The Intellectual Dishonesty of Vandalizing Wikipedia

[EC]

Because a lot of those societies are specifically for atmospheric scientists, and generally speaking the official opinions of scientifici societies can be taken as representative of their members. Also because there isnt even one major scientific organization (let alone an atmospherical one) which seriously questions the IPCC findings. I'm not sure what youre getting at here. Short of questioning every single climatologist in the world, the best way to gauge scientific opinion is through the stated opinions of relevant scientific societies, and a review of the literature.

Most physicists will never "seriously question" the Copenhagen interpretation of QM; does this make it valid? Have you ever really thought that it's possible for a cat to be both dead and alive at the same time until you actually look?

[eriatarka]

Yeah I guess scientists are just morons in general

[DavidOdden]

Because a lot of those societies are specifically for atmospheric scientists, and generally speaking the official opinions of scientific societies can be taken as representative of their members.

I know what scientific societies are, and I dispute your claim that these position statements are "representative" of the views of climatologists. I know how position statements come into existence and know that they do not arise by an objective polling of the relevant scientists. They arise in a top-down fashion, in a manner that is very similar to how laws are created in the US -- not by direct democracy and careful investigation to find "the position that most citizens agree with". A simply test you migth want to perform is to determine "how many climatologists are there in the US?", "what are the criteria for membership?", "when was the poll taken?", "what were the alternatives presented?", and "what were the numeric results?". Pick any one of the orgnizations that you have in mind and let us know what you found.

[EC]

Yeah I guess scientists are just morons in general

I hope that you're just being sarcastic here, and I think that you are. "Scientists" are a class of men, and men can and usually do hold quite inconsistent and often contradictory implicit philosophical views; most scientists aren't much better. For instance my aunt who is a doctor (actually dentist) and her husband who is an engineer--both "scientists"-- were trying to explain to me the " health benefits" of magnets placed on sore areas... lol. I respect them both, but let's just say I'm glad that they didn't throw me off their boat during the conversation.

[eriatarka]

I hope that you're just being sarcastic here, and I think that you are. "Scientists" are a class of men, and men can and usually do hold quite inconsistent and often contradictory implicit philosophical views; most scientists aren't much better. For instance my aunt who is a doctor (actually dentist) and her husband who is an engineer--both "scientists"-- were trying to explain to me the " health benefits" of magnets placed on sore areas... lol. I respect them both, but let's just say I'm glad that they didn't throw me off their boat during the conversation.

Sorry, I was being flippant because I didnt think what you were saying was really relevant to the thread. But to give a longer answer:

1) I mentioned before that I think theres a difference between questioning conceptual/philosophical issues in science, and questioning specific empirical claims. Quantum physics interpretation is a special case because its overdetermined by empirical evidence - there are many competiting interpretations which are equally compatible with the mathematical formalism and known experimental data. The procedure for selecting an interpretation in quantum physics is very different from the procedure of sitting down to evaluate a large body of experimental research and form a testable scientific hypothesis, and is often driven more by philosophical considerations than scientific evaluation. To take a concrete example, I think the behaviorist approach applied to humans in psychology during the early 20th century was horribly flawed for philosophical reasons, but this doesnt imply that the data they collected was wrong.

2) There are fairly good reasons why Copenhagenism has been widely accepted - its not like physicists sat one down one day and decided to believe a series of implausible claims for no reason.. The impossibility theorems of Von Neumann and Bell show that any interpretation of quantum physics necessarily needs to be 'weird' (in the sense that local hidden variable theories are ruled out) and realist interpretations of quantum physics generally have problems which are just as significant as the problems with non-realist ones - the introduction of the ad-hoc potential in the Bohm formulation combined with its need for superluminal casuation for example, or the extreme counter-intuitiveness of MWI.

3) You oversimplify Copenhagenism - a lot of modern believers in Copenhagen-style interpretations would claim that quantum physics is a tool for making predictions about statistical ensembles of systems rather than individual systems (ie they would define probability in a frequentist rather than metaphysical manner). In this approach, its meaningless to talk about QM predictions of particular experiments and the problem of Schroedingers cat is partially avoided.

