradient power generation in case storms knock out our ability to access solar power. Push hydroponics, etc. Slow population growth (a good idea in any case). See if we can figure out how to push-start the climate later. Listen to both the doomsdayers and the this-isn’t-our-fault people and through your coin at another part of the problem.
b) At the end, he says the only way to achieve signification change is by changing public policy. And that just isn’t true. That is to say, consumers have a lot of power in what they buy, peer pressure has a lot of power. social pressure has a lot of power. That power is diffused right now because the major media is downplaying demonstrations of dissent – they pick up a few lone voices, but not the major trends or even the rallies and marches. I am no less cynical right now about what controls public policy than the next guy. So I consider a conclusion that the only way to enact change is to spread the word and hope that the people in charge will do the right thing to be massively wrong-headed.
I would have to agree rather much on the latter point – his excellent discussion of the options breaks down when he gets to the “What are your options, dear reader” part.
As for the former, that gets into another sticky question, which is (assuming climate change is real) would the environment change be significantly -worse- if we don’t attempt to change our environmental policies and instead shift that money into emergency management? I think both efforts are vital together, but I promise we won’t be building any underground cities unless people seriously begin to die on a massive scale. At that point, we’re in the midst of disaster, and the “rows” part has been proven to be difinitively YES.
I think part of the problem is that “society” does not move fast enough for people. They are expecting radical change, like somehow the massive oil and car lobbies will majickally go, “ZOMG, someone call the RomePhone! We need electric cars!” When you’re moving something as large as “society’s” norms, even the smallest change moves us in the right direction. Think about something as frivolous as fashion statements…NYC and LA are on the cutting edge, and it takes a while for that to go inward. I mean, really, the people in Wisconsin just hit 1992…they’re totally into grunge. Kansas still thinks the band, Kansas, is hot. The same concept, in reality, can be applied to ideas.
And while I can agree with his logic, I see us moving towards the YES column, only, not as fast as people want. Whether or not we’ve started too late, I cannot say, but we are moving, albeit slowly towards the YES.
1. there is very little logic (of the kind you take a class in) in that argument.
2. Man does he want to be Ze Frank at the start there.
3. He needs to work on efficiency. That’s a 2 minute argument in 10 minutes.
4. The 3 immediate problems with his argument I see – a. he assumes efficacy, b. oversimplification / he attempts to quantify qualitative things (like a smiley face), c. There’s a heisenberg sorta thing here – he talks about picking a column and kicking back to see which row was true, but the whole point is the row is determined by column choice.
The row is determined by column choice? So, if you were to choose column A or column B (to act or not to act), that actually changes whether or not there is or is not a global climate crisis?
Whether or not he is inefficient or wants to be Ze Frank has nothing to do with whether his thought is sound, and if you’re going to be snarky (which I don’t particularly mind, mind you, discussions are sometimes snarky), I’d prefer you back up why you, for instance, see very little logic in the classical sense in his point.
As for as your items, A and B, you’ll see that and I already discussed the what-ifs as far as whether any money we throw at preventing climate change will actually do any good, and you’re welcome to participate in that thread, or point out your thoughts more elaborately here. As for B… the reason it is a nine and some minute video and not a two minute video is precisely because he was pointing out exactly how simplistic he was making the discussion, and urging people to come up with a more complex example based on that logic and see if it does or does not work.
I don’t see any quantization in his comment. In fact, he avoids quantization such as considering whether the cost of a depression from one side is equivalent to the depression on another side, monetarily speaking.
