The comments thread lately has been full of what might be called the “”ad hominem fallacy” fallacy”. This is the fallacy that, because a logical syllogism is equally valid or invalid no matter who propounds it, evidence in favour of a judgement about a matter of fact should be treated the same no matter who puts it forward. But classical syllogistic logic has essentially nothing to say in relation to reasoning about the plausibilty of judgements based on evidence.
No one sensible takes this idea seriously when, for example, money is at stake. A member of a board of directors who has a financial interest in a proposal is expected to declare it and withdraw from the discussion for example. By contrast, believers in the “ad hominem fallacy” fallacy would suggest that the director’s arguments were just as valid as anyone else’s, and they do not need to declare their interest before taking part in the discussion (though they should not vote).
The problems with conflict of interest are twofold. First, it is usually impossible to check every factual claim made by someone putting an argument. Second, even if all the facts asserted in support of some position are verifiable, they may have been selected (cherry-picked) to favour a case, while facts pointing the other way have been ignored. If you’re willing to go to the trouble of fully informing yourself about the topic using independent sources evidence from interested sources is redundant, and if not, it’s unreliable.
I had a lengthy go at this here, and for convenience I’ve reposted it over the fold.
There’s more from Don Arthur , Tim Lambert and Cathy Young
A question that’s often raised in relation to public policy issues involving science is whether conflicts of interest matter. For example, does it matter if scientists who publish reports suggesting that the dangers of smoking are overstated turn out to be funded by tobacco companies? Common sense suggests that it matters, but a lot of commentators, often with a vague recollection of classes in elementary logic, suggest that this is an ad hominem criticism and that the only thing that is relevant is the argument, not who makes it. You can see a defence of this position from Elizabeth Whelan at Spiked here[1] (hat tip, Jennifer Marohasy in the comments to this interesitng Catallaxy post on values and science.
I’ll argue that common sense is right here.
As an illustration, suppose you are considering buying a new car, and you come across an “independent non-profit” site called “Car Buyers Guide”, which gives advice on models A and B. Here are some possible reasons the site might advance for buying A rather than B. Assume that you can confirm that all factual claims made are correct, but you don’t know anything about cars yourself.
1. The fuel required for model B is not available in Australia, so it cannot be driven here, unlike A. Therefore you should choose A
2. We consulted ten leading experts. All recommended A
3. We looked at ten different criteria and A was superior on each of them
If you rely exclusively on syllogistic logic you ought to find argument 1 convincing (with the auxiliary premise that a car that can be driven is always better than one that cannot). On the other had, reason 2 is a standard fallacy: an argument from authority. Reason three is also logically invalid; the fact that A is superior on some grounds does not mean that it is superior on most or all grounds.
In practice, though, syllogistic logic is not very helpful. Very few decisions can be supported by watertight logical arguments like 1. In practice, we ought to find reasons like 2 and 3 pretty convincing. Assuming that the 10 experts are selected at random from a suitable population, the probability that most experts actually favour B is less than 1 in 1000. And if the 10 criteria are selected sensibly, it’s highly unlikely that consideration of omitted criteria will change the balance.
You can either accept this kind of reasoning or become an expert on the subject yourself. Since the latter course is feasible in only a few cases, inevitably you have to rely on the former most of the time.
Now suppose you find that the “Car Buyers Guide” is actually funded by the makers of Model A. Reason 1 is still logically valid and compelling. But reasons 2 and 3 now have very little force. Unless experts unanimously favour B, it shouldn’t be hard to line up 10 who favor A (or even to induce some who are neutral to endorse A). And similarly, it’s nearly always possible to find some criteria on which one option is better.
Exactly the same issues arise in relation to the dangers (or safety) of smoking. The evidence here is statistical, so if you’re looking for logical certainty you won’t find it. And it’s always possible to find some benefits from smoking and some qualified people willing to give a low estimate of risks. But if you rely on the general judgement of independent experts, you’ll reach the conclusion that smoking (direct or passive) is likely to shorten your life and damage your health.
The counterargument, from Whelan and others is that “All scientists have personal ideologies”, and therefore that scientific work should be evaluated on its merits, without regard to source. This sounds appealing until we ask the question “evaluated by whom?” The only people who can usefully do the evaluation are qualified scientists and the only way we can rely on their evaluation is if we believe them to be free of conflicts of interests.
