[PREV - BURNING_LOGS] [TOP]
COGNITIVE_CULT
April 25, 2014
WE_SMART
WE_DETAIL
Around and around and-- WE_BIFURCATE
Dan Kahan blogs a lot,
but is perhaps not very
good at it.
BURNING_LOGS
Ezra Klein write-up
"Politics Makes Us Stupid"
Krugman's claim of a big
picture asymmetry. The
question: "what's the left My answer: nuclear power.
wing equivalent of global Which is a big deal because
warming denial". global warming is a big deal.
If you graph emissions of power
sources by how much they're used
in the US, you'll see the ones we
use most are the dirtiest:
they're the CO2 emitters.
Going down the list, historically
number 1 of the non-C02 emitters
has been nuclear power.
2025: wind/solar has
been doing better of late,
and might be in the same
class by now.
At some point I'll have to post a
grand defense of nuclear power over
at the dailykos, but it's a little
peculiar that I need to:
Is global warming public
enemy number 1 or isn't it?
Then central question is how to build structures out
of weak reeds like human beings?
Key example: the scientific enterprise.
If the left does better than right, why is that so,
given the apparent weakness on an individual level. We've all got the
same tendency
toward tribalism,
to team sports.
Multiple different difficulties
estimating right/wrong
defining the groups
estimating divergence from expert opinion-- denialism
estimating magnitude of issues importances.
Mon April 28, 2014 09:31 ~o~
what's his whizz, claims Kahan has data on
sides disagreeing on who the experts are--
not sure that that's fatal, depends on what you're
trying to show.
Doesn't show any knowledge of the "false equivalency" issue.
There are reasons the left (and Krugman) react badly to
the "both sides do it".
There's a burden-of-proof issue here I haven't wanted
to raise, but maybe should've-- "maybe the left does a little
better, but is there any evidence?" Why assume that they don't?
If the contention is equivalency, why doesn't that need to
be proved?
--------
[NEXT - TROLLEY_FLAB]