Switching gears, the climate science community has been rocked recently by Dr. Judith Curry, head of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Science at Georgia Tech and a respected researcher into things like Arctic ice and hurricanes, who has the audacity to engage so-called "climate skeptics" on their own turf - blogs like Climate Audit and Open Air - which some claim legitimizes them. She has also publicly criticized the IPCC as suffering from groupthink and called for a reform in the way they present and analyze risk. She sees herself as reaching out to climate skeptics for a more civil discourse, while some accuse her of propping up bad science.
I'm really not interested in discussing the politics of Colorado's Senate race or climate science here - that's not really our thing. What I would like to explore is the question of whether most people even want a rational argument. It often seems like most of the time it is more effective to call names or break off dialog rather than have a measured rational discussion.
I suppose the real question here is how do people react to things that are supported by reason or evidence that contradict what they think should be true? Maybe it's really a contest between truth and truthiness.
|The Colbert Report||Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c|
|The Word - Truthiness|
So what do you think? Is there any rational discourse to be had or are we all thinking with our guts only?