Put That Fire Out!

User avatar
MiM
Man In The Middle
Posts: 5459
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 10:07 pm
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by MiM » Tue Feb 21, 2012 8:03 pm

apophenia wrote:For what it's worth, the study appears to be one mentioned in the following paper and is noted as "unpublished data".

Potential Adverse Health Effects of Wood Smoke; Pierson, Koenig and Bardana, 1989, in Environmental Health

I find it interesting that people here focus on the specifics of the example when the specific example wasn't the point of Harris' article. Moreover, the generally concerted attempt to undermine the validity of the evidence seems right in line with Harris' point. (Not saying I necessarily agree with him, but the dialogue here appears to strengthen rather than weaken his argument.)
Doesn't that include a trick of argument? By loosely claiming that "people will attack me in way X, because of Y", Harris can make X look suspicious even though the X attack might be perfectly justifiable.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool - Richard Feynman

User avatar
apophenia
IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
Location: Farther. Always farther.
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by apophenia » Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:23 pm

MiM wrote:
apophenia wrote:For what it's worth, the study appears to be one mentioned in the following paper and is noted as "unpublished data".

Potential Adverse Health Effects of Wood Smoke; Pierson, Koenig and Bardana, 1989, in Environmental Health

I find it interesting that people here focus on the specifics of the example when the specific example wasn't the point of Harris' article. Moreover, the generally concerted attempt to undermine the validity of the evidence seems right in line with Harris' point. (Not saying I necessarily agree with him, but the dialogue here appears to strengthen rather than weaken his argument.)
Doesn't that include a trick of argument? By loosely claiming that "people will attack me in way X, because of Y", Harris can make X look suspicious even though the X attack might be perfectly justifiable.
I'd have to think about that, but it's worth noting that people attacked the 70% figure before actually doing the minimal research necessary to find the source. (Took less than a minute, tops.)


Image

User avatar
apophenia
IN DAMNATIO MEMORIAE
Posts: 3373
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 7:41 am
About me: A bird without a feather, a gull without a sea, a flock without a shore.
Location: Farther. Always farther.
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by apophenia » Tue Feb 21, 2012 11:11 pm




It also occurs to me that Harris may have inadvertently stumbled upon a Catch-22. The very same type of cognitive errors which would lead people to reason unprofitably about the dangers of burning wood are also likely at work in causing people to reason unprofitably about the possibility that their reasoning is unreliable. This notion is enough to create severe cognitive dissonance with peoples' image of themselves, and the same biases that lead to rationalizing away the claim of fire's danger without actually engaging in real research and analysis, those same biases will lead people who believe that their reasoning processes are reliable to rationalize away any contrary claim, again without any real research or analysis, but using the standard human tools by which we rationalize away any possibility the likes of which we find unpleasant.

Ultimately, I'd have to say that Harris' point is more rhetorical than argumentative, to encourage people who dogmatically trust in the greater reliability of their reasoning processes to give some thought to the questionable foundation upon which that belief rests. The actual core ideas that are in play and that he is trying to elicit in his reader are well documented in the literature of social and individual psychology. However, those possessed of an illusory confidence are even less likely to be impressed by a dry recounting of the results of research.


Image

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74149
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by JimC » Wed Feb 22, 2012 6:08 am

MiM wrote:
Pappa wrote:Many people choose to use wood burners for environmental reasons. As long as the wood is sourced sustainably, the net carbon released is only that connected to the processing, transportation and distribution of the wood, and there are supplies that offset that too. I think the choice between the risk to human health and the risk posed by global warming is then a matter of personal taste, as the specific risks can't be easily quantified.
This requires high efficiency burners so that the heat does not "go up the chimney". Those also produce much less particles or harmful chemical compounds. I understood Harris' article to be about recreational burning, that open fireplace in the corner of the living room does nor utilize the heat efficiently, neither does it burn cleanly. So your argument is somewhat beside the point.
Both environmental and health issues are important. MiM is right that efficient burning is both possible and desirable for a number of reasons, including reducing a very real health risk from wood smoke, and Pappa is right in that a sustainably managed forestry for fuel is potentially close to carbon neutral. Transport issues could intrude, but if rural people burn wood from their own copse, and replant at the correct rate, it works well. To maximise efficiency, if sufficient wood supplies were available, a steam powered generator could provide electricity, with the waste heat providing hot water and household heating in winter.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Hermit
Posts: 25806
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:44 am
About me: Cantankerous grump
Location: Ignore lithpt
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Hermit » Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:56 pm

apophenia wrote:I find it interesting that people here focus on the specifics of the example when the specific example wasn't the point of Harris' article.
I actually agree with the general drift of the article. It's just unfortunate that Harris made such a meal of his analogy. He increasingly exasperates me with some of the ill-considered things he says. Hence my brief comment.
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould

MrJonno
Posts: 3442
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:24 am
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by MrJonno » Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:13 pm

Have admit didnt think fireplaces burning wood actually still existed outside Hollywood movies, can you still even build a house legally with a chimney and fireplace in the UK?
When only criminals carry guns the police know exactly who to shoot!

