A good point. I would just quibble with your affirmative statement that '... the oldest instance of the practice is almost certainly far older than the oldest preserved instance of the practice.'
It seems to me that whilst it is highly likely the first instance is earlier than the first discovered instance and that this is a perfectly valid conjecture I don't think we have any convincing grounds to state that it is 'almost certainly far older.'
It seems that the article has a simple thesis.
a) climate is hard
b) human activity is affecting it but because it's hard it's tough to know how much
c) hence it's difficult to know what the correct policies should be.
As an economist might say - without clarity on the positive, it's challenging to resolve the normative.
But I am a little puzzled by the failure to discuss outcomes in terms of mathematical expectation. And of course, the author knows more than I ever will about this.
Hence:
If our activity might just trigger a sequence of events leading to human extinction...(in other words such a sequence is conceivable and credible) then even if the risk is low as estimated by our (weak) ability to assess such risk, then the outcome is surely so hideous that if our policies are taking us in a direction that makes such an outcome more likely (even if we are not sure by how much) then there is cause for caution and re-examination of policy.
It seems to me that our situation at present is of this form. Despite our poor understanding and the fact that things aren't 'settled' (as if they ever will be) this unsettled 'knowledge' is all we have and we have to take it seriously, most particularly if the possible outcomes are ghastly. We can't just wait for better science.
Hardly. First, it's not really a metaphor, more of an analogy; it could be reworded as:
My brain is to Carlsen's as Carlsen's is to the best computer's.
It's pretty obvious he isn't talking about his brain qua a biological organ. He's referring specifically to chess skills.
In that regard, the best computer chess engine in the world absolutely dominates the best humans. Even with a pawn or two removed as handicap, the best humans struggle to get draws.
There was a recent match played between the world #5 human (Nakamura) and the world #1 computer (Stockfish). Even when Stockfish played black, used a handicap of removing the b-pawn before beginning, and didn't use any opening books, Nakamura was still beaten.
The age of Human vs. Computer competition ended pretty conclusively in the mid 2000s, and the gulf has just widened.
You're entitled to your opinion on his crusades against religion. But let's bear in mind that there are those of us who consider religious irrationalism a key challenge of our age, nationally and internationally, and hence that such a crusade is important.
Yes, but he is royally screwing it up by being such a complete and utter arse about everything.
Also, you can't go and identify religion as being the biggest peril of our age when you have folk like Stalin lurking in the background of the 20th century to suggest that maybe it just might be blind adherence to dogma that is the actual issue here and that atheist political theories are just as susceptible to that particular meme as the religious when it comes to justifying blood with false utopias. I got no problem with people of a book, or not of a book, or whatever. I just have problems with the ones who take it seriously enough to kill over whose interpretation of the unknowable is correct.
And you cannot have a crusade against religious irrationality. A crusade is a religious war. It just doesn't work.
Let's also remember there are people who believe that insults and condescension are the least effective ways to help someone see they are acting irrationally, and that attacking a group of people's shared identity is the worst way to work with them on the substance of the challenges of our time.
> attacking a group of people's shared identity is the worst way to work with them on the substance of the challenges of our time
"when we insult their intelligence and mock the things they hold sacred, they fight harder against us. maybe we should try something different?"
"are you crazy? they're bad guys. they believe what they want, regardless of what empirical reality says. now let's do the exact same thing again, maybe it will work better this time."
You're right it's a poor way to change someone's mind, and certainly doesn't foster inclusion, but what of people who are still making up their mind? Mainly, I'm talking about young people who have been raised in a mostly religious context, but haven't gone head-over-heels yet.
It might be that challenging superstition in the most brutal way possible (outside of physical violence, that is), serves to promote more rational beliefs among this group.
I doubt it. I won't repost my other comment which addresses this [1] but in my opinion people like Dawkins are fanatics. And science/atheist fanatics are no better than religious fanatics. Religious fanatics drive me away from religion but Dawkins fanaticism drives me away from atheism.
I think it's calm, rational argument that has swayed me most away from religion. Just a simple thought experiment:
1. You think religions like scientology are crazy.
2. You believe in a man who was born of a virgin, died, rose from the dead, and who hundreds of millions of people eat and drink every weekend.
3. How can you call them crazy when you believe that?
Even still it's hard for me to get off the fence but simple arguments like that, which aren't arrogant and totally patronising, but lay out the facts in an honest way, are what convince people.
I think the problem with a more aggressive approach is arrogance. Most religious people probably accept they could be wrong - their belief is based on faith. But aggressive atheists argue that religious people are wrong and stupid when from a religious persons perspective the atheist has no proof they are wrong. Evolution is real and correct but isn't proof their is no God. Atheists say it's not up to them to prove their is no God, it's up to religious people to prove their is. But if you're calling someone out as wrong they will think you need to prove it. Because there is and never will be a way to disprove the existence of a God I don't think this approach works. You have to present the facts in a way that is honest but in a way that the other person hasn't thought about before.
Some of us have sympathy for his cause and still think his writings on evolution (out of a sense of "check out how amazing and exciting this stuff is!") are overwhelmingly better than his writings on religion (even if we frequently appreciate snark).
>> "The problem is, Dawkins preaches to the converted. Only atheists and creationists listen to him, and neither are likely to change their minds."
This is very true. Over the last year I've been swayed towards atheism but people like Dawkins turn me off. Despite his protests that he isn't arrogant and people just mistake his confidence for it he is a smug, arrogant git. He's right about a lot of things but it seems he and a lot of 'famous' atheists just trade in religious fanaticism for science fanaticism. His fanaticism drives me away from atheism the same way that fundamental Christian fanaticism drives me away from religion.
I'm disappointed in Andreessen. It appears that a major part of his concern is the damage done to US firms trying to do business abroad. This damage, apparently, completely outweighs and potential damage to our liberties occasioned by trampling on rights that we won by painful and bloody struggles.
This is a really odious quote, especially if you read carefully. He says Obama is doing too little to counter the perception. In other words it's okay if you break the law, violate the constitution, and create enormous opportunities for institutional corruption as long as the perception remains intact and you don't get caught.
It seems that his major concern in all of this is money. This is a guy who will happily take ethyl bromoacetate out of Zyklon B if theres a buck to be made.
It seems to me that whilst it is highly likely the first instance is earlier than the first discovered instance and that this is a perfectly valid conjecture I don't think we have any convincing grounds to state that it is 'almost certainly far older.'