Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?
What think you?
Stay away from the blather sections of internet news. Read actual science by scientists themselves, instead of indirect references and misrepresentations.
Scientists say that medically proven award-winning natural improved bullshit has 20% more traditional value.
Scientists say that medically proven award-winning natural improved bullshit has 20% more traditional value.
Your response has all of the right tags..."medically proven," "award-winning," "natural improved," "traditional value".
Scientist would endorse all of that! At least that's what they say.
Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?
If they can't (be arsed to) name any of these scientists, there's probably a reason for that :right:
Isn't this thread about a sloppy, sensationalist media? :) Perhaps scientists and their paymasters should step up to the plate and take a swing or two… Were I pitching, I'd go for the head of more than a few batters!
Lewandowsky and Cook, practitioners in the field of snark called "Stop non-liberal original thought!" (SNOT! — the exclamation point is required…), are green boogers that -for some reason- are accepted as scientists, by universities and academic journals.
Whatever your views on CAGW, these quacks should be shunned, no?
…Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"…? :) (Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)
Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually. But so is science education — even of specialists who might be expected to know something. (Oreskes comes to mind, immediately.) Should K-12 teachers be taught basic science?
Would someone take a poll: What, in the theory of evolution, implies progress?
…Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"…? :) (Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)
Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually.
It's your reporting which is abysmally bad. Who are Lewandowsky and Cook and why should I care to consider their sins? I never knew because you failed to report. By the way, by posting incoherent vaguely accusatory babble about them twice, you already cast two stones, not just one. Let's see what the third one will be like.
If so many people believes in horoscopes how wouldn't they believe what "scientist says"...
Let's see what the third one will be like.
More than likely, more of the same.
Are you, too, bothered by internet news reports that "scientists say" this or that. I find it utterly annoying. Who are these scientists? Are cosmologists qualified to say anything meaningful about high energy physics, biologists about the orbit of Enceladus?
What think you?
If so many people believes in horoscopes how wouldn't they believe what "scientist says"...
it seems , Not every people believe that kind of sciences (physics, biologists, cosmologies , etc)
seen , from Human mind are tend , trapped in the - makes sense or nonsense .
not in the - true or false .
IMHO , most people are liked /need something Absolute true , and something sure , probably for Peace in Mind purpose .
Science , in somepoint are full of unsureness due to the
Sciences Process and progress .
something sure about Science perhaps is the Change
while Horoscopes or something like that, is something absolute true.
even that are
absolutely true illogical .
General Sciences sometimes can not do , what horoscopes science can do .The Future are terrifying , and Most People are Fear of future .
Horoscopes fill that holes in the Human mind .
in somepoint
Horoscope Science , can tell or measure Characters , How their child , teen , mature until old situation and condition .
what is good to do nor how their life in future , who are their soul mates based on Month or something like that , what are the best jobs for them , etc.
it gives
sensation of The absoluteness and boost the amount of expectations in certain times .not to mention ,
that kind of methodology oftenly are just , observing , remembering , calculating and
mutch, metch, mitch, motch , match so , the most Sensefull explanation about why People are Believe Horoscopes , or another irrational knowledges is simply because it is makes sense .
since it is makes sense , they believe if that is true .also ...
Allow me to shed some Premature Conclusion .
Peace in mind = Perception of (Absolutely Trueness x got the Power )
Allow me to shed some Premature Conclusion .
Peace in mind = Perception of (Absolutely Trueness x got the Power )
Американская фирма Transceptor Technology приступила к производству компьютеров «Персональный спутник»
-- Snap, The Power
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz_HpjTIi8Y[/video]
horoscopes science
Mother of all oxymorons.
Since Macallan and ersi both claim ignorance of Lewandowski and Cook, I can reasonably maintain that they have no interest in the nexus between science, psychology and politics (policy)…
And yet they'd both lecture the rest of us, on topics as disparate as education and environmentalism. :)
I'm not surprised, though.
Since Macallan and ersi both claim ignorance of Lewandowski and Cook, I can reasonably maintain that they have no interest in the nexus between science, psychology and politics (policy)…
For the millionth time, nobody here has any interest in doing your homework for you.
So, what do you think, Mac? Is this deluge of blather the result of the layman's (including journalists) ignorance? Or has the scientific establishment itself connived in lowering the bar?
Sir , it seems Science is not related with politics directly .
but without politicians that convince the Government in the congress to fund the Science Projects .
it is undeniable , if science Projects like NASA will never existed .
the vice versa , Science projects sometimes also used by some politicians for certain purposes.
while psyche sciences , are almost like General sciences Enemies .
since thingking the unknown , racing thoughts , etc .. sometimes is no good .
well,
at least Theory of everything can be the Bridge between Psyche sciences , social Sciences ( politics, etc ) , and science it self . :yes:
Who regulates scientific blather anyway? Who should regulate it and, actually, why? And finally, who regulates religious, supernatural and horoscope blather (they are all pretty much the same thing)? :knight: :cheers:
For the millionth time, nobody here has any interest in doing your homework for you.
He's just dropping names from some wanker's blog, without really knowing who they are. In fact, there are multiple famous and semi-famous Lewandowskis, not to mentions Cooks. I can guess who he means, but there's little point in discussing it since Oakdale himself knows nothing except about them except what he read in some slanted, information challenged blog.
It's fascinating that the title of this thread is "Scientists Say" 'blather', and Oakdale chimes in with something you have to work at to halfway understand. Get him and RJH going on a conversation, then try to make heads or tails out what they're saying.
FWIW, I do know who the two "scientists" Oakdale mentions are, having read more than enough of them recently.
Might I remind us all that it's not scientists who say "scientists say".
With folks like
Sang, everything is political -- so, I'd thought he'd have noted and approved the media hype surrounding Cook's Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf) and Lewandowsky's pair of papers, NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf) and Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Consiracist Ideation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600613/) ... But there's another factor involved: Un-interest!
That is, the habit of having once made up one's mind about a subject forever more forgoing thought about it. (That seems usually to be
Mac's specialty -- which makes me wonder why he'd post in a thread such as this...)
Sang surely knows better, when he accuses me of not having read the papers I'd bring up for discussion.
And, of course, my expecting posters in a particular thread to be somewhat interested in its topic (and to have access to the Web...)
is unreasonable, by some lights. :)
Oh, well.
————————————————————
but there's little point in discussing it since Oakdale himself knows nothing except about them except what he read in some slanted, information challenged blog.
Translation: "OakdaleFTL didn't cite the Huffington Post, so he can't know what's what!
Ipso facto… Ya know?"
Might I remind us all that it's not scientists who say "scientists say".
Except when it
is scientists who say it… Am I odd, for thinking they then are worse offenders?
Translation: "OakdaleFTL didn't cite the Huffington Post, so he can't know what's what! Ipso facto… Ya know?"
Translation: I like to make up that Sanguinemoon cites the Huffington Post, but I were doing anything remotely resembling paying attention, I would know he hasn't done that in years. Meanwhile, I cite blather that's an embarrassment to real conservatives. Further, I lack reading comprehension when referencing anything close to scholarly.
so, I'd thought he'd have noted and approved the media hype surrounding Cook's
Nope, sure didn't. Why's that? Because I don't give a rat's ass about Cook. If you were as intelligent as you try to pass yourself off to be, you'd know that just about about any study in any field is likely to have flaws. However, those flaws don't necessarily make the outcomes untrue; although if there were too many they might. Just as true black and white are all but non-existent in nature, completely wrong or right is just as rare. You'd also know the reason anything gets hype is because it was well publicized. Hype does not equal quality.
or simply that's what people used to call with " Perception"
isn't that something Normal ?
when Different People cognosco with Different Perception ?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mememaker.net%2Fstatic%2Fimages%2Ftemplates%2F1606344.jpg&hash=e749271de64176e4557638eb61ad7675" rel="cached" data-hash="e749271de64176e4557638eb61ad7675" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.mememaker.net/static/images/templates/1606344.jpg)
[ad hom ignored…] just about about any study in any field is likely to have flaws. However, those flaws don't necessarily make the outcomes untrue; although if there were too many they might.
That's very "science-y" sounding,
Sang!
What it means is that you believe what you believe, regardless of the evidence or arguments… No?
But your field was Sociology, wasn't it? :)
There are scientists and there are scientists but most, if not all of them, have to make a living from their work.
Private funding system means that a leading scientist, responsible for the project funding and getting results, hires the less expensive "colleagues" he can find. Many of these do absolutely no science at all, they limit themselves to do daily routines as taking note of variables, things like that. But their names appears at the published papers, they are "scientists" and they try to build a "career" from there. Everyone has interest that newspapers publishes something about their work, whatever it will be published.
Much more important for science credibility it's the problem of scientific magazines and "peer review". That's where shit is done.
Much more important for science credibility it's the problem of scientific magazines and "peer review". That's where shit is done.
Pray tell, from where do you think the "scientists say" statements come? The journals, and university press releases...of course.
(The idea of menial underlings having a hand in this dissemination is -if not ludicrous- at least unlikely.)
Pray tell, from where do you think the "scientists say" statements come? The journals, and university press releases...of course.
You're not understanding me, my fault...
With all the words it goes as "scientists says it's not the biggest problem science credibility has",no one trusting newspapers.
Investigating things as "The influence of moon phases into the ovulatory cycle of female rats" is.
That's an actual science project, published and funded by the EU.
I'd disagree:
There are many, many similarly bizarre studies funded here, both by government and industry (and, less often, by private foundations). But they are not all useless or silly: Basic research does often lead to basic insights worth pursuing.
My main objection is to patently fallacious reasoning, bad statistical technique, and sloppy data acquisition... And, of course, the prominence given in some fields to political ideology!
(The idea of menial underlings having a hand in this dissemination is -if not ludicrous- at least unlikely.)
The underlings are not menial, and they are not really even underlings. The assistants have earned their own degrees or are at least students. Otherwise you don't get to be an assistant in the first place. Most people need to work as assistants in some project before becoming a project manager. The difference between an assistant and the project manager (or whatever they call it these days) is not that steep.
Of course you knew it already and were just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.
Of course you knew it already and were just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.
No, sir! We are here attempting to come to an understanding of both the sources of "scientists say" stories in the press, and the trivialization and subversion of science for "unscientific" motives… Are we not? :)
And (although I'm not sure
Jaybro would approve…) we'd like to know why so many presumably well-educated people readily accept balderdash from sources they know (or should know!) are suspect — at least in terms of intellectual sophistication: The "hangers on" of the Hip Crowd.
The God Particle was -maybe- found at CERN. "That's not really important."
That one's political rivals are determined to be deviants, "That, my friend, is news!"
It's the News You Can Use meme.
Science is
supposed to be "dispassionate"… (An old legal term that has much to recommend it.) That is, the search for truth and understanding is what I think most of us take science to be.
Whatever our prejudices, biases, and ulterior motives (Freudians welcome! :) ) we should be willing to put them aside — if the science warrants.
That's the opposite of the News You Can Use meme.
Or am I just blathering? (Should I try to overthrow the powers that be, to make a more convivial world? :) )
Of course you knew it already and were just quibbling for the sake of quibbling.
No, sir! We are here attempting to come to an understanding of both the sources of "scientists say" stories in the press, and the trivialization and subversion of science for "unscientific" motives… Are we not? :)
well, why are you then demonstrating absolute unwillingness to understand?
Science is supposed to be "dispassionate"… (An old legal term that has much to recommend it.) That is, the search for truth and understanding is what I think most of us take science to be.
Whatever our prejudices, biases, and ulterior motives (Freudians welcome! :) ) we should be willing to put them aside — if the science warrants.
Yes. Please do.
That's the opposite of the News You Can Use meme.
Or am I just blathering?
That thing about meme and everything I omitted is blather. I'd attribute it to allergic reaction to some inconsequential reporting. It's easy to avoid, but you chose to overexpose yourself instead. Let's hope you recover soon.
well, why are you then demonstrating absolute unwillingness to understand?
Because I'm not within the grasp of a totalitarian government! I don't have to kow-tow.
Howie and his ilk (you may be one of them…) think otherwise but:
I'd attribute it to allergic reaction to some inconsequential reporting. It's easy to avoid, but you chose to overexpose yourself instead. Let's hope you recover soon.
We can't all be hermits,
ersi. And we shouldn't all want to be… Are you hoping to be a Cult Leader sometime in the future? :)
One can avoid the most annoying aspects of Reality by early suicide… Do you recommend it? :)
Of course, you'd only recommend it to — others.
We can't all be hermits, ersi. And we shouldn't all want to be… Are you hoping to be a Cult Leader sometime in the future? :)
Sure you can't do everything like me. And I don't ask you to.
You have chosen your poison and you live your life accordingly, yet you blame me for it. As long as we inhabit the same forum, I guess I just have to tolerate your irrationality.
To really come to grips with "scientists say" stories, you first have to understand that at least here in the States journalists have become little more than talking heads. Nobody in journalism seems capable of original thought so they spew the same talking points they're fed, and report to us what they were told to regurgitate.
Yes, I'd agree that my tendency to irrationality is obvious. I expect my rational impulses to -eventually- coalesce into some sort of coherent answer to the questions I find interesting. There's the nub: We don't find the same sort of questions interesting…
But I blame you for nothing! (That was an odd -but almost understandable- accusation…) I do, sometimes, enjoy our exchanges of text. You make me think deeper about things than I'd otherwise do. But you also make me worry about you… And, of course, that's silly: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?
Let me repeat that, so you can savor it: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?
@mjm: Would that that were the problem.
The schools (universities, journals, professors and their students) have become, to a great extent, co-opted by a few ideologies…
Journalists are just like you and me, boy-o. Don't blame them for what has happened: Science and politics (and, of course, Academia – all the "studies" departments) have become our masters… At least, they think they have.
Don't tell me it's because reporters are -nowadays- stupid.
They're -nowadays, and for a long time- indoctrinated. But we needn't be.
Let me repeat that, so you can savor it: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?
The funny thing is that this realisation won't stop you from disputing it anyway.
Let me repeat that, so you can savor it: What do disputes about ontology matter, really?
The funny thing is that this realisation won't stop you from disputing it anyway.
Disputes about ontology are the only thing that truly matters. Ontology (at it's wider sense) seeks to define the identity of things and your brain can't function without establishing some sort of identity in the first place. No ontology at all and you'll be in coma.
Other "logies" are secondary.
But I suppose what Oakdale is asking is if
Café Talk matters. Course it matters, that's what men should be doing, not working. :)
But I suppose what Oakdale is asking is if Café Talk matters. Course it matters, that's what men should be doing, not working.
I'd take that as an interpretation, gladly! (The humorlessness of some is -to me- dismaying…) But consider this, an obvious observation: Noone "chooses" their everyday ontology.
It's only in fields far from everyday concerns that such come into focus, and dispute.
In some of those fields, it matters what is taken as real. (Set Theory, Mathematics, Physics, Statistics…) But -usually- it only matters to specialists… Or, as you say quite cogently,
Café Talkers!
hat's very "science-y" sounding, Sang!
What it means is that you believe what you believe, regardless of the evidence or arguments… No?
No. It's called having some understanding of the scientific method. I doubt there's a study in history that doesn't have valid criticisms of it. Sometimes those criticism render the conclusion invalid, sometimes not. Often the study is redone by a different team, correcting the original one's methodology, but achieves the same result. In scientific debates a study often gets answered by a counter one. Bad methodology on one other side's research teams doesn't discredit all their arguments. I don't know if the study in question is good or bad and admit to not reading it. However, the weight of evidence does point to anthropogenic climate change regardless of any particular study.
I don't think your name has to Albert Einstein to understand this.
No. It's called having some understanding of the scientific method.
You're hopeless,
Sang! Of course, you didn't read it: Why make the effort to know what you're talking about…
Anthropogenic climate change (you know, the science-stuff?) had nothing really to do with the three studies I mentioned. And studies that fail to support the conclusions they purport are -simply put- trash. They're not maybe true; they're shoddy work, and should be branded such.
Just because they (somehow…) support the political prejudices of the researchers (and like-minded readers — such as yourself) doesn't make them better than they are.
Being wrong is always a possibility. That's not what we're talking about here. Being inept and deceitful is not just being wrong…
Do you disagree?
Or would you first have to know whether you "like" the flavor of the unsupported conclusion? :) In a science-y way, of course!
Well, Jimbro, you wanted a thread full of scientific blather and you got one! As this breaks down into another of the interminable discussions of pro-or-con CAGW, it will get as full of blather as a body can stand.
Anthropogenic climate change (you know, the science-stuff?) had nothing really to do with the three studies I mentioned. And studies that fail to support the conclusions they purport are -simply put- trash. They're not maybe true; they're shoddy work, and should be branded such.
Just because they (somehow…) support the political prejudices of the researchers (and like-minded readers — such as yourself) doesn't make them better than they are.
Being wrong is always a possibility. That's not what we're talking about here. Being inept and deceitful is not just being wrong…
Do you disagree?
What's the point here to agree or disagree with?
Is your point that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax? But then you say that the science in question has nothing to do with your point. Then this cannot be your point.
Is your point that science, regardless of topic, is sometimes practised shoddily, ineptly and deceitfully? But this is completely trivial per se. Not just science, but anything can be done shoddily, ineptly and deceitfully. Shoddy science is not proper science anyway, so why talk about it as if science?
Is your point that political prejudices get mixed with science to support ideologies and foregone conclusions? This is again completely trivial, and inessential to both politics and science. If you really are interested in politics and/or science, why not talk about some essential feature of theirs? Or is it about the way politics get mixed with science in this particular case? Yet you say nothing to specify.
We are left with two options. Either (1) you are incredibly shoddy, inept and deceitful when making a point, whatever the intended point, or (2) you have no point.
So, nothing here to agree or disagree with. Enjoy the blather.
You're hopeless, Sang! Of course, you didn't read it: Why make the effort to know what you're talking about…
Because thread is not about climate change. It's about poor science reporting. Now food for thought, if I was so Leftist and some kind of climate change activist, don't you think I would have already read the thing?
Why is that you focus in on my last statement, which is a throwaway remark,while missing the main point of my post? While we can debate the merits that one sentence in a climate change thread, the rest of my post is all but inarguable and simply how research is done and how scientific debate is conducted.
Just because they (somehow…) support the political prejudices of the researchers (and like-minded readers — such as yourself) doesn't make them better than they are.
And it doesn't occur to you that climate skeptics have political prejudices and agendas? You seem to think only one side might have agenda. However, there are tainted and sincere researchers on both sides. To me this so self-evident that it should require no explanation.