4) Ive no idea whether 'most physicists' have problems with Copenhagenism, but if they havent thought much about the matter this is probably because it isnt relevant to their work. The vast majority of physicists dont work on problems which are directly related to foundational QM issues and hence have no real need to delve into the large literature on the subject unless they happen to find the subject interesting - to paraphrase Feynmann, they may prefer to "shut up and calculate". But when it comes to physicists who's work does deal with these matters (and philosophers of physics) Copenhagensim has been widely debated and several competiting interpretations have been developed. For example, I remember reading somewhere that a lot of cosmologists who do foundational work are partial to Everett-style interpretations because they avoid the difficulties of defining an external observer when youre dealing with a wave-function which represents the whole universe (eg at the time of the big bang).

5) Even if Copenhagenism is unjustifiable, I dont think it has any relevance to climate-change. What youre saying is essentially a version of 'scientists have been wrong before, so why cant they be wrong now?' which is a way of introducing arbitrary doubt where there shouldnt be any ("people have been wrong before, so why should I be certain about anything?")

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

5) Even if Copenhagenism is unjustifiable, I dont think it has any relevance to climate-change. What youre saying is essentially a version of 'scientists have been wrong before, so why cant they be wrong now?' which is a way of introducing arbitrary doubt where there shouldnt be any ("people have been wrong before, so why should I be certain about anything?")

No my statement meant exactly what I said it meant.

"Scientists" are a class of men, and men can and usually do hold quite inconsistent and often contradictory implicit philosophical views; most scientists aren't much better.

This holds true for most physicists who don't think it's part of their job to understand what their theories actually mean (it is), as well as use the results of those theories "practically". It also holds true for most "climatologists" who examine data while holding incorrect philosophical premises about man's relation to earth and its "environment" and/or hold no explicit philosophical principles, and just accept unquestioningly what is handed to them as "truth" as decided by "others" who rank higher in the profession, or speak their nonsense more elegantly.

The reason that you did not see the relevance of what I was saying is because you don't think in regards to clear principles that cover many concrete instances, but instead take every instance of a similar idea as completely unique. It is a type of Pragmatism, I believe.

Edited July 22, 2008 by EC

[eriatarka]

It also holds true for most "climatologists" who examine data while holding incorrect philosophical premises about man's relation to earth and its "environment" and/or hold no explicit philosophical principles,

"Man's relationship to the environment" has no relevance to the scientific qusetion of whether man's actions are contributing to climate-change. 'Man's relationship to his environment' is something which you would take into account when confronting the ethical/political questions which arise from global-warming, not when considering whether it exists. The normative question is seperate from the scientific evaluation of data - one can believe in global warming while rejecting the entire environmentalist agenda and proposed solutions.

who just accept unquestioningly what is handed to them as "truth" as decided by "others" who rank higher in the profession, or speak their nonsense more elegantly.

The problem here is that if you dont trust the opinions of experts in the field, then who do you trust? Cranks on the internet with geocities pages in multiple fonts?

Realistically, very few non-climatologists are going to invest the hundreds of hours it would take to read all the relevant literature and form an opinion for themselves. Trusting the opinion of those who have studied the problem extensively is a better way to go through life than trusting the opinion of non-experts. The scientific community may be faillible, but its still better than the alternatives.

Would you apply your same arguments when it came to getting a possible medical condition diagnosed? Sure, the medical community might be wrong and perhaps your doctor is acting purely on second-hand knowledge he gained from academic textbooks, but what else are you going to use for a diagnosis - wikipedia?

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[Capitalism Forever]

Well the national science academies of pretty much every major Western country have came out and agreed with the IPCC position that theres a human contribution to climate change , for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

You cite Wikipedia as evidence within a discussion questioning the credibility of Wikipedia? That looks a bit like "I believe in God, because it's written in the Bible that he exists, and the Bible is definitely true because God wrote it."

[eriatarka]

Yeah its not like every claim in that article is accompanied by an external link to the the actual statements or anything.

