By now you have probably seen the article in the Wall Street Journal written by one of the “notorious Koch brothers” (as a colleague of mine put it), in which he explains why he “is speaking out.” After all the feverish hate speech directed his way over the last several months, including in particular the insinuation that he and his brother were somehow orchestrating Gov. Scott Walker’s actions in Wisconsin, it was probably time that we heard from Mr. Koch himself.
I find the suggestion that the Koch brothers are orchestrating anything silly. It is not that they do not have their viewpoints; they obviously do. It is not that they do not seek to promote their viewpoints; they obviously do that as well. It is not that they do not contribute to organizations with political ambitions consonant with their own; again, this is obvious.
What I find silly is the inference from those facts to the conclusion that people in Wisconsin or elsewhere are doing what they are doing because of the Koch brothers. This gets the causality exactly backward. The Kochs do not cause people to behave in a certain way or believe in a certain thing; rather, they look for people who are already behaving and believing in ways that they agree with, and they support them.
I, for example, was at one time the “Charles G. Koch Senior Fellow” at the Fund for American Studies (I am now a Senior Scholar), which means that the Koch Foundation sponsored some of the work that I did for TFAS. But I did what I did, said what I said, and wrote what I wrote because I believed it. I am happy to have someone supporting my work, but whether anyone did or not I would still have the beliefs I do and try to do the same work. Donor support allows me to do more of it than I otherwise would, but it does not alter the character or substance of what I do. I would not have it any other way. Neither, I am sure, would the Koch Foundation.
But even that is putting it too strongly. I give talks, I lead discussions, and I teach classes all sponsored by TFAS, and thus in part by the Koch Foundation, but I do not ask permission from the Koch Foundation to teach what I want to teach; I do not ask them to review my talks; they give me no advice about what books or articles or historical figures to discuss; and they do not ask to vet my views on any philosophical, economic, or policy-related issue. Instead, I have made proposals to them about projects I wanted to work on for which I asked support, and in some cases they have agreed to support me.
That’s it. Nothing sinister, nothing underhanded, nothing untoward; no secret meetings, no strings pulled, no threats, no “offers I couldn’t refuse.” In fact, that is exactly the way that almost every other grant-making entity in America works. It sometimes happens, I suppose, that donors will approach people or institutions and say, “we’ll give you $x if you do A, B, and C”; but even in those cases, people and institutions with integrity will accept only when the “A, B, and C” are consistent with what they are interested in doing anyway. Certainly that is true for me.
It makes me wonder whether one of the most flummoxing things about the Koch brothers to their detractors is precisely the fact that the Koch brothers really believe in their ideas. They actually believe in the beneficial powers of free markets, of limited government, and of regimes based on private property and voluntary contract. They genuinely believe that these institutions would benefit not only themselves, but, as if by an invisible hand, everyone else as well.
It turns out not only that they have a lot of empirical evidence on their side, but also that some other people have independently reached similar beliefs. Perhaps detractors of the Kochs find it hard to imagine that thinking persons could come to economic or political conclusions that differ from theirs, which is why they seek for a shadowy master-manipulator villain to explain it all. Sorry to disappoint: Sometimes people who are neither ignorant nor benighted nor bigoted nor unintelligent nor toadies nor acting in bad faith nevertheless disagree with you. I’m afraid you’re just going to have to deal with that.
What a great post. I tend to lean more towards the liberal/progressive side of the political spectrum but it has always bothered me the way folks portray people and institutions, like the Kochs, as some sort of diabolical puppet-masters orchestrating everything. I hope many people will read this post and then maybe we can start having intelligent discussions.
I propose a corollary and amendment to the argumentum ad Hitlerum, which I’ll call “Argumentum ad Kochus Pochus”: anyone who invokes ties to the Koch Foundation (or George Soros, or the NEA, or the AFL-CIO) as a substitute for an actual argument automatically loses.