If you accept Whelan’s argument, you end up in a position of complete agnosticism about anything you can’t know from direct experience. She denies this, saying that “If the Tobacco Institute had been funded by the Easter Bunny, its pronouncements would still have been scientifically outrageous, because the controversy had long since ended over whether cigarettes are the primary cause of premature, preventable death ” but, by definition, controversy only ends when one side gives up. (The exposure of the fact that most of the defenders of the safety of smoking were recipients of tobacco money was one of the things that helped induce them to give up.)
As far as the relevant scientific communities are concerned the controversy over evolution has ended and the controversy about climate change has resolved most of the key issues (for example, that warming is taking place and that human activity is a contributor), as has the controversy about the safety of consuming GM foods, but that doesn’t stop people claiming otherwise. And the tobacco lobby only retreated from the glaringly false claim that smoking is harmless to the claim (absurd if you accept that direct smoking causes cancer, but harder to disprove) that passive smoking is harmless. Unless you want to become an expert in biology, geology, climate science, clinical medicine and statisics, among other disciplines, you’ll never be able to resolve these disputes without relying, at some point, on expert judgement.
Obviously, there’s an element of circularity here. We not only have to trust scientists to give us the best advice, but we also have to trust them to tell us who the relevant scientists are. The big argument for accepting this is the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise as a whole, and its demonstrated capacity for correcting error. This can be contrasted with the demonstrated capacity of interest groups to maintain propositions that suit their interests in the face of strong, indeed overwhelming, evidence to the contrary.
fn1. For the fascinating history of Spiked see this Jason Soon post. For Whelan’s own background see Sourcewatch.
John Quiggin 
“by definition, controversy only ends when one side gives up” – incumbents are durable, power begets power, they have staying power.
When feeling confused, sleep on it and then go with your gut:
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060213/full/060213-9.html
Great article. I enjoyed reading it.
Definitive.
Excellent point well made PrQ.
I think that Johns rule of thumb is fair enough in so far as it places trust in the institution of science over the long term. However whilst in some black and white areas we can say that science mostly seem to get it right in the end, any claim that it gets the grey bits right very frequently or even quickly is harder to verify. It is easier to have confidence in the science once the controversy dies down.
I think that you can do both. You can accept the view of the scientific majority and then follow up and become more expert yourself. Personally the more expert I become in a product range the more I find recommendatons given in buyers guides tainted by the ideological bias and practical experience of the author. And the more I realise that such decisions are not as simple as black and white. I still read buyers guides however.
If a field is controversial and I care about it then I find that I need some expertise of my own before I am comfortable trusting the majority position (or any other position).
Being an expert in a given field (and giving advice to those that are not) often means being aware of the issues, being aware of the controversies and alternate expert view points, being aware of your own ideological bias and coping with the ambiguities.
When I talk to people with a high level of economic literacy I don’t qualify the economic model I believe in by stating that there are other opinions. However when I talk to complete novices (friends at the pub usually) I always try to qualify my opinions by explaining that economics has multiple schools of thought and the one I adhere to is not the dominant school of thought. In other words I try to do some justice to those experts who would disagree with me.
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. I am not claiming any special status as an economic expert but I think I know more about the topic than the average guy in the street.
I am not unfamiliar with Spiked’s history, ideology and modus operandi, and I have no respect for them whatsoever. I don’t have the time for a long post, but I will say that they are not pro-science as such, they just see science and technology as a means to power.
Take anything they say with a mountain of salt.
“You can either accept this kind of reasoning or become an expert on the subject yourself. Since the latter course is feasible in only a few cases, inevitably you have to rely on the former most of the time.”
An expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until he knows absolutely everything about nothing.
A generalist is someone who knows less and less about more and more until he knows absolutely nothing about everything.
I find it difficult to make judgements about people’s views that support a particular position when (i) that support yields them a private benefit but (ii) I think the people are possibly right.
e.g. school teachers favouring smaller class sizes
Otherwise I lost some of the ‘depth’ in the argument as presented. People have interests and these interests consciously and unconsciouly drive their views. We respond to this automatically with a certain skepticism that is conditioned by their reputation and the ‘verbal’/’nonverbal’ signals they provide. We don’t apply laws of logic alone but see these laws as competing with self-interest.
