Show newer
Empiricism boosted
Zack Labe

Global temperature anomalies by month through May 2023. I find this type of data much more concerning than brief regional extreme graphs.

Note: M = sunspot cycle max, m = sunspot cycle min, V = volcano

+ Data from data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
+ Graphic was created by columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperatu

1+
Empiricism boosted
Sheril Kirshenbaum

The wealthiest 10% are responsible for 1/2 of global CO2 emissions.

1+
Empiricism

@mister_goldfish

"we have to do all we can to mitigate"

"We" aren't!

Though "we" can qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

But will "we"?

0
Empiricism

@szescstopni

If people are too cold, they love the heat. If people are too hot, they love the cold.

1
Empiricism

Can we trust the media? The written and spoken language \ information on the internet, TV, Radio, or newspapers?

Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Some people have learned (understand) how to perform heart surgery and some people trust that some people understand how to perform heart surgery. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science). Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can (eventually) develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the temperature at 12 am every day of the week & calculating the average temperature for that week (at 12 am). In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they were personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they understood the right methods to use and the accuracy of the instruments. e.g., a calibrated thermometer). I described that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science (experiments) is the most accurate (reliable) method to collect real-world data.

However, there are people that are not interested in science and or don’t want other people to be informed of the science. On social media, many problems occur because there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the general audience (the population of people). So, even if a person was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), a biased agent may try to misinform people about the science - as often happens with climate science because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation (i.e., corruption & biased personal agendas in general). Or laypeople may misconstrue the science they read and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).

I'd advise sincere people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications). Be cautious of sciencey-sounding social media that does not reference scientific publications.

Science Journals peer review and publish scientists' research. Browse, search, and explore journals indexed in the Web of Science mjl.clarivate.com/home

Be cautious of science-sounding posts or toots on Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, YouTube, etc. Especially in the context of ecological sustainability (e.g., “climate”, “ecology”), there are many social media posts from people that write science-sounding narratives. Many of these people will believe in their own sciencey-sounding rhetoric. The folk rhetoric tends to be caused by a mix of cherry-picked science (confirmation bias), personal beliefs, & biased agendas caused by a lifestyle preference (e.g., work and money-related personal biases that cause confirmation bias). Folk “science” or pseudoscience is a ratio of science journalism, wishful thinking, denial, thoughtlessness, virtue signaling, and more explicit forms of dishonesty (not including those that deny all science). Layperson bias or folk science is even more pronounced In the context of environmental sciences such as climate science. The environmental sciences' core message (consensus) is that many people, especially in technologically developed countries such as the USA (most greenhouse gases per capita), need to change their consumerism lifestyles (not a popular message). In other words, the general evidence infers that many people will have to change their lifestyles if we are to mitigate climate change (e.g., reduce greenhouse gases, etc.). On social media (i.e., the “mainstreams” social narratives) the signs are that the majority of people are, well, like the majority of countries, advocating an unsustainable lifestyle (their personal lifestyles).

How to develop a sustainable culture empiricalperspective.home.blog

The (published) evidence about climate change is the general scientific literature (the consensus). A random person's opinion or a post on social media is not a trusted source of information (they maybe trustworthy. But how do you know that? unless you know them personally). Not even a climatologist (a scientist who studies the climate) on social media should be a person's only source of trusted information about the climate. Scientists are people, and some people can be bought or adjust their views due to their own financial situation. The point is to be aware (informed) of the general scientific consensus on a subject such as climate change. And be aware that there are many people that don’t want that consensus to be generally known.

For nearly three decades, many of the world's largest fossil fuel companies have knowingly worked to deceive the public about the realities and risks of climate change. ucsusa.org/resources/climate-d

There are a few, but popular (influential), celebrity scientists or talk show hosts on Youtube that disagree with the scientific consensus on climate change. The fact that some people are believing in the opinions of individual scientists that are not even qualified in climatology just shows how people, in general, tend to believe what they want to believe. That's why many people "cherry" pick the science they like and disregard & or deny the science that they don't like (who likes the fact that human activities, for example, buying sports cars, fast fashion or the latest “must-have” technology, is damaging the planet's ecosystems, therefore, causing climate change?)

Besides science, the other source of information is generally social media (whilst science is also a social enterprise, however, fundamentally, science is the data). Social media such as news and political information. People's opinions, beliefs and views, etc., are a more or less accurate source of information. Social media news may be biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas. However, having a broad (e.g., not only technology-related) scientific education helps in all walks of life. It's never too late to learn more science. I'd recommend that a person starts with the philosophy of science (i.e., the epistemology of science) alongside learning the subjects of science. A rudimentary understanding of chemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed, is because they haven't developed a sufficient understanding of the relevant science subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed themselves or out to disinform them (e.g., generally industries if the prevailing science doesn't align with their profit agendas. In the context of the environmental science, it rarely does).

The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence. In other words, scientists don't report a novel new discovery as a fact - if that fact is only based on one research paper. Though laypeople often do. (And possibly some naive scientists). The general scientific consensus is the most reliable source of information. Of course, new discoveries are made (science updates), however, the point is that established science is and always will be based on the consensus. For example, Darwin and Wallace independently developed a hypothesis termed evolution. At that time (1800's) evolution was a novel discovery. Now, evolution is the general scientific consensus. It would be odd for a biologist to not accept the theory of evolution as all the evidence indicates that evolution is how life evolved (But, as mentioned, the odd scientists can be bought. i.e., charlatans (go rogue) or believe in their own misunderstandings.

We could also take the same cross reference of information sources approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy). People that only watch Fox News (USA) or only read the DailyMail (UK) are not the most informed people (to understate it). Recently, people began leaving because the new owner is explicitly using the social platform for his own business and (geo)political agenda (corporations tend to spread virtuous-sounding narratives so as to manage their social reputation). In this context, is more robust because it's connected to a less centralized network - so information can flow more freely as there isn't one corporation controlling what information is and is not regulated. Though the quality (reliability or usefulness) of information that is spread throughout the network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.

As for a person's personality. A sincere person that is diligently trying to find out the facts - is what good scientists, investigative journalists, etc., are. An insincere person that is trying to spread misinformation (lies \ fraud) – is less of a useful individual (though could be very rich. e.g., a fossil fuel executive or shareholder)

1
Empiricism

Climate change mitigation and climate change adaptation. The less civilization does of the former (e.g., reducing Greenhouse gas emissions), the more civilization will be forced to try and do the latter (e.g., deal with the consequences)


0
Empiricism

@mister_goldfish

Generally, climate mitigation and climate adaptation. The less civilization does of the former (e.g., reducing Greenhouse gas emissions), the more civilization will be forced to try and do the latter (e.g., deal with the consequences)

1
Empiricism

You probably have heard someone saying to you that "you don't understand economics!" or perhaps that someone is you.

What they're really trying to do is misinform you that only their idea of economics is the right one.

Upstream: Ep 1: The Sharing Economy? (Documentary)

Episode webpage: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/bb33

Media file: traffic.libsyn.com/secure/bb33

0
Empiricism boosted
B. Ricardo Brown, PhD

Bernie Krause: The sound ecologist capturing a disappearing world: ‘70% of habitats I recorded are gone’

"His personal library of more than 5,000 hours of recordings holds snapshots of a rapidly deteriorating world....
Where in the 1960s, 10 hours in the field were enough to produce one hour of usable material, the time it takes today is now closer to 1,000 hours"

#SoundscapeEcology #Biodiversity #Soundscapes #EnvironmentalStudies #EnvHist
#Climate_Change #noise
theguardian.com/artanddesign/2

0
Empiricism

@Snoro

Maybe they should wear large badges with "I'm a greenwasher" printed on them?

However, it begs the question, why the heck are there fossil fuel friggin lobbyists at climate talks?

Whatever next? A meeting about how to mitigate fires where we invite the friggin arsonists?

I'm just waiting for the world to be a more sane place ⌛

0
Empiricism

@dstephenlindsay

Until there is sufficient evidence we should be cautious.

However, let's use some comparative animal psychology. A sheep does not know (can not know) that humans are more intelligent That's the intellectual capacity of an animal (hard to test because we can't ask a sheep, however, that is based on observational behavior. So it's inferential evidence)

Forms of human emotions related to narcissism express a false sense of superiority (e.g., prejudice). A false sense of superiority is also perceived as arrogance (by those with more humility & or knowledge of the context-specific subject)

The opposite (on the spectrum) of arrogance is humility.

So, if someone with less experience (intelligence) has a low level of humility, that may cause self-delusions of superiority. The more emotive "ego" (attitude) dominates their minds & they lack the humility to accommodate that more experienced people (e.g., in a scientific subject) are in fact more informed than them.

The key point is that a low level of humility causes arrogance. If arrogance (a persistent, context-specific, social attitude) causes a person to overestimate their relative intelligence (e.g., the experience of a subject), that means they have not developed the cognitive skills to critically evaluate their own level of intelligence (accurately).

That's what l think (hypothesis) is the underlying emotive heuristics that manifest as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Intelligence is a first-person perspective. We can only infer other people's consciousness (not experience it directly). We assume that other people have the general same form of consciousness experience - based on their behaviors. But, the mind is extremely adaptive, and people's sense of subject reality evidently varies considerably.

But, there is an objective reality (e.g., our brains are neurological)

0
Empiricism

@dstephenlindsay

One aspect of arrogance is its use as a self-defense heuristic. So, certain social contexts can nurture higher levels of arrogance.

0
Empiricism

@0CynicalBastard @largess

That's an insightful question that got me thinking - so it's quite a long reply (I'm on an instance that permits a relatively large word count)

Trust and understanding are not the same qualities. Generally, we can demarcate the media into social information (e.g., general news & politics) and empirical evidence (science).

Empirical evidence is scientific information based on experimental data. For example, anyone can develop a basic scientific experiment such as measuring the average temperature at 12 am every day of the week. In that context, they'd follow a method that would mean they are personally confident of the results of the experiment (if they used the right methods and instruments). I used that example of a basic experiment as a basis to show how science is the most accurate method to collect real-world data.

As you infer, the problems occur because on social media there are less or more trustworthy intermediaries (agents) between that scientific information and the public. So, even if a member of the public was sincere and wanted to be informed of that data (science), some biased agent may try to disinform people about the science (as happens with climate science, because there is a lot of money, business interests, and lifestyle bias, associated with ecological degradation). Or some people may misconstrue that science and pass on misinformation (unintentionally).

In this context, I'd advise people to go directly to the source of the science. That being the scientific publications (The abstracts provide a general overview). Or an established scientific organization's website. Science journalism may also be a credible source of information (if the articles are well-referenced with scientific publications).

The other source of information is generally social media. News and political media are more or less accurate sources of information (& maybe biased towards only reporting certain news and political agendas).

However, having a broad scientific education helps in all walks of life (it's never too late to learn more science. Start with the philosophy of science not specifically the subjects).
For example, a basic understanding of biochemistry, biology, ecology (life science), and physics can inoculate people against misinformation and help them make better personal choices (e.g., health-related choices). The only reason why people can be, for example, greenwashed is that they don't have a sufficient understanding of the relevant subjects and they trust those who are either misinformed or out to disinform them.

The only substitute for knowledge is faith. Even in science, we have to have some faith that the paper we are reading has not been based on intentionally false data. However, as scientists we learn to cross-reference our understanding and base our understanding on multitudes of converging data sources (interdisciplinary research). For example, if I reference one scientific paper that's only because it references the general literature that I have already studied. One paper's new discovery should always be considered tentative evidence.

We could also take the same approach regarding our news feeds. Don't rely on only one source of information (e.g., one News provider). Depending on the country that could be more of a problem (e.g., state-owned media is by definition a biased and restricted source of information). That's the other important point, who owns and controls the media? (a free press is fundamental for a healthy democracy)

For example, people began leaving because the new owner is clearly using the social platform for his own business and political agenda. In this context, is better because it's less centralized so information can flow more freely. Though of course what quality of information is spread through the network is dependent on the people using it & the instance moderators.

0
Empiricism

Introduction (of a science paper)

Rarely does a research finding in Cognitive Psychology become part of the common parlance. The Dunning-Kruger effect (DK) is an exception (Dunning, Johnson, Ehrlinger, & Kruger, 2003; Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Named after the psychological scientists who discovered the phenomenon, the DK refers to the inverse relationship between one's actual aptitude and one's ability to accurately estimate said aptitude. In other words, while people generally exhibit some positive bias in assessing their own ability, this bias is heightened in those at the lower end of the distribution. It is thought that the second component of this “double curse” (Dunning et al., 2003) of inaccurate self-assessment, occurs due to a deficit in meta-cognition. This deficit in meta-cognition results in the failure to grasp what one knows and does not know.