I'd not bother with blather
except that I gather
it's not altogether
just about weather
ersi, you can't have mis-read so badly… (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg25869#msg25869) (
Bad Eliza!)
Because thread is not about climate change.
That's why I said you're hopeless: The three papers I mentioned are not
about climate change. How you fail to know that is beyond me. (At least, without insulting your intelligence — which may be impossible anyway! :) )
The fields of Cognitive Psychology and "Climate Communication" (what
ever that is :) ) may not be to your liking. But it's the quality of the work, and its reception in the press, that seemed pertinent…
———————————————————
@
string: Thanks for the verse. Of course, I mentioned the papers I did because I am familiar with them, and how they were received — both in the general press and in the blogosphere… I hadn't thought anyone would think the subject was being changed; certainly, not to that of climatology!
Ah, well.
The fields of Cognitive Psychology and "Climate Communication" (whatever that is :) ) may not be to your liking. But it's the quality of the work, and its reception in the press, that seemed pertinent…
Seemed pertinent to you. But wasn't to anyone.
Liking has nothing to do with it.
So. Let me see if I've got this right… Discussing actual blather said by credentialed and published scientists, which was then reported -often via the "scientists say" blather in the media, is not pertinent in a thread titled "Scientists Say" blather?
I'm mystified… :) What's the largest integer not namable in less than nineteen syllables?
It's a paradox, is it not, that some posters to this thread who cannot parse its title's meaning then criticize another — for not being so obtuse?
It's a paradox, is it not, that some posters to this thread who cannot parse its title's meaning then criticize another — for not being so obtuse?
Here's you not being obtuse according to yourself:
…Can I presume, from the lack of replies, that most here would tend to agree with Lewandowsky and Cook and, so, won't consider their "sins"…? :) (Not wanting to "cast the first stone" and all that!)
Science reporting is -I agree- abysmally bad, usually. But so is science education — even of specialists who might be expected to know something. (Oreskes comes to mind, immediately.) Should K-12 teachers be taught basic science?
Would someone take a poll: What, in the theory of evolution, implies progress?
To all the responders you were being obtuse. Live with it.
To all the responders you were being obtuse. Live with it.
I won't believe people are that stupid! (But there are rare exceptions; and their motivations, rather than their intelligence, are culpable…) But I could be wrong!
Quick! Somebody apply for a grant, and do an internet poll/study… The Nobel Committee is bored with real science and their Prize is worth big bucks!
I was -at first- attempting to bring into the discussion of
Jaybro's topic the fact that some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather, and that even the most vocal proponents of Science include a sizable group of "politicking" academics who care little for niceties, like what most of us would take to be "the scientific method."
ersi, it is not my fault that you are uninformed about many things. (Nor is it your fault that I am.) But your predilection to dismiss what you aren't familiar with is —at least, to me— anti-rational behavior!
Now, I'm supposed to justify talking about the thread's topic? Is there a new FAQ that requires all posts to be off-topic?
I didn't get the memo…
ersi, it is not my fault that you are uninformed about many things. (Nor is it your fault that I am.) But your predilection to dismiss what you aren't familiar with is —at least, to me— anti-rational behavior!
You have a patent inability to convey what you are getting at. I told you right up front that I have no clue what you are getting at, and I still don't get it, because after all my repeated and clear statements to this effect you are still not telling it. It's not about me being uninformed, it's about you failing to communicate. I am informed about some names and titles, but where are you getting at? Something as trivial as "some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather"? Well, I am definitely not uninformed about that, thank you very much. The question is if you have anything enlightening to add to this, such as that your stated names and titles are such a case. You have not said even this much, much less given evidence for it. Thus far you only add blather upon blather.
I linked to the papers in question… They're not long, or difficult to read and understand. And they've been discussed on a number of specialty blogs, and in most major newspapers.
What more do you want — to begin a discussion?
Something as trivial as "some modern science is no better than the most egregious media blather"? Well, I am definitely not uninformed about that, thank you very much. The question is if you have anything enlightening to add to this, such as that your stated names and titles are such a case.
More than that! As I've said, quite a few scientists and academic institutions acquiesce or even support them.
Again I ask you, why post in this thread if you have no interest in its topic?
——————————————————————————————
Cook's Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf) is the source of the "97% of scientists agree" meme used by so many advocates of de-carbonizing regulations.
And Lewandowsky's pair of papers, NASA faked the moon landing, Therefore (Climate) Science is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science (http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/labs/cogscience/documents/LskyetalPsychScienceinPressClimateConspiracy.pdf) and Recursive Fury: Conspiracist Ideation in the Blogosphere in Response to Research on Consiracist Ideation (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3600613/) tackle "motivated reasoning" — in dishonest and inept (statistical) fashion.
Isn't it odd, that the two posters here who've claimed expertise in matters statistical (
ersi was a functionary in his nation's statistical services department, as I recall;
Sang holds a degree in Sociology…) are uninterested in the examples I mentioned?
—————————————————————————————————
I was going to add something about another's post… But I got into an extended (and enjoyable) conversation and I've forgotten what I'd wanted to say; and even about what… Ah, well. If it was (somehow) important, it'll come back to me.
I linked to the papers in question… They're not long, or difficult to read and understand. And they've been discussed on a number of specialty blogs, and in most major newspapers.
What more do you want — to begin a discussion?
Summary.
As I've said, quite a few scientists and academic institutions acquiesce or even support them.
Who, how and why? Evidence and proof.
Again I ask you, why post in this thread if you have no interest in its topic?
Because I actually am interested. You are making it similar to pulling of teeth.
You want the op-ed version… It'll have to wait for tomorrow. (I don't understand why you won't read the papers themselves. But I'm willing to "save you the trouble"; although I, for one, wouldn't accept such… That's just me, I guess.) I have to be up early to take a 4-year old to preschool…
Then I'll take you… :)
You want the op-ed version… It'll have to wait for tomorrow.
Take your time, but deliver. You usually don't.
(I don't understand why you won't read the papers themselves. But I'm willing to "save you the trouble"; although I, for one, wouldn't accept such… That's just me, I guess.)
What I will be looking for in your summary is your take, your opinion, your interpretation. This will be unobtainable in the original papers. Self-evidently, what would form the essence of our discussion is the interpretation. The original text matters less. Just like, say, an apple per se gives no occasion to any insight or discussion, whereas whether it's red or green, tasty or yucky, half-eaten or whole, on the tree or falling on Newton's head gives a whole lot to talk about.
You are keen to keep my hopes high, but unfortunately I already know you and I foresee no meaningful discussion. Carry on.
Shall we try this a bit at a time?
The Cook
Consensus paper begins with the statement:
Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012). In the most comprehensive analysis performed to date, we have extended the analysis of peer-reviewed climate papers in Oreskes (2004). We examined a large sample of the scientific literature on global CC, published over a 21 year period, in order to determine the level of scientific consensus that human activity is very likely causing most of the current GW (anthropogenic global warming, or AGW).
Oreskes, in the essay cited, stated:
[…] analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords
“climate change” (9).
The 928 papers were divided into six categories:
- explicit endorsement of the consensus position,
- evaluation of impacts,
- mitigation proposals,
- methods,
- paleoclimate analysis, and
- rejection of the consensus position.
(list format added)
Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
Are we on the same page,
ersi? Are we talking about the same paper?
And have I mis-represented anything — yet? :)
The Cook Consensus paper begins with the statement:Despite numerous indicators of a consensus, there is wide public perception that climate scientists disagree over the fundamental cause of global warming (GW; Leiserowitz et al 2012, Pew 2012).
A few questions:
The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?
If yes, then why does the sentence begin with "numerous indicators of a consensus"? Whose consensus and consensus on what? What does the consensus say and what are the "indicators" of that consensus?
Where are the references to prove that there is such a consensus when there are references to prove the disagreement?
Plus, remember that I have said that I disagree with the term "global warming" in the first place. It's a mislabel and, as I remember from the original My Opera thread, lots of controversy is directly due to the mislabel. Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong. The problem is industrial contribution to the greenhouse effect, not anthropogenic global warming.
See, I cannot even get past the first sentence. I will look further when you respond to the points I brought up. A bit at a time :)
Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong.
I beg to differ. Many people seem to have trouble with the concept that
global warming automatically implies that
local temperature fluctuations mean little by themselves. Besides which, the local temperature in some regions might well drop while it would still rise globally. Some people also seem to have memory issues (http://xkcd.com/1321/). But the global rise in temperature is a fairly straightforward trend.
The problem is industrial contribution to the greenhouse effect, not anthropogenic global warming.
I agree that the term sounds awkward compared to something like accelerated greenhouse effect, but it's the exact same thing. You could even call it the human-accelerated greenhouse effect to throw in that ugly
anthropogenic if you so desired. You could also call it the carbon dioxide emissions problem, although I feel that would underplay other harmful emissions. Nevertheless, a rose by any other name would smell as sour.
You'll decide if this (http://theconsensusproject.com/) is scientists say.
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.
Lots of people take the problem to be a straighforward increase of temperature, but this gets the whole issue fundamentally wrong.
I beg to differ. Many people seem to have trouble with the concept that global warming automatically implies that local temperature fluctuations mean little by themselves. Besides which, the local temperature in some regions might well drop while it would still rise globally. Some people also seem to have memory issues (http://xkcd.com/1321/). But the global rise in temperature is a fairly straightforward trend.
[...]
Nevertheless, a rose by any other name would smell as sour.
And I beg to differ for several important reasons. First, the thing already had a name. Renaming it only obfuscates the whole topic. Second, the old name is better, more descriptive.
The new name makes it seem about warming, but when the warming is like heating water beyond the boiling point, then the issue is really about boiling, not only warming. "Global Warming" sounds as if you could measure the temperature anywhere on the globe and should uncontroversially observe the same results over time, but as you point out, there are local and seasonal differences, so "global warming" is a misleading name for the phenomenon. There is a difference of principle if you measure the temperature inside the boiling pot or in the flames under it, and all we can do is measure a single spot at a time, and this is what creates the controversy, just like different people describing different parts of the elephant in the dark.
Greenhouse effect entails that the atmosphere grows more violent with hurricanes and typhoons as more loose energy is injected into the system. The hurricanes and typhoons and sharpening polar vortices mean spatiotemporally increasing
differences in atmospheric pressure and temperature, instead of straightforward uniform warming. Greenhouse effect entails more violent whirlwinds and torrential rains at some times and places
and more drastic droughts at other times and places, not a slightly harder wind and gradually increasing precipitation uniformly all over the globe.
The rising sea level is also not simply rising. It produces waves over the entire hydrosphere, tsunamis not directly attributable to earthquakes, but to complex causes. Greenhouse effect describes the complex dynamics of the phenomenon as it is, while global warming makes it appear linear, which it isn't.
Can't agree with the new name, sorry.
@Belfrager
Oh, so "consensus" is like a project or a movement similar to a political party. Well, inasmuch it is that, the science becomes less relevant indeed. Oakdale's sources make it be about politics and for him political controversies are lots of fun, but not for me. I will stick to the science and stay away from the politics.
And I beg to differ for several important reasons. First, the thing already had a name. Renaming it only obfuscates the whole topic. Second, the old name is better, more descriptive.
What's the old name? In what language? To me "global warming" sounds as English as "dark ages" or the English issues with somehow not thinking of the humanities as science. I would speak of
(wereldwijde) klimaatverandering (climate change), caused by the
versterkte broeikaseffect (enhanced greenhouse effect). The latter is basically a synonym of the somewhat awkward calque
opwarming van de aarde (warming of the earth), which I wouldn't use.
Greenhouse effect entails that the atmosphere grows more violent with hurricanes and typhoons as more loose energy is injected into the system.
I don't see how it does. Greenhouse effect means the surface temperatures in a "greenhouse" are higher then they would otherwise be without gases in the way that reflect light back to earth again. Without the quite desired warming properties of the greenhouse effect it would currently be something like -20°C instead of +17°C. Perhaps ironically, I do think those properties you speak of are entailed in global warming because of its common use.
The rising sea level is also not simply rising. It produces waves over the entire hydrosphere, tsunamis not directly attributable to earthquakes, but to complex causes. Greenhouse effect describes the complex dynamics of the phenomenon as it is, while global warming makes it appear linear, which it isn't.
Everyone knows the economic conjuncture goes (or seems to go) ever upward as a trend while having downers along the way. No one seems to have a problem understanding that you can have steadily rising sinusoidal functions like x-sin(x) (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=x-sin(x)) that aren't strictly linear.* I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding.
* f(x+y) = f(x)+f(y) is obviously untrue for f(x) = x-sin(x). f(1+2) ~= 2.9 while f(1) + f(2) ~= 0.16 + 1.09 ~= 1.25
Can't agree with the new name, sorry.
However, I think your arguments are decent enough. I just happen to think all the same concerns apply to greenhouse effect and only using (global) climate change can mitigate said concerns. In any case, it is well defined what global warming means, no matter what the words may or may not imply when taken at face value.
Edit: hey, this is kinda cool. NASA agrees with me. :P
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html
The Internet is full of references to global warming. The Union of Concerned Scientists website on climate change is titled "Global Warming," just one of many examples. But we don't use global warming much on this website. We use the less appealing "climate change." Why?
[…]
In place of inadvertent climate modification, Charney adopted Broecker's usage. When referring to surface temperature change, Charney used "global warming." When discussing the many other changes that would be induced by increasing carbon dioxide, Charney used "climate change."
Definitions
Global warming: the increase in Earth’s average surface temperature due to rising levels of greenhouse gases.
Climate change: a long-term change in the Earth’s climate, or of a region on Earth.
Within scientific journals, this is still how the two terms are used. Global warming refers to surface temperature increases, while climate change includes global warming and everything else that increasing greenhouse gas amounts will affect.
[…]
But global warming became the dominant popular term in June 1988, when NASA scientist James E. Hansen had testified to Congress about climate, specifically referring to global warming. He said: "global warming has reached a level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming." […]
But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.
Edit 2: here's a link to KNMI explaining climate change (Dutch) http://www.knmi.nl/klimaatverandering_en_broeikaseffect/
What's the old name? In what language?
Greenhouse effect. Treibhauseffekt. Kasvihuoneilmiö.
I can agree that the global warming or "climate change" is an aspect of it, but limiting the phenomenon to warming or change is reductive and deceptive. All controversy is due to loss of context that occurs along with the reduction.
Everyone knows the economic conjuncture goes (or seems to go) ever upward as a trend while having downers along the way. No one seems to have a problem understanding that you can have steadily rising sinusoidal functions like x-sin(x) that aren't strictly linear.* I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding. I don't see why temperature would suddenly bring out a lack of understanding.
You don't see why, but the fact is that it does. You see the parallel in economic and climate fluctuations, and I do too, but not all people are like us :)
Besides, the boiling water pot is a better analogy than economic fluctuations. Not simply more dramatic, but really more accurate.
I can agree that the global warming or "climate change" is an aspect of it, but limiting the phenomenon to warming or change is reductive and deceptive. All controversy is due to loss of context that occurs along with the reduction.
Depending on your point of view you might call any of it a reduction, I suppose. The enhanced greenhouse effect causes (enhanced) global warming, which causes undesired climate change wildly beyond temperatures being a few degrees warmer (which would be bad enough by itself in some regions). Climate change is the problem; the greenhouse effect is the cause and solution. Global warming is just an intermediary step.
@Belfrager
Oh, so "consensus" is like a project or a movement similar to a political party. Well, inasmuch it is that, the science becomes less relevant indeed. Oakdale's sources make it be about politics and for him political controversies are lots of fun, but not for me. I will stick to the science and stay away from the politics.
Politics? What I've linked to it's the only analysis I could find about all the scientific papers regarding climate published the last ten years or so. The conclusions are evident.
Everything it's politics. Creating a website to publish that 97% of all scientific papers that approaches climate change that were published identifies man's action as a climate change cause it's for sure an act of politics.
Politics it's about what regards the life of the polis and relates necessarily to all it's citizens.
To not participate it's certainly a right and, sometimes, the wise thing to do, but relating man driven climate change I prefer to have an active position against the continuation of a crime.
Politics? What I've linked to it's the only analysis I could find about all the scientific papers regarding climate published the last ten years or so. The conclusions are evident.
To be honest I didn't even click :)
I simply noted the name of the link: Consensus Project. I wonder if this is the "indicator of a consensus" as Oakdale's source put it, when Oakdale's source really only deals with the statistical controversy, not with the consensus, and not with the actual science.
And I mentioned politics because, even without looking, the project feels like Greenpeace. A science library with an agenda is not quite the same as science, even though it can surely be used as pure science, when one is careful enough. It's possible to use only the science there and stay away from the politics, but it depends how much and what kind of agenda there is.
To not participate it's certainly a right and, sometimes, the wise thing to do, but relating man driven climate change I prefer to have an active position against the continuation of a crime.
And what do you mean by active in this case? Doing speeches? Distributing leaflets? Buying the right book?
And I mentioned politics because, even without looking, the project feels like Greenpeace.
Yes, I agree, I also noticed that but it was the only available information I could find.
That's the problem with this world, good things are killed and occupied by hostile take overs with the connivance of the media.
And what do you mean active in this case? Doing speeches? Distributing leaflets? Buying the right book?
Had I a simple solution for that question and the Pentagon would make me a very rich man... :)
I believe that there still are enough people in the world that can think, that can express themselves in a solid way, that will be listen by the rest, and that are not under economical or political manipulation that can make the difference.
The only needed things are a
catalyzer and a free
diffusion method.
Ideas can spread faster than fire.
Until then, active means resistance by all peaceful methods available to each one.
The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?
Nope. Not even close...
And as I feared would happen this thread has devolved into yet another "Global Warming" thread, including the inevitable (however interesting it may sometimes be) quibbling over words.
@
Belfrager: Did you mean to quote something different (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg26014#msg26014) from Cook's paper? :) The Consensus Project is but one of the sites with which Cook is affiliated... (Merely clicking its About tab makes that clear!)
isn't that funny ?
Why is People cant believe , denying , play blind nor play deaf , something real like global warming issues When Scientists or some geeks Argumentum ad nauseams that ?
and why the Heck many people more Believe some Lies and unreal like Unicorn, etc ..
with the same Argumentum ad nauseams ? :sherlock:
The references in the end of the sentence are meant to prove the scientific disagreement over the fundamental cause of global warming, right?
Nope. Not even close...
Just shows your failure to summarise, and failure to quote relevant bits that would make sense on their own.