User avatar
Warren Dew
Posts: 3781
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Warren Dew » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:25 am

apophenia wrote:It also occurs to me that Harris may have inadvertently stumbled upon a Catch-22. The very same type of cognitive errors which would lead people to reason unprofitably about the dangers of burning wood are also likely at work in causing people to reason unprofitably about the possibility that their reasoning is unreliable. This notion is enough to create severe cognitive dissonance with peoples' image of themselves, and the same biases that lead to rationalizing away the claim of fire's danger without actually engaging in real research and analysis, those same biases will lead people who believe that their reasoning processes are reliable to rationalize away any contrary claim, again without any real research or analysis, but using the standard human tools by which we rationalize away any possibility the likes of which we find unpleasant.
Quite possibly true.
Ultimately, I'd have to say that Harris' point is more rhetorical than argumentative, to encourage people who dogmatically trust in the greater reliability of their reasoning processes to give some thought to the questionable foundation upon which that belief rests.
Good luck with that.

User avatar
Xamonas Chegwé
Bouncer
Bouncer
Posts: 50939
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 3:23 pm
About me: I have prehensile eyebrows.
I speak 9 languages fluently, one of which other people can also speak.
When backed into a corner, I fit perfectly - having a right-angled arse.
Location: Nottingham UK
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Xamonas Chegwé » Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:32 am

Seraph wrote:
apophenia wrote:I find it interesting that people here focus on the specifics of the example when the specific example wasn't the point of Harris' article.
I actually agree with the general drift of the article. It's just unfortunate that Harris made such a meal of his analogy. He increasingly exasperates me with some of the ill-considered things he says. Hence my brief comment.
I must admit that, after subscribing to his blog for a while, I am less inclined to buy his books. While he raises good points, there is nearly always something in everything he writes that makes me go, "Oh!" (and not in a good way!)
A book is a version of the world. If you do not like it, ignore it; or offer your own version in return.
Salman Rushdie
You talk to God, you're religious. God talks to you, you're psychotic.
House MD
Who needs a meaning anyway, I'd settle anyday for a very fine view.
Sandy Denny
This is the wrong forum for bluffing :nono:
Paco
Yes, yes. But first I need to show you this venomous fish!
Calilasseia
I think we should do whatever Pawiz wants.
Twoflower
Bella squats momentarily then waddles on still peeing, like a horse
Millefleur

User avatar
Horwood Beer-Master
"...a complete Kentish hog"
Posts: 7061
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 2:34 pm
Location: Wandering somewhere around the Darenth Valley - Kent
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Horwood Beer-Master » Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:45 am

JimC wrote:...if rural people burn wood from their own copse, and replant at the correct rate...
Replant? Surely coppicing is easier?
MrJonno wrote:Have admit didnt think fireplaces burning wood actually still existed outside Hollywood movies, can you still even build a house legally with a chimney and fireplace in the UK?
Yes.
Image

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74149
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by JimC » Mon Feb 27, 2012 9:29 am

Horwood Beer-Master wrote:
JimC wrote:...if rural people burn wood from their own copse, and replant at the correct rate...
Replant? Surely coppicing is easier?
I suspect this is a good technique with English trees, that may not be applicable to large Aussie farms with patches of Eucalypts of various types and ages. Aussie farmers in this day and age are doing a lot more tree planting than in the past, and a damn good thing too, whether they use some of the wood for burning or not.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Svartalf » Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:16 am

Coppicing is traditional in Western Europe, it works well with most leafy (non coniferous) trees... back when you used charcoal for iron smelting, most british forest in iron producing regions were coppiced.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 74149
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by JimC » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:01 am

Svartalf wrote:Coppicing is traditional in Western Europe, it works well with most leafy (non coniferous) trees... back when you used charcoal for iron smelting, most british forest in iron producing regions were coppiced.
In some regions of central Victoria, a form of coppicing is used with small Eucalypts, which are constantly harvested of branches to be used in the distillation of Eucalyptus Oil...

Cleverly, the dried remains are burned to provide the energy for the process...
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Svartalf
Offensive Grail Keeper
Posts: 41035
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
Location: Paris France
Contact:

Re: Put That Fire Out!

Post by Svartalf » Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:07 am

Same with the sugar/rum industry... the cane residue with no juice left are burned to power the crushers, alembics etc.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug

PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests