|2011-04-01 10:59:39||Categorising skeptic arguments|
There is this whole discussion on how to categorise skeptic arguments on the planet 3.0 group - I'm not sure we want to get into any of this for now but I'm just saving much of the interesting thoughts for future reference. I like the idea of recording how long ago a skeptic argument was first debunked - but a high maintenance idea!
Response from Brian Dupuis
Timothy Chase uses a lot of big words :-)
I attempted a phylogenetic analysis of basic informal fallacies to complement a corresponding analysis of the central epistemic norms. I am fairly certain that wouldn't have helped even if I had completed it. However, I presume there is a basic, largely hierarchical structure to our knowledge of the physics of global warming -- with cross-referencing links between distant branches. I even laid out much of the structure in a quasi-linear fashion here some time ago:
Followup from Timothy:
Me personally, I'm quite satisfied with grouping them under "It's not happening", "It's not us", etc.
This depends on what the categories are for. If they are for finding certain arguments easier, then for me the most sensible categorizing system would be to categorize them same way as climate science is categorized. If argument is about water vapour feedback, then I would look it under water vapour feedback. I don't see what would be the point with how long they have known to be false. For that to be practical you should memorize when each subject became crystal clear to us.
However, some arguments would be easier to find by location. For example, there are quite a lot of arguments dealing with Greenland (surprisingly lot, actually).