As was predictable, you never get to the point, any point.
Both references refer to public opinion surveys, about AGW and the "consensus" -- I had thought to prepare you for the style of the papers; but, it seems, your unwillingness to read (and, perhaps, your incapacity to understand...) make that pointless.
Suffice it to say, then (in a style you do understand...):
The Cook paper mis-applies standard and well-understood statistical functions.
It relies upon biased and partisan "auditors"; it not only claims to glean from the abstracts of the papers "surveyed" their conclusions -often regarding extraneous subjects- but (in a later section, based on a response rate of 14%) claims agreement by the authors with such audits, despite many prominent authors' specific denial...
Such is the state of the "consensus"!
ersi, you might as well join -- one side or the other: The rhetoric is all that you're capable of responding to.
ersi, you might as well join -- one side or the other: The rhetoric is all that you're capable of responding to.
Rhetoric is not the only thing I know and respond to, but I am able to detect it when I see it. And I correctly detected it in the first quoted sentence. There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together. Either there's a consensus or there's a disagreement. Put together in the same sentence the way it is only means to rhetorically stir up controversy.
And I see the same in you, all the time. Just stirring up controversy. Any plans to get to the point?
Isn't stirring up controversy sort of what we do here? That and trafficking in rumors and unfounded speculations. Especially in a thread with this title.
The Consensus Project is but one of the sites with which Cook is affiliated...
The only Cook I know it's some English pirate that pretended to have discovered Australia.
It seems that your Cook it's a descendant.
I don't give a f*ck about consensus, Cooks and whatever. Knowing what the scientists publishes it's the only way of knowing what actual science has to say about climate change.
All the rest it's pure shit.
There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together.
Did we read the same sentence? I'm pretty sure it said something like "despite consensus among scientists, the public mistakenly seems to think there is disagreement." I wasn't aware that saying "the public" is wrong about something or other is terribly controversial. :P
The only Cook I know it's some English pirate that pretended to have discovered Australia.
He claimed that, did he? I thought everyone knew it was "discovered" by a Dutchman (if we discount the obvious previous discoverers in proud European tradition).
Any plans to get to the point?
Sigh. The point was made by what I said originally, which you then criticized (it now seems, for making a point)... I could "walk you through" my reasoning but, at the baby-steps you seem to require, it would take forever -- and there's no way I could avoid stepping on your toes.
Of course, since your only interest is in trying to trip
me up, I shouldn't be so mindful of
your toes! But although I can stoop to your level occasionally I can't stay there like you can...
________________________________________________________________
@
Belfrager: Most people won't read original scientific papers, and fewer would understand them. Which is why it's so disheartening to find many "scientists" becoming activists, and adulterating (or worse...) their scientific output for political purposes.
The two Lewandowsky papers are ostensibly about
motivated reasoning, which is deliciously ironic! Well, the links are posted; you can, if you choose, see for yourself.
I thought everyone knew [Australia] was "discovered" by a Dutchman (if we discount the obvious previous discoverers in proud European tradition).
If Cook and Lewandowsky are representative of Aussie scientists, better that it had been left to the aboriginals... :)
There was a claim about "indicators of a consensus" versus "disagreement". I automatically deduced that these things just don't go together.
Did we read the same sentence? I'm pretty sure it said something like "despite consensus among scientists, the public mistakenly seems to think there is disagreement." I wasn't aware that saying "the public" is wrong about something or other is terribly controversial. :P
Hey, it was not worded this way. Re-reading it I see how you can interpret it this way - non-antagonistically - but the sentence was worded differently and, if you know Oakdale, he is on the side of either consensus or controversy, whereas the text really establishes neither consensus or controversy while it blathers about both consensus and controversy. Or was it disagreement.
Any plans to get to the point?
Sigh. The point was made by what I said originally, which you then criticized (it now seems, for making a point)... I could "walk you through" my reasoning but, at the baby-steps you seem to require, it would take forever -- and there's no way I could avoid stepping on your toes.
Of course, since your only interest is in trying to trip me up, I shouldn't be so mindful of your toes! But although I can stoop to your level occasionally I can't stay there like you can...
The point would be this: What do these studies establish, as per you? Do they establish either meaningful consensus or substantial disagreement? Do they exemplify poor science or do they prove that someone else's science is poor? Too hard to tell simple things like this?
Too hard to tell simple things like this?
Too hard to tell (some) simple-minded people anything...
The papers evidence poor grasp of statistical reasoning; poor scientific practices; an unconscionable predilection to polemics, rather than argumentation; and politicization of science that probably should be relevant to government policies.
What more can I say, to someone who couldn't even get through a single paragraph without stumbling? :) Either take my word for it or forget about it; or (shudder!) read and learn enough to decide for yourself!
The papers evidence poor grasp of statistical reasoning; poor scientific practices; an unconscionable predilection to polemics, rather than argumentation; and politicization of science that probably should be relevant to government policies.
Finally you got to the list of sins and throwing stones that you should have done properly already in your first post. This was your entire point anyway.
What more can I say, to someone who couldn't even get through a single paragraph without stumbling? :) Either take my word for it or forget about it; or (shudder!) read and learn enough to decide for yourself!
I didn't know what to do with that paragraph. It didn't tell me anything new, interesting or even coherent. It still hasn't. Now that I have your impression of the papers, I have no idea how you got this impression (most likely it's some politics that you assume to be connected with the authors), but at least I know your impression.
Briefly, you think the papers are blather, while to me it's curious how you overexpose yourself to blather and still manage to react to it, producing lots of blather in the process, mixed attempts to hide your true impression, trying to provoke it in others before you reveal yourself. Why not read something uplifting for a while?
There's a bright side (sort-of) to research of this sort:
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf), gets it much better! But goes "off the rails" in its conclusion…
It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientifc basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
Doran, Peter, and Maggie Zimmerman. “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change.” Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union (2009)
The two questions it asked respondents were
- When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
- Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
Is the "problem" with characterizing the consensus thusly evident to all? If not, let me give you my take…
The first is a "gimme"… Fairly reliable records exist! (So, why was it asked? :) ) Why -of course- to set up the second, and its sleight-of-hand conclusion!
What, precisely, does "a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperature" mean? Atmospheric CO
2 concentrations? Methane? All "greenhouse gasses"…?
Land usage? Management of fisheries?
In short, the questions don't address what advocates and advocate/scientists insist is the problem.
(This paper was cited by Cook,
et.al., too… Perhaps he should have read it, himself? :) But maybe the abstract only gave the "results and conclusions"… Is such really Science, by today's standards?)
In short, the questions don't address what advocates and advocate/scientists insist is the problem.
What do advocates insist is the problem?
Briefly, you think the papers are blather, while to me it's curious how you overexpose yourself to blather and still manage to react to it, producing lots of blather in the process, mixed attempts to hide your true impression, trying to provoke it in others before you reveal yourself. Why not read something uplifting for a while?
Jeez!————————————————————————————
So, what do you think of the Montreal Protocol, now? Is
someone cheating or was the science flawed…? Do you care?
p.s.,
I read (re-read) my favorite poets and novelists regularly; and sample new stuff fairly often… And I even read the bizarre posts by a certain Estonian of my acquaintance… What more does one need? :)
But, of course, there's more: Certain classics of logic and set theory, probability theory and statistical reasoning, philosophy of science; and some few websites geared to such…
BTW: Thanks for the tip about thelogician.net! I've just begun his Future Logic, which should be a lot of fun!
What do advocates insist is the problem?
First, let me say -on behalf of the humans: Welcome to Planet Earth!
Advocates insist the problem is our carbon-intensive energy economies. (And, owing to the "selfish" ways of us humans, over-population…) Something must be done!
So, what do you think of the Montreal Protocol, now? Is someone cheating or was the science flawed…? Do you care?
I think of the Montreal Protocol the same as of the Kyoto Protocol: It didn't get done. It didn't formulate objectives and commitments properly. And as I have been saying, whenever one says "global warming" one is not even getting the problem properly and is unlikely to provide the right scientific solution.
But the protocols are not a scientific failure. The protocols are a failure of politics. There's no political consensus on the science, because serious scientists see many good reasons not to corrupt themselves with politics. That's why there's hardly any science in the protocols and it's unlikely to ever get there.
As to if I care... I see the problem, but it's not my personal problem. Not up to me to make myself heard on a topic not in my field of expertise. I will provide my solutions when directly asked, but nobody cares to ask, so why should I care?
BTW: Thanks for the tip about thelogician.net! I've just begun his Future Logic, which should be a lot of fun!
You welcome. Enjoy.
Advocates insist the problem is our carbon-intensive energy economies. (And, owing to the "selfish" ways of us humans, over-population…) Something must be done!
And your response to it?
(from least likely to most likely: 1. "There's no such problem, and here's why..." 2. "Yes, there's a problem of the nature you describe, but nothing must be done!" 3. "Blather blather blather...")
I think of the Montreal Protocol the same as of the Kyoto Protocol: It didn't get done. It didn't formulate objectives and commitments properly.
Ah — let me stop you right there: You said quite recently that it was a model of good and effective environmental regulation; that it did, indeed, both "get done" and get done what was intended!
I think of the Montreal Protocol the same as of the Kyoto Protocol: It didn't get done. It didn't formulate objectives and commitments properly.
Ah — let me stop you right there: You said quite recently that it was a model of good and effective environmental regulation; that it did, indeed, both "get done" and get done what was intended!
Right. I misremembered. I thought the Montreal Protocol was another global warming protocol a la Kyoto. There are so many protocols to remember. My main concern is the secret protocols of MRP.
The ozone depletion conferences went much better politically and scientifically than the current global warming conferences are going. This would be what I meant.
And your response to it?
(I don't do your type of multiple-choice survey…) I'd say that the science does not implicate carbon-intensive economies in a catastrophic (
i.e., "tipping-point") climactic response. But that it both behooves us to develop alternatives and continue research… The science should certainly continue; but we should not jeopardize our economies for the sake of unfounded implications.
And we certainly (and morally) can't ask developing economies to forgo their development!
the text really establishes neither consensus or controversy while it blathers about both consensus and controversy. Or was it disagreement.
I can't quite argue with that. :lol: (Except to say that some boring blather is a requirement: after all, it should be established what you're researching, as well as how and why. But I wouldn't call the text appealing.)
The science should certainly continue; but we should not jeopardize our economies for the sake of unfounded implications.
What you call "our economies" means only the private interests of a dozen companies based at fossil fuels.
Many countries in Europe have already shown how it is perfectly possible to change to sustainable energy without any adverse effects on economics very much the contrary.
And we certainly (and morally) can't ask developing economies to forgo their development!
That's the problem and the true reason why the USA are so adverse to the evidence about climate change.
Someone would have to pay those economies and no one wants to do it. The "moral" you mention consists on exploiting them not to pay for them to jump to a modern energetic model.
There are so many protocols to remember. My main concern is the secret protocols of MRP.
Ilya Somin, over at my favorite Law Blog — the Volokh Conspiracy, this morning had a good piece on the 75th Anniversary (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/08/23/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-nazi-soviet-pact/)…
Yes, I agree, it's more important to remember MRP. (And shudder and weep, and remain aware that "Never again!" is not the exclusive property of the Jews… But that was the past. Right?! :( )
I can't help it: I distrust Putin…
[I have to go out for a smoke… Back shortly.]
[edit:] Although I'd hit Send, others were posting while I was typing… Did y'all miss me while I was gone? :)
What you call "our economies" means only the private interests of a dozen companies based at fossil fuels.
Many countries in Europe have already shown how it is perfectly possible to change to sustainable energy without any adverse effects on economics very much the contrary.
Balderdash!
That's the problem and the true reason why the USA are so adverse to the evidence about climate change.
Someone would have to pay those economies and no one wants to do it. The "moral" you mention consists on exploiting them not to pay for them to jump to a modern energetic model.
Spoken like a true ex-Colonialist, sir!
But I've perused most of the "compelling" science and found it to be -shall we say- less than compelling? :)
The most evidence for "tipping-points"/runaway climate change (call it what you will) is in the scenarios provided by physical models — which, so far, show little skill:
If the predictive skill of your model is poor, your model is false!
—————————————————————————
And the Precautionary Principle would preclude itself, if one cared to apply it…
But we're getting off-track, again! (Isn't there a CAGW thread here, somewhere? :) )
With folks like Sang, everything is political -- so --
You'll notice that politicians never say "everything is political" -- so--
Jimbro, you had to go back to page one of four to find that… But Sang is in the habit of insulting those with whom he disagrees (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg25648#msg25648). He's certainly in the habit (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg25703#msg25703) of insulting me.
But -as you'll recall?- Sang was a fan of "motivated reasoning" studies, way back when. At least, when he could chortle along with the authors, journalists and others who shared his political views. Because, of course, not being a political progressive is akin to mental deficiency! QED.
Do you believe he's changed? :) (I'd welcome evidence of it, if he has…)
He's certainly in the habit (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg25703#msg25703) of insulting me.
You poor thing, being bitten after you said "Translation: "OakdaleFTL didn't cite the Huffington Post, so he can't know what's what! Ipso facto… Ya know?" " My ass shed a tear for you.
Nope. You haven't changed, Sang… And you still think it's okay to be, well, what you are: Partisan, first and foremost.
Incompetent, else-wise.
A new post (http://judithcurry.com/2014/08/29/partisanship-and-silencing-science/#more-15507) at Judith Curry's site might be of interest...
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fdilbert.com%2Fdyn%2Fstr_strip%2F000000000%2F00000000%2F0000000%2F200000%2F20000%2F7000%2F700%2F227705%2F227705.strip.zoom.gif&hash=52d7e6ee5e7b0eaad536f7c7c36f2e5f" rel="cached" data-hash="52d7e6ee5e7b0eaad536f7c7c36f2e5f" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/200000/20000/7000/700/227705/227705.strip.zoom.gif)
I don't give a f*ck about consensus, Cooks and whatever. Knowing what the scientists publishes it's the only way of knowing what actual science has to say about climate change.
All the rest it's pure shit.
Agreed. Blather is pretty much anything one doesn't like or agree with--comment on blather is simply adding burble to the blather. People everywhere blather, burble and blabber on and on, surely it must be an adaptive trait, for if there is enough blather, burble and blabber--someone is bound to hit on the truth. :knight: :cheers:
Would you agree, James, that a physical model whose predictions fail is -essentially- wrong?
Would you agree, James, that a physical model whose predictions fail is -essentially- wrong?
I would say that any model whose predictions always fail is essentially useless, regardless of anything else. However, models are normally tested to see if they work before they are presented as models. So a climate model say, would have to look at data from perhaps 50 years ago to see if it correctly predicts the climate we have knowledge of for 50 years later.
Climate models are normally built to estimate trends and adding new and (somewhat) unprecedented chemistry into the picture makes estimating trends all the more difficult for climatologists and their models. I believe most people agree that the added CO2 into the atmosphere has had an impact on climate, but it is the degree of that impact that is in question, of course. It certainly behooves us to start reversing the CO2 content to its more natural level as quickly as is feasible, regardless of who is right or wrong. :knight: :cheers:
That's an almost reasonable political view... But it is terrible, as an understanding of science: If a well-tuned model then makes predictions that consistently fail, it's not a model of reality.
But you (like most people) can't seem to separate the science from the policy issues.
It certainly behooves us to start reversing the CO2 content to its more natural level as quickly as is feasible, regardless of who is right or wrong.
With the proviso: All else being equal? Of course, they aren't... (No: That can't be what you meant by "feasible," since you followed it with "regardless"...)
If a well-tuned model then makes predictions that consistently fail, it's not a model of reality.
I would say that there is no model of reality today that science will say is 100% true, so we could say they are all wrong, to some degree of uncertainty. Science makes lots of room to amend any theories (models), or laws because of this concept. However, I do believe that if a model (say the prevailing cosmological model of the big bang), has a high reliability factor, especially across several fields of study (astrophysics, cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry for BB), it can be quite useful in most, if not all, situations it was designed for. :knight: :cheers:
Your view of science, James, is hopeless — and helpless! Not to mention, inconsistent… It truly is your religion, and you are but a communicant, dependent upon a priesthood you dare not question…
If a model is false, it is false… Another may be true; but you'd hide the falsity of the model you know behind the canard of "100% surety isn't given by Science" — thence acquiescing in failed models? How, then, does science advance?
Competing theories (models), advance science as much as anything. Researchers striving to 'prove' their ideas correct, leads to improved methods and better science. Incontrovertible or unambiguous empirical data often is sufficient to settle debates regarding conflicting and competing models. The best models produce the most accurate data and lead to the best predictions, so science moves on under the assumptions of the "best" models and assumes no perfection in them. :knight: :cheers:
That's a good description, for high schoolers (but not AP…). I'd quibble about models (or theories) "producing" data. But the point remains: If the theory (or model) produces predictions that are wrong, the theory (or model) is false.
Of course you know, I specifically refer to GCMs; these being the most contentious examples nowadays… The idea of "best" contrasted with "perfect" is a red herring: If a model lacks (predictive) skill, it is inadequate.
In such a case the model needs to be changed. (Denying reality is not really an option…)
But the point remains: If the theory (or model) produces predictions that are wrong, the theory (or model) is false.
In such a case the model needs to be changed. (Denying reality is not really an option…)
I agree--if for no other reason than to bring your blood pressure down. I essentially, already agreed in my last post, perhaps you didn't catch it. Consistently wrong models don't remain viable models anyway, at least not for very long. :knight: :cheers:
Consistently wrong models don't remain viable models anyway, at least not for very long.
They do, in the media and academia and in policy circles… Isn't that an important part of this thread?
We don't "need" to educate everyone in order to secure scientific progress. (It's not something that can be stopped.) But we should keep the "rabble-roused farmers with pitchforks and torches" from burning down the Castle, and eviscerating its inhabitants.
Likewise, we should keep the "priesthood" of Climatology from subverting science. That
off-stage players (Cook, Lewandosky, etc.) want their day in the sun is quite understandable; and deplorable. But actual scientists accepted them into the fold and promoted their work…
I think this reflects badly upon those scientists.
Respected news organizations did, too.
Governments — well, what will governments do? :) You know what ours has by decree recently decided: Sign a Name and Shame Treaty! Non-binding, of course… So, it's not really a treaty.
(The Senate doesn't have to accede; and the national government doesn't have to — hm… What does the national government -and this administration- have to
do, as a result?)