Edited July 22, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

"Man's relationship to the environment" has no relevance to the scientific qusetion of whether man's actions are contributing to climate-change. 'Man's relationship to his environment' is something which you would take into account when confronting the ethical/political questions which arise from global-warming, not when considering whether it exists. The normative question is seperate from the scientific evaluation of data - one can believe in global warming while rejecting the entire environmentalist agenda and proposed solutions.

Wrong. The climatologists implicitly held premises influence every moment of all these men's work. Why would they begin to study something so "unscientific" to begin with? Bad premises. Why do highlight data that "proves" their hypothesis while holding back data that opposes it? Bad premises. Why do they claim that everyone that opposes their view is environment destroying "denier". Bad premises. See a pattern here? A proper philosophy is a prerequisite for proper science. Not the other way around.

The problem here is that if you dont trust the opinions of experts in the field, then who do you trust?

Myself, and my own independent judgment. Then I take others opinions into account based on my level of knowledge on a given subject and/or the credibility level I have in an "expert" coupled with my judgment of his general philosophy.

Realistically, very few non-climatologists are going to invest the hundreds of hours it would take to read all the relevant literature and form an opinion for themselves.

Realistically they don't need to. When one understands the motivations behind all the literature, one can simply dismiss it out of hand as arbitrary and/or wrong. When presented with certain data in discussion a glance at the data and knowledge of the researchers basics premise allows one to find its flaws quickly.

Trusting the opinion of those who have studied the problem extensively is a better way to go through life than trusting the opinion of non-experts.

Once again, ultimately, I trust my opinion over any others until they convince me they are right.

The scientific community may be faillible, but its still better than the alternatives.

I am not attacking science, just many members of the "scientific community" who do research based on incorrect or arbitrary premises.

Would you apply your same arguments when it came to getting a possible medical condition diagnosed?

Yes. My second opinions come from my own conclusions based on a combonation of my doctor's opinion and my own independent research and reasoning on the condition.

Sure, the medical community might be wrong and perhaps your doctor is acting purely on second-hand knowledge he gained from academic textbooks, but what else are you going to use for a diagnosis - wikipedia?

Truthfully, I might and have started there, although in general I dislike wikipedia due to its nature. But as a potential launching point that and google are good starting points. I've found everything that I need to know in as much detail as I need via searching the web.

[TuringAI]

one can believe in global warming while rejecting the entire environmentalist agenda and proposed solutions.

I've selected this quote, which was THE sentence (or clause) in the paragraph that you SHOULD have been arguing for or against.

Wrong. The climatologists implicitly held premises influence every moment of all these men's work. Why would they begin to study something so "unscientific" to begin with? Bad premises. Why do highlight data that "proves" their hypothesis while holding back data that opposes it? Bad premises. Why do they claim that everyone that opposes their view is environment destroying "denier". Bad premises. See a pattern here? A proper philosophy is a prerequisite for proper science. Not the other way around.

That's beside the point and it doesn't make him wrong. Living beings have autonomous functions in the sense that they exhibits dependencies on one another that don't exist for random chunks of rock in outer space. It HAS been proven that said living beings, on a large scale, change the entire planet's environment. Not purposefully of course, but they do. What makes us different from them? What, in fundamental principle, makes humans who have no conscious, volitional interest in maintaining the global environment so different from the rest of life that they can, through random variations in genetic code, effect the global environment and we can't? I say 'no interest' because we do not act to effect the global environment in any coherent fashion, and given our current level of technology, not to mention philosophy, are unfit to do so anyway. This means humans, ever since our rapid increase in number, have been having SOME effect on the environment. Having good science requires good philosophy, yes, but philosophy, at least Ayn Rand's definition of philosophy, is about common sense topics. The specialized study of human impact on the environment is not a matter of common sense unless you accept the premise that life forms in general are capable of influencing the environment, which itself is still a matter of the specialized study of life in relation to its environment.

[Moebius]

Would you like to dine in a restaurant where the food is made by a bunch of random people walking in from the street and trying to reach a consensus on what recipe to use? Perhaps such a restaurant might be cheaper than a normal one with a professional chef, but wouldn't the quality of the food rather depend on luck, to put it mildly? Would such a restaurant really be "one of the 21st century's greatest achievements" ? And how can you be sure that organizations like Al-Qaeda won't send their operatives to "contribute" some arsenic to people's meals?

Your analogy is incomplete. In the Wiki-restaurant:

1. the people that make your food are anonymous but not necessarily completely random -- they are mostly a self-selected group of people that specialize and really enjoy cooking that item of their choice, granted with a varied level of skills.

2. you get to order almost any kind of food you want even if it is extremely obscure or specific -- the menu is far larger than any other restaurant on Earth.

3. the food is delivered to your doorsteps as soon as you placed the order.

4. there is definitely a small chance that the food is bad, but you can look at it or sample it first before you decide whether to eat it.

5. the food is not only cheaper, IT IS COMPLETELY FREE.

So hell yeah, I'd eat there. It certainly won't be my sole diet, but if I wanted to try something new or had a sudden craving, it'd be the first place I go. And yes, it is certainly a remarkable achievement.

[Capitalism Forever]

4. there is definitely a small chance that the food is bad, but you can look at it or sample it first before you decide whether to eat it.

Well, consider the article on "Global Warming," for example. It basically states that Al Gore is right, all scientists agree, the debate is over, period. If an innocent and unsuspecting person reads that, how will he be able to distinguish it from the truth? There is no color-coding or strikeouts or other feature in Wikipedia indicating which of its statements are facts and which are propaganda.

I am not sure what you mean by "sampling." If I was given a menu and told that some of the dishes might contain arsenic, but the only way to tell which ones did was to sample them, I'd probably prefer to patronize another restaurant--one that isn't run by "enthusiasts" cooking for free, but by people whose income depends on the quality and safety of their food.

[D'kian]

My question is, where does this rate on the 'intellectual dishonesty' - o - meter? What can WE do about such things? Most important, what do we have to gain by judging those who do this and acting on the behalf of the truth of the matters currently under dispute?

Let's start a bit farther back. What should an encyclopedia be?

It should be a compendium of knowledge about all fields of human endeavour. It should be factual and objective. Should it be impartial? that is, should judgement, particularly moral judgement, be part of an encyclopedia?

I think it should be. I think judgement should be left to the readers. Therefore the entry on Communism shouldn't say "Criminal philosophical and political system meant to ensure senseless sacrifice of all to all for the benefit of a Nomenklatura." Nor should the entry on Objectivism say "Pseudo philosophical system dreamt up by Capitalist oppresors to justify their oppresion." An exception can be made for scientific terms, for example, Phlogiston could be described as "Name given to a substance erroneously believed to be the source of fire."

So, if an encyclopedia should be factual, objective and impartial, then a compedium, whatever its cirtues, which is used to propagandize, advertise, indoctrinate, etc, etc, is not an encyclopedia and it is dishonest to even call it that.

Wikipedia has become ath the very least the source of first resort for many people. Look up almost any term in a search engine and the Wikipedia entry is usually the top link found, or among the top five or ten. It has a great deal of brand recognition, too. And all too many people use it as their only source of reference.

To be honest I avoid Wikipedia when dealing with political or social matters, because I don't think it can't be trusted. I do use it for factual info on scientific, commercial and geographical matters, for example (I will look up airports there, for instance), but usually as a first, quick reference. If I need somethign more, I will look elsewhere.

What we can do is set up a competing online system that guarantees objectivity and impartiality. I think there was an attempt at something along these lines called the Citizendium, or something like it. I don't know what happened to it. In any case it is a difficult proposition, since by its nature a compendium requires massive amounts of work and people to carry it out. I also don't see how to make a profit out of it.

[EC]

I also don't see how to make a profit out of it.

Advertising. Both for the site and it's objectivity versus the competitor, and on the site tailored exactly to what the searched for while there.

[DavidOdden]

What we can do is set up a competing online system that guarantees objectivity and impartiality. I think there was an attempt at something along these lines called the Citizendium, or something like it.

Here the applicable notion would be "limited competition", that is, competition only with respect to Objectivist topics. We actually have such a thing, our own Wiki which competes with Wikipedia. There is no entry for "Polar Bear", "NSAIDS", or "Syllable", so we can't fully compete; but we could compete in a focused area.

[Juxtys]

There will always be people who can't get on with other opinions but their. That should be their problem, not ours, althought misinformation in Wikipedia hurts the society.

[EC]

I've selected this quote, which was THE sentence (or clause) in the paragraph that you SHOULD have been arguing for or against.

Oh...thanks for thinking for me! It goes without saying that it's not true, why argue?

That's beside the point and it doesn't make him wrong. Living beings have autonomous functions in the sense that they exhibits dependencies on one another that don't exist for random chunks of rock in outer space. It HAS been proven that said living beings, on a large scale, change the entire planet's environment.

Of course we have, but that's something we should be *proud* of, NOT trying to stop.

[Moebius]

Well, consider the article on "Global Warming," for example. It basically states that Al Gore is right, all scientists agree, the debate is over, period. If an innocent and unsuspecting person reads that, how will he be able to distinguish it from the truth? There is no color-coding or strikeouts or other feature in Wikipedia indicating which of its statements are facts and which are propaganda.

This is not a fault restricted only to Wikipedia. In fact on the topic of Global Warming in particular you can go to the local book store and STILL find accredited authors who state that similar premises are right. Even for an "innocent" and "unsuspecting" person, the intellectual responsibility of deciding what is the truth and what isn't lies with himself. In fact, I would go as far as to say that at least with Wikipedia, you know going in that it is what it is -- basically a public blog. You use the information at your own risk. If you actually read the section of Wikipedia on global warming, it even includes a section on dissenting voices about Global Warming controversies. But when you are in a book store or a library, you would probably be more likely to assume the information acquired there to be facts without the same easy access other opinions.

[Capitalism Forever]

In fact, I would go as far as to say that at least with Wikipedia, you know going in that it is what it is -- basically a public blog.

You and I know that, but to what extent is an average person aware of it? Most people today don't have the intellectual acumen to look at a site calling itself an "encyclopedia" and translate it in their minds into "blog." Unlike well-versed Objectivists, they do not see the inherent problem with using consensus as a means of arriving at truth. Just look at our friend eriatarka for example, who cites Wikipedia pages as reference to support his claims, and only when called on it does he feel the need to direct us to the external links on the Wiki page. Would anyone seriously offer a blog entry as a citation?

[eriatarka]

Just look at our friend eriatarka for example, who cites Wikipedia pages as reference to support his claims, and only when called on it does he feel the need to direct us to the external links on the Wiki page. Would anyone seriously offer a blog entry as a citation?

your intellectual dishonesty is hilarious

Wikipedia articles are good precisely because they tend to be well referenced.

[TuringAI]

Of course we have, but that's something we should be *proud* of, NOT trying to stop.

Yet earlier you said that we don't have an influence at all.

For instance, your reply to this statement:

one can believe in global warming while rejecting the entire environmentalist agenda and proposed solutions.

...was that it was wrong.

You've just contradicted yourself, in that you claimed A: That global warming doesn't exist (implying that otherwise we'd have to buy into all the environmentalist social programs) and B: That global warming DOES exist (and that we should be proud of it).

Exactly what IS your point?

Edited July 24, 2008 by TuringAI

[EC]

You've just contradicted yourself, in that you claimed A: That global warming doesn't exist (implying that otherwise we'd have to buy into all the environmentalist social programs) and B: That global warming DOES exist (and that we should be proud of it).

Exactly what IS your point?

Trust me dog, I would NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, ummm did I say NEVER claim that global warming exists, because it doesn't. Had to get that out of the way. I just meant that to the degree that we have changed earths environment, factories, skyscrapers, cities, whatever, that these are all things that we should be extremely proud of. Not that we are killing some tree-frogs in Africa or something that in reality--DOES NOT MATTER. That was exactly my point. What's yours?

[Moebius]

You and I know that, but to what extent is an average person aware of it? Most people today don't have the intellectual acumen to look at a site calling itself an "encyclopedia" and translate it in their minds into "blog."

