Where is all this certainty coming from?

[commie]

But climate change is all about uncertainty! There is no certainty about how bad the problem is and therefore what preventive measures would be proportionate. From the first, the main rationale for action has always been based on uncertainty (specifically, on the risk of extremely serious outcomes).

I think your aversion to mental gymnastics is leading you to use language unskillfully ("evil", "real", "equivalent" and so forth).

[integral]

The chess master sees more then the chess beginner. It is proven in practice. But with out a board to practice on the beginner overestimates there abilities, conviction that there beliefs are on par with the master. 

Edited October 11, 2020 by integral

[Parththakkar12]

Another thing about this is that people have to desperately hold on to the belief that they have the truth and that they are right. If they don't, they would have to admit to themselves how susceptible to manipulation they actually are. People like to believe that they're right and they have it all figured out!

[Leo Gura]

There's two kinds of certainty:

Certainty from ignorance, and certainty from direct experience.

[No Self]

11 hours ago, commie said:

But climate change is all about uncertainty! There is no certainty about how bad the problem is and therefore what preventive measures would be proportionate. From the first, the main rationale for action has always been based on uncertainty (specifically, on the risk of extremely serious outcomes).

I think your aversion to mental gymnastics is leading you to use language unskillfully ("evil", "real", "equivalent" and so forth).

Your point is well taken.

Climate change is not a good example as the scientific consensus relies on research so complex that the average punter has no hope of understanding it. Scientists recommend reducing carbon emissions, and renewable energy is generally cheaper as well. Assuming this is true, the only argument in favour of our politicians propping up the fossil fuel industry is reliant on apathy, greed, corruption and/or ignorance.

We need a basic education in critical thinking to avoid the false equivalencies in the OP. If someone claims Hillary is a lizard, the burden of proof is on them. If I claim Santa Claus is on my roof right now, you should not believe me until I provide evidence, and that evidence has been subjected to rigorous scrutiny by skeptics. Unfortunately, the Facebook mindset is "You can't prove that the world ISN'T flat." This leads to a breakdown of commonsense and the badly divided political culture of modern times.

Society has a long history of mocking people with outlandish ideas, some of which then turn out to be correct. Robert Goddard invented the liquid fueled rocket, but was laughed at by his fellow Americans for claiming it had the potential to reach space. Decades later, the 1969 moon landing became America's most prized historical achievement and nobody is laughing anymore. Yet it has to be this was in order to shield ourselves from bullshit artists and lunatics, who outnumber genuine innovators a thousandfold.

[PurpleTree]

1 hour ago, No Self said:

Decades later, the 1969 moon landing became America's most prized historical achievement and nobody is laughing anymore. 

Operation Paperclip had a lot to do with it  or is that a conspiracy too?

[commie]

4 hours ago, No Self said:

Scientists recommend reducing carbon emissions, and renewable energy is generally cheaper as well. Assuming this is true, the only argument in favour of our politicians propping up the fossil fuel industry is reliant on apathy, greed, corruption and/or ignorance.

That isn't much better than the average conspiracy theory you see online. Your assumption is unwarranted and you ignore the actual arguments which are a matter of public record and instead posit not just character flaws (which are of course plausible) but unspecified "corruption".

Which is to say that I do not agree that:

4 hours ago, No Self said:

We need a basic education in critical thinking to avoid the false equivalencies in the OP.

The issue isn't false equivalencies because while the implied equivalencies are misused in the OP, they're not false since certainty about the claims mentioned by the OP is indeed unwarranted. An education in critical thinking might ameliorate your take on the politics of climate change for instance (and more generally keep people from using what's socially acceptable in their circle as a guide for what to think) but the issue with the OP has to do with basic reasoning and decision-making skills instead.

It's not skillful to "believe" (as you say) or to be "100% sure" (as the OP says) in/of facts. Depending on the context, the appropriate tools might be probabilities or preponderance of the evidence.

Edited October 12, 2020 by commie