Friday, February 27, 2015

Considering the defensive offense at SoD, (R.D.)

One reason I'd have made a lousy scientist is that I get easily distracted, it's such a big fascinating world out there.  In any event, my Florifulgurator post was actually an offshoot of my review of one L.W.'s "highly recommended" comments.  Here's another offshoot of that since RD brings up a point of etiquette.

The Holocaust, Climate Science and Proof
RD wrote  February 13, 2015 at 7:04 am:

     cc wrote: If that’s the best you have for a “question” I’m sorely disappointed.
You were expecting something good from me then? Where did that expectation come from? You’ve given me the impression only of having complete contempt for me. Am I wrong? Did you have some previous experience with me that was positive? I’ll single out, if I may, my latest question, lightly edited. I don’t know when it came out of moderation and therefore when you may have seen it.     The questions have appeared, as have two very   thoughtful comments from L.W. ...
This strikes me as a good question, because it’s precise. You’re responses have been very general. I’d like you to consider this very specific question. Thanks.

I didn't know RD from Adam, I was commenting on his words, the ideas he was sharing.  Rather than responding to my comments RD played the offended victim card.  I know it all too well, it's a rather typical defensive strategy (right up there with sarcastic dismissal) that deflects attention away from bankrupt arguments and affords an easy escape from considering the substance of the dialogue.

What ever happened to honest curiosity, grappling over the issues themselves, striving to understand what's being discussed on both sides?

What's wrong with being told: "you're 'wrong' and here and here is why I believe you are mistaken!"  Then slink off to examine and think about the here and here.  It's nothing personal.  It's about the desire to learn and understand, even to take learning from mistakes in stride.  Our egos, mighty important though they are, shouldn't supersede our honest desire to understand the world around us and our place in it.

But time after time it's the grand indignation, the huffy defensiveness as said 'victim' slinks away.  Unfortunately youz never slink away with a little self-skepticism in your hearts.  It's never about withdrawing to consider new information and lessons or to give them a little time to digest... including getting over the inevitable hurt feelings at having had it wrong.

It's the new understanding and the enhanced window of appreciation that living and growing is all about.  Learning for the sake of better understanding and to help prepare for our futures.

But the Republican/libertarian thing is all about absolutism and certitude in their adulation of the Ego.  Anyone no matter how honorable, professional, accomplished or well intentioned they may be - if they want to teach folks about climate science truths they are branded as bad, amid much indignation, after that anything goes in the PR battle to demean - learning be damned.

For instance, as I put together the many links I add to my posts, all intended to encourage further learning; and no matter how I try to self-censor and stick to the most authoritative, clearly written sources, it seems that everyone of them has been demonized within the blogosphere and thus made irrelevant in the eye's of the faithful, learning be damned.

The Republican/libertarian attitude is one of, "We" don't need to read or learn anything from IPCC, or, SkepticalScience, or RealClimate, or on, and on..."  Nah, Inhofe, Watts and pals hate them, they are no good, "we" will ignore them all.

Doesn't matter that they present and discuss the science in as rational and above-board manner as I can imagine.  They stick to their topics, they present their supporting evidence.  Their collective consistent quality of information is something every intelligent person of good faith (and an interest in learning) would embrace - if not for the phony right-wing litmus test.

You can actually learn about our global heat distribution engine from these sources.  But then, learning has become the new enemy hasn't it.  So they must be rejected.  

The tragedy is unfathomable.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Political, business leaders and the public has a right to learn about 
climate science without malicious interference!

Serious science is not about "tolerance of diversity" 
Science is about pinning down the facts as well as possible
and always learning. 

It's not about relying on 
"only what others are telling us"   
It's about trusting a huge community of experts 

No comments: