Skip to main content
Topic: Is stupidity taught? (Read 19972 times)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #25

Quote from: OakdaleFTL
It somehow hasn't occurred to Bel that "climate change" is something that doesn't require human intervention…

Nor, according to some apparently, does pregnancy.
But it helps.
On that question, I remain both agnostic and (…the main reason for my agnosticism) uninterested. (Also, I've always liked the helping part, myself. :devil:
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Is that really what you think scientific consensus means? Really? You can't be fucking serious. Now when 97 percent of a scientists in their given fields run tests and experiments independently of each other and come to the same conclusions, and you know how scientists bicker with each other, their might well be something to.
I can read your word-salad, Sang, and so can respond to what you meant:
Starting with Oreskes and going on through Cook and Lewandowsky's repeated attempts, I've read their papers and analyzed their methodologies… Their claims are not supported by their work.
(You have said sociology and psychology are areas where you have some expertise: When I asked you to look at Lewandowsky's work, you demurred. I don't blame you: It's not just shoddy; its dishonest. But you still don't care about that! Because it seems to support something you're committed to, eh? Some people might call that "motivated reasoning"… :) )

Yes, Sang, I'm fucking serious: The so-called 97% consensus is bogus; the so-called "science" that proclaimed it is unworthy of the name.
But climatology does continue, as a science! Unfortunately, so does the IPCC's politicized agenda…as a political force!
You'll forgive me, if I prefer the former to the latter? :)

进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #26
Wooooh, language chum, language. Tut, tut.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #27
Wooooh, language chum, language. Tut, tut.
Merely replying in kind, RJ… Hm. I don't recall you tut-tutting our Midnight Raccoon. :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #28
After two pages of "discussions" I wonder who's stupidity are we talking about....
A matter of attitude.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #29
Replying in kind Oaky? I have never ever used such language here and as for your pal he is of no importance no matter what he calls himself. For people who claim such a wonderful language and English contribution it shows desperation when that kind of disgusting stuff appears.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #30
Oh, everybody's, Bel:) Feel free!

@RJ: Let us just say that the young often lack the vocabulary to express themselves, without frequent resort to the crudest bits of language… Myself, I feel akin to Jerome Howard, who -when the judge intervened in an attempt to administer the witness oath to him- was asked "Do you swear — ," responded:
"Certainly not! But I know all the words… :)"

And, in some circumstances, the crudest bits of language are apt. Else, we wouldn't all know the words, eh?

If I remember correctly, H. Ross Perot resigned his Navy commission — because the other sailors talked too roughly! I know that there are such people in the world. But they're laughable.
I'd advise you not to get your panties in a twist, sir! (Or, else, hie thee to a nunnery! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #31
Starting with Oreskes

You are aware that Peiser redacted his rebuttal to Oreskes because the man himself realized it was full of errors, counting articles and papers that didn't reject the consensus at all. Why take my word for his when you can take his :

Quote
Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique.


And yet the survey that he publicly acknowledged was wrong in it's claims against the scientific consensus of AGW continues to make its rounds in the American Right circles. Why is that? Is deliberate misinformation or stupidity at work here? I suspect it begins with the former. Oreskes wasn't the only survey confirming the consensus by any stretch. No, the truth isn't arrived at by a vote. But that's not how it happened.  (Peiser continues to be a climate change skeptic. But he's also not a climatologist. He's a social anthropologist. Get it? He lacks the expertise in the field of the people he tries rebut.)

At this point, dismissing human activity from climate change is ludicrous. Other hypotheses have been tried (increased solar activity, oops solar activity has actually decreased for example) and they couldn't withstand peer review. The other favorite is "There's been climate change in the past. It always does." Yes. BUT every climate change has had a different cause. This time it happens to increased levels of a greenhouse gas, whose primary emitter is human beings.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #32
Sang, you still don't get what I'm saying… Let me make it impossible to misunderstand: The methodology of sampling abstracts (or any other sampling of key words and such) is misguided pseudo-science. And any other measure of consensus is still just that: A step back from the science, to the social (and political!) aspects of scientific culture — and, specifically, the social construction of reality.
I know (don't I? :) ) that you believe such to also be science…but I don't.
Peiser continues to be a climate change skeptic. But he's also not a climatologist. He's a social anthropologist. Get it? He lacks the expertise in the field of the people he tries rebut.
You also should know that Oreskes is a historian and also not a climatologist… :) The game of arguing whose surveys are better is futile, but sometimes fun! (For instance, Lewandowsky's two most famous ones about mediated reasoning. BTW, he's a psychologist — also not a climatologist! They should have been rejected purely on the basis of poor methodology…) So, yes I "get it"; it seems to me that you don't.

At this point, dismissing human activity from climate change is ludicrous.
Such has always been silly: Of course, human activity has effects on the climate! It's the bait-and-switch to CO2 (and other greenhouse gasses) as potentially catastrophic drivers of the climate "system" that remains un-supported by settled science…
Which (hint, hint) means that there is controversy.

One other point: I'm glad you agree with me — that this thread is a better place to discuss this topic, the way you want to! :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #33
The only thing that's unsettled is how much humans are impacting the climate and exactly what those impacts are. As noted above Peiser himself noted there is a consensus that human emitted CO2 is causing climate change. Now another word on Oreskes. You understand that her work was a survey, not scientific study, right? And the difference between the two? I have to ask this because I see conservative blogs that don't seem to understand this. That being said scientific papers able to refute AGW are all but non-existent. In what way is this a bait and switch? Humans greatly increase the amount of gas known to cause climate change in sufficient quantities, and the climate changes. It's that cut and dry.

Now the challenge is to reduce those emissions while not reducing the human standard of living. Visionaries such Elon Musk are working on. Again, not because of Leftist agenda, but because there's money to made. Your style of Republican is old school and limited in its thinking that everything's about politics and those politics have to be Left or Right. Note that it's very probable that humans evolved from apes? You must be a Leftist. Knowledge that AGW seems to be true? Ditto. It doesn't even occur to you how silly conflating science and politics is.  Meanwhile the rest the world has passed you by.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #34
Quote
humans evolved from apes


the one with that kind of paradigm  for sure is right winger conservative .
apes and human is different species , even in the same ordo .

there is no evidence ,   Apes   evolved into another species such as Human .

there is only evidences , some species faced extinction  .
thus some people made a conclusion , they cannot adapt, nor cannot survived from  natural selection .


btw , dont believe every scientific progress , earth age is still 6000 years .


Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #35
Quote
Do we need to re-visit what engenders or supports stupidity? 


when someone try to make a joke , i thought we should laugh or something ... if it is funny

otherwise , perhaps  that was  a failed satire , nor corny ...

onthe other hand ..
Quote
Is stupidity taught?


i think stupidity is tradition .
just like bacteria ..

it is inherited times by times , from generation to generation .



Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #36
The only thing that's unsettled is how much humans are impacting the climate and exactly what those impacts are.
The only thing? :)
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: We know he's guilty! Of course, he may not be guilty of this particular crime; indeed, it may only be Original Sin… But you should convict him!"
Now another word on Oreskes. You understand that her work was a survey, not scientific study, right? And the difference between the two? I have to ask this because I see conservative blogs that don't seem to understand this.
Please stop reading conservative (or liberal) blogs, to get your take on recent science, Sang! That's just plain silly…
(How, btw, does Oreskes "frame" her findings?! :) Feel free to offer quotes from her work.)
That being said scientific papers able to refute AGW are all but non-existent.
Since the modeled climate has failed to materialize, and the models are pretty much all that supports catastrophic AGW, you'd think that refutation enough… (If you were concerned with the science.) But not in the fields you claim expertise! :) (There's your "bait-and-switch, btw: Are the human-caused effects on the climate small, medium or large? Local, regional or global? Are the causes well-understood? The AGW crowd has answers for all these questions, ad hoc… But not convincing ones, unless you're a True Believer!)
In what way is this a bait and switch? Humans greatly increase the amount of gas known to cause climate change in sufficient quantities, and the climate changes. It's that cut and dry.
When you say "known" you actually mean hypothesized… The reason I say this is because these gasses have not abated; they have increased considerably, by human agency. Yet the climate has not warmed apace, and other predicted effects have not shown themselves. You have the IPCC and many scientists committed to the GCMs, which have obviously failed… And anyone who wants to find out why is labeled a "denier"!
(You and I both know that this "denier" is a synonym for "heretic" — and such a term stems from an obvious history. Would you embrace it? Somehow, I think not…)
But you talk about refuting papers!? Observation has refuted the position you like: Man's impact on "the climate" via the exploitation of fossil fuels must be curtailed! Because SCIENCE! And when the actual science fails to support your position you revert to quasi-religious or overtly political propaganda.
Now the challenge is to reduce those emissions […]
That's exactly what the IPCC's charter used, to focus its "understanding" of climate change! A Mission Statement… :)
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say? :) - obvious drawbacks? :)
It doesn't even occur to you how silly conflating science and politics is.
…:) It escapes you, that pointing out when others do so is a service — to those interested in the science?
———————————————————————————————————————
Yeah! I'm pretty sure I know the difference between a survey and a scientific study of the climate. Which makes me wonder why you were so impressed by the surveys!? :)

@Sparta: The evidence of "common descent" is pretty convincing… And the geological and cosmological underpinning of the arguments for an Earth that is in the neighborhood of 4 billion years old are, likewise, pretty convincing.
But I can't see why anyone who isn't a specialist would need to agree!
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #37
Since the modeled climate has failed to materialize, and the models are pretty much all that supports catastrophic AGW

And yet few (if any) predicate immediate disaster in the first place. Also you claim the climate change models failed to materialize. In fact, many models did overstate global temperature increase by failing to factor in natural variability such as El Nino and reduced solar output. Despite this, the models were accurate in the average global temperature would continue to rise - even though by those natural trends we should actually be in a cooling phase. I'm unable to convince you, so I challenge you to stop with the politics and go to politically neutral sites and learn for yourself
That's exactly what the IPCC's charter used, to focus its "understanding" of climate change! A Mission Statement…  :)
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  :)  - obvious drawbacks?  :)

"Drawbacks" such as thousands of jobs in Musk's Gigafactory that he's building in Nevada? Oh how horrible! :p We're down here creating jobs, while you GOPers blow hot air, so to speak. Catch up or face the fate of the rest of the dinosaurs, old man.


Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #38
Sang, this old man frequently refers to politically neutral sites… (Do you think Judith Curry and Roger Pilke, Jr. are right-wing ideologues? :) ) Cook, Lewandowsky and (unfortunately…) Gavin Schmidt seem to have gladly swallowed the Blue Pill.
Read Belfrager's list again, and ask yourself: Did the actual scientists who are members of these organizations vote to determine the position they took? (That should be enough to demolish the "consensus" contention…) Is the Union of Concerned Scientists a group of scientists? Is the American Association for the Advancement of Science a group of scientists? You're not that naive!
Musk is welcome to make as much money as he can! Anyone else who creates new technology or finds better uses for older technology, the same. I certainly wouldn't stop them… Us GOPers? You mean the people who oppose open-ended government subsidies for marginal technologies, I take it.
But I'm wrong, I know: You mean anyone who hasn't gulped the Blue Pill. (I'd wondered where those political map colors came from… :) ) Do you drive a $100,000 electric car? :)
Would you like to insist everyone do so? I suspect you would: Reality is a foreign concept to you; political will and public funding are what make things happen, in your world!
(Nevada got the battery factory because California's politicians weren't willing to give Musk the tax breaks he wanted/needed… You were and are aware of this. Such machinations are usually targets of your animosity for capitalism and states' "race to the bottom"… At least, you've repeatedly said so.)

So (to obviate your confusion, and mine) answer a simple question:

Does the world need a supra-national governmental authority to curtail its use of fossil fuels?

And, if so, why?

(While you're thinking how to answer, you might read this! And enjoy it: PNAS articles usually cost $$… :) I'd thought we were reading Longhurst's book together…)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #39
Would you like to insist everyone do so? I suspect you would: Reality is a foreign concept to you; political will and public funding are what make things happen, in your world!

Are you ever gonna respond to what I actually post or just continue to invent ludicrous positions for me that don't even come close to resembling anything I said? Every? No? Fine, I quit. 

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #40
Fine, I quit.
What, again? :)
——————————————————————————————————————————
Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  :)  - obvious drawbacks?
"Drawbacks" such as thousands of jobs in Musk's Gigafactory that he's building in Nevada? Oh how horrible! :p We're down here creating jobs, while you GOPers blow hot air, so to speak. Catch up or face the fate of the rest of the dinosaurs, old man.

And you accuse me of putting words into your mouth, or misunderstanding what you've posted? :)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #41
Another aspect of this is stuff like the Flesch-Kincaid readability test… See this "calling out" of such nonsense.

I'll try again (for Sang… I assume everyone else knows that science is different from theology, in methods! :) ) "Starting with a given conclusion and working your way back-wards to it has -shall we say?  :)  - obvious drawbacks?" I said…
The major one is that, if your conclusion is predetermined, nothing you discover via evidence or insight will matter — unless it supports that conclusion.
But what if that conclusion is wrong?
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #42
I thought falsifiability was the answer.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #43
No, stupidity isn't taught, but teaching helps.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #44
But! If you like such linguistic analysis… Here's an example from the other end:
Quote
The climate summary findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are becoming increasingly unreadable, a linguistics analysis suggests.                                                            IPCC summaries are intended for non-scientific audiences. Yet their readability has dropped over the past two decades, and reached a low point with the fifth and latest summary published in 2014, according to a study published in Nature Climate Change1.
(The link for the footnote is live, as is that for the paper — which is open access. Have fun! :) )
My take: The reason the language has become more "obtuse" is to facilitate wiggle-room for policy makers… You know: When they have to explain to the "great unwashed"…

Of course, your mileage may vary. :)
————————————————————————
Y'all know, I'm not keen on this sort of "research" — right!? But this article (the paper referenced…) is worth reading, for anyone interested in AGW/CAGW debates.
(It's quite short… Not Oreskes-short, but close! :) )
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #45
Quote
The study used the Flesch Reading Ease test, which assumes that texts with longer sentences and more complex words are harder to read.

Me Tarzan, you Jane. 
:faint:
A matter of attitude.


Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #47
The Peanut Gallery responds… (Nothing better to do? :) You might have read the… Nah! Don't be silly!)
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #48
You might have read the… Nah! Don't be silly!

Forget Sumeria, writing was invented in North America. Many moons ago by Big Chief Sitting Writer.
A matter of attitude.

Re: Is stupidity taught?

Reply #49
You comment on papers you haven't read, regarding subjects upon which you show yourself to be ignorant; and excuse your flippancy by noting (…an insupportable contention) that someone merely in your neighborhood (give or take a few thousand miles! :) ) invented writing?
Please tell me how the Chinese and Indians were "instructed"!

Of course (one needs to add, for the traditionally schooled Portuguese — and other Continentals, too? :) ) I meant reading the paper (and its criticism) in question. But, as I surmised, that's too much trouble to go to… That's not what "superior" intellects do! :)
——————————————————————————————————————————————
Yet more social science: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/opinion/academias-rejection-of-diversity.html?_r=0
进行 ...
"Humor is emotional chaos remembered in tranquility." - James Thurber
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts!" - Richard Feynman
 (iBook G4 - Panther | Mac mini i5 - El Capitan)