I think the left’s hype over the Koch brothers’ involvement in politics stems from their need to save big labor, which is in an existential crisis. Here’s my logic: Workers’ rights and workplace safety (originally the raison d’etre of Unions) have not been a serious issue since the thirties. The current justification for the existence of (and, more importantly, growing political protections being afforded to) unions is supposedly that union political contributions, which are made almost exclusively to Democrat politicians, serve to counterbalance the corporate “big money” donations that favor Republicans. Never mind the absurdity of this scheme as a solution to this supposed problem. The issue at hand is the supposed problem itself. In reality, whereas union political contributions heavily favor Democrats, the distribution of corporate contributions differs significantly from the picture painted by the left. Two of the three largest non-union contributors, Goldman and Trial Lawyers, lean heavily Democrat, according to Opensecrets.org. The third, AT&T, is split 50-50. In fact, you have to go down to contributor number 78 before you find an organization listed as “solid republican”; Club for Growth. Outside of the direct contribution arena, conservative 527s and 504s have only recently managed to level the playing field with their liberal counterparts, most notably liberal supergroup moveon.org. As for direct expenditures on the part of “greedy capitalists”, George Soros and Warren Buffet alone eliminate any credibility the “counterbalance” theory may have had. Or so one would think.
Enter the Koch brothers, wealthy industrialists, supporting conservative positions; an instant winner. All the left must do is make noise in the media, and what the public sees is unions versus business owners. Nothing of actual statistics, nothing of liberal donors. Just unions versus two wealthy republicans; the haves versus the have-nots. Exactly the story the left has been telling for over 150 years.
From my reading, the NYT article that was linked to did NOT indicate that the Koch brothers ORCHESTRATED anything. It simply indicates that the Koch brothers bankrolled Americans for Prosperity, which, as many know, is one of their political front groups.
It seems the author of the above article chose this misrepresentation to set up a straw man, which he then attacks. That, and the author’s personal anecdote in regard to Koch-funded TFAS, while it might be true is his case (and some others), may not be true of every organization the Koch brothers fund.
And I strongly disagree wth this quote:
“The Kochs do not cause people to behave in a certain way or believe in a certain thing; rather, they look for people who are already behaving and believing in ways that they agree with, and they support them.”
To see how incorrect the above quote is, one simply has to review the contents of the Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine and reflect on American attitudes toward global warming:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/3/koch-industries-secretly-fund.pdf
The Kochs have indeed caused people to behave in certain ways AND believe in a certain things. That is what the front groups are for.
You fail to distinguish between funding somebody/something and wholly controlling somebody. It does not follow from the fact that the Koch brothers fund certain projects with a particular political bent that the people who participate in such protects have changed their opinions or were somehow coerced into participating because of this funding. You deny the basic principle that people are free and capable of holding their own values and beliefs. Keep in mind that if you DO choose to draw this conclusion, you leave yourself vulnerable to the matching conclusion that every organization funded by George Soros or any other wealthy leftist is a “front group” used to change peoples’ minds in an equally sinister way.
“You FAIL to distinguish between funding somebody/something and wholly controlling somebody.”
I wasn’t writing a treatise on the subject. I was simply suggesting that anybody interested should read the Greenpeace study and REFLECT.
And I now suggest a couple more articles:
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/01/koch-polluter-bailout
http://thinkprogress.org/2011/03/01/charles-koch-welfare
“You DENY the basic principle that people are free and capable of holding their own values and beliefs ”
I actually do not deny the above. People are certainly “free” and “capable” of holding their own values and beliefs. I use quotes here because I do feel as though there are many undue influences at work on the minds of Americans.
“[Y]ou leave yourself vulnerable to the matching conclusion that every organization funded by George Soros or any other wealthy leftist is a “front group” used to change peoples’ minds in an equally sinister way.”
I do not think you understand the term “front group”; that, or you are purposefully equivocating. For example, I would consider the Center for American Progress/Citizens for a Sound Economy a Koch front group. I would not consider TFAS a front group.
It’s not too secret. I actually wore my “Charles G. Koch Fellowship” t-shirt the other day. It’s quite worn out since I wear it often.
So criticism and detraction and protest is now “hate speech”? Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t folks of your political persuasion disagree with the use of this term for the kinds of activities you describe?
Penelope, I was trying to use the term ironically. People who use the term “hate speech” to describe criticisms of their views are now among those using similar criticisms of the Kochs.
Your tone does not sound very ironic to me.
Penelope,
If we’re going to start insinuating that people mean, by their words in print no less, something other than what they’ve explicitly stated they’ve meant by them, it’s going to make any serious communication very difficult.
And what possible bearing does the possibility that the Kochs’ “really believe in their ideas” have on a discussion of whether or not they exercise undue influence on the political system?
It was intended to be ironic, even if the tone didn’t sound that way to you, Penelope. One of the dangers of attempts at irony (and humor, one might add) is that people will not view it as irony (or humor) and will mistakenly take it literally. How funny, and yet how ironic.
The answer to your second question is: little or none. The point about their really believing in their ideas was addressing not whether they exercise undue influence but rather a possible explanation for some of the high level of anger and resentment some of their detractors seem to feel toward them.
Well, in sich cases I think it is best to avoid arguments based on the putative subjective states of the participants (Kochs = really sincere; opponents of Kochs = motivated by hate) and concentrate on the substance. Like George W. Bush, you are not a soul-gazer.
Besides, the argument admits of the following reductio: what would you do, Mr. Charles G. Koch Senior Fellow, if you found out that one or both of the Kochs were not really sincere? Would it modify your behavior in seeking grant money from them? If so, it means you cannot be entirely comfortable with what the Kochs objectively do and stand for in society. If it would not modify your behavior, then you have no business appealing to their motives in a political argument.
Eric, thank you for posting that Greenpeace study. If I hadn’t read it, I probably would not have believed that such intelligent people, as those who put the memorandum obviously are, could generate a document so full of accusation, innuendo, and insuation, yet so utterly devoid of any argument or evidence. The document recapitulates what I conceded in my original post, namely that the Kochs give money to lots of organizations and people; it then notes that some fraction of those organizations and people have been among the critics of some of the data and some of the more apocalyptic predictions regarding global warming; from that it concludes that the Kochs are the masterminds of some kind of evil plot to . . . what, exactly? Destroy the environment? I note that the memorandum comes complete with pictures of barren landscapes and distressed animals; that is relevant how, exactly?
The memorandum rather cavalierly dismissed the East Anglia “climate gate” issues, did it not? It seems to have overlooked the fact that numerous credible sources unrelated to the Kochs have questioned some of the global-warming data, did it not? It merely presumes without argument or evidence the truth of the most extreme global-warming data and predictions, does it not? Perhaps one should expect this kind of treatment from an organization, like Greenpeace, that has a clear political agenda, but it hardly qualifies as an objective indictment of the Kochs.
Even if the facts in the memorandum are accurate—the dollars donated, the organizations and people who received money, the people who have questioned the reigning “climate change” orthodoxy, etc.—there is still nothing whatsoever in it, not one scintilla of evidence at all, for the claim that the Kochs have changed anyone’s mind or altered anyone’s behavior. Talk about overselling one’s proposition!
And, of course, that is not even addressing the issue that Abraham raises, viz.: If you really are worried about the effects of money funding scientific research, shouldn’t you be far more worried about the billions—not mere Kochian millions—of dollars the federal government has given to fund such research, almost all of it on the pro-apocalytpic side? The federal government is, after all, a political entity, not a scientific one.
“[T]here is still nothing whatsoever in [the greenpeace report], not one scintilla of evidence at all, for the claim that the Kochs have changed anyone’s mind or altered anyone’s behavior. Talk about overselling one’s proposition!”
Not sure if you are referring to me or Greenpeace overselling. Regardless, I think a little intellectual courage and fairmindedness will find that scintilla of evidence that you are looking for. If not, I’ve posted a couple more links above.
And I do not worry too much about money funding SCIENTIFIC research. (I do worry some, but I have faith in the scientific method.) I do, however, worry about money funding political front groups.
Unless we’re going to start quashing free speech outright, I’m not sure exactly what the point is here. Rich people with agenda X tend to support research groups, politicians, and media outlets that tend to lean in favor of agenda X. If your contention with such contributions is that they favor methods or ideas that you find to be unfavorable, then I’m not sure what you’re looking to prove other than the fact that some people actually disagree with you.
There is an unfortunate tendency for people to presuppose their position to be right and then conclude that those who disagree with them realize that their position is wrong, but instead fight against it because the contrary position favors them (financially or otherwise). I think at best this is usually an unfortunate over-simplification of the real world. At worst it’s simply political posturing and rhetoric masquerading as reason. Even if we were to suppose that said opposition was evil, lying, hypocritical, etc., it would still have no bearing upon the individual argument at hand. To the extent that the latter is true, it’s unfortunate that people have let genetic fallacies come between themselves and an honest argument.
I see many articles (particularly op-eds) touted by left-wingers on left-wing media outlets that are not only philosophically and ethically questionable but outright wrong economically. Those pieces, too, have undue influence on the opinions of the public, I’m sure. And many of these outlets are (in part) funded by wealthy leftist philanthropists or political groups.
However, I can discern the difference between someone having a different opinion which they want to share with as many people as possible (even if they are wrong) and half-baked stories about outright manipulation of public opinion through political front groups. And that difference, unfortunately, is often simply the bias of the storyteller. What separates the Koch brothers from other philanthropists who support organizations with a clear political bias is something that eludes some of us who don’t take the extra step of questioning the motives of our political opposition at every turn.
The merits of the global warming argument are completely irrelevant in proving your point, which is, presumably, that the Koch brothers somehow exert undue influence on peoples’ minds or our political system.
Let us suppose that recent evidence casting doubt on the validity of the government’s current climatological consensus is entirely false. Let us suppose that the government’s current climatological consensus is correct. Let us further suppose that the scientific positions taken by those funded by the Koch brothers are not well researched and do not compare to the official position of government-funded organizations in terms of accuracy and academic quality. It still would not follow that funding organizations and individuals seeking to argue against that consensus somehow constitutes exerting undue influence on people or on our political system.
You have stated that the difference between the Koch brothers’ funding of people advocating a position and the federal government’s doing the same (or indeed any climate alarmist’s funding of their own positions) is that funding for the climate alarmist position is directed toward research. Never mind that this rests on the shaky position that no federal money or money from the political left is spent on advocating or disseminating their positions. Your logic is flawed because it assumes, without justification, that the general public is incapable of discerning fact from fiction and research from opinion. Your argument rests on the assumption that an individual who receives funding to advocate a position would not have supported the position without said funding, and that such a person is incapable of maintaining his or her own opinions in the face of financial incentive. This assumption is flawed, not only because its conclusion can be just as easily applied to researchers as well, which would serve to cast doubt on the integrity of both sides of the debate, but because it denies one of the basic facts about humanity; that people can and will exercise their own judgment. Your position presupposes that people are too stupid to determine for themselves what they believe the truth to be, and therefore need to be protected from incorrect opinions.
Of course, even if you are granted that objectionable conclusion, and proceed on the assumption that people are too stupid to participate in the free market of ideas, it does not follow that incorrect opinions and the dissemination thereof should be silenced or forcefully opposed in any way by government, or by some organization or group of organizations that stand for public opinion and have the power to limit political debate. If this were the case, government, or such an organization, would be placed in the position of choosing a side in any debate when, at its sole discretion, the facts of the case are clear. To say nothing of the extreme unwisdom of investing so much power in a single entity, this would close the metaphorical free market of ideas and eliminate any possibility of improvement to the scientific consensus through honest debate, a process upon which nearly all historical scientific and technological progress has been made.
I should also address something you said previously: I’m perfectly aware of what a front group is. I’m also well aware that the definition of what constitutes a front group is highly subjective, and your statements are more opinion than fact. I should point out though that whether or not your statements are true, they’re largely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which you claim is undue influence. As to that claim, I refer you to my above arguments in which I cast doubt on the concept of undue influence (which you really haven’t defined or quantified beyond an abstract accusation), and I draw a parallel between the millions given by the Koch brothers and the billions given by billionaire liberals like George Soros to fund a web of organizations that, like Koch’s groups, seek to direct public opinion for political purposes.
Fascinating. A crony capitalist about why crony capitalism is a bad thing but he has no other choice than to be a crony capitalist due to the evil government.
How Koch Industries Makes Billions Corrupting Government
[Comment edited by blog administrator. Please note: spirited discussion is allowed, even encouraged; ad hominem attacks are not.]
Oops. My important question is missing:
Dear Mister Otteson. Do you think climate change is happening and is men made? YES or NO?
Of course “climate change is happening”—it always has on earth and it always will. Is it “men [sic] made”? This is beyond my expertise. My guess is that human activities certainly do affect the climate, although I could not say exactly how much or in what way(s).
@James Otteson, with a degree in philosophy, and a Ph.D. no less, I would think that you would be able to tease out the misinformatin in the global warming “debate”–much of which misinformation is deliberately floated by front groups such as Americans for Prosperity (e.g., Hot Air Tour). Your response to Stephan is commendable for its lack of actual substance; however, it was evident (at least to me) from your earlier response to the Greenpeace report that you do not believe in anthropogenic climate change. The report, by the way, does provide case studies–in case you are still looking for that scintilla of evidence of how the Koch brothers have influenced the “debate.” If nothing else, the Greenpeace report provides you with a starting point should you have the intellectual courage.
I might add that nowhere in the industrialized world is there greater oppposition to the CONCEPT of anthrogpogenic climate change than here in the United States.
I will now borrow this from Wikipedia:
Charles Lewis, the founder of the Center for Public Integrity [@Abraham Rudy: Start your Soros argument here.] as saying, “The Kochs are on a whole different level. There’s no one else who has spent this much money. The sheer dimension of it is what sets them apart. They have a pattern of lawbreaking, political manipulation, and obfuscation. I’ve been in Washington since Watergate, and I’ve never seen anything like it. They are the Standard Oil of our times.”
Lastly, in regard to Stephan’s “ad hominem” comments that were deleted:
In at least one example, the phrase, “The master raises his voice and his paid servant James Otteson promptly delivers his reverence” was deleted.
While this might well be considered circumstantial ad hominem, I think the characterization is legitimate and relevant to the topic. Ad hominem, James, as you likely know, is not always fallacious.
“Your response to Stephan is commendable for its lack of actual substance”
I’m sorry, but exactly how was his response lacking in substance? He presented his position very clearly. He told you exactly what he portends to know and exactly what aspects that he feels compelled to remain agnostic about. I happen to hold precisely the same view as Professor Otteson in this regard. Choosing to remain agnostic on a position, as you may realize, does not mean that you hold a view contrary to that position.
Regarding ad hominem, I believe what you mean to say is that ad hominem, in and of itself, is not always fallacious. In terms of argumentation, ad hominen is indeed ALWAYS fallacious. If the purpose of a site like this is to have a serious debate, then argumentum ad hominem (which seems to be a great deal of what little you and Stephan have to offer as an excuse for reason) might not be welcomed by the site’s administrators. Simply quoting other individuals or groups with their own agenda who happen to agree with you does not pass for reason either.
To be completely honest, all arguments aside, there are plenty of people who both contribute to and visit this site that are more than open to hearing out a well-reasoned argument from people with whom they disagree. But the way you promote your ideas by fiercely and ignorantly presuming the motives of your detractors, without any apparent appreciation for the possibility that anyone else but you could possibly be correct, is not exactly the most admirable approach to conversation. Maybe if you would take a step back to see how you might be coming off to neutral observers you could adopt a method of communication that would be more fruitful. Until you put down the slander and animosity, I wouldn’t expect too much consideration of your ideas by more hospitable participants.
So your point is that George Soros believes that the Koch brothers influence politics too much? Let’s pretend for a moment this is true. What do you propose to do about it? Shall we silence them?
Eric, I expect I probably could “tease out the misinformation in the global warming ‘debate,’” but I simply have not. It’s not my field, and my opportunity cost is too high. There are lots of things one might be able to do, but alas choices must be made.
My comments about the Greenpeace report addressed not whether there is anthropogenic climate change, but whether the claims made in the report showed that the Kochs were changing people’s minds about it. I didn’t find anything in the report that supported that claim.
As for ad hominems, I should not have to point this out, but perhaps one more time: I am no one’s servant. I suppose you work for someone too, Eric; are you that person’s servant? I’d guess even Stephan works for someone; is he that person’s servant? You (and Stephan) apparently are unwilling to take me at my word when I say that I do not vet anything I say with the Kochs (or with anyone else—remember, I am employed by Yeshiva University), and that my opinions are my own. I am not sure on what basis you disbelieve me. Apparently you think you can somehow peer into my soul and see what really motivates me. That sounds to me like bigotry, not analysis. Hence my claim that it is ad hominem, which is, sorry to say, always fallacious.
Is it possible now to get back to discussing actual issues, instead of attacking the people, and their alleged motives, who raise them?
I feel left out here. Nobody is paying ME to agree with the Koch brothers. In fact, nobody is paying me for anything, period. I feel like I’m entitled to some sort of compensation, since apparently the plurality of people who agree with the Koches are on their payroll, but I’ve been doing it for free like a chump.
Abraham, I’ll tell you what. When we have our next secret world-takeover strategizing meeting, I’ll let you know. Make sure to remind me to teach you the secret handshake and give you a secret de-Koch-ter ring.
The Alinsky disciples needed a target to take public scrutiny off from themselves so, they reached into their bag of deception and pulled out the Kochs. That’s all their sniveling is about.
Full List of Top Political Donors 1989-2010 http://bit.ly/9LhDMf
@crossofcrimson
“[T]he way you promote your ideas by fiercely and ignorantly presuming the motives of your detractors, without any apparent appreciation for the possibility that anyone else but you could possibly be correct, is not exactly the most admirable approach to conversation.”
This is quite a statement, and it is the second such post of yours on this subject. Shall I hold up a mirror so you can reflect on this yourself? Do me the favor and please point out where I FEIRCLY and IGNORANTLY do the above.
The only presumption I might rightfully be accused of making is the one concerning James’s attitude on global warming, which presumption was neither fierce nor ignorant.
James essentially claims he is “agnostic” with respect to global warming in his most recent comment on the subject:
“Of course “climate change is happening”—it always has on earth and it always will. Is it “men [sic] made”? This is beyond my expertise. My guess is that human activities certainly do affect the climate, although I could not say exactly how much or in what way(s).”
However, in an earlier post, James’s comments appear antagonistic towards anthropogenic climate change:
“The memorandum rather cavalierly dismissed the East Anglia “climate gate” issues, did it not? It seems to have overlooked the fact that numerous credible sources unrelated to the Kochs have questioned some of the global-warming data, did it not? It merely presumes without argument or evidence the truth of the most extreme global-warming data and predictions, does it not?
James’s language is in line with that of climate cranks, is it not? It certainly appears to be from my readings. (And so we don’t have to have the discussion, I am not LABELING James a climate crank, just characterizing his statements as being similar in nature to those that originate from climate cranks.) “Climate gate” has come and gone, and at least three investigations have shown there to be no scientific malpractice. That, and I am not aware of ANY credible sources (related or unrelated to the Koch Bros.) that have called the global warming data into question. To be clear, I AM aware of people and parties that have called certain data into question, but I am not aware of any CREDIBLE sources. Perhaps somebody can point me to a credible source, such as a practicing climate scientist that questions global warming on the basis of the data?
@crossofcrimson/@James Ottenson, with respect to ad hominem, please refer to the following:
http://ebooks.cambridge.org/chapter.jsf?bid=CBO9780511808630&cid=CBO9780511808630A056
“The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.”
@James Ottenson
YES, please let us get back to the issue. And shall we do away with the double standard? (] My original post was never adddressed, which is the whole reason I even chimed in. The scope of your conclusion does not match the scope of the rest of your argument. Please correct me if I am wrong, but the conclusion of your original post is that the Koch Bros. do not cause people to behave in a certain way or believe in a certain thing. You then argue using your Charles-G.-Koch-Senior-Fellow anecdote, which anecdote is very narrowly defined. Now, if you were to narrow your conclusion to match the rest of your argument, I would likely be in agreement with you. Absent a narrowed conclusion, or an argument having broader scope to support your current conclusion, I simply have to disagree–as would any fairminded person.
If pressed to provide a counter-argument concluding that the Koch Bros. do, indeed, cause people to behave in a certain way or believe in a certain thing, I would most certainly focus on acid rain and global warming because there IS a record of Koch Bros. disinformation campaigns in these areas. For example: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/kochacidrain.jpg
James, as I write above, you essentially claim to be “agnostic” with respect to global warming. Is there any other well established body of science that you are also agnostic about? Evolution perhaps? As I hope you know, the “controversy” surrounding global warming is popular in the media, not in the scientific literature/community. I would be inclined to use YOU as one example in my counter-argument regarding the effectiveness of the Koch Bros.’s disinformation campaigns.
For fun(?): http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/graph?content=greenhouse+effect&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=0&smoothing=3
That little blip around 1900 is about the time that Svante Arrhenius (well known physicist/chemist) introduced the concept of the greenhouse effect to the scientific community. The year was actually 1896.
@Abraham Rudy
Sorry to leave one of my detractors out of the conversation, but as James Ottenson put it, “my opportunity cost is too high.” Perhaps we can continue another time?
My last name is spelled “Otteson.”
Another fallacy discussed in the book you cite is appeal to authority, which you committed in citing that book.
I think the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy because it does not address an argument or proposition. The character of a person making an argument is irrelevant to the validity or soundness of the argument. Similarly, the motives of a person making an argument are irrelevant to the validity or soundness of an argument.
The only exception I can see is when the argument in question itself concerns a person’s character or motivations. But that is not what we were discussing.
So, the following form displays the ad hominem fallacy and is therefore fallacious:
1. A believes x.
2. But Charles G. Koch believes x as well. (Suppressed premise: Charles G. Koch is evil, has selfish motivations, etc.)
3. Therefore, x is false.
4. Therefore, A is wrong to believe x.
That is the form of almost all ad hominem arguments, and displays why they are fallacious: Both 1 and 2 could be true without 3 being true (even if 4 would follow from 3).
The following argument is not an ad hominem argument:
1′. A believes he has good reasons for believing x.
2′. But there are no good reasons for believing x.
3′. Therefore, A’s belief in x is not well grounded.
4′. Therefore, A is wrong to believe he has good reasons for believing x.
This second argument does not involve any fallacious inferences (leaving “good reasons” and “well grounded” fairly vague).
When you write, “James’s language is in line with that of climate cranks, is it not? It certainly appears to be from my readings,” you are giving an argument of the former form, not the latter. That one’s language is in line with that of climate cranks is irrelevant to the truth of one’s position. Even cranks, after all, are sometimes correct.
But putting the formal issues aside for a moment and addressing the substance, I would note that the allegedly condemnatory passage of mine you cite is a series of questions, not declaratory statements. Perhaps your answer to those questions is something like “only fools ask questions like that” or “only people ignorant of true [credible, respected, etc.] climate science could ask questions like that.” In that case again your argument is of the former, fallacious form.
Something similar holds regarding your question about evolution. The implied argument there would seem to be something like: “1. Only fools disbelieve in evolution. 2. You are saying things that sound like some of the things that people who disbelieve in evolution say. 3. Therefore, you are a fool.” That is a fallacious form of argumention as well.
Perhaps you are right that the truth of anthropogenic global warming is doubted only by “cranks” or people writing for popular, or nonscientific, audiences. Yet a short google search revealed that Wikipedia has a rather long list of scientists who “oppose mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. (And here is a site claiming 31,000 scientists who oppose the Kyoto Treaty: http://www.oism.org/pproject/.) Are they all cranks? What proportion of them are only doing the Kochs’ bidding?
I don’t know the answer to those two questions. But the existence of such people makes an amateur like me skeptical when I hear people like you say that there is no credible debate.
But you say that your real complaint is that the fact that I am not influenced by the Kochs does not imply that no one is not influenced by the Kochs. Do I have that right? If so, we are agreed. I do not do the Kochs’ (or anyone else’s) bidding; I know probably 50 or so other professors who have received Koch money in one way or another, and I doubt that any of them are doing the Kochs’ bidding. Over the last few decades the Kochs have supported literally tens of thousands of students and faculty—and yet academia has retained, even strengthened, its domination by left-leaning politics. Those facts make me continue to doubt that the Kochs have the great causal power critics attribute to them. Perhaps the Kochs wish they had that power!
But perhaps we can put even all that behind us. The real point of my post was to suggest that the people supporting Gov. Walker in his argument with the public-sector unions are making arguments and claims, and those arguments and claims cannot be refuted—are not even addressed—by claims that they are acting only as mouthpieces for the Kochs. I think it is silly to even suggest that, but even if I were wrong (as you claim I am), it would still stand that they are making arguments and those arguments should be met with arguments, not name-calling.
“Shall I hold up a mirror so you can reflect on this yourself? Do me the favor and please point out where I FEIRCLY and IGNORANTLY do the above.”
Firstly, although you’ve highlighted my terms for effect (I suppose in order to infer that I’m hypocritical I suppose), you’ll be happy to know that your attempt falls short of what you imagine. I don’t think “FIERCELY” aptly qualifies as some ad hominem adverb. If you were “FIERCELY” defending liberty, I wouldn’t find it objectionable. Fierce (like “extreme”) is descriptive of magnitude…it’s not pejorative in and of itself. Also, for what it’s worth, “ignorant” need not be pejorative either – as it quite literally means a person who ignores something. I’m not inferring that you’re stupid or deficient. I’m noting, quite literally, how you fail to address objections that have been brought forth.
You might also take comfort in the fact that argumentum tu quoque is just as fallacious as argumentum ad hominem however =).
“However, in an earlier post, James’s comments appear antagonistic towards anthropogenic climate change:”
Claims like this are where you start jumping the shark so to speak. It seems quite clear to me that he was being antagonistic regarding the source of the information and the validity of the study – not towards anthropogenic climate change itself. Those are clearly two different things. But nonetheless you’ve gone directly from A to C regardless it seems.
“James’s language is in line with that of climate cranks, is it not? It certainly appears to be from my readings.”
Well, such an inference is both dependent and irrelevant if we’re supposedly thinking critically here. It firstly depends on what you’re calling a “crank.” At this point that would seem to be pretty much anyone who disagrees with you regardless of how informed they may be. Either way, it’s irrelevant because one need not himself be a crank to come to a conclusion a crank has on any given subject.
