A couple days ago I posted some thoughts about the difference in debate styles over at my WUWTW. Reflections on my years long and oh so futile efforts to engage climate science "skeptic(s)" in an actual on-point constructive "debate" focusing on rationally comparing our respective 'scientific facts' and "observations" in order to explore which arguments carry the most weight.
On the same day Victor Venema posted his own observations comparing a "scientific debate" with the public debate. Since Victor is a real scientist he does a nice in-depth dissection. It's definitely worth reading - mine is earthier given my own simpler "spectator's" perspective. Still I like to think they make a nice complement and I'm happy to share his article over here at CC.
Worth adding is Ezra Klein's "How Politics makes us stupid" looking at Dan Kahan's work on the politics of how we process scientific information.:
"… The theory is particularly prevalent in Washington, where partisans devote enormous amounts of energy to persuading each other that there’s really a right answer to the difficult questions in American politics — and that they have it.
But the More Information Hypothesis isn’t just wrong. It’s backwards. Cutting-edge research shows that the more information partisans get, the deeper their disagreements become. …" E.Klein
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~