If there is plenty of time available to subject all the arguments to scrutiny then you could accept arguments from vested interests on a par with others, but typically in a board or committee meeting there is a need for a quick decision.
The problem is the time it takes to get on top of an issue to a point where a person’s opinion is worth a pinch of the proverbial. Usually when you move from one field of research to another you find out that most of the things you assumed at the start turn out to be wrong to a greater or lesser extent unless you have been incredibly lucky in your previous contacts and informants.
On this topic, I just came across this: Smoke Rings. “The tobacco industry duped both academic journals and the media”. Quite a read!
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/02/07/smoke-rings/
This conflict of interest has concerned me for some time. Smaller class sizes leads to:-
1. Less work for teachers.
2. Greater demand for teachers.
3. A better wage negotiation position for teachers.
Imagine however trying to have a debate about education whilst excluding teachers due to a conflict of interest.
I had read some time ago that international studies of school performance found almost no correlation between smaller class sizes and student outcomes. However I am not an expert on the topic.
I have next to no time for the argument that schools should conceal from the public their performance relative to other schools.
Terje, this claim is pretty much the opposite of what is usually said about unions, which is that they want to raise wages and restrict entry. Unless you think of the education budget as perfectly elastic, it’s pretty obvious that reducing class sizes and hiring more teachers is going to make it harder to raise the wages of existing teachers.
And the view that smaller classes make for less work only really makes sense in a context where they are actually beneficial in some way.
I’ve written a fair bit on the class size issue and will try to post a link soon.
I have never heard the term “elastic” applied to a government budget. Perhaps you can enlighten me if the term does have application in this context.
Reduced class sizes, if legislated for by government, would necessitate an increase in demand for teachers (assuming a fixed number of students). That is an inescapable consequnce of basic arithmetic. The price question then would be entirely about the elasticity of supply.
If the supply of teachers is elastic there would be only a slight wage increase. If the supply of teachers was inelastic there would be a large increase in wages. Either way there is going to be a wage increase. If there is not then the government will ultimately fail to deliver smaller classes.
Also a government publicly commited to improved education that cuts class sizes it unlikely to argue for a reduction in teachers wages. So teachers have very little downside if they win the argument for smaller classes.
Personally I would think that an upfront simple policy of higher wages for teachers would in the long term deliver more in the way of student outcomes than smaller classes.
You haven’t convinced me that teachers are conflicted in this debate.
Regards,
Terje.
P.S. Now waiting on two things from JQ.
a) Is Kyoto low benefit.
b) Are teachers conflicted in the smaller class size debate.
Of course I meant that you haven’t convinced me that teachers are not conflicted in this debate.
Terje what leads you to conclude that a simple policy of higher wages for teachers would by itself improve learning outcomes? Is there any logic or law underpinning that, eg pay more peanuts, get fatter monkeys?
I have no evidence and it is merely a side issue anyway not central to my main point. But what do you think would happen in the long term to the quality of teachers if we paid teachers less?
Terje
I’m don’t want to see this thread derailed totally, but someone needs to pull you up on your claim that small classes mean less work for teachers.
Teachers say they want smaller classes so they can achieve better results with the same amount of work, not so that they can do less work. If there is evidence that they do in fact get better results by some measure, then there is no basis for asserting they would do less work. So let’s see some evidence before we jump to conclusions. (There’s nothing to stop you doing some work on this yourself, by the way, and posting it in Weekend Reflections. John is not the NBER.)
On the other hand, if by less work you simply mean less students, then just say that, if you must state the obvious.
On the elasticity thing, John wasn’t using the word in a technical sense. He just meant that governments won’t increase education budgets in proportion to the increase in teachers. They’ll economise in various other ways, including by giving teachers smaller pay rises than they otherwise would. So even if a decrease in class sizes does aggravate the shortage of teachers (as it’s already doing in NSW and Victoria), the existing teachers are not well placed to take advantage of the fact.
James,
I have never heard a teacher claim that they want smaller classes so they can do less work. However there is no quarantee that a lighter workload in terms of quantity will lead to an increase in effort towards quality. They may just ease off and enjoy the reduced workload. In reality I imagine that some teachers would apply themselves to quality and some would just ease off.
