This guy:

"What do you do when you have a medical problem, nineteen doctors tell you you have condition 'A', and one tells you the opposite?"

Again, you're applying this to the global warming issue, while I'm just speaking in general. Say we switched it to ten experts say one thing, ten experts say the opposite. That sort of situation is probably common, by the way.

I recently heard on the news that red wine is good for your teeth. Simply based on the fact that this has been reported, that is some reason to believe it's true, since "more official" methods of coming to a conclusion are more likely to be reported. However, I still don't know much about how the study was done, how many ways there are to go wrong, what is the nature of the people coming to this conclusion, etc, so to me, it only feels about 60% likely to be true so far.

If I looked into the study for maybe a half hour, I would probably get a much better idea of whether the concerns above are actually problems, and I may discover that there are few ways for them to go wrong. I may bump up my opinion to 90% likely. Or I may find that they do have some biases and start to doubt the red wine fact a lot more.

Since I don't feel like looking into the study, I have to stay with my 60% guess. In the case of global warming, the fact that there is a consensus in itself is an indicator, but maybe more like a 70-75% indicator; for me to bump it up to 95%+, I'd probably have to look into the research to make sure there isn't some odd peculiarity about how these scientists reach their conclusions. But, I'm not a policy maker, so I'm ok with not spending the time to do that and remain in some doubt.

Mind you, I do think policy makers have the responsibility to look into the research as I described above. And perhaps they don't, on one side or the other. I can respect one person's believing something and not respect another person believing something, even if they believe in the same thing. I care not just about what they believe, but why they believe it.

Really? 

I can give you a position where 19 experts will be sure that the right move is rook f to e8... They will be in agreement because they all see the same thing and have the same blind spots.

Kasparov (or Lasker, or Capablanca, doesn't matter) will be able to show that actually Nd3 is the winner and no other. 

So who was right? The one or the nineteen?

So, you admit you're applying this to the global warming issue. And I told you I was talking about things in general. What would it be like if it were instead 50-50 among experts? Would us laymen taking a side be like a coin flip? I'm just curious.

"It's not a 1:1 topic of debate, so it's dishonest to pretend that it is."

But if you read most of my posts I continue to say that what I'm saying doesn't necessarily apply to the global warming issue. I suppose people don't know what that sentence means? :)

"It doesn't matter that you haven't read the papers or done the research."

Right. By not reading the research I make the sacrifice of having less confidence in the right answer, and I'm ok with that.

Post #98: That's actually a very interesting analogy. I never thought of it that way. Sometimes it may take an exceptional mind to see the right answer, instead of falling for the common trap most are tempted to make. Again I'm just talking in general -- I am unsure of whether it applies specifically to climate change or not. 

"If you have advanced liver cancer and 19 our of 20 oncologists agree that you have one month to live, you'd better put your affairs in order, and fast, whether or not you read the medical journals."

Hmm, well actually I think it does depend on whether or not you read the medical journals, to an extent. See post #96 for my reasons.

You know how dentists agree that a person should brush their teeth two times a day? Well, I'd like to know whether they are under pressure to recommend more than what you actually need. If that turns out to be true, then I might not take their advice completely literally -- perhaps it's possible for your teeth to be healthy brushing once a day, they just don't want to give you bad habits. In other words I want to know what goes into the claims dentists make; that information could have a huge effect on my opinion.

Me neither, Elubas :-) but always have the courage to speak against "the voice of the many" when you know that the truth is on your side. At least when it's safe to do so :-)

Can this be moved please.

Owltuna, it happens all the time with online commentary of ongoing tournaments. The GMs will all agree x should be played, then something totally different is played.

To be fair, the commentators aren't taking the game as seriously as those playing in the tournament, although given the fact that an audience is relying on them, the commentators do have a fair amount of motivation to be reasonably accurate.

No, <OwlTuna>... you're just wrong, I'm sorry :-)

I'm not saying they're the same thing. The purpose of my example is just to give you an idea of the general points I'm making. To what issues they apply to (and how) is an open question. Knowing something about how they carry out their study can have a non trivial effect on how likely I am to trust them.

Post #106: It would be easy to understand if reasons are provided for that thesis; hard if there aren't. You might have some really good reasons, and I'd be happy to see them.

Like I said, lots of strong critics expecting one move and being wrong is not uncommon. Not sure about how many do, but it seems like there is potential for quite a few to. For example in one game Fischer exchanged his good knight for a bad bishop -- even many grandmasters who are looking at the game after it happened still probably would have thought the move was stupid if they were in Fischer's shoes.

Yes, they're all the same, butt ugly and hairy!

And I told you why I was "discussing dental hygene." But I guess you prefer to pretend that I have different reasons for doing so?

You really should have been able to decipher the general point I'm making, not least because I simply stated it, but I'll repeat what I said:

"Knowing something about how they carry out their study can have a non trivial effect on how likely I am to trust them."

Indeed, if I read the journals carefully, I will have a considerably more confident opinion, whether "for" or "against," than if I just knew there was a consensus. There is a fair amount of fuzziness when you don't know anything about the source. If you do know things about the source that fuzziness goes away, that's my point.

Interesting read. And most are polite. Very good folks. So I remember seeing articles about global cooling back in early 1970? Now it,s global warming. I remember there was a big scare about the ozone disappearing close to 30 years ago. Haven,t heard anything about that for years now. I myself think that the earth is slowly getting warmer. Not sure what it will do to us in the future. Kill off all mankind? I doubt it. I live in Washington state. There is a lake we were cay asking on ( lake Chalan ) and we paddled close to these cliffs. About 40 feet straight up we're old carvings in the rocks. Carved 10,000 years ago. Well these people didn't,t climb a ladder or lower themselves with a rope. They were standing on glaciers. Just about all of Canada and half the U.S. Was covered in ice. Why was there global warming back then when humans had zero impact on weather, etc? . So I have know idea. I did here like someone mentioned that the polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How come? Sun has something to do with it for sure. Lot to think about.

I hate it when my iPad goes and fix on it,s own things I,m typing.

I was kayaking on this lake. Not cay asking. Lol

I recently read a convincing story about how the timing of the DB Cooper skyjump and appearance of Susquash (sp ?) up in the Pacific NW were bizarrely related....hmmm....just thinking aloud.

Ghostess Lola. That,s a good one. Sci fi mag I bet?

No, I don't object to what you're saying, because now you seem to be aware of my general point. How it applies to specifics will vary. As you have brought up, one thing to consider is how much time you have.

It seems like you tend to misunderstand me. Because I tend to agree that the strawman arguments you bring up are bad, but you mistakenly believe that I hold them, when in reality they don't necessarily follow from the points I'm making.

Just as an example, it's not a requirement for me to let my car sit unrepaired for a long time when it breaks down for the following to be true:

"Knowing something about how they carry out their study can have a non trivial effect on how likely I am to trust them."

Just because studying more can have an effect on how likely I am to trust the experts doesn't mean it's worth doing. It may or may not be, depending on the circumstances.