4 ms·

I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. The reason why experts don't "try to explain it to us" probably is ex

I can see both sides. I appreciate these documentaries for raising awareness as you said. The reason why experts don't "try to explain it to us" probably is exactly because they think it's complex and nuanced. They probably don't even think there is an "issue" that need to be explained to begin with. Think it this way: you're in a field, and you know its pros and cons. You are not going to randomly speak anything about it because that's just.. like everything else in the world. Now, suddenly someone, likely an "outsider", wrote an article to describe the field/area in a certain one-sided way (good or bad). Of course you now suddenly have a strong opinion on it. Note: above is about the common question I saw "why these experts only appear to refute others but never explain the thing themselves", not about Seaspiracy in particular.

IgorPartola 5y ago
I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed. The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue. As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.
- fireattack 5y ago
  I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked, they just won't go ahead and actively publish anything that way. I personally side with TV producers here as soon as they have good intention. But can see why other people think otherwise.
  - IgorPartola 5y ago
    As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.
BrandoElFollito 5y ago
This is the problem I have with climate change. I am a very rational, science oriented person (actively promoting science, atheist, PhD in physics, actively hating homeopathy pseudo-science, you name it). I wanted to understand: - why there is a problem with climete chnage - how we know there is one - my winter was cold, where is the warming (exaggerating that of course) - etc. I am not an expert, nor want to become one. I just want someone to tell me: this is the evidence, these are the consequences as seen historically, we are "here" in the timeline. The only thing I hear is "you dumb believers!" and "you dumb non-believers" (or a disgusted stare). The only pertinent information that does not come with 200 pages of explanations are, as usual, in xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ and https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. And also https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climate-change-denial/ https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climat... and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-c... - as a counterpoint.
- elias94 5y ago
  see David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet is better than 200 pages
- jfengel 5y ago
  This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium between visible light hitting the earth, being absorbed, and being reemitted as IR. We've doubled the amount of CO2, so you would expect twice as much of that heat to be retained. Compare it to the surface of the moon, which is at the same distance from the sun as us, but is on average well below freezing. CO2 isn't the only factor, but we've changed the equilibrium by doubling it. That's it. It's very, very simple. The reason it produces only yelling is because it's been said so many trillions of times that if you haven't seen it, it's because you're not looking. There's no sane counter-argument: more CO2 produces more heat. It couldn't not do so. The economics of why that's a problem is more complicated, but we've spent so much effort fighting anti-science attempts to deny really basic, obvious, trivial chemistry that we don't get to the even slightly non-trivial parts. The slightly non-trivial parts are "Yes, if you raise the temperature 4 degrees F it's going to make a lot of marginally livable places unlivable, and many millions of people will die. Also, some of that carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid when absorbed by the oceans, which isn't good for sea life. Also, you know that weather is a chaotic system, and changing the energy balance of it causes changes to what meta-stable parts do exist, requiring substantial changes to the lifestyles of people there." Again, this has all been said thousands of times. If it helps to have somebody explain it to you, great. But you also know that I'm about to be overrun with Gish Gallopers trotting out repeated-refuted objections, and to a casual observer it's going to look like I can't keep up and therefore must be wrong. And the only way to decide for yourself is the one thing you don't want to do: as you say, you're not an expert and don't want to become one. So I'm really not sure what to do, and I'm pretty sure I've just wasted my virtual breath. I really think that my second paragraph should have put an end to this, and you can imagine my frustration that it doesn't.

IgorPartola 5y ago

I can see both sides but the side of the experts can clearly do better here. “It’s too complex to explain to all you people” or “this isn’t really a problem, the documentary makes a mountain of a mole hill” aren’t good approaches. If you are an expert in a field you should have at least some ability to simplify the issue or point out the mitigating factors that the documentary missed. The much more likely explanation here is that experts have a vested interest in looking smarter than some guy with a camera so they furrow their brows and talk about the complexities of the issue. As an analogy, BitCoin is complex. Between its usage of a blockchain and energy usage and murky origin story with who knows who owning a large chunk from the get go. Yet you could probably explain the power consumption problem to someone pretty easily.

fireattack 5y ago
I think there is a fundamental difference between the two groups about how much simplification/inaccuracy can be accepted. The TV producer would take 90% fact, 5% oversimplification, and even 5% misleading info all day every day. The experts probably won't accept that. This is not to say they are unable to simplify things (which as you said, is a very crucial skill on its own) if asked, they just won't go ahead and actively publish anything that way. I personally side with TV producers here as soon as they have good intention. But can see why other people think otherwise.
- IgorPartola 5y ago
  As a subject matter expert you must sometimes communicate with non-experts. If you can’t do that, you are failing at half the job because being an expert is not just about knowing the subject but being able to communicate well about it.

BrandoElFollito 5y ago

This is the problem I have with climate change. I am a very rational, science oriented person (actively promoting science, atheist, PhD in physics, actively hating homeopathy pseudo-science, you name it). I wanted to understand: - why there is a problem with climete chnage - how we know there is one - my winter was cold, where is the warming (exaggerating that of course) - etc. I am not an expert, nor want to become one. I just want someone to tell me: this is the evidence, these are the consequences as seen historically, we are "here" in the timeline. The only thing I hear is "you dumb believers!" and "you dumb non-believers" (or a disgusted stare). The only pertinent information that does not come with 200 pages of explanations are, as usual, in xkcd: https://xkcd.com/1379/ https://xkcd.com/1379/ and https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/. And also https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climate-change-denial/ https://thefederalist.com/2016/09/30/xkcd-succumbs-to-climat... and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-c... - as a counterpoint.

elias94 5y ago
see David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet is better than 200 pages
jfengel 5y ago
This is, in essence, the crux of the problem. With your level of education it shouldn't be at all difficult to find a resource that answers your questions. Instead you've sought out two comic strips and two extremely ideological sources. The basics of climate change can be taught standing on one foot. Carbon dioxide absorbs IR radiation, while oxygen and nitrogen are transparent to it. There was an equilibrium between visible light hitting the earth, being absorbed, and being reemitted as IR. We've doubled the amount of CO2, so you would expect twice as much of that heat to be retained. Compare it to the surface of the moon, which is at the same distance from the sun as us, but is on average well below freezing. CO2 isn't the only factor, but we've changed the equilibrium by doubling it. That's it. It's very, very simple. The reason it produces only yelling is because it's been said so many trillions of times that if you haven't seen it, it's because you're not looking. There's no sane counter-argument: more CO2 produces more heat. It couldn't not do so. The economics of why that's a problem is more complicated, but we've spent so much effort fighting anti-science attempts to deny really basic, obvious, trivial chemistry that we don't get to the even slightly non-trivial parts. The slightly non-trivial parts are "Yes, if you raise the temperature 4 degrees F it's going to make a lot of marginally livable places unlivable, and many millions of people will die. Also, some of that carbon dioxide becomes carbonic acid when absorbed by the oceans, which isn't good for sea life. Also, you know that weather is a chaotic system, and changing the energy balance of it causes changes to what meta-stable parts do exist, requiring substantial changes to the lifestyles of people there." Again, this has all been said thousands of times. If it helps to have somebody explain it to you, great. But you also know that I'm about to be overrun with Gish Gallopers trotting out repeated-refuted objections, and to a casual observer it's going to look like I can't keep up and therefore must be wrong. And the only way to decide for yourself is the one thing you don't want to do: as you say, you're not an expert and don't want to become one. So I'm really not sure what to do, and I'm pretty sure I've just wasted my virtual breath. I really think that my second paragraph should have put an end to this, and you can imagine my frustration that it doesn't.