In any case it is getting off topic. The issue is not whether teachers could improve results with smaller classes but whether they have a vested interest in the debate. Are they conceptually any different to the oil company executive that wants to have a say about the future of energy policy. Do teachers have a monopoly on virtue that makes them immune to self interest?
Perhaps John was using the word “elasticity” in a non technical manner. However in economics it is a pretty specific concept. In any case he is a big boy and I think he is more than capable of answering for himself on this matter.
Regards,
Terje.
Seems to me that John, and everyone else, is badly conflating two very separate ideas here.
One is an “ad-hominem” attack, which is Latin meaning attacking “the man”, rather than attacking the idea the man is espousing.
The other is a conflict of interest, in particular an undeclared or hidden conflict of interest.
I think we can all agree that an ad hominem attack is valueless. If we are discussing economics, saying “Don’t believe that guy’s economic argument, he’s a black man, what would he know” is an ad hominem attack. Clearly, this type of attack just shows that the attacker is getting desperate, and has nothing substantial to say.
A conflict of interest is another matter entirely, and a significant matter. I don’t have any regarding global warming, never made a dime from it and I own no stock in the globe. Or in warming.
One often overlooked conflict of interest is pinning your career on an issue like AGW. Some people’s whole job depends on the “existence” of AGW. How much time are they likely to spend trying to prove AGW doesn’t exist?
It’s a classic scientific occupational conflict of interest, and this conflict is not unique to AGW by any means. It’s one of the reasons that scientific ideas are slow to change, because people have staked their reputations and careers on some idea, and stand to lose it all if that idea is shown to be wrong … so they spend no time trying to disprove it, and shore it up at every opportunity, whether it is right or wrong.
I do not think, however, that this should disqualify someone’s results, because it’s not a hidden conflict. We all know Jim Hansen would lose big if AGW turns out to be a dud, it’s just part of the equation. And the same is true if someone is being paid full time by Mobil as their resident climate change scientist. He will have as big a conflict of interest as Jim Hansen has, only in the other direction. Again, because it is not hidden, it does not disqualify his results, we expect it.
The case is less conflicting if, say, a man took a grant of $25,000 from Mobil two years ago to look at a particular question. While that may or may not affect their study of the question, it will likely have no effect on their work this year, which is funded by someone else entirely.
In general, while none of us can be an expert on a whole lot of subjects, climate science demands a certain generality because the subject is so broad (oceanography, atmospheric science, fluid relationships, energy calculations, chemisty of CO2, constructal laws, thermodynamics, etc., etc.). Because of this, many scientific papers in the climate field are written to be readily accessible to the non-specialist. Indeed, magazines like Science and Nature insist that their articles be pitched for accessibility beyond a narrow field.
I find that, with a close reading of most climate papers, and some research and study, including looking at other people’s commentary on the paper, I can make a reasonable judgement whether there are gaping holes in the paper. I re-run the numbers, apply the smell test, examine the data, and draw my conclusions.
As far as possible, my conclusions will not be based on whether the author got a $25,000 grant from that known supporter of AGW opponents, Mobil, or whether he got a $25,000 grant from that known supporter of AGW believers, the NSF … these, after all, are known conflicts.
Nor will these conclusions be based on whether the author of the paper has been wrong in the past. No one is always right.
Nor will these conclusions be based on whether the author is known to use shonky data, poor practices, and incorrect statistics … but if that is the case, it will make me examine those aspects of the new paper much more closely.
In other words, I would never conclude that a new paper by Michael Mann is wrong because his work has been so poor in the past, and becase he would lose big if AGW is proven wrong, that’s ad hominem … I just look at the new work that much harder. It may be that his new work is 100% correct and flawless, in which case I’ll be the first to say so.
And to the best of my ability, I will make that judgement based on what his paper says, and not who wrote it.
Using an ad-hominem argument to decide on whether to believe a study is nothing but intellectual laziness. Dig into the meat of it and see what it says. If you don’t have time or expertise to do that, read what others who have dug into the meat of it say (try to include both supporters and critics), but don’t just go “He got money from [insert your choice of Greenpeace/Mobil/NSF/Cato Institute/Sierra Club/whoever], can’t believe him” … that’s ad-hominem.
w.