Ever see The Emporer’s New Groove, where the emporer’s bodyguard is having a discussion with his shoulder angel and shoulder devil, and the devil’s rebuttal to the angel is, “look at that, he’s wearing a dress and playing that sissy stringy thing”? That is similar to what i’m getting here, no offense meant.
technically referred to as a “tainting the well” fallacy. i.e., attacking an aspect of an argument (an argument, technically, refers to a statement which is up for debate. plus maybe some supporting statements. not to be confused with a quarrel or power struggle.) which has nothing to do with the point of said argument. “that public speaker has no fashion sense! what a loser! you wouldn’t listen to an unfashionable loser, would you?”
i loved logic class. still do. *swoon*
the ze frank thing was not criticism of the argument, just an observation that was validated by the League of Awesomeness shirt later on. And whatever the reason, he wasted 8 minutes of my time. That should be worked on. The snarky comments were clearly separated from the substantive critique, and that’s the best someone can hope for from me.
I saw that efficacy was mentioned already, but I thought I’d include it anyway.
Well, there’s an equation and that’s what I meant. Equations are meant for quantitative comparison and “different but livable” and “end of the world” have different values for different people.
Hmm, OK. well, first are you classically trained in Logic? I’m not accusing – I’m just trying to determine how much common shorthand and jargon I can use. Basically it boils down to the fact that this is not logical reasoning – no syllogisms, no well defined sets, no true conclusions. He just postulates extreme outcomes, and then uses only them to compare possible futures. It’s a reasonable tool for policymaking, but not something I was ever taught in Logic classes.
Sir; to whom do you think you are talking, here? Have I seen a Disney movie…
Speaking of classically trained – What you are talking about is the logical fallacy Ad Homenem (which, like several fallacies is not logically defensible, but empirically useful)
Well, I had a logic class in college, to be certain, and aced it, but it -was- 8 years ago. I’d say you’re free to refer to the various logical fallacies and I will know what they represent, and I’ll certainly remember various logic diagrams and terminology. If I don’t, well, this is the internet age.
The point he is trying to make, I think we can agree, is that we are concentrating on the wrong question, that being whether there is or is not a significant global climate change coming. It is true that his set of assumptions is very large for this argument, but the problem he faces is that none of us agree on many aspects of the problem we’re talking about, AND his very point is that we’re getting bogged down on whether these assumptions are true or not instead of considering our choices, whether or not they are true, and whether the risks of being wrong, one way or another, are acceptable.
His simplistic diagram definitely is not completely representative of the real world situation and our choices. As partially pointed out, we have many alternatives – for instance, we could shoot (sulfur, I believe?) into the atmosphere to compensate for and mitigate the greenhouse gasses, which, in theory, would mean we could keep on keepin’ on. I still think that his point (that the problem we are obsessing over as a nation is moot when you consider our avenue for change is to act or not to act) is valid. That is the variable that we can modify.
the row is determined by column choice
I assume you mean that if we attempt to determine whether we can or do have an effect on the environment (either in a positive or negative way), we are already placing ourselves in column A. In essence, the row and column is intertwined. In more potential cases than not, we would be placed in column A rather than B. We would have to both not care, and not do anything, in order to have a chance at avoid any risk whatsoever, hoping that there is no problem.
Not sure where I’m going with this… heh, so I’ll stop now.
I’m with you though, I think his logic is faulty, claiming imbalance (there’s a better choice) where there is only balance (see my comment below)
At first I thought this was going to be part of yesterday’s “blog as if zombies are attacking” event. When it comes to zombies, the rows negate the columns. Human-caused climate change is a stronger case than zombies, of course. The problem lies in my inability as a nonspecialist to make a row decision.
I’m not sure I want to abandon thinking about rows. I’ve had too much of Pascal’s wager, which is completely fallacious. I’ve seen the Precautionary Principle put forward to suggest banning nanotech, biotech and artificial intelligence until they can somehow be proven safe. Knee-jerk precaution goes wrong, as a wagering strategy.
What matters is scientific sources, sufficiently non-politicized, who we can more or less trust that a consensus is truly emerging about the rows. It’s risen above the credibility level of a zombie attack now. Credibility on the topic of the rows must rise to a level sufficient to make the columns tip us the rest of the way.
Here’s where his argument breaks down. It’s assuming that action taken will be effective, because he’s assuming that the only way global warming can be real is if it’s human caused.
