“But Credentials”

Life is simpler with attacks or appeals to authority.

Examples

[CALGARY] What’s your background? Shiva is an MIT pHD. What are you?

Objections and Replies

(Who)

(Climate) This person isn’t a climate scientist
Reply. Publishing climate science papers ought to be good enough.

(Expertise) There are different kinds of expertise—
Reply. Sounds like special pleading to me.

(Study) This person has not studied this or that
Reply. Climate is a complex topic, and includes researchers studying ecology, geography, economics, etc. Nobody studied them all.

(Tetlock)
Reply. The first conclusion one should take from Philip’s work on expert opinion is to disregard it.

Notes

This square may be implied by #ButAnonymous.

{Credibility} All these arguments are fine:

(1) Knowing Mike, I don’t expect him to change his tune.

(2) Since Mike blocked me, I won’t read his book.

(3) Considering that the BTI playbook traditionally belongs to the Lomborg Collective, I’ll let others to pay due diligence to Mike’s new pamphlet.

(4) Since Mike has been 0.5 out of 10 in the main claims he himself has chosen (v. mt’s tweet) I won’t waste my time with another “but nukes” screed.

They’re too useful heuristics to play X-does-not-imply-Y games with Teddie.