My main point, Terje, is that arguing for smaller classes is against the interest of current teachers. This is obvious when you think about it, and I’ve spelt it out above.
The workload point is trickier and needs to be expressed in terms of marginal rates of substitution. In my experience, no-one, including most professional economists, gets this kind of argument, but that just reinforces the point of a previous thread. Assume teachers do some actual teaching and some crowd control, with a given marginal rate of substitution for effort. If you reduce the need for crowd control, you should see some additional teaching as well as some reduction in effort. For class sizes to make no difference, they have to make no difference on all margins, including the effort cost of crowd control.
‘… he is a big boy and I think he is more than capable of answering for himself on this matter.’
An ill-mannered comment, Terje. This is an open discussion. People answer questions directed to others (as long as they’re not personal ones), and clarify other people’s remarks, all the time.
I have marked part of your quote in bold. That section implies two things:-
a) Smaller classes will yield some improvement in quality.
b) Smaller classes will yield some reduction in teaching effort.
Point (a) is interesting but not central to the discussion about whether teachers come to the debate with a conflict of interest. Point (b) reveals that you agree with the first conflict of interest that I initially stated.
It is obvious to me that the exact opposite is true. And I have thought about it. Perhaps if I lay out my thinking in some more detail you can help me to see where I am going wrong in my thinking.
Let me go through what you said originally more systematically to try and uncover (and maybe resolve) the specific point of disagreement. Here it goes with what you originally said above:-
My claim is that smaller class sizes will (as revealed by my basic economic analysis) lead to higher wages. Hence there is no inconsistency between my economic analysis of smaller classes and the usual accusation made against unions with regards to wanting higher wages. Now maybe my economic analysis was flawed, however you have not refuted it.
It is true that unions are often accused of wanting to restrict access but that is really just a case of achieving a wage increase by reduces supply. The fact that smaller class sizes achieves a wage increase by increased demand is not inconsistent with the basic self interest motive.
It is not obvious to me. Reducing class sizes means that more teachers are needed.
Lets say that there are 3 million students in the nation and 30 students in each class. That means we are commited to buying the services of 100,000 teachers. Now lets say we reduce class size to 20 students. Now we are commited to buying the services of 150,000 teachers.
So demand for teachers rises from 100,000 to 150,000 in response to this policy change. Now if supply of teachers is inelastic there will need to be a big price rise to buy more teachers. And if the supply is elastic then there will need to be a small price rise to buy more teachers. Either way it leads to a wage rise for teachers which creates a conflict of interest.
Now it is true that we could pay the new teachers more than the existing teachers, but for a multitude of reasons it seems highly unlikely that this would ever eventuate. So in practice all teachers (new and existing) would experience upward pressure on their wages.
You seem to assume that the education budget would remain static. However teachers who argue for smaller classes expect it to be achieved by an increased education budget paid for by either higher taxes or a change in government spending priority. If they truely believed that additional teachers were going to be paid for by reducing the wages of existing teachers then of course they would see it as contrary to their interests. However I don’t have any reason to think this is what they believe or advocate.
Let me summarise my position:-
1. I claim that a policy of smaller classes will due to market forces (supply and demand) necessitate higher teachers wages. Without higher wages the policy would fail. You have not refuted the logic of this claim.
2. I claim that in practice it is unlikely that the higher wages would be paid only to new teachers.
3. I claim that these higher wages give rise to a conflict of interest for existing teachers that participate in debates about class sizes.
4. I claim that in practice teachers do not evisage a government implementing a policy of smaller class sizes and paying for it out of the existing budget allocation. They argue for a bigger education budget to fund smaller classes.
5. I do not claim that smaller classes is a bad thing.
6. I do not claim that teachers should be excluded from any discussion about class sizes.
7. I do not claim that teachers are bad people or any less genereous than other members of the general population.
Now if I am “obviously” wrong I would appreciate if you could help me find the flaw in my logic.
No offense intended. I apologise for any caused.
Accepted. Now I’ll push my luck a little and butt in again.
You need to be a bit cautious in applying supply and demand analysis in a case like this, where we are essentially dealing with a bilateral monopoly. Given that there are teacher shortages in many areas, supply is an important underlying factor. But when it comes to demand, we are talking about a buyer with overwhelming market power and a final product that is not sold in a commercial market.