The “nay” side can argue (and has argued) that global warming is occurring, but without human activity or that the human contribution is not the dominant one. Therefor, under this view, it doesn’t matter which column you pick; we end up with the downside of column “B” whether or not we take action to reduce human-generated carbon emissions. Under this view, the rational decision is to minimise expenditure on futile measures and concentrate them instead ones that will show a return. (Disaster preparedness, for instance. Or, to be grim, beefed-up defense budgets.)
— Steve’s trying not to fall in the hole of assuming dichotomies. The real universe is usually far more complex than can be reflected in a “yes/no” tree small enough to fit on a whiteboard.
Ah, but there are (expensive and difficult) possibilities for affecting greenhouse gasses on a much larger scale than simply cutting down on the gasses we already emit, from capturing carbon dioxide and pumping it under the ocean to expelling sulfur into the atmosphere to combine with the gasses. He does not specify what that “Action” is in that simple yes/no tree – whether it is ceasing our normal carbon-dioxide-emitting behavior or preparing for disaster or attempting a proactive turn-around through other methods. The point is still whether to take the idea that we must -act- seriously is being occluded by the nature of the climate change.
Also, international scientific bodies like the IPCC and the panel sponsored by the U.N. have agreed that not only is global warming real, but that we humans have indeed had a direct impact. I wonder exactly how much more consensus is necessary, and what our fate will be between now and that time, considering at this point we are doing next to nothing, either in prevention, proactive methods, or disaster preparedness.
Agreed, I think he’s actually missed -2- rows… He mixed his definition of the two rows he used. He said the rows were true/false as to whether global warming is human caused – and he said it was whether we -could- do anything about it. That’s not 2 options, that’s four.
So, first, there’s:
1) human-caused & treatable
2) human-caused & non-treatable
3) natural & treatable
4) natural & non-treatable
But that’s a minor point, and based on ihs own definitions…
The main point he missed was that column A isn’t -just- a risk for false – there’s an added guarantee by his own columns that Cost $ is a major factor. On the other hand, column B has no cost factor for false.
So, while column B – not doing anything – has a greater maximum risk, it also has the least potential risk, whereas column A – attempting to fix the problem – has less maximum risk, but a guaranteed cost factor.
His argument says that column A is the better choice by simple logic. But by his own logic, choices A and B would once again even out. (and assuming a simplistic measurement of the factors he involves).
And, as matt_arnold stated earlier, we can’t stop thinking about rows – science can study our effects, and attempt to gain a greater understanding about the world climate, working towards determining if our actions can and do have an adverse effect. Plus, I’d consider that already being proactive and placing us in column A, in which case already attempting to determine a row is guaranteeing a cost factor.
A big problem of his argument
First of all, he missed a big problem. We don’t just discuss WHETHER or not we should do something, we discuss WHAT we should do.
Too many people are using arguments like his, which put things into either Box A or Box B and not talking about, “Should we make a temporary fix now or should we remain in think tanks and figure out a permanent solution?”
He also categorizes “Economic disaster” of the one box without adding that it will honestly cost more than money, it will cost lives. To implement some global warming coping strategies would involve, in some cases, solutions that will push some third world nations back. The US can afford the minor set backs, other nations would honestly have mass deaths.
The other reason that the discussion is worthwhile is that a solution now may involve something irreparable. We could go and do something NOW to solve global warming only to find out that our method was not risk-free, and it casued something to happen that was worse. Or perhaps we miscalculated, the problem wasn’t global warming caused by humans, but the natural cycle of the planet … and that by “Fixing” global warming, we’ve upset the cycle of the planet and now we’re in for a world of hurt.
Finally, there are a lot of things which are going to eventually destroy all life as we know it. Eventually, the sun will change temperature and then we’ll all die from that… so, perhaps we should make for the stars?
In all honesty, us humans are really good at figuring stuff under pressure, we’re less good when we’re given clear warning. Who knows what will happen, but in the end, I’m confident that we’ll deal with whatever may come.