Curtis S. Dunkel, Joseph Nedelec, Dimitri van der Linden,
Reevaluating the Dunning-Kruger effect: A response to and replication of Gignac and Zajenkowski (2020),
Intelligence,
Volume 96, 2023, 101717, ISSN 0160-2896,
doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2022.

1
Empiricism

Have you noticed that the people that overestimate their own intelligence in a subject often implicitly reveal, to the more informed, that their brand of pseudoscience is because they're missing the required level of humility?

That's why they don't ask more informed questions (lazy learners). They actually believe they're right most of the time (but, on social media, these folk rarely if ever reference scientific publications to back up their rhetoric - because they have not read the scientific publications. They read, at best, science journalism websites).

This online social behavior is actually the norm (average) within the context of laypeople's responses to posts where the scientific subjects of ecology (inc. Climate science) are the relevant context.

They really do believe, or at least promote (like a sales pitch) that buying stuff (products) is the main solution to mitigate change. Basically, because that is what they have been indoctrinated and want to believe in (nurtured).

Wanting to believe in something is the predictable way to most probably be incorrect. Denial followed by conformation bias is one of the most predictable forms of human responses (because humans are animals. And all animal's behavior has predictable patterns)

This is due to their unknown unknowns. A person's intelligence is generally related to experience For example, a person that has studied the scientific literature on has far more experience in that subject than a layperson (but an arrogant layperson can't handle that fact. Hence the self-denial).

You would not be surprised to hear how laypeople feign their level of knowledge of . They are fundamentally only fooling themselves.

Feigning intelligence on social media is relatively easier. Feigning knowledge is due to social status-seeking behaviors. The layperson (with a tone of arrogance. I.e., personality) feels like (emphasis on the emotional heuristic) they're being clever by generally making the narrative up as they go along, reading a little bit on the fly, for example, Wiki pages or social media forums, & very often really believing that the reason why they don't personally agree with the scientist is that the scientist is "stupid" (to use the layperson's words).

The Dunning-Kruger effect is real!

Imagining, after reading this, some arrogant laypeople will quickly read up the term on Wiki & self-proclaim themselves an expert. Arrogance (low humility) is a learning disability.

sciencedirect.com/search?qs=Du

0
Empiricism

@TruthSandwich

Then why don't you go and be a bit too "nice" elsewhere?

I've noticed your not too clever personal accusations.

Since you're replying to my OP, be respectful & at least have the insight to go & be a bit too "nice" with someone else's time.

If you must have the last word, go for it!

0
Empiricism

@DawnRoseTurner@mstdn.ca @CBCNews

The rivers and streams of , are also dying up (again). Periods of dry and hot weather are increasing in frequency in the summer months.

Whilst prolonged hot sunny weather makes the tourists happy, there will come a point when even they realize that things are going wrong (with the climate. Though they'd experience it as local weather)

0
Empiricism

@TruthSandwich

The One Planet Development (OPD) approach means people can (locally) produce a percentage of their own "wealth" (resources) sustainably. qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

To be clear, the OPD approach means people will own their own land and home (e.g., self-ownership or cooperatives). Therefore, the OPD approach is more about self-sustainability and less reliance on a Global economy. For example, if your generating your own electricity & a percentage of your own food without using fuels, Russia or Saudi Arabia can't blackmail your country (or vice versa. We could all do with less unethical geopolitics)

As things stand (business as usual), what do you think would happen if other countries stopped supplying the USA with oil? Americans crying at the gas pumps 😭 would not be the worst of it.

Do you know that the current dominant USA (& Europe, etc) food system can't function without fossil fuels? (e.g., fertilizers, insecticides, machinery, transport).

The OPD integrates with the local ecology to grow food sustainably using virtually no fuels. It's all about reducing resource and power demands (AKA efficiency) and focusing our attention on what really matters (healthy food, healthy culture, personal autonomy, etc)

1
Empiricism

@GhostOnTheHalfShell

Ha! "good" friends and their Global trade deals ❤️

0
Empiricism

@equalitysiren

History?

How 'modern-day slavery' in the Congo powers the rechargeable battery economy npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/

and a change to an ethical economy is the broader solution qoto.org/@Empiricism_Reloaded/

A more ethical product fairphone.com/en/

0
Show older

climate

45

psychology

31

sustainability

31

climatechange

20

science

19

degrowth

13
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.

Trending now

Resources

Developers

What is Mastodon?

qoto.org

More…

v3.5.19-qoto · Privacy policy