Of course the education budget is not static, and you may be right that it would be increased to pay for more teachers. But it seems unlikely to me that state governments could find the money to increase teacher numbers and fund pay rises at the same time. No one is saying that they would actually cut teachers’ pay – indeed they would still raise it to some extent in the long term in line with average earnings – but they would still raise it less than if they didn’t reduce class sizes.
You think differently. In any case, the real issue, as you see it, is how the teachers think. Do they perceive the situation your way or mine? If the teachers’ unions are rational and well informed, it depends on how they expect state cabinets to budget in the coming years. But at this point we can only speculate, so that part of the issue won’t be resolved on this thread.
In the meantime, you and I will make our own judgements about whether there is a conflict of interest, and how cautious we need to be in accepting teachers’ claims about class sizes at face value. And as long as advocates of small classes continue to disclose their affiliations, we’ll know when to put on our chosen gas masks.
JQ, for the first time on this blog, my comment is marked “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”
Which is fine, I don’t have any problem with that, as the comment is not inflammatory (or ad hominem) …
I was curious, however, as to what your moderation policies were, how come they kicked in at this point, and what is the normal time for a comment to get moderated?
Many thanks,
w.
Willis, most moderation including this is done by my antispam filters. The comments get posted when I get time to do a manual check.
This is an interesting discussion.
I have an obvservation on it, in that if James & John are correct in that decreasing class sizes leads to lower wage rises for teachers due to overall restrictions of money in the system, then it may in fact cause teaching performance to worsen. In this case, there will be further disinsentives for people to become and remain teachers, and hence the only way to get enough teachers would be to lower the standard of teachers employed or teachers to be trained.
Perhaps this is one reason why such minimal effects of class size reductions within relatively restricted ranges has been found — because the standards of teachers needs to be lowered to get enough of them.
Thanks, John, that’s what I figured …
w.
The Weinberg Group and manufacturing uncertainty
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/22/13112/6379
The marketing proposal to DuPont about PFOA (PDF) (a dangerous chemical used to make Teflon) that Paul D. Thacker got his hands on is pretty stunning. Among other things, it says:
“[W]e will harness, focus and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind — creating the outcome our client desires. … This would include facilitating the publication of papers and articles dispelling the alleged nexus between PFOA and teratogenicity as well as other claimed harm.”
Enough said don’t you think.
I’d like to know from those who are beating up the ad homs claims on the pro-business lobbyists whether they think that a minister or judge should step aside from a situation where they have a financial conflict of interest or whether from their reasoning they have as much right to sit in as financial interest has no bearing on such matters?
It seems unlikely to me also. Which would explain why they don’t seem to have a policy of smaller classes. If they did adopt such a policy then I think they would either have to find the funds for across the board wage rises, plus the funds for extra teachers or else they would simply fail in their endeavour to create smaller classes.
I agree with you on this final point. However I also take the view that in any debate about fossil fuels or global warming we should be cautious but not exclusionary. Everybody should be admitted to the debate and their evidence or arguments should be given due consideration. Our caution should not lead us to discard the evidence or arguments that they present but rather it should sharpen our attention to detail.
John appears to argue that in some debates (eg global warming debate) we can simply discard the arguments and ideas of some people based on who they are. This seems unreasonable to me. It would be like me (with my views about teachers conflict of interest on class size) saying that I will ignore all arguments on the matter put by people from within the profession. This does not open up dialogue and discussion but rather it stifles debate.
In an economic discussion it would be like rejecting a point of argument merely because the original proponent or author was (take your pick) Karl Marx, Adam Smith, Bob Geldof, Jude Wanniski, Peter Saunders, John Quiggin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, John Maynard Keynes or Peter Costello.
I can’t speak to motive but it looked to me in the global warming discussions that John Quiggin was stifling debate by rejecting all arguments that originated from sources that did not meet with his approval. He is entitled to be cynical about sources however to reject attemps at dialogue on certain matters simple because of sources seems very dogmatic. It is his certainly his right to abstain from dialogue but it does not impress, especially when he leads of with disparaging remarks.
