The science of not believing in science [modified]
-
ict558 wrote:
I mean, did he really understand any of those papers he linked to
I recently read, in an article talking about religion and religionists, that one of the first responses to being questioned about their faith is to say that the questioner doesn't have the ecclesiastical or theological training to understand the inner workings of the religion's mysteries. Ultimately this boils down to an upgraded version of "You'll understand when you're older," and is intended merely to place the religionist in a parental, that is to say, superior, position in regards to the questioner.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
You'll understand when you're older
For me, as child and parent, that phrase was used to cover those things that can be explained but not fully comprehended until experienced. Appropriate to the emotional aspects of adult life: sexuality, religion, et al. Certainly, nobody used it with regard to practical subjects. However, I was always older by the time I understood them. :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Oakman wrote:
it is amazing how much of religion there is in both economic and environmental theory these days.
Did you arrive at this conclusion by reading scientific journal articles?
Oakman wrote:
I can remember back when science - even the soft sciences - were the natural home of skeptics and questioners.
:laugh: I find it amusing that you consider yourself sufficiently involved in science to make such a comparison.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I find it amusing that you consider yourself sufficiently involved in science to make such a compariso
When did one have to be directly involved in a particular line of endeavor in order to be an accurate and cogent observer of that endeavor? Nothing in Jon's remark suggested that he considered himself to be "involved in" science. Your observation only reveals a rather arrogant presumption about both the requirements to make such observations and your view of your own qualification in that regard. Your arrogance is neither amusing nor becoming.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I find it amusing that you consider yourself sufficiently involved in science to make such a compariso
When did one have to be directly involved in a particular line of endeavor in order to be an accurate and cogent observer of that endeavor? Nothing in Jon's remark suggested that he considered himself to be "involved in" science. Your observation only reveals a rather arrogant presumption about both the requirements to make such observations and your view of your own qualification in that regard. Your arrogance is neither amusing nor becoming.
"People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them." Eric Hoffer "The failure mode of 'clever' is 'asshole'" John Scalzi
Rob Graham wrote:
When did one have to be directly involved in a particular line of endeavor in order to be an accurate and cogent observer of that endeavor?
Except that Oakman is neither. To criticise economics, one should at least appreciate how mathematics-heavy it is; for example, an economist must study topology. A climatologist must study atmospheric thermodynamics, which is almost mind-boggling in technicality. To suggest that all they do is hypothesise and cling to fading dreams is an insult to the generations of excellent minds that have worked so hard for these.
Rob Graham wrote:
Nothing in Jon's remark suggested that he considered himself to be "involved in" science.
He professed to know the minds of both economists and environmental scientists, past and present. He then reflected nostalgically on a time when scientists of all spheres questioned the respective authorities.
-
Oakman wrote:
You'll understand when you're older
For me, as child and parent, that phrase was used to cover those things that can be explained but not fully comprehended until experienced. Appropriate to the emotional aspects of adult life: sexuality, religion, et al. Certainly, nobody used it with regard to practical subjects. However, I was always older by the time I understood them. :)
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Rob Graham wrote:
When did one have to be directly involved in a particular line of endeavor in order to be an accurate and cogent observer of that endeavor?
Except that Oakman is neither. To criticise economics, one should at least appreciate how mathematics-heavy it is; for example, an economist must study topology. A climatologist must study atmospheric thermodynamics, which is almost mind-boggling in technicality. To suggest that all they do is hypothesise and cling to fading dreams is an insult to the generations of excellent minds that have worked so hard for these.
Rob Graham wrote:
Nothing in Jon's remark suggested that he considered himself to be "involved in" science.
He professed to know the minds of both economists and environmental scientists, past and present. He then reflected nostalgically on a time when scientists of all spheres questioned the respective authorities.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
When did one have to be directly involved in a particular line of endeavor in order to be an accurate and cogent observer of that endeavor?
Except that Oakman is neither. To criticise economics, one should at least appreciate how mathematics-heavy it is; for example, an economist must study topology. A climatologist must study atmospheric thermodynamics, which is almost mind-boggling in technicality. To suggest that all they do is hypothesise and cling to fading dreams is an insult to the generations of excellent minds that have worked so hard for these.
Rob Graham wrote:
Nothing in Jon's remark suggested that he considered himself to be "involved in" science.
He professed to know the minds of both economists and environmental scientists, past and present. He then reflected nostalgically on a time when scientists of all spheres questioned the respective authorities.
Let. It. Go.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
ict558 wrote:
Certainly, nobody used it with regard to practical subjects.
Sex is impractical? I did not know that.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
Sex is impractical?
Who cares if it is? I can't think of much to beat it.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Oakman wrote:
Sex is impractical?
Who cares if it is? I can't think of much to beat it.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
ict558 wrote:
Certainly, nobody used it with regard to practical subjects.
Sex is impractical? I did not know that.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
-
Oakman wrote:
Sex is impractical?
For a child? I would hope so.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Except that Oakman is neither.
More importantly to you (if not to anyone else), after repeated warnings that your behavior was unacceptable, Oakman revoked your right to post in SB1.
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
More importantly to you (if not to anyone else), after repeated warnings that your behavior was unacceptable, Oakman revoked your right to post in SB1.