Just like GCMs are not really models: They don't make predictions; they generate "scenarios"… As an old friend from the South used to say: "That dog don't hunt…"
(If their various parametizations of our understanding of the physical systems are wrong, shouldn't they want to correct them? Don't you wonder why they don't…?)
He wasn't saying we should "put it down" — just that we would be fools to expect from it what we wanted and needed: Accurate predictions and adequate understanding. We -obviously- need better models of Earth's climate…
First, because it's really interesting, and hard!
Second, because there are political forces that need to checked by rational means. (I'd like to think that is possible…). Better models are not likely to be created by ideologues.
The fields of psychology and sociology, nutrition and epidemiology, "health" and "wealth" — how can we correctly tell the wheat from the chaff there, if a field like climatology -which is physics and chemistry!- is so difficult, and so contentious?
The "blogosphere" should actually help:
I think most people with some interest in such subjects will quickly tire of the "echo chamber" sites, and seek better understanding, wider, more diverse viewpoints, and more stringent criteria of proof.
(But I could be wrong…)
Consistently wrong models don't remain viable models anyway, at least not for very long.
They do, in the media and academia and in policy circles… Isn't that an important part of this thread?
The best example here are the models used in economy. The classical models never worked and the neoclassical school is easily debunked, but the models are understandable and convenient for policy-makers, so never given up.
I'm afraid I have to agree with ersi on that: Economics is best thought of as moral philosophy…
It's a little more than that. Most schools of economics do work, until our dear leaders carry them too far and/or don't really understand them. At that point, both Supply Side and Keynesian stop working and do more harm than good. Our fabulous Republican leaders didn't read where Laffer himself said that infinite tax cuts will only increase the deficit and Democrats similarly missed that Keynes said to cut spending when times are good. All the while, they criticize each other based on misconceptions of the economic philosophy. Also, all the while, pundits preach from their own economic illiteracy; having willfully brainwashed themselves into the thinking of the Left or the Right.
Global Energy Balance Network promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise, the New York Times reported Monday.
Some health experts say the message is misleading and part of an effort by Coca-Cola to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks play in obesity and Type 2 diabetes, the NYT said.
CTO Dr. Ed Hays writes on Coca-Cola’s blog: Yes, we fund scientific research through GEBN and we are proud to support the work that scientists such as Dr. Jim Hill and Dr. Steve Blair do – because their type of research is critical to finding solutions to the global obesity crisis.
Global Energy Balance Network promotes the argument that weight-conscious Americans are overly fixated on how much they eat and drink while not paying enough attention to exercise, the New York Times reported Monday.
Some health experts say the message is misleading and part of an effort by Coca-Cola to deflect criticism about the role sugary drinks play in obesity and Type 2 diabetes, the NYT said.
CTO Dr. Ed Hays writes on Coca-Cola’s blog: Yes, we fund scientific research through GEBN and we are proud to support the work that scientists such as Dr. Jim Hill and Dr. Steve Blair do – because their type of research is critical to finding solutions to the global obesity crisis.
How about both diet and exercise? If you sit around/lay around all day, it would take a near-starvation diet to make you lose weight. It just doesn't take that many calories to sit there and breathe.
On the other hand, don't expect miracles from an exercise program if you insist on stuffing yourself with too much of the worst things you can put in your mouth (I'm looking at you, Coca Cola).
It takes both diet and exercise to make one reasonably healthy.
It takes both diet and exercise to make one reasonably healthy.
It takes sex, drugs and rock'n roll for that.
Because we live in a more techy styled world these days too many people just jump and accept any schientific new item. However when you look more closely at what the scientist says you see the word theory included but which is neatly ignored by the robot minds. In turn when the item is found not to be as announced the theory gets neatly adapted to a new direction. Clever but pointless.
However when you look more closely at what the scientist says you see the word theory included but which is neatly ignored by the robot minds.
"Theory" doesn't mean what you think it does. Here's a brief explanation.
The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts.
From.....
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html (http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
It takes sex, drugs and rock'n roll for that.
And just like the lazy American I am I do way too much of the first one and meh the rest.
From.....
http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html (http://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html)
Giggles @Jimbro3738 for thinking facts matter to rj. :lol:
Here's a brief explanation.
There's more here (http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e15.htm) explained better.
For a more in depth focus, try here (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-explanation/).
It's an interesting theme and very much opportune as we can state relating the climate change denialism that's going on in the forum by some posters.
People needs to understand
why scientific explanations
explains (or not) reality.
I, of course, went first to the Stanford site! I was glad to see the article's first citation was to Michael Scriven, whose Reason was a guiding text for a course in practical reasoning I took decades ago! Nevermind that I was also engaged with and by elementary logic; it's a good book and it should be more widely used.
You could profit just from attempting to read it, Belfrager! ( :) I jest!)
I'll attempt to profit from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article, to which you kindly pointed me to…for what purpose, I don't know. So, I've reading to do!
I'll attempt to profit from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's article, to which you kindly pointed me to…for what purpose, I don't know.
Don't step jumps. In the first place, read the first link, you keep on doing a lot of confusion about the basics.
The Stanford's it's very good but just to those who enjoys more to reflect about this kind of things. I'm certain I'll be in total opposition regarding what you'll say about it. Maybe not, who knows...
My purpose it's always the same, to offer good content, quality content for the forum. I've been testing my theory that internet forums follows the same in structure of video/internet games. I defend the
sandbox like kind of forums. :)
By the way, did you notice its age?
The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy is twenty years old.
http://www.consciousentities.com/?p=2025
By the way, did you notice its age?
Yes I did,
First published Fri May 9, 2003; substantive revision Wed Sep 24, 2014Funny you mention that.
I also have some critics about it while at the same time agreeing that's a very good resource. But it's American and it shows it all over the place... :)
I just have another important article that I think most of us should have a look at, regarding these discussions about science and scientists - The Social Dimensions of Scientific Knowledge (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-knowledge-social/#BigSciTruAut).
That's fundamental and maybe what really matters. :)
That's fundamental and maybe what really matters. :)
Spoken like a true Marxist! :) Excuse me: Neo-Marxist…
Show how much you know as he has a leaning towards monarchism but then you being housebound kind of limits things. He is also the most progressive Portuguese person here.
And the sexiest.
That's fundamental and maybe what really matters. :)
Spoken like a true Marxist! :) Excuse me: Neo-Marxist…
:lol:
Well noticed Oakdale but no, not at all... You're committing an error by thinking that social analysis is an exclusive Marxist thing. Marx come out with a specific theory that is not crap but it lacks to understand the nature of Man. I'm no Marxist at all, very much the contrary.
You can call me an Integralist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integralism) if you like. One of the last ones...
Bel, you must understand that I am, as an American, committed to disestablishmentarianism? :)
Bel, you must understand that I am, as an American, committed to disestablishmentarianism? :)
I think disestablishmentarianism to be a very good thing but it has nothing to do with being American. You're just being obtuse at your crusade against climate changing evidence. I could even say that, in fact, you've been the voice of establishment.
I don't know about Oakdale-- he runs his own show after all-- but once again, I have to say I don't doubt climate change happens. It does. What I DO doubt is the extent some people think men have to do with it.
Do you REALLY think we can change things drastically over the entire Earth's climate by switching to wind-power? Are you seriously that deluded that you can imagine that a solar-farm can change things enough to matter? What have you been smoking?
Do you REALLY think we can change things drastically over the entire Earth's climate by switching to wind-power?
I REALLY think that if we change the principles that have been directing our actions, that's the only way to combat problems caused by human action.
I don't realize why you have so many doubts about it. Do you have any doubt that is
better to produce the same amount of energy by using wind or solar systems than by burning coal? that is
better to use renewable sources of energy than limited ones? that is
better to use clean, non polluting methods than keep using heavy polluting ones?
I tell you why I'm sure that our actions will contribute decisively for changing. Because our actions
already made Europe to change at an increasingly fast speed, that's why. There are winds of change my friend, you can't fight against.
You'll change too.
You'll change too.
We'll all change.
==============
"Don't you ever laugh as the hearse goes by,
For you may be the next one to die.
They wrap you up in a big white sheet
From your head down to your feet.
They put you in a big black box
And cover you up with dirt and rocks.
All goes well for about a week,
Until your coffin begins to leak.
The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out,
The worms play pinochle on your scalp,
They eat your eyes, they eat your nose,
They eat the jelly between your toes.
A big green worm with rolling eyes
Crawls in your stomach and out your sides.
Your stomach turns a slimy green,
And pus pours out like whipping cream.
You'll spread it on a slice of bread,
And this is what you eat when you are dead."
I don't know about Oakdale-- he runs his own show after all-- but once again, I have to say I don't doubt climate change happens. It does. What I DO doubt is the extent some people think men have to do with it.
Do you REALLY think we can change things drastically over the entire Earth's climate by switching to wind-power? Are you seriously that deluded that you can imagine that a solar-farm can change things enough to matter? What have you been smoking?
Your two paragraphs are distinct statements. The first is something like, "Did I do it? I doubt I did." The second is like, "Oops, what I just did! Well, too late now."
In the latter case, you ARE saying that human activity has contributed to climate change to a significant extent, but in the former case you are denying it..
ersi, it has somehow failed to register with you — that "climate change" (as you'd use the term) has failed to be substantiated…
It has somehow failed to register with you that I never ever use the term, except when you use it. I disagree that it has failed to be substantiated. As far as I know, such a thing never existed in scientific terms, so there's nothing to substantiate or fail to be substantiated. Climate change only exists in political terms, so every time you use the term, I immediately know where your interest lies. You have no interest in science.
The science is about ecology, things like industrial pollution, acid rains, ozone depletion, greenhouse effect. I know you will never address this topic.
It has somehow failed to register with you that I never ever use the term, except when you use it
I do. Simply because it's the term that people all over Europe understands it's meaning and it's general assumptions. Climate changing.
If some native American Big Foot doesn't understands it, it's not my problem.
The science is about ecology […]
ersi, "ecology" is as much a science as phrenology or economics… (Are there any dinosaur ecologists? :) )
If some native American Big Foot doesn't understands it, it's not my problem.
I simply have a longer memory and I remember how things used to be named. When there are options between names, I pick the more accurate one.
The science is about ecology […]
ersi, "ecology" is as much a science as phrenology or economics… (Are there any dinosaur ecologists? :) )
Heh. If it's not a science, then all your whining about it having been failed to be substantiated is total bunkum.
Anyway, economics is a science on this continent over here and so is ecology. Both are taught in universities. Wikipedia, "Environmental science is an interdisciplinary academic field that integrates physical, biological and information sciences (including but not limited to ecology, biology, physics, chemistry, zoology, mineralogy, oceanology, limnology, soil science, geology, atmospheric science, and geodesy) to the study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems."
Heh. If it's not a science, then all your whining about it having been failed to be substantiated is total bunkum.
The most simple deductive reasoning will never work with our American friend. Despite he considering himself an "expert" at logics...
Well...he does the best he can for defending the indefensible.
The most simple deductive reasoning will never work with our American friend.
A valid deductive argument does ensure its conclusion… Provided its premises are correct.
You and
ersi seem always to leave that part out! (I wonder why? :) ) Supporting your premises is often hard work!
The most simple deductive reasoning will never work with our American friend.
A valid deductive argument does ensure its conclusion… Provided its premises are correct.
You and ersi seem always to leave that part out! (I wonder why? :) ) Supporting your premises is often hard work!
Whereas you don't even get to the point where you would have any sort of premises. Ecology is a science - and isn't - precisely as your mood happens to be. For you even
having a premise is so hard that you simply cannot get around to it.
For you even having a premise is so hard that you simply cannot get around to it.
:sing: The premises they are a'changin... :lol:
Just to get back to the topic for a bit: More than 50% of a goodly sample of psychology studies published in prestigious journals fail honest replication… (source (http://www.google.com/url?url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-reveals-that-a-lot-of-psychology-research-really-is-just-psychobabble-10474646.html&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0CBcQqQIwAGoVChMI2tfStY_QxwIViTqICh1hAw38&sig2=8FBJI2vGCUQX6AVUTluvjw&usg=AFQjCNGemG_y3s8HOWwO0G-gUmdUzLtsyg)) You can see the article's title -and the point made- in the URL I've posted.
Perhaps, we need to look a little more closely and critically at what we term "science"? :)
Perhaps, we need to look a little more closely and critically at what we term "science"? :)
Perhaps you are playing Don Quixote...
Funny, usually I'm the one accused of doing it.
Perhaps you are playing Don Quixote...
Dulcinea?
Perhaps you are playing Don Quixote...
Dulcinea?
I don't think Oakdale can play a decent Dulcinea.
Funny, now I think about it I don't see any poster fit to play Dulcineia. As a compensation, candidates for Rocinante abounds.
Few horses, plenty of horse's asses.
As a compensation, candidates for Rocinante abounds.
Yourself, for instance? :)
(I'd thought you were trying to learn English… It seems, lately, that you're trying to un-learn what you once knew. Is that part of your "back to Nature" compulsion? :) )
(I'd thought you were trying to learn English… It seems, lately, that you're trying to un-learn what you once knew. Is that part of your "back to Nature" compulsion? :) )
Exactly. Since your language entered already into a state of putrefaction, I'm using it as a sort of logorrhoea's cow shit.
Simply a part of my signature.
But let us not neglect the topic and my particular interest in one aspect of it: The ever-increasing numbers of peer-reviewed papers in respected journals that can't be replicated…The latest batch! (http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/10/07/223246/researchers-unable-to-replicate-findings-of-published-economics-studies)
(At least, ersi will be pleased! :) )
If this was news to you, it tells something about your ability to assess scientific value.
If you thought it was news to me, it merely confirms something I already knew… About you. :)
About me? Nevermind science?
Oh, I mind about science a lot! But where I think contemporary science has gone wrong is not the topic here… The topic is how people accept or reject media reports of "scientific" findings.
The various incontrovertible results that show our modern peer-review system to be inadequate won't likely change the levels of credulity, or acuity — on the part of the general public or of public officials.
And there are no proscriptions that can be imposed, no prescriptions that will be followed, that will correct the deficiencies of the current system.
(Psychological studies of "mediated reasoning" would be useful, except they're mostly -at least, in terms of publicity!- conducted by folk whose bias is blatant… You yourself, ersi, have some expertise in the methodologies used: What do you think of, say, Lewandowsky's papers?)
Since you only thought to comment about my abilities of perception, I thought I'd return the favor… :) But, seriously: Shouldn't such an indictment of the current peer-review system (…I repeated all those extra words, for those whose memories are extremely short…) obviate any argument that relies on "consensus"? :)
But, seriously: Shouldn't such an indictment of the current peer-review system (…I repeated all those extra words, for those whose memories are extremely short…) obviate any argument that relies on "consensus"? :)
So, you disregard these central features of science? This explains your haphazard attitude.
Consensus and peer review are central to science as academic discipline. Sure enough you can have dissent, but it has to be constructive. You can't just deny the findings and results, or yell "Your models are wrong!" You have to have a better model to explain the data.
Your criticism is unconstructive denial. This is why it is not worthy of attention.
Consensus and peer review are central to science as academic discipline.
Perhaps that's part of the problem: The structure of modern academic disciplines… :)
I take it, you think I should "fix" or replace the dozens of supercomputer models relied upon by the IPCC myself — otherwise, pointing out that their predictions have failed is
counter-productive? :)
BTW: Did you read Keeling's 2000 paper, about tidal effects…?
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffun.drno.de%2Fpics%2Fenglish%2Fweapons-of-math-instruction.jpg&hash=a59dbf212807c4a2f0a12f71f46b7ae2" rel="cached" data-hash="a59dbf212807c4a2f0a12f71f46b7ae2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://fun.drno.de/pics/english/weapons-of-math-instruction.jpg)
I take it, you think I should "fix" or replace the dozens of supercomputer models relied upon by the IPCC myself — otherwise, pointing out that their predictions have failed is counter-productive? :)
As I have said, I know that the models are wrong. Same as in economics, IPCC "predictive models" are not even models. I know that there cannot be any prediction in that sense in non-linear systems, and their models are not built for the non-linear system that climate is.
In constrast, you are not saying anything relevant. You can claim to be pointing out that their models are wrong when you know what the right models are. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you are not pointing out anything at all.
One does not need to know that 2 + 2 = 4 to know that 2 + 2 ≠ 5… As always, your primitive logic confuses you. :)
One does not need to know that 2 + 2 = 4 to know that 2 + 2 ≠ 5… As always, your primitive logic confuses you. :)
The difference in this case is not merely knowing, but being able to prove. If you are unable to prove that IPCC is a case of 2 + 2 = 5, then I don't care what you secretly know in your own mind. What matters is that you are unable to back up what you
say. More often, you talk in incomplete sentences, so that even some of your lengthy paragraphs don't amount to saying something.
Models that make predictions (as all such must!) which fail to eventuate are deficient: Reality cannot be amended, to suit the modelers' fancies…
To say that one can't criticize a scientific model -for its failures- unless one has a better one is — well, just stupid.
The difference in this case is not merely knowing, but being able to prove. If you are unable to prove that IPCC is a case of 2 + 2 = 5, then I don't care what you secretly know in your own mind. What matters is that you are unable to back up what you say.
If 2 + 2 = 5 leads to a contradiction, it's wrong and known to be so…whether you
grok it or not.
BTW: If you have a problem with my English, feel free to post in any other language.
Google couldn't possibly be as biased as you… :) (Have you tried using Google translate to give you
my meaning? :) )
But let me help you with something:
The difference in this case is not merely knowing, but being able to prove.
If you can't
prove it, you don't know it… (Of course, you reject that bit of reasoning!)
To say that one can't criticize a scientific model -for its failures- unless one has a better one is — well, just stupid.
You often talk past the topic, but when on topic, you miss the nuances. Or you are simply inconsistent, which is why your criticism is stupid more often than not.
Given the topic of industrial effects on ecology, it's not just about a scientific model, but about what's in plain sight around us, regardless of any scientific model. Pollution pollutes, and if you try to "scientifically" argue otherwise or ignore it, you are too stupid to respond to.
IPCC climatology is fundamentally as wrong as mainstream economics. The entire field is thoroughly discredited, because it absolutely fails to be predictive. Meanwhile, has economics been annihilated? No. Why not? Because you cannot annihilate economy. Economy goes on anyway even when you annihilate economics. Since economy is what it is, you inevitably need economists too, even when their models are flawed and defective. Similarly, ecology is vital and goes on regardless of the state of the mainstream science about it. The wise thing to do is to recognise its realities regardless of the stupid science.
You, on the other hand, have directly said that ecology does not exist. If you were consistent, you should hold that economy does not exist either. And if economy does not exist, then CO
2 restrictions should mean as little to you as CO
2 emissions do. If ecology and economy are are only "reification" and in reality they don't exist, then you have no reason to whine about any measures to restrict economy and ease ecology.
If you can't prove it, you don't know it… (Of course, you reject that bit of reasoning!)
Means of communication is that by which one conveys one's knowledge, not by which one holds the knowledge. So, failure to communicate does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge. On the other hand, there are also people whose smooth communication reveals their shallow intellect with brilliant clarity. Good to not have just one kind of people...
IPCC climatology is fundamentally as wrong as mainstream economics. The entire field is thoroughly discredited, because it absolutely fails to be predictive. Meanwhile, has economics been annihilated? No. Why not? Because you cannot annihilate economy. Economy goes on anyway even when you annihilate economics. Since economy is what it is, you inevitably need economists too, even when their models are flawed and defective. Similarly, ecology is vital and goes on regardless of the state of the mainstream science about it. The wise thing to do is to recognise its realities regardless of the stupid science.
You, on the other hand, have directly said that ecology does not exist. If you were consistent, you should hold that economy does not exist either. And if economy does not exist, then CO2 restrictions should mean as little to you as CO2 emissions do. If ecology and economy are are only "reification" and in reality they don't exist, then you have no reason to whine about any measures to restrict economy and ease ecology.
All that reasoning is correct but the point being that Oakdale's defending the absurd that ecology destroys economics which is a total nonsense and can't be allowed to pass as correct.
He's defending, and solely (all the rest is mambo jambo), the American heavy polluting industry that, obviously, sees ecological concerns as a menace to their profitability and survival.
Like the entire world is doing, change, adapt and contribute to a common cause instead being indifferent to all the destruction it causes.
American way of life doesn't mean polluting and destroying as so many of your co-citizens realizes. In fact, an entire new industry is growing with respect for ecological concerns.
That's the way to go for both moral and economical reasons, it is called sustainable development.
Man doesn't need to
destroy Nature, he can work
with it.
American way of life doesn't mean polluting and destroying as so many of your co-citizens realizes. In fact, an entire new industry is growing with respect for ecological concerns.
That's the way to go for both moral and economical reasons, it is called sustainable development.
Man doesn't need to destroy Nature, he can work with it. (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=464.163;msg=47045)
Do you,
ersi, agree with this sentiment?
Means of communication is that by which one conveys one's knowledge, not by which one holds the knowledge. So, failure to communicate does not necessarily mean lack of knowledge.
(I'll let the rest of your post pass… I suppose you were making a joke?) Science doesn't accept the mystic's
grok,
ersi! And for good reason: It wouldn't be science, then…
Do you understand that?
—————————————————————————————
He's defending, and solely (all the rest is mambo jambo), the American heavy polluting industry that, obviously, sees ecological concerns as a menace to their profitability and survival.
So…? Europe and China and India (and, soon, Africa…) are beside the point — as long as one can
blame America? :)
You can't be that bilious,
Bel! (Or are you and
Howie Siamese twins? :) )
But look at how wonderfully effective those strictures and pseudo-capitalistic structures imposed since and because of the Kyoto Protocol have been! (Look 'em up yourself, you have the internet "over there". :) )
So…? Europe and China and India (and, soon, Africa…) are beside the point — as long as one can blame America? :)
You really have a trauma of persecution Oakdale... you represent the most industrial developed country in the world, with total disrespect for international attempts to reduce polluting emissions, it's just natural that everyone mentions you and not Bhutan...
Europeans are in the leadership for change.
China is a huge problem, as much or, probably, even worst than the US.
As for the countries of the third world, the rhetoric is known, pay us of we'll pollute as you did. Eighty percent of that money would go directly for their corrupt leaders and nothing will change.
However, many NGOs are, in the terrain, teaching and spreading an entire different view on this for the local populations. The change will come from inside. So it goes in the USA.
He doesn't get out the house much Belfrager to sober up and lives on books thus giving himn a self appointed description of would-be knowledge.
And hey Oakdale, I wouldn't want to be twinned to an ex-colonist that would be insulting.
Europeans are in the leadership for change.
… :) I assume you refer to "civilizational collapse"?!
Exactly, even collapsing.
But the U.S. will persevere… No? :)
Despite our still quite strong contingent of Euro-philes (mostly, in academia and government bureaucracy — the "intelligentsia," and you'll recall how Lenin described them? :) ), we will not succumb to your vices… Nor do I think we'll feel compelled to "save you from yourselves". You've made your bed; now, lie in it!
(Pun intended!)
Despite our still quite strong contingent of Euro-philes (mostly, in academia and government bureaucracy — the "intelligentsia," and you'll recall how Lenin described them? :) ), we will not succumb to your vices…
An American Leninist disguised as a Conservative...
You don't need a Country, you need a madhouse. Opps, you're one already, I forgot.
(Just remembered that I promissed at our "farewell thread" to easy on about America. Sorry, I lied. :whistle: )
Problem about America is that it is such a comedy of errors that it IS noticeable but for all the wrong reasons. The word 'hypocrisy' fits neatly.
An American Leninist disguised as a Conservative...
:) Is this typical of Continental "intelligence"? :) That I'm familiar with Lenin's definition and understanding of the term
intelligentsia makes me a
Leninist? :) No wonder, your civilizations are collapsing!
@
RJ: Hypocrisy is quite normal for human beings — but some have made it an art form! (Hint: They're the ones who constantly harp on the hypocrisy of others! Of course, while ignoring their own…)
But why are you posting in a thread ostensibly about media garbling of scientific results? The media results are all you know, and even so the biases you hold to determine which "reports" you'll believe…
Here's an interesting study -as an example: Bacteria in the world’s oceans produce millions of tons of hydrocarbons each year (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151005151417.htm)…
While it can be spun many ways, it's an important clue to how the earth's oceans adjust to…so much that we don't understand, yet.
(I'd reject the spin, and pour money into this area. The "health" of our oceans is important! :) )
Two researchers applied common neuroscience techniques to a classic computer chip. Their results are a wake-up call for the whole field.
So, Eric Jonas and Konrad Kording wondered, what would happen if they studied the chip in the style of neuroscientists? How would the approaches that are being used to study the complex squishy brain fare when used on a far simpler artificial processor? Could they re-discover everything we know about its transistors and logic gates, about how they process information and run simple video games? Forget attention, emotion, learning, memory, and creativity; using the techniques of neuroscience, could Jonas and Kording comprehend Donkey Kong?No. They couldn’t. Not even close. Even though the duo knew everything about the chip—the state of each transistor and the voltage along every wire—their inferences were trivial at best and seriously misleading at worst. “Most of my friends assumed that we’d pull out some insights about how the processor works,” says Jonas. “But what we extracted was so incredibly superficial. We saw that the processor has a clock and it sometimes reads and writes to memory. Awesome, but in the real world, this would be a millions-of-dollars data set.”
This is obvious, if you know how to think, but of course empiricists have to try every silly thing for themselves.
Problem about America is that it is such a comedy of errors that it IS noticeable but for all the wrong reasons. The word 'hypocrisy' fits neatly.
I see you're confused again, with your poor comprehension of the English language. The thread topic is "'Scientists Say' blather" , not "Howie Says Blather." Don't worry. One day you'll learn how to read. Before you know it, you'll write a sentence that follows grammar rules of some language, although not necessarily the English one. I always believed in you. :yes:
ersi recently linked to a non-blather article (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=464.msg62432#msg62432) (two clicks to get there, RJ, so I don't expect you to put yourself out; the paper itself is here (http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/05/26/055624.full.pdf)) about the methodology of modern neuroscience… But you might have missed it, RJ — it was on a previous page, and written in English. (I doubt RT covered it. :) )
For your ignorance (standard procedure for ex-colonists of outside knowledge) midnight (and to the hermit we do not talk about 'blather.' Nearest would be being a blether. And while you two try to be so full of yourselves getting sniffy about being so pompous may i remind that it is routine practice here for forum threads to start a drift away from the original stance? That you try to ignore the obvious says much about yourself. Arrogance must be subtly taught over there. Nah, maybe in essence a built-un thing!
it is routine practice here for forum threads to start a drift away from the original stance
Did you mean "topic"? You seem,
RJ, to seldom even come close to connecting your comments to any thread topic…
Why don't you start a thread: "America Bad! So, that's all we'll talk about…" :)
BTW: "sniffy," "pompous," arrogant," and "subtly" are words that are beyond your ken. Bark like a true Glaswegian!
(You can still use "ignorance": as a cognomen.)
it is routine practice here for forum threads to start a drift away from the original stance?
[
Moderator hat]
That doesn't give you the right to abuse the privilege. Especially when your deviation from the actual topic is just to start another of your America bad rants. We have enough of them already.
[
/Moderator hat]
That doesn't give you the right to abuse the privilege. Especially when your deviation from the actual topic is just to start another of your America bad rants. We have enough of them already.
The more I post here, the more I dislike Americans. Though, it may have something to do with Donald Trump.
…
not the blatant media bias and the "liberal world-view" scientists? :)
A slight Oops!Researchers have fixed a number of papers after mistakenly reporting that people who hold conservative political beliefs are more likely to exhibit traits associated with psychoticism, such as authoritarianism and tough-mindedness.
As one of the notices specifies, now it appears that liberal political beliefs are linked with psychoticism. That paper also swapped ideologies when reporting on people higher in neuroticism and social desirability (falsely claiming that you have socially desirable qualities); the original paper said those traits are linked with liberal beliefs, but they are more common among people with conservative values.
(source (http://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/07/conservative-political-beliefs-not-linked-to-psychotic-traits/))
There's more, and it's worth reading — although not clearly written… (Can you spot the weasel-grammar already evidenced? :) Probably not.
Indoctrination doesn't fade…at least, not quickly.)
Scientists indeed do say blather; and the media routinely report it. That's a problem different from the one originally posited here.
Jerry Pournelle long ago wrote an essay about the "social sciences," which he called the
Voodoo Sciences… :)
Jerry Pournelle long ago wrote an essay about the "social sciences," which he called the Voodoo Sciences...
Very social but not quite science.
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God (http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm)
Now, it's not sufficient to be scientifically minded in order to prove God. It takes also rigorous conceptual analysis to understand if one is really proving God or something else. As much as I have seen Michio Kaku, he is not up to that analysis.
Now, it's not sufficient to be scientifically minded in order to prove God. It takes also rigorous conceptual analysis to understand if one is really proving God or something else.
That depends. You can say you define X thusly and anything that doesn't abide by that definition isn't X. Or you can say X is a meaningless concept in reality and it should either be tossed or rephrased as Y.
That being said, I'm inclined to agree because iirc Michio Kaku is quite happy spreading all kinds of nonsense outside of his realm of expertise.
PS Your article doesn't know how to spell Spinoza.
Edit: skip the article, just watch the last 20 or so seconds of this video if you want to know what Kaku says.
https://youtu.be/jremlZvNDuk?t=4m54s
That depends. You can say you define X thusly and anything that doesn't abide by that definition isn't X. Or you can say X is a meaningless concept in reality and it should either be tossed or rephrased as Y.
If you know what conceptual analysis means, then no, you cannot. A definition is not merely whatever you put into a concept. The result must be contiguous vis-a-vis all other relevant concepts. It must fit into the concept system. Then it's properly a concept. Otherwise it's dismissible nonsense.
Edit: For example, you cannot define "cat" whichever way you like. There may be a number of ways, but there's always the requirement that the result must be distinct from "dog". This is at the heart of my objection to "same-sex marriage", not some religious whiny sentiments like raccoon suggests. That religion happens to align with the "traditional" view of marriage does not disprove the concept system of natural philosophy.
That being said, I'm inclined to agree because iirc Michio Kaku is quite happy spreading all kinds of nonsense outside of his realm of expertise.
His popular documentaries are okay, but I cannot bring myself to regard the String Theory very highly. Precisely from the point of view of conceptual analysis.
World Renowned Scientist Michio Kaku Proves Existence Of God (http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/42042/20160613/world-renowned-scientist-michio-kaku-proves-existence-god.htm)
“I prefer the company of peasants because they have not been educated sufficiently to reason incorrectly.”
― Michel de Montaigne
If you know what conceptual analysis means, then no, you cannot. A definition is not merely whatever you put into a concept. The result must be contiguous vis-a-vis all other relevant concepts. It must fit into the concept system. Then it's properly a concept. Otherwise it's dismissible nonsense.
Although we clearly differ greatly regarding epistemology, that's basically a paraphrase of what I said. To be more explicit, most God concepts are easily dismissible nonsense (and they already differ greatly in all kind of incompatible ways), while the Kaku God concept is something that may or may not be. The question is whether we insist on using God to refer to nonsense or whether we repurpose the word for a concept which is perhaps only tangentially related, but actually meaningful. You have effectively already opted for the latter possibility.
If you know what conceptual analysis means, then no, you cannot. A definition is not merely whatever you put into a concept. The result must be contiguous vis-a-vis all other relevant concepts. It must fit into the concept system. Then it's properly a concept. Otherwise it's dismissible nonsense.
Although we clearly differ greatly regarding epistemology, that's basically a paraphrase of what I said.
You are clearly saying that you reject the method of conceptual analysis. Therefore no, that's no paraphrase.
To be more explicit, most God concepts are easily dismissible nonsense (and they already differ greatly in all kind of incompatible ways),...
You are saying that God is nonsense because theologians disagree among themselves. How does this fare with the fact that scientists disagree among themselves? Look at all the incompatible theories of quantum mechanics, for instance. Do they imply that quantum mechanics is nonsense? Clearly, there's a fault in your system.
Whereas from my point of view, people are free to disagree all they want, but conceptual analysis is one of the tools by which it's easy to determine who makes more sense, if any. So, you and I are in substantial disagreement, no paraphrase.
Okay, I watched the Michio Kaku video. The same use of "mind of God" as in Hawking's Brief history of Time. It has a common standardised meaning in theoretical physics, like "act of God" in Anglo-Americal law. Nothing special. Just sensationalism. What a letdown.
You are saying that God is nonsense because theologians disagree among themselves.
No, that's a parenthetical remark. It's a criticism of your oddly selective rigidity.
You are clearly saying that you reject the method of conceptual analysis. Therefore no, that's no paraphrase.
It's possible, but it sounds more like you're hung up on what may or may not be delineated by a particular word than by the concept it happens to represent.
You are clearly saying that you reject the method of conceptual analysis. Therefore no, that's no paraphrase.
It's possible, but it sounds more like you're hung up on what may or may not be delineated by a particular word than by the concept it happens to represent.
The principle is simple, really. If there are no other concepts around to delineate it, then the concept we are examining is unclear and could mean anything. Without context, 'God' could denote Satan and 'cat' could denote dog. Without a concept system, they are not meaningful, i.e. they are not even concepts. This applies to any and all concepts without exception.
I have found that atheists never examine the concept of God the way they examine other concepts. They deliberately replace God, wherever they see it, with some teapot or unicorn. Or something else they feel like at the moment. Unfailingly. Sometimes that's understandable, because grand theology or abstract metaphysics is not for everyone, just like high math or theoretical physics is not for everyone.
I have found that atheists never examine the concept of God the way they examine other concepts.
Findings aside. How I define God would be an early influence in how I analyse everything. That and a Ukrainian ethics professor, capt. mono-culture. ;)
I have found that atheists never examine the concept of God the way they examine other concepts. They deliberately replace God, wherever they see it, with some teapot or unicorn. Or something else they feel like at the moment. Unfailingly. Sometimes that's understandable, because grand theology or abstract metaphysics is not for everyone, just like high math or theoretical physics is not for everyone.
Don't confuse rhetoric with analysis. :) But yes, if your God concept is a metaphysically insupportable God of the gaps then an infinitesimally small celestial teapot analogy should worry you. The analogy merely indicates that both are equally silly and insupportable. If your God doesn't retreat to the gaps then there may well be plenty to worry about, but teapots and invisible pink unicorns aren't among it.
Don't confuse rhetoric with analysis.
Ah, now I get it. This is simply the point for atheists where they completely drop analysis and adopt rhetoric, so they cannot be guilty of faulty analysis. Neat. Win-win!
Hardly. It's still a valid analogy with a gappy God. But the form is rhetoric.
Maybe with a gappy God. And you would never consider un-gappy God.
Perhaps. There is so much pseudo-philosophy in the field that one cannot take much of it very seriously. But that doesn't mean it's not a fun mental exercise to work with counter-factual thought experiments.
This blog post from a few years back kind of says it all:
I found the [philosophical] arguments [in aid of religion] so execrably awful and pointless that they bored and disgusted me. […] I now regard “the case for theism” as a fraud and I can no longer take it seriously enough to present it to a class as a respectable philosophical position — no more than I could present intelligent design as a legitimate biological theory. BTW, I do not mean to charge that the people making that case are frauds who aim to fool us with claims they know to be empty. No, theistic philosophers and apologists are almost painfully earnest and honest. I just cannot take their arguments seriously any more, and if you cannot take something seriously, you should not try to devote serious academic attention to it. I’ve turned the philosophy of religion courses over to a colleague.
Mind you, the same can be said about plenty of secular so-called philosophy. Consider, for example, this comment on the same post:
In no particular order, here are a dozen good books that provide excellent arguments in support of atheism:
1) Wallace Matson: The Existence of God
2) Michael Martin: Atheism: A Philosophical Justification
3) Graham Oppy: Arguing About Gods
4) Jordan Howard Sobel: Logic and Theism
5)Richard Gale: On the Nature and Existence of God
5) Nicholas Everitt: The Nonexistence of God
6) J.L. Mackie: The Miracle of Theism
7) Theodore M. Drange: Nonbelief and Evil
8) J.L. Schellennberg: Divine Hiddenness and Human Reason
9) Nick Trakakis: The God Beyond Belief
10) Robin Le Poidevin: Arguing for Atheism
11) Richard Robinson: An Atheist's Values
12) Erik Wielenberg: Value and Virtue in a Godless Universe
These books provide a far better justification for atheism than can be found in the recently popular Dawkins/Hitchens/Harris style books.
From the same post.
As I say there is also a sense of urgency. I just turned 58...
Did you just turn 58?
Anyway, almost four years after this post, two years ago, Keith Parsons had another theological debate (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/02/26/feser-parsons-index/). It was with a representative of un-gappy God, so you may want to take a closer look.
There is so much pseudo-philosophy in the field that one cannot take much of it very seriously.
True, which is why I have done my own autonomous thinking from ground up. I did it by weighing all the known counter-arguments, because I naturally want the result to be unimpeachable.
The teapot/unicorn types of arguments were always ridiculous nonsense from the very start, because the few believers I encountered (and where I live, you encounter precious few believers) did not believe in what the teapot/unicorn arguments targeted. Of course, it was an effort to figure out what the believers actually believe, but it was an effort well worth it eventually.
Russell's teapot is an atrocious misrepresentation, probably deliberate ridicule. It's sad because Russell was otherwise a fine dude, but his teapot anecdote is dishonest in at least two major ways. First, I don't know of any theological work, contemporary to him, that would represent God so as to enable his particular manner of ridicule. (Maybe a kids' book though, I've overlooked those.) Second, his theory of universals prohibits the teapot argument. If he knew that God is like universals, not like objects (and being a smart dude, he must have known), he was having a very bad day when he told the anecdote.
What a bunch of nonsense and mediocrity. God's concept this, God's concept that... since when you or anybody are able to think a God's concept?
Attributes aren't the same thing as concepts. At the best, you can only grasp the surface of God's attributes. The thinner layer of God's attributes, those that are logically necessary for explaining/justifying existence.
Do you even know what a concept is about? course not and even so you want to apply it to God.
Get on your knees and pray, that's the closest you can get to God.
You're becoming a mystic, Bel? :) (No; I'm not surprised…)
And, of course, I wonder how you'll connect this to the topic! ( :) Not!)
Edit: For example, you cannot define "cat" whichever way you like. There may be a number of ways, but there's always the requirement that the result must be distinct from "dog". This is at the heart of my objection to "same-sex marriage", not some religious whiny sentiments like raccoon suggests.
And yet the definition of marriage has shifted numerous times from many wives, basically purchasing a woman with chattel or other valuables. "Traditional" marriage is not as traditional as people think it is. Or has the purpose necessarily been for procreation. I'm sure I can produce for a whole history marriage if you like. The reason I reject the "natural" objection to same sex marriage remains that empirically homosexuality occurs in nature along with mounting evidence that people are born into a sexual orientation, ie it would be unnatural for a someone biologically programmed to seek a partner of the same sex to seek one of the opposite sex.
So that puts us back to my complaint that the natural philosophers seem to sit in their ivory towers making long discourses on what they consider nature without so much as looking out the window or picking up a scientific paper on the subject. That amounts to mental masturbation and full on circle jerk when they debate about it.
There are theories why, counter-innovatively perhaps, this creates an advantage for a species (ie if it's genetic as, opposed to exposure to hormones in the womb, this is an extra piece of genetic diversity to improve the overall genetic health of a species and the few percent that don't reproduce is more than made up for by it.) I even heard an interesting theory today over dinner with my writer's group. Mind you, I haven't had a chance to check out this study for myself but here goes. In mice, when resources start to get scarce more individuals are born non-reproductive. People such as Belfrager postulate that reproduction (ie heterosexuality) is essential for society to continue. On the face of it, this is true - until a given species (including humanity) faces over-population and its results. At that point, it's more advantageous for the species to reproduce less or even lose population until an equilibrium can be achieved again. Perhaps homosexuality is one of nature's population controls.
Anyway, almost four years after this post, two years ago, Keith Parsons had another theological debate (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2014/02/26/feser-parsons-index/). It was with a representative of un-gappy God, so you may want to take a closer look.
A good representative. As I previously indicated, the classical conception of "God" in the tradition of Aristotle, Neo-Platonism, Aquinas and the like is well thought out and has little in common with what one would normally associate with the word (in a Christian nation). For me it remains almost as much a departure as what someone like Kaku might say. My biggest objection to that general conception of God is that I consider it metaphysically unnecessary. Arestotelian realism is the variety I consider most plausible.
So that puts us back to my complaint that the natural philosophers seem to sit in their ivory towers making long discourses on what they consider nature without so much as looking out the window or picking up a scientific paper on the subject. That amounts to mental masturbation and full on circle jerk when they debate about it.
You should watch this video so you can stop saying such things about philosophy. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YLvWz9GQ3PQ
You're becoming a mystic, Bel?
Nope, I'm just bored with our atheist and non catholic friends reasoning and "discussing". Therefore I gave them a small lesson on philosophy.
They don't understand and I don't care.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The reason I reject the "natural" objection to same sex marriage remains that empirically homosexuality occurs in nature along with mounting evidence that people are born into a sexual orientation, ie it would be unnatural for a someone biologically programmed to seek a partner of the same sex to seek one of the opposite sex.
Doesn't cannibalism exist in nature, including the eating of superfluous young? Shouldn't you, then, applaud it? :)
Bel makes his point in a round-about way: More pointedly, he could have said that you reject human exceptionalism…
That puts you in the same logical bind that
Jeatson was in, when he argued against free will.
Doesn't cannibalism exist in nature, including the eating of superfluous young? Shouldn't you, then, applaud it? :)
People often get caught up in you're wrong, and even if you were right you'd still be wrong. This is one of those cases.
@midnight raccoon's argument is simply that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that an act is natural, but even if there were, being gay is natural. It's
@ersi's rhetorical victory that the discussion drifted the way it did.
But it's Sang's contention that nature trumps argument…
Nope, I'm just bored with our atheist and non catholic friends reasoning and "discussing". Therefore I gave them a small lesson on philosophy.
They don't understand and I don't care.
There doesn't seem to be anything adherently Catholic about your arguments. What you've presented is silliness about society breaking down and conspiracy theory, both of which I've seen before and continue to find to be total gibberish. Simply put, you (and Ersi) claim to have taken the high road when you've taken the low road straight to intellectual hell.
The closest I've gotten to a philosophy lesson is the video Frenzi offered as a rebuke to my comments about philosophy. I find the philosophy against homosexuality to be lacking in the Epistemology and "Physics" components (out of the six) in that it seems to disregard what happens in nature (including human genetics and what happens in womb as far hormones that determine sex and sexual orientation) , so it's still talking out of its ass.
Often, these attitudes stem from much more primitive prejudice and fear what the person doesn't understand and given moral justification by the person's holy book (despite how little the Bible actually has to say on the matter and how much of the rest of the book remains ignored...) At an even more base level, there's the "ick" factor; as if a gay man wouldn't find, say the idea of performing cunnilingus, disgusting. Does that primitive emotion from the reptilian part of the brain give a homosexual the right pass moral judgement on a heterosexual? Of course not. So what gives heterosexuals the right to make judgements like that against homosexuals since, yet again, homosexuals are neither breaking your nose nor picking your pocket?
It's easy to deny prejudice and merely feeling icky about gay sexual practices, but these low instincts still exist in many people. These is especially true of people with below average levels of cognitive functioning, since it's been empirically determined that bigots tend to have lower IQs.
But it's Sang's contention that nature trumps argument...
So we're using straw cannibals now? C'mon, man. You're disappointing me.
I log on to Twitter (big mistake, I know) and discovered that evidently it's #heterosexualprideday. Are they fucking kidding?
Here it's St. Peter day.
Perk up. Friday August 26 is National Dogs Day.
http://www.nationaldogday.com/ (http://www.nationaldogday.com/)
Woof woof.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fnation.com.pk%2Fprint_images%2Flarge%2F2012-06-25%2Fworld-s-ugliest-dog-1340643410-2726.jpg&hash=7d39f3f2f3332d148c6baecd32fe5226" rel="cached" data-hash="7d39f3f2f3332d148c6baecd32fe5226" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://nation.com.pk/print_images/large/2012-06-25/world-s-ugliest-dog-1340643410-2726.jpg)
@midnight raccoon's argument is simply that there's nothing inherently good or bad about the fact that an act is natural, but even if there were, being gay is natural. It's @ersi's rhetorical victory that the discussion drifted the way it did.
I thought you were badly wrong just that one day, but it seems to be a bad week for you.
@midnight raccoon has been (just like you) explicitly arguing that there's
nothing wrong with being gay. Even more, that gay marriage is a
right. Are rights something neither good or bad? Are rights defined as merely something where there's no harm?
Being natural in your current sense has not been his argument, nor yours. And couldn't be, because being natural in some indifferent non-good-non-bad way doesn't get you gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter. Or maybe you are just muddying waters here. That would be understandable.
And couldn't be, because being natural in some indifferent non-good-non-bad way doesn't get you gay marriage, or any marriage for that matter.
At what point did I say that homosexuality being morally neutral conferred a right? What I said is that it's unconstitutional (read illegal) for the United States to deny same-sex couples marriage because of the equal protection clause of the constitution. In Europe, rechtsstaat very similar. This is no accident, since rechtsstaat and the United States itself are both products of the Enlightenment. While the 14th amendment to the American Constitution wasn't passed until after the American Civil war, the founding fathers of the US sought to limit state power from the very beginning.
Homosexuality being natural is merely an answer to you and Belfrager's pseudo-philosophy of "natural law" that ignores nature completely. As noted noted previously, your "philosophical" arguments are missing at least two crucial components of any well constructed philosophy.
At what point did I say that homosexuality being morally neutral conferred a right?
Frenzie said that in your view homosexuality was morally neutral. If it were, you would not have a point to make and there would be no discussion.
What I said is that it's unconstitutional (read illegal) for the United States to deny same-sex couples marriage because of the equal protection clause of the constitution. In Europe, rechtsstaat very similar.
Marriage is not denied from anyone, never was, except by the definition of marriage. For example, it's "denied" from children. Can you guess why? By your reasoning thus far, you are saying it's unconstitutional to deny it from children...
When people forget the definition of marriage, we come to the situation where we are. You don't know what marriage is. At no point have you even tried to define it, so you are not in a position to say whether it's unconstitutional to deny it from children. Is it unconstitutional to deny a "cross-species equal marriage" (normally called bestiality)? Is it unconstitutional to deny "intergenerational marriage" (normally called incest)? Is it unconstitutional to deny polyamory? You don't have any answers, because you don't have the definition.
The discussion can only become meaningful when we have the definition. Thus far, you have not made a single point.
Is it unconstitutional to deny a "cross-species equal marriage" (normally called bestiality)? Is it unconstitutional to deny "intergenerational marriage" (normally called incest)?
Obviously. An animal cannot give consent to enter a legal contract and incest is child abuse.
Is it unconstitutional to deny polyamory?
You're using the wrong term here. Polyamory doesn't necessarily involve marriage. I think you mean polygamy. And it most likely is unconstitutional since in the US it's usually practiced by cults and cultish subsets of the Mormonism where it isn't consensual. Why is that you think I have answers for these ridiculous strawman situations? If those situations do come up, the courts will look at the facts of the cases and rule. In the meantime, they have nothing to do with two people of the same sex being in love. Thus far, I'm noting a lack of an incestious couple or a polygamous relationship suing to get married.
You don't know what marriage is.
I don't believe you've told us exactly what marriage is, either. You also spoke vaguely of "the purpose of marriage" as if there's only purpose for it. As far as the definition of marriage goes....
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/marriage?s=t :
The first five definitions apply:
marriage
noun
1.
(broadly) any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage, same-sex marriage, plural marriage, and arranged marriage:
Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every known human society since ancient times.
2.
Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
See also traditional marriage (def 2).
this institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage.
3.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock:
They have a happy marriage.
Synonyms: matrimony.
Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.
4.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities:
to officiate at a marriage.
Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding.
Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
5.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction:
Happy now that the discussion has been reduced to dictionary definitions that we all know already? But you're the silly one that demanded a definition, so enjoy. Oooops, you can't enjoy it because it doesn't agree with your personal definition because the first definition includes the possibility of same sex marriage and the second one notes that it now includes same-sex couples, huh? :(
I thought you were badly wrong just that one day, but it seems to be a bad week for you. @midnight raccoon (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=profile;u=9155) has been (just like you) explicitly arguing that there's nothing wrong with being gay. Even more, that gay marriage is a right. Are rights something neither good or bad? Are rights defined as merely something where there's no harm?
Equivocating different arguments is a cheap trick. I already spelled out the summarized moral argument in favor of gay marriage: it significantly improves quality of life for some people without harming anyone. That (and any other argument in favor) is almost completely unrelated to the argument against your "natural" objection, which is what I was talking about here.
Rights are a legal concept. In morality there is no such thing as rights, merely behavior we have reason to promote and behavior we have reason to condemn. Rights follow from that. For example, the right to freedom of religion follows from the strong reasons we have to promote an aversion to violence against those with a different outlook on the world.
You're using the wrong term here. Polyamory doesn't necessarily involve marriage. I think you mean polygamy. And it most likely is unconstitutional since in the US it's usually practiced by cults and cultish subsets of the Mormonism where it isn't consensual. Why is that you think I have answers for these ridiculous strawman situations? If those situations do come up, the courts will look at the facts of the cases and rule. In the meantime, they have nothing to do with two people of the same sex being in love. Thus far, I'm noting a lack of an incestious couple or a polygamous relationship suing to get married.
I disagree. Polyamory isn't a ridiculous strawman in the sense that e.g. pedophilia is. Morally speaking the question is whether the same applies as with homosexuality (i.e., it improves the lives of some people without harming anyone) or if it's something that we generally have reason to create an aversion to, like incest. In matters of morality we must necessarily deal in fairly broad strokes, meaning we have reason to admonish incest even if there are exceptions thinkable in which no harm is caused. Similarly we shouldn't admonish polyamory just because there are exceptions like Mormonism in which harm is caused. It's the big picture that matters.
Happy now that the discussion has been reduced to dictionary definitions that we all know already? But you're the silly one that demanded a definition, so enjoy.
That is, unfortunately, the ersi way. :)
You should watch this video so you can stop saying such things about philosophy.
Science is related to philosophy such as humans to primates.
That is, unfortunately, the ersi way.
And, of course, he answers me in the other thread. :rolleyes:
So it goes. I think it's fair enough, but for anyone's reading this in the future for some reason, let's include this link (https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=955.msg63220#msg63220) for their convenience.
Has DnD become an homosexual propaganda forum?
No, Bel. It simply hosts some posters who are propagandists for the "life style" — some, for personal reasons and some for bad philosophy… :)
Note that both views tend to accept the blather that is reported about what scientists say: That homosexuality is determined by ones genes. (There is no credible science that contends let alone "proves" such. Just people grasping at straws. No pun intended, but you can make up your own. :) )
That makes some sense. There's no reported genetic connection to bullshit, if you catch my drift.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!"
===========
"Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live "unnaturally."
That's at least according to a new and groundbreaking study recently published in the journal Psychological Medicine, which details how a study of more than 800 gay participants shared notable patterns in two regions of the human genome - one on the X chromosome and one on chromosome 8.
While many previous studies have looked into potential genetic drivers of homosexuality, these studies often boasted a significantly smaller sample size or lacked common controls. This is the first study of its kind to boast such a robust sample size and also be published in a scientific peer-reviewed paper.
Most stunningly, the team who conducted this study comes from the scientific community that has been hesitant to acknowledge the claims of previous studies, not because of their own opinions, but because of a lack of conclusive data.
The study detailed an in-depth analysis of blood and saliva samples taken from 409 pairs of openly gay brothers, including non-identical twins, from 384 families. The only common characteristic shared by all 818 men was being gay."
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=602647FA2BD5AE560C8641777A6E0E20.journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451 (http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=602647FA2BD5AE560C8641777A6E0E20.journals?aid=9625997&fileId=S0033291714002451)
A question to the gay gene argument proponents: If there be identified a pedophile gene, would you fight for pedophile rights to be themselves? If not, why not? Would a pedophile gene affect your attitude towards the gay gene argument?
And a question to peopes knowledgeable in gene stuff: Genes are stuff that transfer from parents to offspring, right? Gays, being gays, don't beget offspring. So, supposing there is such a thing as the gay gene, it came about and is sustained how exactly?
No, Bel. It simply hosts some posters who are propagandists for the "life style" -- some, for personal reasons and some for bad philosophy... :)
It's a nice thing that the only answer I got it's the best one.
And a question to peopes knowledgeable in gene stuff: Genes are stuff that transfer from parents to offspring, right? Gays, being gays, don't beget offspring. So, supposing there is such a thing as the gay gene, it came about and is sustained how exactly?
Ah ah, I have an answer for that.
It comes from Lucifer, the fallen angel. :happy:
Gays should be glad about it. :lol:
If they have enough intelligence to follow that line that would be a problem.
And a question to peopes knowledgeable in gene stuff: Genes are stuff that transfer from parents to offspring, right? Gays, being gays, don't beget offspring. So, supposing there is such a thing as the gay gene, it came about and is sustained how exactly?
From my understanding there isn't really an
anything gene, more like collections of genes that can lead to certain traits in specific circumstances. Supposing there is a collection of genes that can lead to homosexuality, it would be sustained by a small percentage of homosexuals providing a competitive advantage to those who broadly share their genetics (including the small chance of bearing a homosexual child). I imagine that most deviations from the norm are primarily a consequence of the physical environment, such as their parental epigenetics combined with the hormones and food available in the womb and to a lesser extent early life. Secondarily of course there's a child's social situation, although I rather have my doubts that can make anyone gay. It wouldn't surprise me if a pedophile were formed in similar ways to a homosexual, for example with a bit too much or too little of this hormone or other.
Supposing there is a collection of genes that can lead to homosexuality, it would be sustained by a small percentage of homosexuals providing a competitive advantage to those who broadly share their genetics (including the small chance of bearing a homosexual child). I imagine that most deviations from the norm are primarily a consequence of the physical environment, such as their parental epigenetics combined with the hormones and food available in the womb and to a lesser extent early life. Secondarily of course there's a child's social situation, although I rather have my doubts that can make anyone gay.
That's my understanding too. And a further aspect is that parents can only transmit what they have and they cannot transmit what they don't have. Being parents, they cannot transmit gayness in genes, because, being parents, they are not gays. Gayness can only be transmitted by nurture, by environment.
So, the gay gene argument should not be there, if people were scientific and rational. Yet people say "We were born this way, so we have the same rights." Or "God made me this way, so it cannot be a sin." No, they are not born like this and God did not make them this way. Just things happen and we react, overcome, or submit.
Being parents, they cannot transmit gayness in genes, because, being parents, they are not gays.
Sorry but you are wrong. Bisexuals could transmit such genes simply because many homosexuals fake to have a normal, heterosexual life.
At the earlier gay propaganda, they always refused to have homosexual genes because they considered that to be a biological stigma. It was a form of biological handicap and they claimed to be normal people asking for "rights".
Since they become politically stronger, they defend biological genes as a legitimation for a repulsive sexual behavior being considered as "natural".
I really don't have patience for such clowns.
Someone needs to learn about recessive genes.
For example: supposing all blondes were sterile, it wouldn't extinguish the blonde gene, and prevent blondes from existing all around.
Someone needs to learn about recessive genes.
For example: supposing all blondes were sterile, it wouldn't extinguish the blonde gene, and prevent blondes from existing all around.
Right, supposing the blond gene exists. However, soon the gene would die out, if blondes remain sterile.
The thing with gays is that they have self-imposed sterility, so their gene cannot originate nor propagate. If they have intercourse with the opposite sex, it makes them bisexual by definition. So, no gay gene any way you look at it.
However, soon the gene would die out
No.
Gay genes now? This is a recent study (https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/10/12/despite-what-you-may-have-read-theres-no-gay-gene/) No, it doesn't prove there's a single gay gene.
Scientists presenting at the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Genetics announced the discovery of a gene-based algorithm that could predict male homosexuality with 70 percent accuracy. It’s the first time a gene-based model has been used to predict sexual orientation, giving credence to the idea that homosexuality has a biological basis.
Exciting as the claim may be, it’s crucial not to oversimplify the findings.
The scientists from UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine discovered that methylation, a form of DNA modification, in certain regions of the genome differed between homosexual and heterosexual identical twin brothers. What they did not find were the elusive “gay genes.” Amid the ever-present “homosexuality is a choice” chants of the anti-gay community, it is, naturally, tempting to claim that this study is concrete proof that sexual orientation is entirely genetic. To say so would be simplistic and, well, wrong. But it does constitute evidence that homosexuality has a biological basis.
So we still don't for 100 percent what causes homosexuality, but evidence continues to mount for a biological basis. Even if it's found not to be genetic, it could still have a biological basis stemming from conditions in the womb. "Born this way" does not necessarily equal a specific gene.
Whatever the cause, the ones that try to use pseudo-philosophy that lacks crucial components of any legitimate philosophy to deny people equal protection under the law (as required by European constitutions and the American one at the minimum) remain the ones that need to look inside themselves to discover the cause of their immoral behavior.
However, soon the gene would die out
No.
Yes, if by "sterile" you really meant sterile, i.e. not reproducing anymore. A species or subspecies that does not reproduce will die out. At least has thus far. Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long. My school education is getting old, maybe science has evolved meanwhile.
Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long.
Provided they don't cause any harm they can theoretically stay around forever. Some genes are advantageous and therefore multiply more fruitfully, others aren't and are selected against. Most are basically neutral, either not doing much of anything or not doing much of anything that matters. From our perspective, a lot of our DNA is probably parasitic. Except that something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe, so tribes with said gay DNA would be more successful than those without.
Except that something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe, so tribes with said gay DNA would be more successful than those without.
Kipling's
Just So stories seem to have found a new audience… :)
something like a colony of gay DNA may very well be helpful by providing extra manpower to the tribe
Gay DNA now provides manpower... :faint:
Not sure how non-propagating features can remain in recessive potential too long.
Provided they don't cause any harm they can theoretically stay around forever. Some genes are advantageous and therefore multiply more fruitfully, others aren't and are selected against. Most are basically neutral, either not doing much of anything or not doing much of anything that matters.
Perhaps, but we already agreed that theoretically this particular gene cannot arise and practically no such thing has been detected. Biological basis for homosexuality is a delusion on many levels.
Also, theoretically, if it ever emerged at a point in time, it will perish at some point in time. If it doesn't propagate, it will disappear faster than you can say "blueberry pie". And no harm, you say? Lack of propagation is the very definition of harm, insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. In the theory of evolution, reproduction is all that matters.
Biological basis for homosexuality is a delusion on many levels.
Not quite. At this point homosexuality can be detected with 70 percent accuracy using genetic algorithms. It's merely that no specific "gay gene" has been detected, yet. The differences in brain structure between heterosexuals and homosexuals is well documented and has long been noted. A person cannot choose to alter their brain structures in this way. Previous to this, studies have noted twins separated at birth of a high probability of both being gay - ruling out upbringing. Even before this, homosexuals have long noted they didn't choose to be gay in time period when society was more hostile to homosexuality than it is today. Of course, "therapy" to cause a homosexual to be heterosexual has been a complete failure and often results in psychological damage to the "patient."
Also, theoretically, if it ever emerged at a point in time, it will perish at some point in time. If it doesn't propagate, it will disappear faster than you can say "blueberry pie". And no harm, you say? Lack of propagation is the very definition of harm, insofar as the theory of evolution is concerned. In the theory of evolution, reproduction is all that matters.
Here you're betraying your like of knowledge of both sociology and genetics. Barulheira already noted recessive genes. BBC has an interesting article on the evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486) It also dispels the myth that queer people don't propagate (37% do have children with 60% being biological children.) written in layman's terms. Sociology requires a bit more explanation. Rather he knew it or not Befrager evoked Emile Durkheim organic theory of sociology when he compared society to an organism. In the crudest possible terms for easy understanding, he was an early sociologist that noted society is an orgasm and part of society serves a function much like an organ in a human body. So what is the function of homosexuals in this line of thinking? Have you noted how many people in artistic vocations are homosexual, or at least bisexual? This includes in the renaissance era. They help generate the culture in a way out of proportion to their numbers. The BBC article also notes they often serve has the "nest helpers" In evolutionary terms, this would increase the chance of the heterosexual child reaching adulthood. Humans are a social species and LGBT people in general are good for broking peace between bickering parties. Homosexuality survives because it serves one or many purposes and will note disappear.
it will perish at some point in time.
No.
Gay Gene?
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3X8o60eQbggD6YFEIgmWSTH8eXXCBJcpZ5pTi8UXk1T_3c6bdVYLRxe6GgQ)
Here you're betraying your like of knowledge of both sociology and genetics. Barulheira already noted recessive genes.
And you are betraying your lack of knowledge of sociology, genetics, theory of evolution and logic. A general principle always trumps an individual case. This is particularly so when there is no individual case to begin with, as in case of a gay gene. At best it's a hypothetical case that may be worth considering, if there's a general principle under examination.
The general principle of the theory of evolution is that only advantageous genes remain, where advantageous means specifically advantageous for survival and propagation. The gay gene, if it were to exist, cannot provide such advantage, therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene. And it hasn't been found either, so your appeal to genetics is futile.
BBC has an interesting article on the evolutionary puzzle of homosexuality (http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26089486)
The article happens to recount the same issue I just told and says, "Scientists don't know the answer to this Darwinian puzzle, but there are several theories." It's a puzzle exactly for the reasons I told you. And I can theorise a solution too - drop the Darwinian element and it ceases to be a puzzle.
Rather he knew it or not Befrager evoked Emile Durkheim organic theory of sociology when he compared society to an orgasm.
Your icky mind is grossly slipping into your typos, I'm afreud.
...part of society serves a function much like an organ in a human body.
Do you realise what it takes for this theory to work? Group minds, like in beehives and anthills the way I and Frenzie have discussed. The beehive or anthill is the mental entity which divides the classes/castes/functions among the individuals who belong to it. This theory is good enough for me to explain mass phenomena and other weird behaviours in society, but it shouldn't be good to you or Frenzie, because it's anti-Darwinian.
therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene.
Wrong again.
therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene.
Wrong again.
Simply because you say so or any better reason?
You could google it up. I don't think you need me to explain elementary genetics to you.
You don't think you need to explain yourself? Thanks for your opinion. I will pay attention to it next time as soon as it has some backup.
Edit: As far as Wikipedia goes, it was irrelevant of you to bring in the concept of recessive gene.
Dominance in genetics is a relationship between alleles of one gene, in which the effect on phenotype of one allele masks the contribution of a second allele at the same locus.[1][2] The first allele is dominant and the second allele is recessive. For genes on an autosome (any chromosome other than a sex chromosome), the alleles and their associated traits are autosomal dominant or autosomal recessive.
I read it this way:
- Dominance/recessiveness applies to aspects (alleles) of a single gene, not to a gene. A gene is not dominant or recessive, its aspects are. In fact, in my own language from school years I remember the concept of "recessive trait", not "recessive gene".
- The last long sentence, really important. Sex genes operate in a different way, not by ordinary dominance/recessiveness. This means that, insofar as genetics goes, sex is not a continuum, but a binary either/or thing. One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.
Again, thanks for your opinion. I thought you knew better. My mistake.
Your icky mind is grossly slipping into your typos, I'm afreud
Cute, but fails to address the possibility that homosexuality serves a function in society
Group minds, like in beehives and anthills the way I and Frenzie have discussed.
And you'll note the lack of advancement in ant and bee "society." Groups minds by definition have group think. Nobody has any new ideas nor new solutions to problems. That's a prescription for a perpetual dark age, or the inability to recover to from one.
he gay gene, if it were to exist, cannot provide such advantage, therefore it cannot exist, not even as a recessive gene.
Did you take university level science at all? If so, how long ago was that? In fact, genes that create direct disadvantages in life expectancy and overall health survive. There's even indications that virus DNA has entered the human genome (http://phys.org/news/2016-04-ancient-retrovirus-human-dna.html)In fact "indications" is far too weak of a word. There are reasons why homosexuality may be beneficial to humanity as species (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/naturally-selected/201212/5-big-ideas-about-the-origins-homosexuality). Humans are not ants and bees.
Maybe I should just answer like Barulheira. "No." "Wrong." "Wrong again.
One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.
Okay, one more semi-real answer. How do you explain intersexed babies than, ie with XXY chromosomes? Even biological sex is not necessarily binary.
Maybe I should just answer like Barulheira. "No." "Wrong." "Wrong again.
One is either a male or a female, not "with a recessive male gene, dominantly female" or whatever.
Okay, one more semi-real answer. How do you explain intersexed babies than, ie with XXY chromosomes?
Abnormalcy. Deviance. Find your preferred politically-correct pseudo-scientific euphemism for that and maybe we can continue from there.
Even biological sex is not necessarily binary.
Yeah, like bees have three sexes: queen, males, and workers. Frenzie suggested something similar would apply to humans too, gays being the workers. I find it both politically incorrect and pseudo-scientific, but you may pursue this line of thought, if you wish.
You like to play words. Okay, "allele" is the correct word. Now let's explain how recession works (which is my point, nothing about "continuum" straw men as usual).
Let's make a thought experiment. For the sake of clarity, let's exaggerate it dramatically. If it works in the worst case, it works in any case.
Let's suppose a health gene. "H" is the dominant allele of health, and "x" is the recessive allele of death. "HH", "Hx" and "xH" are healthy individuals, while "xx" are dead born babies.
Healthy individuals will pass along the "x" death allele to the next generations, bearing mostly healthy children, and eventually bearing dead babies. Theoretically it can last forever.
...nothing about "continuum" straw men as usual...
Raccoon even made a pretty painting of the continuum, so it's not a strawman, but a real reference. Not a reference to you though. Don't take it overly personally when I am putting a complicated Wikipedia article into broader perspective.
Let's make a thought experiment. For the sake of clarity, let's exaggerate it dramatically. If it works in the worst case, it works in any case.
Let's suppose a health gene. "H" is the dominant allele of health, and "x" is the recessive allele of death. "HH", "Hx" and "xH" are healthy individuals, while "xx" are dead born babies.
Healthy individuals will pass along the "x" death allele to the next generations, bearing mostly healthy children, and eventually bearing dead babies. Theoretically it can last forever.
Good one. This is how it applies to sex genes. Males are XY. Females are XX. There is no YY, it needs X to be alive at all.
There are, however, XX male syndrome (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XX_male_syndrome), XY gonadal dysgenesis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY_gonadal_dysgenesis) and other disorders of the sex gene, clearly identified as disorders.
I supposed you've never heard of , then? (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm intersexed [/url)
society is an orgasm
:lol: :faint:
The beat[down] goes on… fMRI is not just stats done badly, it's buggy stats software too! (And the obligatory "lose the data" mania of "soft" scientists.)
The Reg reports (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/03/mri_software_bugs_could_upend_years_of_research/)…
BTW: Sang's link above is intersexed (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001669.htm), if anyone is interested.
society is an orgasm
:lol: :faint:
....
Rather he knew it or not Befrager evoked Emile Durkheim organic theory of sociology when he compared society to an organism.
Long since fixed... :p
Long since fixed
Perhaps you'd consider reading what you post…? :) You know: To check links, grammar, spelling; all that stuff that doesn't matter — in your "I'm me" world!
Either that or I was up just shy of two days straight. But the fact remains Belfrager didn't actually quote me, he quoted Ersi. More importantly, both of them ignore the science indicating that they're just plain incorrect. Not politically so, but factually so.
I admit the strong possibility of being incorrect about what XXY chromosomes signify, but they're unable to admit their pseudo-philosophy about "natural law" ignores nature and that they grasp for strawmen. For instance, Ersi grabs hold of the fact their isn't a specific "gay gene" found as of yet, but ignores that the researchers can predict homosexually with a 70% accuracy merely by looking at a person's genetic algorithm and all other evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality. "Nature" (or perhaps even God if you're a theist) seems to have create homosexuality in the first place. All the pseudo-philosophy in the world can't disprove this. This is good news if we live under a rechtsstaat system, but extermination for LGBT if another Hitler comes to power.
both of them ignore the science
"the science"…
Sang, you don't have the chops to understand the science; you just go with whatever seems to support your viewpoint.
What
ersi and
Belfrager argue for isn't really "natural law" — it's human experience, for centuries. You'd reject such, because you want the world to be a different way…
For the most part, it already is: Homosexuality (and damned near every other perversion) is already accepted by Western democratic nations.
But you want more! You want everyone else to say "Atta boy!" You want people who abhor your proclivities to commend them…
You're a lost child.
Much of human experience "for centuries" is now considered both illegal and immoral. Do you really need me to produce a list? Without legal marriage, same-sex couples would continue to live together regardless; as they have "for centuries." How is this any better, besides your feelings not getting hurt by the word "marriage?" Well, Belfrager laughably suggests that society would collapse. Same-sex couples have been cohabituating and functioning as married couples "for centuries" without this happening. (Same-sex couples is not mere political correctness. Both members might not actually be gay. So "gay couple" or another term that implies they're both homosexual would be an incorrect term.)
Sang, you don't have the chops to understand the science; you just go with whatever seems to support your viewpoint.
And yet you can't tell me what's wrong with the research. You appear to be science challenged whenever the research approaches a conclusion outside of American conservative dogma. It doesn't matter if the topic is the relative intelligence of African Americans, the climate, or this. I don't understand all the nitty-gritty of genetics, but neither do you. Neither does Belfrager, nor Ersi. Nobody here has a PHD in genetics. But I do understand that when a topic is research from multiple angles (in this case starting with crude twin studies, to brain scans of heterosexuals and homosexuals, and now the genetic algorithms) and every bit of the research points in a certain direction, there's something to it.
But you want more! You want everyone else to say "Atta boy!" You want people who abhor your proclivities to commend them...
Don't tell me what I want. What I want is to be left alone by the self-righteous hypocrites.
What I want is to be left alone by the self-righteous hypocrites.
I've never met anyone so self-righteous as you,
Sang! And let's not talk about hypocrisy… :)
I don't need to have a Ph. D. in genetics to recognize bogus "science" — nor to call out those who tout the same, for self-interested reasons.
When you say "every bit of research" you mean "every bit of
biased self-interested pseudo-science": To you, only the "result" matters — the quality of the science is besides the point. I've seen this repeatedly.
As long as you can claim enough others agree with you, that clinches the case for you. But, if that's good enough, even Newton's conception of gravitation would fail: Almost everybody knows that heavier bodies fall faster than lighter ones!
Did you have any
pet fMRI studies you'll miss especially? :) (You know, like the "ground-breaking" study that found that
conservatives were more prone to authoritarianism? Did you miss the recent addendum? :) The one that said Oh, by the way, the data said exactly the opposite — but that doesn't matter? :) ) It's hard to keep up, when you never learned how to -oh, what's that term? Oh, right: Think critically!
(For you -and some others- that's a
buzz-word. God forbid, you should actually have to
do it…)
There's a reason the media get away with shoddy or out-right dishonest reporting of scientific "results" — and laziness ain't it.
For instance, Ersi grabs hold of the fact their isn't a specific "gay gene" found as of yet, but ignores that the researchers can predict homosexually with a 70% accuracy merely by looking at a person's genetic algorithm and all other evidence of a biological basis for homosexuality.
But I do understand that when a topic is research from multiple angles (in this case starting with crude twin studies, to brain scans of heterosexuals and homosexuals, and now the genetic algorithms) and every bit of the research points in a certain direction, there's something to it.
Do you mean this article? The DNA test 'that reveals if you're gay': Genetic code clue is 70% accurate, claim scientists (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3265248/Homosexuality-imprinted-genes-Scientists-predict-gay-70-cent-accuracy.html)
Why not this one? Homosexuality may be triggered by environment after birth' (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/03/15/homosexuality-may-be-triggered-by-environment-after-birth/)
Which way is it? Environment or genes? Scientists say this, scientists say that, whichever way the wind blows, whatever rocks your boat.
In this case, confusion prevails as long as you go by the headings. In reality, both of these articles report about the same genetic study. Let's look a bit beyond the heading in the first article, the 'Genetic Code' article, "
Known as epigenetics, these changes are thought to occur in the womb." The other one, the 'Environment after Birth' article is also about genetics, the same study (at least the same name gets interviewed).
So, the genes that are being talked about are not inherited genes, but genetic changes after conception. The second article picks up 'after birth', but the answer is the environment in both articles.
There is no biological basis to homosexuality, rather there are biological consequences. Raccoon got framed by journalists, poor guy.
Which way is it? Environment or genes?
Or even neither. I told you before that a person can be born a certain way (yes ways that have nothing to do with sexual orientation) and it does not have to be genetic.
I do immediately notice a problem with that article from the first paragraph, however.
The new research by the University of California (http://universityofcalifornia.edu/) has not yet been published but is being presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics (http://www.ashg.org/)in Baltimore.
You'll note that those links do not lead to the research.
Observe this paragraph.