Terje do you think Creationists or Intelligent Design supporters should be welcome in a science curriculum debate?
What about the local homeopath on national health debates?
If not is that stifling debate?
Do you think a healthy debate could be acheived with a complete open door policy regarding who and what could be entered as evidence or authority?
Should we take the time – & often expense-to look thoroughly through the science of the ‘marketing’ company work from my preceeding post and give them equal footing with independent and peer reviewed work?
Ad hom’s and the fallcy from authority are great in isolation, but try living in the real world without knowledge from authority or no conflict of interest
criterion and see how far you would get.
Also could you answer my question on conflict of interest point?
Who would be example of a “creationist”? A known person, please.
Why?
Don’t you think they exist?
Its not a question of whether they exist or not – its more a question of whether they evolved from even less intelligent life or were placed here by God!
But to answer avaroos question, I would say:
1) All the Popes;
2) George W Bush;
3) Whoever wrote the Bible;
4) The guy that let down Charles Darwin’s car tyres …. and when Charles gets his hands on him …
I don’t think the current Pope has a problem with evolution nor believes in the young earth.
Sorry Simon – the list of names was just cobbled together to make a joke on “The Origin of Creationists”
That’s Ok he may deny hundreds of thousands safe contraception indangering their lives and making it harder to escape poverty but at least he knows when to abide by the science at least on some subjects.
BTW creationists are already a joke, no extra work needed.
The arguments put by creationists should be dealt with on their merit. As per the recent US court case that let them present their case.
Conrad
I think that’s quite possibel. Needless to say, I would like to see the education budget increase, so we can have smaller classes and pay good enough salaries to retain good teachers at the same time. The only snag is that then Terje would turn out to be right about something.
Terje that’s just it they have been delt with on merit but it doesn’t just stop at the courts does it? They will try again and again and again.
(BTW while we are on the courts how about in the next muder case we have joe blogs given equal time with the expert forensic witness we don’t want to be accused of the fallacy from authority;)
Too bad others don’t have the money and time to go with your indulgence of letting any crack pot equal time in such debates over and over again.
We would see science and policy bog down in the sort of merry-go-round here as recalcitrant trolls continue with the same of BS even though the umpire has moved on.
Maybe we should open the smoking causes cancer debate again or re-examine the germ theory of disease? Hold the uni courses and the highschool text books we have to go over the evidence for evolution again because the local fundie isn’t happy we aren’t giving equal time to their humans walking with dinosaurs text books.
Lastly I take it from your silence that you and others here would be quite happy to have a judge or polly with a financial stake in a decision to continue to have a say on the matter, confict of interest be damned.
Hope you don’t mind the next time it involves your interets or money on the line.
Cheers
Looks like people have moved on since the class sizes discussion.
To backtrack, then, for a moment, if I may…
I see one glaring fault in all the reasoning that has taken place, particularly by Terje.
The assumption has been made that the employer would have to raise spending on education in order to fund the extra teachers needed for smaller classes and the higher wages to attract them. This assumption is of very dubious validity, as the experience of teachers shows.
The employer will attempt (and invariably succeed, it seems) to accommodate higher wages by increasing workload. Terje and others have forgotten the other component in a teacher’s workload: the allotment of classes and extra duties. Any reduction in workload and increase in expenditure can be offset to a greater or lesser extent by increasing the number of lessons taught and the time teachers are expected to perform extra duties. This is, in fact, precisely what has happened in state education systems.
Teachers have found themselves paying for what are, in effect, fairly marginal improvements in class sizes. Recent pay increases in Victoria, for example, have not altered the level of elasticity in budget expenditure, and this has resulted in schools being unable to fund pay increases from their ‘global budgets’ (a crude instrument disguising the weapon of Inelasticity) except by extracting more work that is unpaid and receives no time allowance.
Declared inelasticity of expenditure is alive and well. It is the fulcrum around which class sizes, pay increases, new career structures and so on pivot.
While class sizes today are marginally smaller than, say, 15 years ago, an unpromoted teacher is now teaching at least 23 periods of 50 minutes, as opposed to 21 or even fewer in the earlier period. Teachers are without any doubt working harder now than at any time in the past, but real wages, and pay relative to both the national average and median, have continued to decline.