Such a sewious bizness, tawking on tha interwebs.
-
Well pardon the fück out of me: who died and made you king of the keyboard?
"If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur." Red Adair. nils illegitimus carborundum me, me, me
The Queens English, Kingsly Amis. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
ict558 wrote:
For a child? I would hope so.
So you are opposed to sex education until the age of majority? :confused:
"Repensum Est Canicula"
Oakman wrote:
So you are opposed to sex education until the age of majority?
As much as you are in favour of giving sex education through practice or action, rather than theory to minors. :rolleyes: Go annoy Ravel, I have no time for your nonsense.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
-
WMD isnt only nukes. He didnt use any of them. In any case, he would have nuked the south east of Iraq, its full of shias.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
fat_boy wrote:
WMD isnt only nukes. He didnt use any of them.
US Doctrine on the use of WMD. Paraphrase: If you use chemical weapons, we'll nuke you. If you use biologicals, we'll nuke you. If you use nukes, we'll nuke you. :)
The enemy of my enemy of my enemy of my enemy is Kevin Bacon. My Mu[sic] My Films My Windows Programs, etc.
-
Climate Change denial post in the SB? Tut tut, you know its now against the rules... :) A few point thoughh before Chris deletes it... 1) I am not that surprised by the contents, I have known for a long time that peoplel are capable of the most incredible self dellusion. The oposite is an almost impossible state where one constantly quesitons ones reasons and motives, almost to the point of being incapable of acting for without passion, and interest we acchieve little. Its is therefore naturtal that people seek to understand, and once they have a theory, like to try to proves its validity. 2) Throwing AGW scepticism in the same pile as people who believe they are aliens and incarnations of Jesus is a pathetic slandering that pretty much discredits the entire piece. 3) Only a complete moron would have believed Sadam had WMD (given that he was at his strongest after defeating Iran, and then got invaded by the US (Gulf war 1, the US very nearly got to Baghdad) and he dodnt use any WMD to defend Iraq. After that the country was the subject of sanctions and no fly zones. A situation hardly likely to increase his capability.) 4) The Climategate emails did not only find resonance with 'republicans', and dont forget that terms has no meaning outside the US, for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that politics has got fuck all to do with the validity of a scientific theory, it also drove people like Monbiot to question AGW. 5) Climategate was a staggering exposure of complicity, data manipulation and disregard for scientific transparency at the very heart of the AGW position. 6) The state of science regarding AGW is sufficiently imature that it is right to be sceptical. That IS the nature of science.
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
modified on Saturday, April 23, 2011 5:09 AM
This isn't a post about climate science. It's a post about how people go round and round about something because their beliefs hold more weight then the facts proven do. I figured you would post something about AWG when that wasn't the point at all, but the example. It caught my eye because of the lack of fact based argument that takes place everywhere now. It's just fascinating.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
-
Let. It. Go.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Let. It. Go.
I am not sure (because of the page jump, and I am too lazy to figure it out) who you addressed this to, but the idea that someone would give it a 1 vote is beyond my comprehension -- balanced.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
Oakman wrote:
So you are opposed to sex education until the age of majority?
As much as you are in favour of giving sex education through practice or action, rather than theory to minors. :rolleyes: Go annoy Ravel, I have no time for your nonsense.
Everybody is elitist to a certain extent; except me - I'm better than that. Micah
I spent time dealing with you, only out of politeness and a certain curiosity to see how your mind worked. I will certainly stop addressing any posts to you or about you, if only you will do the same.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
-
This isn't a post about climate science. It's a post about how people go round and round about something because their beliefs hold more weight then the facts proven do. I figured you would post something about AWG when that wasn't the point at all, but the example. It caught my eye because of the lack of fact based argument that takes place everywhere now. It's just fascinating.
That's called seagull management (or sometimes pigeon management)... Fly in, flap your arms and squawk a lot, crap all over everything and fly out again... by _Damian S_
wolfbinary wrote:
It's a post about how people go round and round about something because their beliefs hold more weight then the facts proven do.
So lets get this straight, you believe man made CO2 is warming the planet in a dangerous and unprecedented way despite the fact that: 1) The arctic, greenland, the US, Canada and much of the rest of the north was warmer in the 1930's. 2) The Southern hemisphere isnt warming at all. 3) The tropospheric hot spot is non existant despite the models predictions that it would occur. 4) The earth is currently about the 500th coldest in the 10,000 year ice core temperature record. Just want to see if you really think AGW was the example or AGW scepticism was. :)
Dr D Evans "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s" financialpost
-
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
Let. It. Go.
I am not sure (because of the page jump, and I am too lazy to figure it out) who you addressed this to, but the idea that someone would give it a 1 vote is beyond my comprehension -- balanced.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" ~ Patrick Henry, Republican and anti-Federalist
Oakman wrote:
I am not sure (because of the page jump, and I am too lazy to figure it out) who you addressed this to
Ravel. I'm sick and tired of his petulance in these two threads.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Oakman wrote:
I am not sure (because of the page jump, and I am too lazy to figure it out) who you addressed this to
Ravel. I'm sick and tired of his petulance in these two threads.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
I'm sick and tired of his petulance in these two threads.
Have you never spent a quarter of your life getting to know somebody and then having them dismiss and slight you for no good reason?