Scientists studied 37 sets of identical male twins, who were born with the same genetic blueprint, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11652003/DNA-carries-traces-of-past-events-meaning-poor-lifestyle-can-affect-future-generations.html)to tease out which genes were associated with homosexuality. In each pair, one of the twins was gay
Again, the links do not lead to the research but to another Telegraph article about how lifestyle choices and environment could impact future generations. It does note DNA could be altered by the environment but says nothing about homosexuality.
Thus far, the article is very much on the original topic of this thread - poor science reporting. This is to expected of a conservative publican. I get it. Give conservatives the the headline they were hoping for.
Now this part is possible.
Prof Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics, University of Kent, added: “While there is strong evidence in general for a biological basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life experiences
In fact, he mostly agrees with my position that the cause of homosexuality is not known for certain but there is strong evidence for the biological basis.
So while I was hoping for actual links to the research instead of institutions in question (including the first page a prospective student of the University of California would see while in the application process :faint: ) it in no way directly contradicts anything I've said. Maybe there's a biological basis for homosexuality and life experience helps further push a person in the direction for some and for others being sexual intimate with a woman is all but impossible. This is possibly related to the spectrum of human sexuality, in which a person may not be totally gay nor straight regardless of how they identify (hence the terms "gay" and "bisexual" steadily falling out of favor for "queer" and even "sexually fluid" . )
Prof Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics, University of Kent, added: “While there is strong evidence in general for a biological basis for homosexuality my personal impression has always been one of a multiple contributory factors, including life experiences
In fact, he mostly agrees with my position that the cause of homosexuality is not known for certain but there is strong evidence for the biological basis.
So while I was hoping for actual links to the research....it in no way directly contradicts anything I've said.
Your conviction is that homosexuality is genetic. The scientist's position is that there are multiple contributory factors. You said that scientists can predict homosexuality by 70 percent accuracy, and this is indeed how the 'gene code clue' article puts it, but if we were to get actually scientific, I suggest that the more appropriate word is correlation, not prediction. Moreover, from our earlier context it's clear that you meant that homosexuality is inherited, but the articles say that the topic is
epigenetics, secondary phenomena on genes due to environment. Such are the discrepancies between you and science.
And the 'gene code clue' article, which seems to be more sensationalist in general, has this,
The findings, however, do not mean scientists could predict the sexuality of a child before it is born – as the tests were carried out on adults.
Well, if it can predict homosexuality only in adult homosexuals, then "predict" is the wrong word!
Edit. The 'gene code clue' article has this gem of logic too,
Identical twins usually – but not always – have the same sexuality. This finding has led scientists to believe there is a genetic component to being gay.
If we are talking genetics in the relevant sense (i.e. gene inheritance and thou shalt be determined by thy genes), then
identical twins must absolutely invariably have the same sexuality (because otherwise they are not genetically identical, duh). From the fact that identical twins do not always have the same sexuality, the exact opposite conclusion follows than the one stated in the article. Given that identical twins do not always have the same sexuality, there is no genetic component to being gay, as long as we are talking genetics, not epigenetics./edit
Here's a secret. My job is closely related to journalism. That's where I have been earning my living all these years, so I am part of this corporate media conspiracy to mind-control you. The fact that you call it a conspiracy theory is part of the conspiracy.
epigenetics, secondary phenomena on genes due to environment.
Here's a quick primer: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/22/epigenetics/
epigenetics, secondary phenomena on genes due to environment.
Here's a quick primer: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/22/epigenetics/
Or another primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
In the science of genetics, epigenetics is the study of cellular and physiological phenotypic trait variations that result from external or environmental factors that switch genes on and off and affect how cells express genes.[1][2] Hence, epigenetic research seeks to describe dynamic alterations in the transcriptional potential of a cell. These alterations may or may not be heritable,...
Until scientists debate some more clarity into the definition of epigenetics, it's obvious that the journalistic report about predicting homosexuality on genetic basis was not about predicting homosexuality on genetic basis.
Edit. The good thing is that we all learned a bit about genetics in the course of this. Even Barulheira learned. Now we are all much smarter and won't repeat the same mistakes again, right?
Or another primer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics)
Wiki even has an article on on epigenetic theories of homosexuality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality)
I already said much of this in simpler terms, when I noted that "born this way" includes what happens in the womb. What I didn't include was "epi-marks."
Effects of fetal androgen exposure[edit]
While in the fetal stages, hormonal influences of androgen, specifically testosterone, cause feminine qualities in regard to sexual development in females and masculine qualities in males. In typical sexual development, females are exposed to minimal amounts of testosterone, thus feminizing their sexual development, while males are typically exposed to high levels of testosterone, which masculinize their development. Epi-marks play a critical role in this development by acting as a buffer between the fetus and androgen exposure. Moreover, they predominantly protect XY fetuses from androgen underexposure while protecting XX fetuses from androgen overexposure.[6] However, when androgen overexposure happens in XX fetuses, research suggests they can show masculinized behavior in comparison to females who undergo normal levels of androgen exposure. The research also suggests that excess androgen exposure in females led to reduced heterosexual interest in adulthood than did females with normal levels of androgen.
Of course XX fetuses are female, so that last sentence would serve as an explanation for lesbians. What of androgen underexposure for XY fetuses. In my experience this seems a somewhat flawed itself even within the crude stereotypes of the LGBTQ community. Certainly there are "butch" lesbians and "lipstick" lesbians. There are also "twinks" and "fem" male homosexuals as well as "bears" (who often act and appear more masculine than most heterosexual males) Androgen over/under exposure could explain "butch" lesbian and and "fem" homosexuals fairly easily . Their epi-marks failed to give them the "normal" amount of androgen exposure. But it doesn't seem to explain homosexuals of either sex that easily blend in with a heterosexual crowd and don't stand out because of behavior nor appearance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3296090/
From the abstract:
The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood, as well as in sexual orientation in later life, at least for some individuals. It appears, however, that other factors, in addition to hormones, play an important role in determining sexual orientation. These factors have not been well-characterized, but possibilities include direct genetic effects, and effects of maternal factors during pregnancy. Although a role for hormones during early development has been established, it also appears that there may be multiple pathways to a given sexual orientation outcome and some of these pathways may not involve hormones.
I already said much of this in simpler terms, when I noted that "born this way" includes what happens in the womb...
While in the fetal stages, hormonal influences of androgen, specifically testosterone, cause feminine qualities...
The evidence supports a role for prenatal testosterone exposure in the development of sex-typed interests in childhood
In other words, drip hormones on foetuses and whatever comes out was "born this way"? This case is closed. You are on detention, but I am ready to take out my genetics doctorate soon.
Let's not forget child abuse.
n other words, drip hormones on foetuses and whatever comes out was "born this way"? This case is closed. You are on detention, but I am ready to take out my genetics doctorate soon.
Of course, because you know better than the actual biologists and geneticists. In fact, that's not all that different from what the article you, yourself, posted. (http://posted.). remember?
Epigenetic changes are known to be triggered by environmental factors such as chemical exposure, childhood abuse, diet, exercise and stress.
Androgens are chemicals. The womb is an environment. In fact, the scientists that were supposed to be opposing the research noted a strong biological basis for homosexuality but there maybe more factors involved.
The same way as predicting homosexuality in adult homosexuals is not predicting, also biological basis of homosexuality when the biology is screwed up with chemical/hormonal imbalance is not biological basis. Those journalists are pulling your leg. You are too easily misled.
:facepalm: You do understand that's self-contradictory, right? The chemical/hormonal imbalance would serve as the biological basis in that scenario.
No. It would be biological consequences or, at best, biological correlations.
The difference between biological basis and biological consequences is the direction of causality. "Biological basis" would imply that biology causes a certain appearance/behaviour. "Biological consequences" means the behaviour/environment leaves traces on biology. You of course don't think it's a difference worth noting.
Scientists say God can easily be calculated. They even did it.
As any good scientific investigation, it starts with the definitions:
Because this is a scientific paper (and not a theological one), the god we are seeking will be that of Spinoza
and Einstein—where the Universe is thought to be identical with divinity.
Science, theology, and philosophy have different aims and emphases, but the play of definitions is central to them all.
This is probably the best place to post this, considering the likely audience: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/saving-science
(I give the unadorned URL so that no one is deceived or misled… It's an essay; a little long, but well worth the time it takes to read it. If you wonder how I found it, you're not reading Judith Curry's blog! For which, shame on you… :) )
Instead of science, we are left with a mélange of science, engineering, values, assumptions, and ideology.
It was always like that, there's no possibility of "Saving Science" simply because there's no Science to be saved.
What matters and what must be defended it's the so called "scientific method". The best methodology invented for assuring result's correctness. What we do with those results is not science anymore.
Note: I see the article's author presents himself as "professor of science and society at...". That's a bad start.
Physicists Have Created a Set of Conditions in Which Time Seems to Run in Reverse (http://www.sciencealert.com/thermodynamics-arrow-of-time-reversed-under-quantum-conditions)
A mix of chloroform and acetone might seem like an odd place to hunt for clues, but researchers have used just such a combination to create conditions where for some purposes time actually appears to move backwards.
We live in times of darkness.
Media propaganda has obscured all scientific methods. Right now, an imbecile millionaire sent a Payload of pollution, one of his cars, to space and no one says nothing against.
I would force him to eat his car trash, piece by piece.
Something unusual is happening with our planet's magnetic field
For the past 160 years, it's been weakening at an alarming rate. Scientists are concerned that one day, our magnetic poles could flip like they did 780-thousand years ago.
If it happened some 780 thousand years ago, then it is not all that unusual.
These days far too much of our routine population is caught up in entertainment and enjoying themselves so I think less thoughtful and brained than years ago. This means that scientists and space fanatics can say just about anything and damn well just be accepted. Living on the Moon or Mars as a worthy aim baloney example along with all the billions spent on would-be space capers and so on. Rubbish.
If it happened some 780 thousand years ago, then it is not all that unusual.
It's not unusual, but every few hundred thousand years is probably more troublesome (for us, right now) than the every few million years it used to be. :P
Tarduno thinks this recurrent phenomena is caused by a disturbance in the Earth's outer core layer where the magnetic field is generated.
One of these days I'll be shocked to see the word phenomenon used correctly.
It's not unusual, but every few hundred thousand years is probably more troublesome (for us, right now) than the every few million years it used to be.
Some guy somewhere said that this (weakening of the magnetic field and eventual flipping of the poles) is due to (or concurrent with) deceleration of Earth's spinning. Do you know if good scientists have measured this (deceleration) also? Deceleration of spinning would certainly make the poles flip at least.
I know it speeds up and slows down, but I wouldn't know about long-term trends.
That's why I'm feeling sick today...
Earth's rotation doesn't speed up. Lunatic tidal forces slows it down. The magnetic field a different story.
Earth's rotation doesn't speed up. Lunatic tidal forces slows it down. The magnetic field a different story.
A different story as in independent from the acceleration/deceleration or a different story as in inverse relation?
I have not read it from anywhere, but I have always been under the impression that the Earth's magnetism was to do with the friction in its own layers and vis-a-vis the surrounding cosmos caused by its rotation.
Earth's rotation doesn't speed up. Lunatic tidal forces slows it down.
I've heard it said that some earthquakes might speed up the earth as much as 3 µs per day.
Possible reference here: https://www.livescience.com/38083-earth-core-day-length-pattern.html
What I meant above is that I wouldn't know if there's been any recent adjustment to the common knowledge that the long-term trend is down. I phrased that badly.
Earth's rotation doesn't speed up. Lunatic tidal forces slows it down.
I've heard it said that some earthquakes might speed up the earth as much as 3 µs per day.
Possible reference here: https://www.livescience.com/38083-earth-core-day-length-pattern.html
What I meant above is that I wouldn't know if there's been any recent adjustment to the common knowledge that the long-term trend is down. I phrased that badly.
There is a mailing list which discusses just that, adjustments to time zone data and the like. Every halfway decent operating system keeps time zone data, for obvious reasons, and on NetBSD I see the occasional commits regarding changes to that. The change logs are ... interesting.
/me wants to read and debunk https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11023-018-9459-4
We argue that experimental neuroscientists routinely observe and manipulate neural representations in their laboratory. If a type of entity is observable and manipulable, then it exists. Therefore, neural representations are as real as neurons, action potentials, or any other experimentally established entities in our ontology.
ersi wants to read
It costs 42,99 €. Almost one tenth of the minimum salary here. Science is not for the poor.
If one thousand people, all over the world, pays it, they win half a million dollars for an... article.
I'm already reading and debunking so that no poor is left behind. A dude with access helped out.
Edit: And the article debunked itself. I was interested in the article because someone said that the article provides a neural/neuroscientific account of consciousness by virtue of "neural representations" and that talk of "mental representations" is henceforth superfluous. In reality, the authors of the article explicitly and appropriately state that they are not touching anything with regard to mental representations, awareness, and consciousness.
"Neural representation" denotes an intermediate point in behavioural perception-reaction chain. It has nothing to do with representations in the truly interesting sense, such as conceptual thought, reflection of memory, imagination, abstraction, intentionality, etc.
Remember the Sokal hoax (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair) that exposed postmodernism for the nonsense that it is? Now gender studies (and "grievance studies" more generally) have been hit by the same experiment. Welcome the award-winning Dog Park paper (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1475346?journalCode=cgpc20) that proposed "practical applications that disrupt hegemonic masculinities and improve access to emancipatory spaces" by training men like dogs so they would not become rapists.
Full story https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/
Compared to its copies, the tiny cylinder [of etalon kilogram] appeared to be getting progressively lighter. That, or its copies were getting progressively heavier. It's impossible say which, since Big K, by definition, is exactly one kilogram.
So, scientists say that the kilogram was having weight issues. Therefore it had to be redefined.
I thought we'd already done that years or even decades ago? I didn't realize the kilo was such a holdout.
And I always thought the real definition of kg was, as the article said, the mass of a litre of distilled water at its freezing point, and the etalon was just some secondary thing. Turns out the etalon was primary for some reason.
The weight variation with time due to cleaning and contact with the atmosphere, which was something of no importance times ago, is no more adequate for modern science. Therefore the physical object had to be substituted by a nature's constant - The Plank Constant - measured with modern instruments and opening the possibility at a nearby future to quantum instruments.
Also the ampere, kelvin and mole were substituted.
And I always thought the real definition of kg was, as the article said, the mass of a litre of distilled water at its freezing point, and the etalon was just some secondary thing. Turns out the etalon was primary for some reason.
At about 4 °C. That definition was not very practical or precise, and error-prone. The Paris metal door-stop was klugey, but more usable.
And I always thought the real definition of kg was, as the article said, the mass of a litre of distilled water at its freezing point, and the etalon was just some secondary thing. Turns out the etalon was primary for some reason.
At about 4 °C. That definition was not very practical or precise, and error-prone. The Paris metal door-stop was klugey, but more usable.
I believe the "freezing point liter mass " was the original definition. Difficult and error prone. Later, desiring more accuracy and precision, the door stop was created with its six primary copies.
The Real Fake News: Top Scientific Retractions of 2018 https://www.livescience.com/64353-top-retracted-papers-2018.html
None of the fake research was particularly earth-shattering. It was a boring year.
The following one is still not retracted:
Mind-Bending Study Suggests Time Did Actually Exist Before The Big Bang https://www.sciencealert.com/mind-bending-study-suggests-time-did-actually-exist-before-the-big-bang
Does a new genetic analysis finally reveal the identity of Jack the Ripper?Genetic tests published this week point to Aaron Kosminski, a 23-year-old Polish barber and a prime police suspect at the time. [...] This isn’t the first time Kosminski has been linked to the crimes. But it is the first time the supporting DNA evidence has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
In other news, scientists also say the following: A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613092/a-quantum-experiment-suggests-theres-no-such-thing-as-objective-reality/ (Title of the paper: Experimental rejection of observer-independence in the quantum world)
Scientists say this is a photo of a black hole.
(https://cdn.eso.org/images/newsfeature/eso1907a.jpg)
The image reveals the black hole at the centre of Messier 87 [1], a massive galaxy in the nearby Virgo galaxy cluster. This black hole resides 55 million light-years from Earth and has a mass 6.5 billion times that of the Sun [2].
Strictly speaking, by definition, no hole can be photographed; just the stuff around it can. :sherlock:
But — strictly speaking — a black hole is more of a dark star than a hole, isn't it? ;)
Yes. Strictly speaking, a black hole is black but is not a hole. :rolleyes:
Scientists Identify New Snail Species, Name It after Greta Thunberg (http://www.sci-news.com/biology/craspedotropis-gretathunbergae-08152.html)
Probably because scientists have found no better way to get into the news lately.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.sci-news.com%2Fimages%2F2020%2F02%2Fimage_8152-Craspedotropis-gretathunbergae.jpg&hash=5d8c85410d645d168be2427fb321bdb2" rel="cached" data-hash="5d8c85410d645d168be2427fb321bdb2" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2020/02/image_8152-Craspedotropis-gretathunbergae.jpg)
Maybe space fanatics and would be explorer will fall into the hole and sense be the routine.
Scientists are struggling with MS Excel. Can you tell who is winning?
If you enter “SEPT1” in Excel, it will immediately change the cell to read “1-Sept” because it thinks you’re trying to enter a date. To make matters worse, there is no way to disable this automatic reformatting. You have to change the cell formatting in each spreadsheet manually. Failing to do so can lead to corrupted data and wasted time. Not everyone is an expert in Excel, so mistakes were common. (Note: Hitting ‘ in front of a data field in Excel will tell the cell to format as text, but there is no way to set this as default).
The scientific body that controls gene naming has now stepped in to set things right. The HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) has thus far renamed 27 genes to ensure Excel doesn’t butcher their names. For example, the gene MARCH1 codes for a protein called Membrane Associated Ring-CH-Type Finger 1. HGNC has renamed that gene to MARCHF1 to avoid confusion. SEPT1 is now SEPTIN1. The HGNC will keep a record of the changes so there’s no confusion in the future when researchers read materials with the old names.
The scientists. Fewer sources of error.
My favorite new feature in Office 2000, XP or '03 or thereabout was that you could immediately disable an autocorrect when it happened. The disadvantage is that you still need to notice it happening first. I've never understood the point of that stuff; it's one of the reasons I prefer plain text editors.
Probably because scientists have found no better way to get into the news lately.
It must be. The justification given by the "citizen scientist"(??) for naming the snail that way it's an anecdote.
It seems they did it before with another snail and actor Di Caprio's name.
Poor snails.
Back in the days of 1997 I disabled each and every auto-anything setting right after installing that kind of software. It's annoying when I tell the software to do one thing and it does another.