One is the claim that those who disagree with a point are trying to "cast doubt on science".
Kim Ohara's charge makes about as much sense, I suggest, as claiming that a difference of opinion about how to translate a sutta is an attempt to case doubt on the entire dharma. Or that "casting doubt" on a particular claim or finding is the same as casting doubt on the entire field. Kim has no problem "casting doubt" on my posts about climate science. So isn't Kim "casting doubt on climate science"?Kim OHara wrote: ↑Sun May 06, 2018 3:44 amOkay ... here I am with a proper response. Hold on for a bumpy ride, L2.
... You clarified that you are referring to this, so I will put it in its proper place:
It is indeed a "pretty good report" if - but only if - you're looking for a report which casts as much doubt as possible on climate science without actually lying.
... You have besn seriously misled, as I hope I have shown.
There are a couple of aspects of distorted thinking in Kim's statement. This includes the embedded assumption that "I understand climate science, what I say is climate science is true science and what you think is climate science isn't science". Scientists disagree all the time -- it's called institutionalize disconfirmation. The process of disagreeing -- "casting doubt" -- is a vital element in the scientific process.
I think there is a terrible fear that those who are allegedly "casting doubt" might have a point. The usual reason why ad-hominem arguments are considered fallacies or non-critical thinking is that flawed persons are capable of coming up with good ideas. Also that attacking the person bypasses addressing the issue at hand.
An odd aspect of Kim's statement is how places "climate science" on a sacred pedestal. To even question this god is sacrilege. People who commit such sacrilege must be evil and incapable of speaking truth. They must be lying, close to lying or mislead.
Finally, Kim seems to be working on the assumption that Kim knows the inner motivations of those who disagree with her. Some debate teachers would say that when the other side resorts to such arguments it's a sign of desperation and that you have won.
As to the "hockey stick" reported in the IPCC AR3 report. Several scientific panels made criticisms or "cast doubt" on various aspects of that finding. Also of some of the conduct of the scientists involved. Some elements of criticism of it are not very controversial.
It's telling that to this day some persons seem to run away from admitting the errors or serious questions that were raised about that work. Scientific integrity requires it. Science, and Buddhist ethics align on this. If you know something is true then say so. If you are unsure or don't know then say that.