Well it says right on the Wiki front page that it is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know what an "average person" know about Wikipedia, but frankly you probably don't either. Does your "average" include 80 year olds that doesn't even know how to operate a computer? 5 year olds that can barely read? So on and so forth. If we're going by opinions, then I would say pretty much anyone that spend an extended amount of time online on a daily basis know what a Wiki is.

Unlike well-versed Objectivists, they do not see the inherent problem with using consensus as a means of arriving at truth. Just look at our friend eriatarka for example, who cites Wikipedia pages as reference to support his claims, and only when called on it does he feel the need to direct us to the external links on the Wiki page. Would anyone seriously offer a blog entry as a citation?

Well to be honest I think Wiki is a reasonable reference in a medium such as a forum conversation. It is somewhat ironic that eriatarka used it because a large portion of this thread had been about the unreliability of Wikipedia, but that was not the context with which Eriatarka used Wiki as source. The fact that there are external links on the Wiki page is somewhat of an implicit knowledge for any regular Wiki user, so I think that he may just be under the impression that anyone partaking in this conversation is somewhat familiar with Wikipedia.

I detect that you have somewhat of a bias against blogs. Honestly if this was 4-5 years ago when blogs are mostly run by kids living out of their parent's basements, I may agree with you. However at this point of web development I think we need to recognize that blogs has slowly begin to mature as a medium, with a large number of reputable blogs (both written for free and for profit) that are of very high quality, many of which backed by corporate or non-profit sponsors with a board of director. Wikipeida just happens to be by far the most successful example and I think probably the most important development on the web since Google.

It's true that Wikipedia has its limits in terms of quality control, particularly of new articles. But its software is designed to limit vandalism, while the fact that there are such a large amount of editors around serve as a form of self-correcting mechanism. In theory there far more people knowledgeable and interested in the truth than folks with special interests. And in the case of split opinions on a major topic, there are almost always another article specifically addressing the dissenting opinion (and if there isn't, anyone is free to write one). Wikipedia is what it is. For me at least it is useful most of the time for quick references and absolutely awesome for casual reading. If your problem with Wikipedia is that people use the information therein as absolute truth, recognize that it is not a fault of Wikipedia itself. Nor should you dismiss the project as completely worthless (well yeah you didn't actually say that but your sentiments seems to be along those lines).

[Capitalism Forever]

Well it says right on the Wiki front page that it is a "free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". I don't know what an "average person" know about Wikipedia, but frankly you probably don't either. Does your "average" include 80 year olds that doesn't even know how to operate a computer? 5 year olds that can barely read? So on and so forth. If we're going by opinions, then I would say pretty much anyone that spend an extended amount of time online on a daily basis know what a Wiki is.

I'm pretty sure an average person knows what a "nuke" is as well, but that doesn't mean they understand the moral distinction between a country like Iran and the Western nations trying to defend themselves. Knowing the basic facts of a situation does not equal grasping all the consequences, especially when grasping them requires a good philosophical education and a self-confident, independent mind.

I detect that you have somewhat of a bias against blogs.

LOL, I'm not sure what "a bias against blogs" would mean in this context. It's just that I don't tend to take the pronouncements of a random blogger as authoritative information. And if you tell me that something is a result of a consensus between random bloggers, I'll see it as even less authoritative.

Say, for example, that Ann Coulter writes something in her online column about the current levels of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. If I used that in an argument with a liberal and told him I knew it was true because Ann Coulter wrote it, do you think he would take me seriously? Why would he believe anything coming from a ultra-right-wing fascist corporate blah blah blah etc.? My argument would look much more credible if my source had "spr.doe.gov" in its URL.

I think probably the most important development on the web since Google.

I detect that you guys have somewhat of an Obama complex for Wiki. You know, the most important man to walk on earth since Jesus...

Nor should you dismiss the project as completely worthless (well yeah you didn't actually say that but your sentiments seems to be along those lines).

I think it's like the Soviet Union's space program. Much of it has been copied from elsewhere, which is the reason why it works--and it has a huge propaganda potential for the Left.