Let’s take an analogy: Let’s say that there is someone we’d call a UFO nut. He says he’s been abducted several times but we have some way of confirming he’s mistaken. Let’s take it even one step further and conclude that he’s simply lying, and doing so simply because he has bad intentions and wants to spread misinformation about the existence of aliens.
Let’s further assume that a report comes out claiming that aliens do not in fact exist. The crank dismisses the report for a myriad of reasons (valid or not). Professor Otteson also dismisses the report because he believes their methodology is flawed, that they’ve failed to accounts for other variables, etc.. Now what does saying that Professor Otteson happens to also dismiss this particular report prove? Outside of a thinly veiled attempt to discredit Professor Otteson by association (even if not explicitly), it contributes absolutely NOTHING to the argument at hand. Again, more fallacies masquerading as reason (in this particular case, the invocation of genetic fallacy).
“has come and gone, and at least three investigations have shown there to be no scientific malpractice.”
As a software developer who looked over the source code along with the original claims, I’m a bit leery of outright dismissal by any investigation therein. I have a good deal of experience with MATLAB software that operates (both syntactically and functionally) almost the exact same way that the model-generating software they were using. I can say this much, I don’t work in the research field, but I would have been dismissed by my employer (if my employer’s intentions weren’t aligned with my own) for the shoddy “tweaking” this particular coder did. I’m not sure if it was intentional. And, since it’s been quite a while since I’ve looked at it, it’s quite possible that the code I originally got my hands on was altered or incorrect and that this has been brought to light in the interim. But, being as questionable as it seems to have been, I wouldn’t fault anyone for disregarding it. The argument about anthropological climate change doesn’t hinge on this report in either case – so I’m not sure where squabbling over this one specifically gets us.
“The argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious, for in some instances questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.”
Argumentum ad hominem is not always fallacious in and of itself (which is what I said before) and indeed it can be relevant to a conversation. What you can’t do is prove that 2+2 != 4 by saying that the math teacher claiming it is a dick. That’s why it’s always fallacious as a course of logical argumentation (ie: logically trying to prove whether a premise is valid or not). In other words, ad hominem isn’t fallacious in terms of the claim itself. It because fallacious when you apply it as a proxy for logically deconstructing someone else’s claim. In this particular case circumstancial ad hominem would be more specifically what we’re addressing as fallacious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial).
I apologize in hindsight of this post – I don’t have time at the moment to flesh out a lot of the points I wanted to make in full here. But I’ll try to come back later and address any loose ends when I get the chance.
@James Otteson: Thank you for your response and ad hominem refresher. I now feel as though my concerns with your original post have been considered.
I would like to close my comments with comments regarding the following:
“Perhaps you are right that the truth of anthropogenic global warming is doubted only by ‘cranks’ or people writing for popular, or nonscientific, audiences. Yet a short google search revealed that Wikipedia has a rather long list of scientists who ‘oppose mainstream scientific assessment of global warming’: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming. (And here is a site claiming 31,000 scientists who oppose the Kyoto Treaty: http://www.oism.org/pproject/.) Are they all cranks? What proportion of them are only doing the Kochs’ bidding?”
I am certainly aware of the Wikipedia list you cited. It contains many scientists (as well as engineers), but very few are actually climate scientists. And those that ARE climate scientists, well, they seem to only reject climate models to one degree or another, not anthropogenic climate change in and of itself. (And let’s face it, the climate models are simply models. They are not perfect. Like any scientific model developed in accordance with the scientific method, these models undergo continual refinement, and get better in time, especially with increases in computer power.) Insofar as the “Kyoto” list is concerned, frankly, it only provides names. There is no telling who is a scientist or not. That, and there is no telling how many people simply oppose just the treaty.
I certainly do applaud your effort.
Lastly, I am not saying this is a Koch Bros.-related effort, but, if interested, peruse this article for a glimpse into how the climate denial machine works:
http://gawker.com/#!5749948/fox-news-columnist-seeks-sources-to-scoff-at-global-warming
Ultimately, Gene Koprowski was able to find METEOROLOGIST Art Horn for his story. When it comes to weather, a weather man is fine; however, climate is a different beast entirely.
“[O]nly about half of TV weather forecasters have a bachelor’s degree in meteorology, while climatologists often have doctoral degrees and are associated with universities or research institutions.
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/global-warming-battle-tv-forecasters-vs-climatologists
That’s it. Wait, about that “appeal to authority.” That was just incorporation by reference.
[...] More Pileus on the Kochs here. [...]