This says nothing about the question of the conflict of interest teachers might be deemed to have in calling for smaller class sizes, but is meant to remind those prone to supply/demand theorising that it is not necessarily applicable to this occupation. It doesn’t say anything either, about the educational benefits of class sizes small and large. Here, the educational researchers could have more cachet than teachers, but teachers should have more sympathy! If, as a lot of research indicates, smaller class sizes are educationally beneficial, they should not be resisted simply because of perceived conflict of interest. That’s not to say the teachers themselves should continue to ‘pay’ for them.
So, are there no “creationists” then whose names can be given here as an example of such people?
The Wheelan article is hooked around proposed NIH conflict of interest rules. If you don’t think they went too far then you’re pushing a very strong line indeed. Here is some of the criticism with which the rules were met:
http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/5/23/10/1/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A45377-2005Feb22?language=printer
In the event the rules were somewhat scaled back. I would say that the NIH rule proposals were a good example of concern over conflict of interest going too far.
“Cui bono” is good enough for everyday life or blog comments. But when we need to be rigourous then methodologically I would say that Stephen J. Gould explained things clearly in his book The Mismeasure of Man, about IQ. FIRST you show where the ideas are wrong, THEN you investigate the explanation for the errors.
Also, I dislike the idea that interests should be kept out of politics. Politics is what allows teachers, capitalists and the rest of us to express their interests.
Avroo while I don’t like searching for obscure info but Australia + creation science will give you the local nutters on the 1st page.
If you had bothered to give me a reason why it is so important for you to have a name maybe I would have obliged.
One of these individuals was in a creation vs evolution blog debate at Margo Kingston’s I think it was the chemist.
The fact that we had a Sci Honours and another with a Doctorate who had no trouble believing humans walked with dinosaurs and still be intelligent enough to get these higher academic qualifications gives a good indication just how powerful cognitive dissonance is and that people are quite capable of doing their day job but turning their brain off on other matters.
Simon, I’m looking for a recognizable name here. I always hear about these “creationists” but who are they? Surely there is at least one that someone might have heard of.
Creation scientists with science backgrounds
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/new/index.php?title=Creation_scientists
Didn’t see any names that rang a bell but didn’t expect to in the same way I don’t know of any homeopaths, but doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Does this prove anything?
I don’t know any names behind Intelligent Design but that hasn’t stopped them trying sneak in the back door here.
Humor-
http://www.amiright.com/parody/60s/themonkees60.shtml
It seems to me that the key point here is not so much on the use of syllogistic logic, or whether ad hominem arguments are, or are not, valid, but rather what sort of argument is being proposed.
A good many arguments I read here and elsewhere I would call rhetorical arguments (or misleading dialectics if the proponet is trying to sound knowledgable), and liberally peppered with false syllogisms. Why are they false? Because they falsely present incomplete propositions and conclusions as full sets.
An example. The palaeo temperature hockey stick has been used to justify climate change due to the enhanced greenhouse effect, it fails to represent palaeo-temperature adequately, therefore the enhanced greenhouse effect is wrong.
Any expert worth their salt, is interested in gaining sufficient knowledge on a subject so that they don’t present a partial set as representing the full monty. It takes some time and effort to establish such authority (and no time to lose it). Continual vigilence from an expert is required to ensure that readers and listeners can have high confidence in any statement they make. An expert should be their own strongest critic, and will often sound unsure because they are honest about communicating their uncertainties.
Ad hominem responses are commonly made at those who present partial sets of information, to those who are paid to present partial sets of information, and falsely, to those who the arguer wished to besmirch. The best response is for all to declare their interests when making public/written statements and to rely on being able to communicate their expertise. This, of course, will not have any effect on those who will not listen. It is difficult not to attack the terminally biased on a personal basis, but then you never can be accused of playing the wo(man). Their false syllogisms, however, are fair game.
Avaroo says: “Who would be example of a “creationistâ€?? A known person, please. ”
One well known creationist is Roy Spencer. Roy is also a scientist and AGW denialist. See Tim Lambert http://timlambert.org/2005/08/tcs5/
Roy Spencer?
No one that might actually be a recognizable name?
Try Intelligent Design: ie Behe, Dembski or Creationists: ie Gish, Hovind.
Recognizable names if you read Pharyngula.